Steel Frames and Tire Wear

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Hey, remember that this is a bicycle group? We don't need Lieberman telling us that rounding off isn't close enough or Frank who is a good engineer telling us about global warming that he doesn't understand or DATATROLL telling us the liberal lines over and over.

One of the things I'm been noticing and the thing that you people are more likely to know something about is the following:

On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time going through turns?

Yesterday I did a quick (relatively) 32 miles ride with about 1/3rd of that climbing over 6% - 13% climbing. As I was returning home I started wondering how long before my tires wore out and much to my surprise the tires are round still. And I have to have 1,500 miles on them which is about as much as I've gotten out of them (Gatorskins) since I came-to in 2012. The only thing I remember from before my injury concerning tire wear was that Specialized Armadillos were much better because they wore slightly better but they cornered a hell of a lot better.

So can anyone explain this?

[Duane]

On 05/12/2016 11:51 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey, remember that this is a bicycle group? We don't need Lieberman telling us that rounding off isn't close enough or Frank who is a good engineer telling us about global warming that he doesn't understand or DATATROLL telling us the liberal lines over and over.
>

Good.

> One of the things I'm been noticing and the thing that you people are more likely to know something about is the following:

> On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time going through turns?

I don't think so. My bike (CF) is on a trainer in the winter and last
season I had replaced a tire on my last ride. Usually, I would wear out
the remainder of the tire on the trainer so I didn't pay attention but
this time in the spring I noticed the flat spot on my tire. So no, I
don't think it has anything to do with cornering. At least not
exclusively. I use Spec Pro 23mm tires on HED wheels.

BTW, I also bought a trainer tire to avoid this happening again...

[Doug Landau]

We don't believe a word of it in the first place. Send measurements of the roundness of the wear on the steel bike, and the flat spot on the tire on the CF bike, and get your measuring device in the pix.

Send also proof of the mileage of the bikes, and that the tires that are on them have been on them for their entire lives so far.
And explain what the fact that you rode 32 miles relatively quickly the other day has to do with anything whatsoever.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:51:20 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time going through turns?

For the last 25 years or so all professional bike riders have been using carbon bikes. Steel has not been used since the 1980s I think. All the pros go 50 mph down the mountains cornering through the switchbacks. If you go watch a local criterium in your town you will see all the riders using carbon bikes. Maybe one aluminum too. Never any steel bikes, ever. How can they get around all the turns in a criterium race if their bikes corner so poorly?

You are just making up, imagining nonsense.

[Doug Landau]

Clearly a case of old age senility

[Duane]

Yeah, I sort of missed that part. I thought he was saying it was
something to do with cornering that made the tire wear flat not that the
CF bikes were so poor in cornering that people didn't use them the same.
This bike corners better than any bike I've had including the steel
one I just sold.

My "guess" would be the wheels and tire choices have more to do with how
a bike corners than what the frame material is.

[jbeattie]

Except that it's been going on for 20 years. I think Tom was posting in the Unix days, and always the same sort of creative expression and originality of thought (my mother taught me to be polite).

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

Op maandag 5 december 2016 18:23:22 UTC+1 schreef Duane:

Your efforts to get scientific justification for your steel frames preference is getting weirder and weirder.

Lou

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

we ?

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

? maybe.....take another look at the geometry's geometry

[Tosspot]

On 05/12/16 17:51, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

So can anyone explain this?

I've just got back from the pub, and I can confirm my tyres are still
round...ish...

[Doug Landau]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> we ?

sorry

[Duane]

Well yeah, but if you have a different geometry, different wheels and
different tires and think the cornering is different because of the
frame material...

[James]

I haven't raced for 2 years, but during the preceding 5 years I raced A
grade veterans. I won a few criteriums on my steel bike.

Just saying.

--
JS

[James]

They are all connected. Frame material and how it's used, design angles
and such, wheels, spokes, tyres, pressure - everything.

Brings me to a slightly off topic point. We recently finished an
extension to our house. The original building is built on a concrete
slab. The new kitchen/dining room has brick piers, hardwood bearers,
joists and hardwood floor boards. The last few floorboards overlap the
concrete slab and are glued to the concrete. As you walk from the
concrete slab supported floor boards to the bearer & joist supported
floor boards, there is an obvious perceivable difference in give or
bounce in the floor. I'm sure if you could measure the deflection of
the floor boards over joists and bearers that it would be lucky to reach
1mm. More likely fractions of a mm.

Makes me wonder about the "stiff but compliant" frame claims and how
much riders can feel through their hands and butt.

--
JS

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 9:54:42 AM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:

Uh, Russell - for 15 of those 30 years the carbon fiber frames had aluminum lugs, fairly flexible tubing and cornered about the same as a steel bike. Then with the advent of the aircraft aluminum frames "stiff" became the watchword and the frames rapidly became stiffer and stiffer. This led to the CF frames becoming lighter in order to keep up and that in turn led to them becoming stiffer because flex in a light frame leads to fracturing. Several of the largest manufacturers have actually started making heavier frames to prevent lawsuits from massive frame failures.

