Titanium Chainstays
473 views
Skip to first unread message
Mathias Scherer
Oct 16, 2014, 3:56:28 PM10/16/14
to Framebuilders
Hi,
I've been asked to repair a Serotta CX frame where one chainstay has split
lengthwise. The idea is to replace both stays because the owner beliefs both
stays come from a faulty batch. My problem now is that I don't usually use
tapered stays for frames which require bent stays. He wants to use 38mm
tires which I don't think will work with denting alone. Using ovalised 7/8"
wont work because there's not enough real estate at the dropout to make it
work Making the tools to bend tapered reynolds stays for instance appears to
be more work than the job is worth, and I don't want to use tapered stays
for my own stuff really.
Would any of you guys be able to supply suitable stays?
Cheers,
M.
--
Mathias Scherer
Ludwig & Scherer GmbH
Wintringerstrasse 19
66271 Kleinblittersdorf
Geschäftsführer Mathias Scherer
I've been asked to repair a Serotta CX frame where one chainstay has split
lengthwise. The idea is to replace both stays because the owner beliefs both
stays come from a faulty batch. My problem now is that I don't usually use
tapered stays for frames which require bent stays. He wants to use 38mm
tires which I don't think will work with denting alone. Using ovalised 7/8"
wont work because there's not enough real estate at the dropout to make it
work Making the tools to bend tapered reynolds stays for instance appears to
be more work than the job is worth, and I don't want to use tapered stays
for my own stuff really.
Would any of you guys be able to supply suitable stays?
Cheers,
M.
--
Mathias Scherer
Ludwig & Scherer GmbH
Wintringerstrasse 19
66271 Kleinblittersdorf
Geschäftsführer Mathias Scherer
Mark Bulgier
Oct 16, 2014, 5:12:37 PM10/16/14
to Mathias Scherer, Framebuilders
Mathias Scherer wrote:
> I don't usually use
> tapered stays for frames which require bent stays. He wants to use 38mm
> tires which I don't think will work with denting alone. Using ovalised
> 7/8" won't work because there's not enough real estate at the dropout
> I don't usually use
> tapered stays for frames which require bent stays. He wants to use 38mm
> tires which I don't think will work with denting alone. Using ovalised
Could the problem of real estate at the dropout be fixed with "bullets"? Paragon makes nice ones in 7/8", two sizes depending on wall thickness of tubing. Just machine the dropout interface on the bullet whatever distance up the curve gives you the right size to match up with the dropout.
Mark Bulgier
Seattle
Wissahickon Cyclery
Oct 16, 2014, 5:41:52 PM10/16/14
to Mark Bulgier, Mathias Scherer, Framebuilders
So this bicycle has been floating around the interwebs with its problem. There was most definitely a bad batch of 7/8" and 1" tubing that had many companies dealing with the warranty of a tube that split down the length of the tube. It sucked for all the companies involved with the issue. You really want to replace both stays.
I HATE DIMPLES ON ALL TUBES (meaning steel and titanium and aluminum for that matter). Do yourself a favor and spend the time to make the stays of all your bikes not require dimples (that is my only advice here beyond the repair involved).
This bike has the 3D Serotta drop outs I assume? Similar to the mini hoods on a Salsa drop out? The bullets are your answer to using standard CWSR 7/8" tubing and making your own chainstays. Insert bullet and then miter the bullet like it was a tapered stay.
Did I mention I hate dimples? It is a really HIGH risk move on CWSR titanium.
My $.02
-Drew
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Framebuilders" group.
Searchable archives for this group can be found at http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders (recent content) and http://search.bikelist.org (older content).
To post to this group, send email to frameb...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
framebuilder...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Framebuilders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to framebuilder...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Drew Guldalian
D.B.A. Engin Cycles
Wissahickon Cyclery
7837 Germantown Ave Phila,PA 19118
www.wiss-cycles.com
www.engincycles.com
Wissahickon Cyclery
7837 Germantown Ave Phila,PA 19118
www.wiss-cycles.com
www.engincycles.com
Sean Chaney
Oct 16, 2014, 10:11:16 PM10/16/14
to Wissahickon Cyclery, Mark Bulgier, Mathias Scherer, Framebuilders
I'm not condoning or condemning this, but I know of several very well known builders who use the Deda tapered stays and they apparently have great success with them. IIRC, they make an S-bend version which may help and also IIRC they're CP which probably means you can dimple the shit out of them.