I am fast downhills. And it didn't matter WHAT the frame material was. But I'm faster through the corners with the steel bikes. I even drop cars if the roads are twisty enough. So proposing that some riders are faster than others when they ALL have nearly identical frames is hardly proof that lighter stiffer CF is better than steel.

Someone on Ebay I believe was advertising a steel bike made from Columbus EL that weighed 16 lbs all up. That's the UCI weight limit presently. And while CF does fail catastrophically at fairly regular intervals (and perhaps because it was abused) I have seen and heard of (good) steel frames failing but never catastrophically. You could always make it home if you were careful. As someone that has broken enough frames to know the difference let me tell you that being able to make it home is pretty important unless you're a pro-racer with a car following you. I have broken three carbon forks and two carbon frames. One of the frames in a crash and one where I spotted the failure in time not to ride it. All thee fork failures occurred suddenly and with dire consequences. On a really old Peugeot PX-10 I had the off-side chain-stay break and didn't even know it until someone told me. I have seen several ti frames break but only by showing a longitudinal crack. And I have not only never seen a modern style aluminum frame break I haven't even heard of one.

The ONLY reason that the CF frames are used in the pro peloton is because manufacturers want to sell more expensive bikes. The aluminum frames and forks offer ALL the same advantages as the CF until the UCI lowers or drops the weight limit.

In a correspondence with the UCI technical chair he said that they will not pay any attention to outside opinions regardless the effects on the sportsmen that always buy what the pros ride. And full carbon bikes can get as light as 12 lbs. He said that heavier bikes could fail as easily as lighter one's. You could probably make a case for that but not a practical case.

Unfortunately it appears that the largest causes of failure in the super-lights is a bubble in the lay-up that you cannot see nor prevent. These frames are cast in a single piece over inflatable balloons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn29u7GoqPk

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Well, that sounds good but I tore down two carbon bikes and used the parts and wheels on the steel bikes so that the wheels and tires are the same.

Another point of reference - On a couple of hills there is a fairly sharp turn about 100 yards below where a steep drop starts. On the CF bikes I had to "set up" for this turn and would be shaking when I got around them at 40 mph or so. But on the steel bikes I don't even have to set up and just ride around them.

Possibly this is because I am used to steel bikes after riding for some 40 years. But I don't think it is. The stiff bikes hoping all over the road are not conducive to a lot of relaxation.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

My C40 and my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra have almost identical geometry. So again that sounds good but doesn't seem to be the case.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

And in just the last three weeks I set my record times over known courses that I've been riding for the last four years and not improving. On one course I leave from home and go about 7 miles through cities in which I am always stopped by lights for about the same amount of time. Then another 13 miles in which about half is uphill, then a return through the cities. Two weeks ago on the steel bike I averaged 14.9 mph. I don't know about others but I almost always average between 12 and 13 mph on the aluminum or CF bikes over this same course.

[Frank Krygowski]

I think you're likely wrong about the deflections of standard
construction. We could run some numbers, but:

We had a new furnace installed some years ago. Not long after, we
noticed mysterious rumblings coming from the basement - very low
frequency noise, sounding vaguely like thunder. It came at odd times,
and while not really loud, it was pretty hard to ignore. I remember
hurrying to the basement (from where the sound seemed to emanate) trying
to find the source.

It turned out that some new sheet metal "panning" had been added between
the joists, as part of a cold air return. When my wife slid her rocking
chair closer to the TV, she was over those joists. If she rocked in
just the right way, the sheet metal flexed and produced at "thunder" sound.

Note, the difference in deflection wasn't from zero weight to her full
body weight (which is not very much, I'll add). It was just from her
leaning forward or back in that rocking chair.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

I'm much faster on my CF bike than my CroMoly bike. There are too many
variables for me to know if there's any causal connection to the frame
material.

If you're looking to find someone to support your hypothesis that steel
frames corner better good luck. I can see no valid reason that the
frame material alone would make a difference in cornering.

[Duane]

Ok, so now you have exactly the same bikes except the different frame
material. Amazing.

[Andre Jute]

I hope you're joking, Doug. You're sounding much too close to the fascist Frank Krygowski for comedy.

Andre Jute
Snowflake. Where's my safe space?

[Andre Jute]

Those planks are likely to be discovered to be cantilevered from the glued end, with consequences... But imagine finding even a useful hypothesis if you left out the crucial detail of the glued end.

Bicycle tube materials is an example of a near-subliminal difference in the perceived results of various material applications that hasn't yet been assigned a measurable cause, but in due course will. I'm convinced of it.

Andre Jute
The Art of Science

[Andre Jute]

You'll get arrested for floating in charge of a bicycle. The evidence: your admission of round tyres. When you're sitting solidly on the bike, there is a flat spot where each tyre meets the road.

Andre Jute
A chum was arrested at Cambridge for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. Top that.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:13:17 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
>
> I'm much faster on my CF bike than my CroMoly bike. There are too many
> variables for me to know if there's any causal connection to the frame
> material.
>
> If you're looking to find someone to support your hypothesis that steel
> frames corner better good luck. I can see no valid reason that the
> frame material alone would make a difference in cornering.

I don't know how you measure this speed Duane. I do it via time checks. I know that the very stiff frames FELT a lot faster which was what I was talking about.

I don't know if it is actually a valid hypothesis but it does appear to me that the steel frames actually corner better because they feel more in contact with the road due to the very slight "give".

And as above I appear to be setting new records on my usual routes except those that include long, steep climbs in which the addition 3 lbs makes a difference I can feel.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Duane - what would you find amazing in a racing bike's geometry that has been developed over 120 years? Would you believe that there are large differences that you can measure from bike to bike?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Certainly Andre, but I'm talking about the unloaded surfaces with the bike in a repair stand. It it wasn't much difference from the CF bikes I would mark it off to insufficient wear on the tires.

[Joerg]

On 2016-12-05 08:51, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey, remember that this is a bicycle group? We don't need Lieberman
> telling us that rounding off isn't close enough or Frank who is a
> good engineer telling us about global warming that he doesn't
> understand or DATATROLL telling us the liberal lines over and over.
>
> One of the things I'm been noticing and the thing that you people are
> more likely to know something about is the following:
>

> On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road
> surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would
> you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in
> cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time
> going through turns?
>

> Yesterday I did a quick (relatively) 32 miles ride with about 1/3rd
> of that climbing over 6% - 13% climbing. As I was returning home I
> started wondering how long before my tires wore out and much to my
> surprise the tires are round still. And I have to have 1,500 miles on
> them which is about as much as I've gotten out of them (Gatorskins)
> since I came-to in 2012. The only thing I remember from before my
> injury concerning tire wear was that Specialized Armadillos were much
> better because they wore slightly better but they cornered a hell of
> a lot better.
>

> So can anyone explain this?
>

I can't, unless you ride a lot of curvy roads out there. I have a
Gazelle Trim Trophy frame made of good old Reynolds 531 steel tubes and
I use Gatorskin wire bead tires since about two years. They always wear
flat in back. The front doesn't wear but the sidewall weakness in those
Gatorskins takes its toll.

If my road bike ever fails on me I'd replace it with a titanium
cyclocross bike.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Duane]

On 06/12/2016 11:10 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:13:17 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
>>
>> I'm much faster on my CF bike than my CroMoly bike. There are too many
>> variables for me to know if there's any causal connection to the frame
>> material.
>>
>> If you're looking to find someone to support your hypothesis that steel
>> frames corner better good luck. I can see no valid reason that the
>> frame material alone would make a difference in cornering.
>
> I don't know how you measure this speed Duane. I do it via time checks. I know that the very stiff frames FELT a lot faster which was what I was talking about.
>

Time trials. Or my Garmin. Or both.

> I don't know if it is actually a valid hypothesis but it does appear to me that the steel frames actually corner better because they feel more in contact with the road due to the very slight "give".
>

I judge how much better this bike corners by the speed I can take a turn
that I know well( at the bottom of a 12% grade and just before a 10%
climb) and the lean I can get into the bike without the tires breaking.
Largely subjective but subjective is what I care about.

> And as above I appear to be setting new records on my usual routes except those that include long, steep climbs in which the addition 3 lbs makes a difference I can feel.
>

Maybe you're pushing more on the steel bike because you're less worried
about it breaking. I have no idea.

[Duane]

Compare a current year trek madone and a specialized tarmac pro. You're
not talking about large differences anyway.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Joerge - I just went out to the garage and checked again. With 1,500 miles on the Gatorskins they are JUST getting a mild flat spot in them on the rear. And these roads are rotten and I weight 185 lbs naked. (And believe me you wouldn't want to see a picture of me on the scale.)

One the CF and aluminum frames the tires were worn out at that mileage. I would get flats from pebbles. And two - these tires still have life in them but perhaps not a lot.

[Doug Landau]

Hmmm. Thanks for the heads-up!

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Sunday I dropped down a one mile long 16% grade and while I slowed a before cornering it was nothing like I had to do with the C40 or the Dream HP. So I wold figure this a toss up of experiences wouldn't you?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Well, what I see in the geometry over the last 20 years is only VERY slight differences that go back and forth from year to year.

[Joerg]

Mine start flattening around 1000mi and then at 2500mi they are finished.


> ... And these roads are rotten and I weight 185 lbs

> naked. (And believe me you wouldn't want to see a picture of me on
> the scale.)
>

I weigh around 220lbs but don't ride naked :-)

With toolkit, the occasional growler, water, battery and all that the
total load on the bike is around 240lbs and most of it on the rear axle.

> One the CF and aluminum frames the tires were worn out at that
> mileage. I would get flats from pebbles.

After only 1500mi? For that Gatorskins are way too expensive. Their
price slightly irks me even for 2500mi. I paid $45-50 per tire so far.


> ... And two - these tires still

> have life in them but perhaps not a lot.
>

One effect I noticed with guys on CF bikes on occasion is rear-wheel
fishtailing when they get out of the saddle for a sprint or up a hill.
Sometimes easily half an inch of left-right-left swiping on the asphalt.
Maybe because the rear axle load becomes much lower then. Looking
through my legs I never noticed that on my old steel bike.

Road roughness is quite bad out here as well. I travel a lot of
abandoned roads and "bush roads" (unpaved). My road bike looks the part,
it's state of cleanliness isn't much better than the MTB's.

[Doug Landau]

Gatorskins are $20 on sale

[Tosspot]

On 06/12/16 18:29, Joerg wrote:

<snip>

> If my road bike ever fails on me I'd replace it with a titanium
> cyclocross bike.

Hmm...keep talking dirty...

<wanders off to the Van Nicholas>....

[Joerg]

Where?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:05:40 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
>
>

> I weigh around 220lbs but don't ride naked :-)

https://www.google.com/search?q=naked+fat+cyclist&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS532US532&espv=2&biw=1422&bih=684&tbm=isch&imgil=1E46xIi0AJpnpM%253A%253BH6j3ZHaxCR2WYM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.pinterest.com%25252Fpin%25252F487303622151977027%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=1E46xIi0AJpnpM%253A%252CH6j3ZHaxCR2WYM%252C_&usg=__ZhLAFtYtDhGHcKU5bRWUIIVc-l8%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjZp5X_suDQAhXIWbwKHeAhD88QyjcIMA&ei=ax5HWJnGBMiz8QXgw7z4DA#imgrc=buP-D3dOA2TlxM%3A

>
> With toolkit, the occasional growler, water, battery and all that the
> total load on the bike is around 240lbs and most of it on the rear axle.
>
>
> > One the CF and aluminum frames the tires were worn out at that
> > mileage. I would get flats from pebbles.
>
>
> After only 1500mi? For that Gatorskins are way too expensive. Their
> price slightly irks me even for 2500mi. I paid $45-50 per tire so far.

Apparently you don't have glass and gravel for a road surface. Though they are beginning to repave the roads.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Mars.The best prices I find are normally about $38 for folding. I'm sure he's talking about the lower grade Continentals and not Gatorskins. Those sell at about that price but don't have any life on my roads.

[Doug Landau]

At performance. I admit not every day-

Actually the best deal around on tires, AFAICT, is the performance metro. They seem to grip well and last forever to me. Thought I used to get them in a smaller width than 35 tho.

[James]

I'd like to run some numbers. The floor boards are Australian hardwood,
a mix of Red Gum and similar timbers, 19mm thick & tongue & groove. The
joists and bearers are also hardwood. Joists F27 120x45mm at 450mm cc.
Bearers F27 2/140x35mm at ~2.5m cc.

The bearer at the slab end is actually a ledger bolted to the concrete
slab. I doubt that has any contributing give. The other end bearer is
supported on brick piers on a concrete strip footing. The middle bearer
is supported at its ends on brick piers and in the middle by a 75x75
steel post in a 450mm dia. x 1m deep concrete footing.

The give in the flooring can be noticed in the first foot strike past
the edge of the concrete slab. That is, << 1m of the ledger bolted to
the slab. It's not like you have to jump in the middle of the joist
span between bearers to feel some give.

I weight about 75kg.

> We had a new furnace installed some years ago. Not long after, we
> noticed mysterious rumblings coming from the basement - very low
> frequency noise, sounding vaguely like thunder. It came at odd times,
> and while not really loud, it was pretty hard to ignore. I remember
> hurrying to the basement (from where the sound seemed to emanate) trying
> to find the source.
>
> It turned out that some new sheet metal "panning" had been added between
> the joists, as part of a cold air return. When my wife slid her rocking
> chair closer to the TV, she was over those joists. If she rocked in
> just the right way, the sheet metal flexed and produced at "thunder" sound.
>
> Note, the difference in deflection wasn't from zero weight to her full
> body weight (which is not very much, I'll add). It was just from her
> leaning forward or back in that rocking chair.
>

--

JS

[Doug Landau]

> Makes me wonder about the "stiff but compliant" frame claims and how
> much riders can feel through their hands and butt.

All of it! :-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2419956/A-stroke-genius-Humans-feel-bumps-surface-small-MILLIONTH-millimetre-thick.html

[Doug Landau]

> --
> JS

Can you feel a human hair brushing your skin?
What you can feel is highly context-sensitive.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Uh....The Injury.

Fall on your head ?

Question stays in limbo with many variables. Throw in "armadilla corner." of course so did 27"TT ...the time periods'rubber ?.

What your spewing is your individual response to CF vs Steel ( sametire/rim ?)

You're cooking corners on CF, stroking as always on steel. May have wong tire pressures on CF or going too deep steering in not enough counter steer...scrubbing off rubber scrubbing speed maintaining road position. Went in wrong ...

?

Bad attitude visa vee the group. Suggests you r too fast on the CF for ? reasons.

Generally, but not exclusively, the common railbird opinion is your too slow for the CF ... which is true but not constructive.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Too fast over the ground too slow for this physically..

not 'instructive'...

I doahno what CF is

Using stereotypes, a Mustang driver may have serious problems with a Beetle. This is prob a question of approach attitude n lastly, intelligence.

I would not know if steel/CF. poses a similar dilemma.

Do they ?

[James]

Yes, well, feeling a hair brush your skin is a bit different from
feeling the difference between two vibration sources akin to that from
riding a bicycle over a sealed road.

--
JS

[Joerg]

I never saw Gatorskins for that price there. Usually $40 when on sale.

[Joerg]

Not sure what they use in California but the stuff is pretty rough in
the surface. Often also micro-groved for traction. It does have gravel
in it. Segragated bike paths are very smooth though.

[Doug Landau]

yes and both have something in common that
feeling a 2" cube in your hand, then feeling a 2.001" cube in your hand
does not

[Frank Krygowski]

Ignoring the effect of the floor boards and load sharing between joists
(which would, I think, be way more difficult, possibly a Finite Element
Analysis problem) I just put your entire weight in the center of one
joist as a static load. I used 11.8 GPa for the elastic modulus of the
wood. The deflection formula is y = P*L^3/(48*E*I). That gave about
3mm deflection, or about 1/8".

In real life, it would be less because of load sharing. But in real
life, your weight (when walking) should be treated as a suddenly applied
load, which causes twice the deflection.

Applying some judgment (i.e. educated guessing), I'd expect a deflection
during walking of perhaps 1/16", or a millimeter, or thereabouts.

To return to the bike related issue, if we're still talking about ride
harshness related to frame material, this would be the flooring analogy:
Could you feel the difference in the floor if you very slightly changed
the stiffness - say, by finishing a basement room beneath the floor by
nailing paneling or gypsum board to the bottom of the joists?

We did that beneath our bedroom many years ago. I certainly never
noticed a change.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[cycl...@gmail.com]

One of the better tests for tilt is a golf ball. These usually won't roll with less than a 2 mm tilt.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

like Cal missionaries surrounded by Indians commuting to work on the interstate you claim status as testers when a priori you are not.

there are not careful examinations of these questions nor analysis. right ?

unfounded opinions

[Doug Landau]

35 right now, usually 30, once in a while 20. $9.99 for 27" :-)

[Joerg]

$40 for the Ultra though. Out here you need the best because some roads
don't really qualify as "roads". The one really weak point about
Gatorskins are the wimpy sidewalls. Also, they run a bit small and are a
bear to get onto shallow rims.

For road bikes I found that cheaper tires just don't cut it. For MTB
it's almost the opposite. There lower cost tires from Asia can beat
expensive name brand ones.

[Doug Landau]

No you don't; the lesser quality one witht he harsher rides will serve you better

Also, they run a bit small and are a
> bear to get onto shallow rims.

So don't buy them! Nobody is trying to convince you to run them, we were talking about their price.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Joerge - I went out for a quick ride before the rain arrived today and thought I might be able to give you some perspective on the roads.

I went out through the city and then onto a dead-end canyon. This road is not heavily traveled so while there are cracks in it here or there, it is what I would think of as a better road in the area.

On the way back down the canyon I was on a perhaps -1% grade and pedaling easily at a little over 22 mph. At the bottom it flattened out and there was a patched road of new asphalt about 100 yards long. As I bumped up on this I didn't make any changes to my peddling but when I looked down I was doing 24 mph. As I bumped off the end onto the normal pavement the speed dropped almost immediately to 21 mph.

The only thing I can attribute this to is the roughness of the pavement though perhaps it rattles me about so that I pedal differently. It doesn't feel that way though.

[James]

The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...

>
> In real life, it would be less because of load sharing. But in real
> life, your weight (when walking) should be treated as a suddenly applied
> load, which causes twice the deflection.
>
> Applying some judgment (i.e. educated guessing), I'd expect a deflection
> during walking of perhaps 1/16", or a millimeter, or thereabouts.

Given the difference from using the corrected value for E, the
deflection is likely less than 1mm - and even less near the end
supported by a ledger bolted to the concrete slab.

>
> To return to the bike related issue, if we're still talking about ride
> harshness related to frame material, this would be the flooring analogy:
> Could you feel the difference in the floor if you very slightly changed
> the stiffness - say, by finishing a basement room beneath the floor by
> nailing paneling or gypsum board to the bottom of the joists?
>
> We did that beneath our bedroom many years ago. I certainly never
> noticed a change.

I can certainly feel the difference between the edge of the room to a
point mid span.

--
JS

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

buy a laser n measure this

[Joerg]

That is a huge difference. I can't imagine tire friction to do that. On
some roads I ride on the white paint strip if there is no traffic from
behind because those are often very smooth. However, I never felt much
of a difference in speed or effort when doing that.

The only time my avg speed drops because of surface condition is when it
is really rough and I become concerned about the load or the bike's health.

https://www.antigotimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/floodingNrthnWI-768x509.jpg

Well, not quite like that :-)

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U56vPV2wqs0

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:
>
>
> The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
> that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...

BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood for floor
joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine, AFAIK. Driving
nails into that hardwood must be difficult!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

It can be with a hammer. Often it is better to pre drill. But most
tradesmen use a pneumatic nailgun, and then there's no problem.

--
JS

[John B.]

When I was a kid, the barn had a similar floor system. In the portion
where the animals were stabled the floor was cement but in an
adjoining section where feed was stored it was wood. I don't remember
any noticeable flexing of the wood floor but it did feel "different"
from the concrete floor.

Perhaps the compressibility of wood fibers compared with concrete?

I wonder whether measuring the height that a golf (for instance) ball
bounces when dropped from a fixed height would offer any data here :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I figured they'd use nailguns these days. I'm curious about what was
done in pre-nailgun days.

But I was really thinking of the homeowner, just doing things in the
course of living there. My workshop's in my basement, and I've nailed
into the joists countless times.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

THAT'S A CEILING MEMBER IN AUS

[Radey Shouman]

Perhaps a basketball would give you more insight.

--

[cycl...@gmail.com]

That's what this discussion is about - that "compress-ability" of the wood is almost nil and yet ANYONE can detect the change from a concrete floor to a wooden floor.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Frank - predrilling holes used to be common when Oak was the preferred wood for joists. What I remember is that you had to know the exact size of drill for the nail you were going to use.

[Phil Lee]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> considered Wed, 7 Dec 2016

Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa, for example,
is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.

Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.

[Radey Shouman]

Oak is by no means a softwood.

> Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.

Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.

Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.

--

[Frank Krygowski]

As an engineer, I'd greatly prefer if "hardwood" vs. "softwood" were
actually distinguished by, you know, hardness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_hardness_test

FWIW, I've had to drive nails into oak beams. To me, that stuff is
_hard_. Australian Red Gum, I don't know about.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Relatively hard. Try a 120 year old maple floor...

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[James]

http://www.boral.com.au/timberflooring/species.asp

Our flooring is "forest reds" which has a Janka rating of 9kN.

From what I've read, F27 structural grade KD hardwood timber is usually
"Blackbutt" in NSW, Janka rating 9.1kN.

--
JS

[James]

Is there a resource that claims timber hardens with years of ageing,
much beyond that of simply being kiln dried?

--
JS

[Doug Landau]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:

Just imagine falling and hitting your forehead on a wood floor vs a concrete cloor vs. an anvil

[John B.]

You apparently are not aware of the Leeb Test, one of the four most
used methods for testing metal hardness.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

But not, apparently, floor hardness. Basketball is typically played on
wood floors laid down with some care, because, some say, it makes a
difference.


--

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Prob not. Air drying is 2 steps forward one back with dimishing forwards as wood loses moisture...as a sponge hardens loosing moisture, wood shrinks.

Hardness in wood is density. Finding a chart is easy. Flooring qualities are density and grain/fiber structure related

Tho there would be exceptions eg tamarack, hardwoods lose leaves n softwoods do not. Relevant to moisture loss drying and density as growth cycles

The growth cycles produce 'soft' wood structural properties of straightness when narrowly cut where narrowly cut hardwood placed standing freely as a joist not flooring, may bend n twist. Barn beams of hardwood are timbers not narrowly cut.

Most dense NA woods prob oak hard maple poss madrone n ironwood. White oak is a wooden ship material. Cherry is fairly soft n unstable.

We were blessed with a huge supply of softwood structural woods in white pine eastern hemlock yellow pine n fir with redwood for railroad ties. White is from a 'woods products' family as are my father's family.

The yellow pine forest stretched from the Carolinas n Georgia to Dallas. Lewis n Clark surveyed Pennsylvania writing they walked fir days in a deer browse clearing under white pine not seeing the sky.

Today, good wood is regional. Fir in the GNW is outstanding esp plywood. I'm laying on a 3/8ths piece now n it's bang solid plywood. Yellow pine in Alabama/Mississippi same.

[John B.]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:44:45 -0500, Radey Shouman

As are bowling alleys I am told.
--
cheers,

John B.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Bowling alleys make a difference ?

too much rice ?

[Frank Krygowski]

Interestingly, I couldn't find anything online specifying the rebound
characteristics of a basketball floor.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 12/8/2016 3:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> considered Wed, 7 Dec 2016
>>> 23:07:05 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
>>>>> that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood for floor
>>>> joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine, AFAIK. Driving
>>>> nails into that hardwood must be difficult!
>>>
>>> Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa, for example,
>>> is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.
>>
>> Oak is by no means a softwood.
>>
>>> Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.
>>
>> Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.
>>
>> Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.
>
> As an engineer, I'd greatly prefer if "hardwood" vs. "softwood" were
> actually distinguished by, you know, hardness.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_hardness_test

As a human being, I would prefer world peace, with fries.

The softwood/hardwood distinction is not completely wrong -- most
hardwoods are harder than most softwoods. There are exceptions. I'm
curious about which softwood Phil was trying to recall, yew perhaps?

> FWIW, I've had to drive nails into oak beams. To me, that stuff is
> _hard_. Australian Red Gum, I don't know about.

Oaks are harder than the softwoods normally used for US construction.
Common oak lumber is softer than hard (sugar) maple, or any of the
locusts or hickories, among N. American lumber species. Live oak is
hard, at 3200 Janka hardness.

Next time I go tomy local distreesed lumber outlet I may pick up a piece
of ipe, which has recently become popular for decks, just to fool
around. 3340 Janka, and denser than water. I don't believe anyone
pounds nails through it, even with a nail gun.

I have made small items out of mesquite, which is actually quite a bit
harder than hickory. Never had a piece big enough to want to nail.

--

[Radey Shouman]

Hard to compare that, since very few play pickup bowling games on
asphalt.

--

[Radey Shouman]

DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH <avag...@gmail.com> writes:

> Prob not. Air drying is 2 steps forward one back with dimishing
> forwards as wood loses moisture...as a sponge hardens loosing
> moisture, wood shrinks.
>
> Hardness in wood is density. Finding a chart is easy. Flooring
> qualities are density and grain/fiber structure related

Roughly true.

> Tho there would be exceptions eg tamarack, hardwoods lose leaves n
> softwoods do not. Relevant to moisture loss drying and density as
> growth cycles

I'm sure that's not generally true of tropical hardwoods. In N. America
live oaks do not lose their leaves. I have several large white pines in
my front yard, and I can assure you that every fall they lose a *lot* of
leaves, which I rake up. They just don't lose all of them.

> The growth cycles produce 'soft' wood structural properties of
> straightness when narrowly cut where narrowly cut hardwood placed
> standing freely as a joist not flooring, may bend n twist. Barn beams
> of hardwood are timbers not narrowly cut.

Bending may be avoided in reasonably straight grained lumber by
quartersawing (vertical grain), but that wastes more material.

> Most dense NA woods prob oak hard maple poss madrone n ironwood. White
> oak is a wooden ship material. Cherry is fairly soft n unstable.

White oak is wooden ship (and cask) material because water does not
travel through its pores as it does for red oak.

> We were blessed with a huge supply of softwood structural woods in
> white pine eastern hemlock yellow pine n fir with redwood for railroad
> ties. White is from a 'woods products' family as are my father's
> family.

Redwood for railroad ties? Not in my lifetime. Maybe back when Abe
Lincoln was splitting black walnut for rail fences.

> The yellow pine forest stretched from the Carolinas n Georgia to
> Dallas. Lewis n Clark surveyed Pennsylvania writing they walked fir
> days in a deer browse clearing under white pine not seeing the sky.
>
> Today, good wood is regional. Fir in the GNW is outstanding esp
> plywood. I'm laying on a 3/8ths piece now n it's bang solid
> plywood. Yellow pine in Alabama/Mississippi same.

--

[cycl...@gmail.com]

The definition I've always heard is that hardboods are broadleaf and softwoods are needle leafed. While I know this doesn't really identify the wood too accurately it is a lot closer than saying angiosperm since virtually every tree has flowers and seeds.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

There is trouble there as well - if you have a climate change in an area such as a wetter winter and a more constant sunny summer this will cause rapid growth. These wide rings greatly soften an otherwise hardwood that would test well.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I don't know about a "resource" but kiln drying is a rapid drying that causes cracks in the wood. Age drying which is almost never done anymore allowed the wood to shrink at a much slower rate so that this cracking doesn't occur and the wood is measurable harder.

[Radey Shouman]

All hardwoods are angiosperms, but not all angioserms (by a long chalk)
could be called hardwoods. Hardwoods are flowering trees, softwoods are
conifers.

--

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 4:15:22 PM UTC, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> As a human being,

Are you sure?

>I would prefer world peace,

You and Miss Congeniality almost make up a quorum.

>with fries.

Smartest thing you've said in 2016.

Andre Jute
Isn't cycling fun?

[Doug Landau]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:11:17 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 4:15:22 PM UTC, Radey Shouman wrote:
> >
> > As a human being,
>
> Are you sure?
>
> >I would prefer world peace,
>
> You and Miss Congeniality almost make up a quorum.

Surely you exaggerate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdCjV9wzupU
She sure is cute-

[Phil Lee]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> considered Thu, 8 Dec 2016

15:51:47 -0500 the perfect time to write:

>On 12/8/2016 3:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> considered Wed, 7 Dec 2016
>>> 23:07:05 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
>>>>> that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood for floor
>>>> joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine, AFAIK. Driving
>>>> nails into that hardwood must be difficult!
>>>
>>> Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa, for example,
>>> is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.
>>
>> Oak is by no means a softwood.
>>
>>> Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.
>>
>> Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.

You mean anything with rings is a softwood, no matter how hard it
might be, and anything without is a hardwood, no matter how soft it
may be.
There is a difference between hardwood and hard wood, just as there is
between softwood and soft wood.

>>
>> Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.
>
>As an engineer, I'd greatly prefer if "hardwood" vs. "softwood" were
>actually distinguished by, you know, hardness.

Well, yes - that would be nice from a linguistic standpoint as well.

>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_hardness_test
>
>FWIW, I've had to drive nails into oak beams. To me, that stuff is
>_hard_. Australian Red Gum, I don't know about.

If you think that's crazy, what about this old chestnut, which I have
been reliably informed by a Barrister and former Member of Parliament
is completely true:
"In the Nuts (unground), other than ground nuts Order, the expression
nuts shall have reference to such nuts, other than ground nuts, as
would but for this amending Order not qualify as nuts (unground)
(other than ground nuts) by reason of their being nuts (unground)"

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

I believe I'll punt n go elsewhere. I explained the area n a dummy is going on abt rings maybe more homotalk ?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,10&q=basketball+flooring

[Phil Lee]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Fri, 09 Dec 2016 18:26:41

+0700 the perfect time to write:

And, to get dangerously close to on-topic - velodromes!

[John B.]

Was white oak used in wooden ship building because water does not
travel through its pores ? I ask as most of the Maine built wooden
fishing boats were planked with cedar. Oak, preferably white oak, was
traditionally used for frames, but the frames are on the inside of the
planking and not exposed to water.

I was told by an old boat builder that oak was used because it bent
easily when steamed and "back in the day" most Maine built boats had
bent frames.

>> We were blessed with a huge supply of softwood structural woods in
>> white pine eastern hemlock yellow pine n fir with redwood for railroad
>> ties. White is from a 'woods products' family as are my father's
>> family.
>
>Redwood for railroad ties? Not in my lifetime. Maybe back when Abe
>Lincoln was splitting black walnut for rail fences.
>
>> The yellow pine forest stretched from the Carolinas n Georgia to
>> Dallas. Lewis n Clark surveyed Pennsylvania writing they walked fir
>> days in a deer browse clearing under white pine not seeing the sky.
>>
>> Today, good wood is regional. Fir in the GNW is outstanding esp
>> plywood. I'm laying on a 3/8ths piece now n it's bang solid
>> plywood. Yellow pine in Alabama/Mississippi same.
--

cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:

> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> considered Thu, 8 Dec 2016
> 15:51:47 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 12/8/2016 3:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> considered Wed, 7 Dec 2016
>>>> 23:07:05 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
>>>>>> that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood for floor
>>>>> joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine, AFAIK. Driving
>>>>> nails into that hardwood must be difficult!
>>>>
>>>> Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa, for example,
>>>> is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.
>>>
>>> Oak is by no means a softwood.
>>>
>>>> Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.
>>>
>>> Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.
>
> You mean anything with rings is a softwood, no matter how hard it
> might be, and anything without is a hardwood, no matter how soft it
> may be.

I don't. I'm not familiar with ringless lumber at all.

> There is a difference between hardwood and hard wood, just as there is
> between softwood and soft wood.
>>>
>>> Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.
>>
>>As an engineer, I'd greatly prefer if "hardwood" vs. "softwood" were
>>actually distinguished by, you know, hardness.
>
> Well, yes - that would be nice from a linguistic standpoint as well.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_hardness_test
>>
>>FWIW, I've had to drive nails into oak beams. To me, that stuff is
>>_hard_. Australian Red Gum, I don't know about.
>
> If you think that's crazy, what about this old chestnut, which I have
> been reliably informed by a Barrister and former Member of Parliament
> is completely true:
> "In the Nuts (unground), other than ground nuts Order, the expression
> nuts shall have reference to such nuts, other than ground nuts, as
> would but for this amending Order not qualify as nuts (unground)
> (other than ground nuts) by reason of their being nuts (unground)"

--

[Radey Shouman]

I have never built a boat, but that is my understanding. I have been
on a boat, however, and noticed that water sometimes got inside.
For the same reason white oak was used for making casks. Here's a bit on how red &
white oaks differ:

http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/distinguishing-red-oak-from-white-oak/

> I was told by an old boat builder that oak was used because it bent
> easily when steamed and "back in the day" most Maine built boats had
> bent frames.

I don't know how white oaks differ from red with regard to bending.

--

[John B.]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 21:17:21 -0500, Radey Shouman

:-)

All traditionally built wood boats leaked although a well built one
would be pretty dry after swelling up when first put in the water.

>
>http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/distinguishing-red-oak-from-white-oak/
>
>> I was told by an old boat builder that oak was used because it bent
>> easily when steamed and "back in the day" most Maine built boats had
>> bent frames.
>
>I don't know how white oaks differ from red with regard to bending.

I have no idea but certainly the boat builders that I knew talked
about "white oak" and had no time for red oak. Perhaps because red oak
tends to rot much quicker than white oak so is second best for boat
building.
--
cheers,

John B.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Two type of cones are produce, the male and female cones. This is equivalent to male and female flowers of dioecious plants of angiosperm.

The male will produce microsporofyll or the pollen grains while the female cones will produce the megspores or the female gametophyte. Upon fertilization by the pollen (or microsporofil), the female gametophyte will form embryos and when matured, the cones will be disperse as seeds.

You can consider cones are flowers when they are young and immature and as seeds when they are mature