If that frame is a road frame (410ish mm chain stays) I don't think you can cram anything in between the chain rings and a 38mm tire no matter what shape the stays are.
...if only we could have got to him before he bought a Serotta
Mark Bulgier
Oct 17, 2014, 3:24:27 AM10/17/14
to Sean Chaney, Wissahickon Cyclery, Mathias Scherer, Framebuilders
Sean Chaney wrote:
If that frame is a road frame (410ish mm chain stays) I don't think you can cram anything in between the chain rings and a 38mm tire no matter what shape the stays are.
Well, you can replace the bit of tube in the congested zone between the tire and the chainring with a solid plate. That can be as stiff as a tube too, just heavier. But if you’re only replacing a couple inches of tube with plate, then the weight gain is not terrible. Might be worth it if it lets you use the tire you want.
Mark Bulgier
Seattle
Mathias Scherer
Oct 17, 2014, 5:57:10 AM10/17/14
to Wissahickon Cyclery, Mark Bulgier, Framebuilders
Hi Drew,
Thank you for your input.
I’ve spend quite some time trying to reliably dimple chainstays without having visible cracks on the inside. From my “research” I’d say about 40% of the CWSR tubes (I cut them up to check because I wanted to be sure there wouldn’t be any problems before I started using them in frames) had cracks visible form the inside only. Hardly acceptable for framebuilding. My solution in the end was either not to dimple, or to use CP tubes (no visible cracks but shit for a number of other reasons), or grade 9 annealed. With people asking for shortish stays and wide 29” tires not dimpling isn’t always possible, so I went and sourced annealed tubes which seem to work well, given you have the process of dimpling dialled so as to be repeatable. And you want the shape of the dimple to be safe. To be honest I had Grade 9 CWSR that I wasn’t happy to even simply bend for chainstays let alone dimple, but that may just be me. At the end of the day I’d say manipulating tubes to make them suit your needs is the single most challenging thing with ti. I made some dies for bending seattubes for instance, all pretty straightforward with 1 1/4 tubes, pretty shit with 1 3/8 though (all 0.035 WT). I sometimes think my life would be a lot easier if I were to build steel instead. Who wants easy though? My personal experiences only of course.
The bullets are an idea, but I don’t like the look of that. On lightweight road frames I ovalise the stays, cut them and blank the cut with sheet ti to create a smaller surface to meet the dropout. Since few people are weight conscious enough these days I’ve only built some 15 or so of these so far, but some of them have done some serious miles (my personal frame is 1004g and has done some 5000 miles this year) and seem to work ok. I don’t like the look of that either though. I’d much rather use tapered stays such as the Reynolds (or the Deda) but the problem of bending remains.
No chance of anybody using tapered S-bend stays? And yes, it’s the Serotta 3D dropout. I’m not really desperate for work just now, so rather than doing a job the look of which I don’t like, or wasting time on making tools for the bending I’ll tell the guy I don’t want to repair the frame. The only motiviation to go ahead with it is that I personaly don’t like throwing things away more than the payment for the repair anyway.
Cheers,
M.
Thank you for your input.
I’ve spend quite some time trying to reliably dimple chainstays without having visible cracks on the inside. From my “research” I’d say about 40% of the CWSR tubes (I cut them up to check because I wanted to be sure there wouldn’t be any problems before I started using them in frames) had cracks visible form the inside only. Hardly acceptable for framebuilding. My solution in the end was either not to dimple, or to use CP tubes (no visible cracks but shit for a number of other reasons), or grade 9 annealed. With people asking for shortish stays and wide 29” tires not dimpling isn’t always possible, so I went and sourced annealed tubes which seem to work well, given you have the process of dimpling dialled so as to be repeatable. And you want the shape of the dimple to be safe. To be honest I had Grade 9 CWSR that I wasn’t happy to even simply bend for chainstays let alone dimple, but that may just be me. At the end of the day I’d say manipulating tubes to make them suit your needs is the single most challenging thing with ti. I made some dies for bending seattubes for instance, all pretty straightforward with 1 1/4 tubes, pretty shit with 1 3/8 though (all 0.035 WT). I sometimes think my life would be a lot easier if I were to build steel instead. Who wants easy though? My personal experiences only of course.
The bullets are an idea, but I don’t like the look of that. On lightweight road frames I ovalise the stays, cut them and blank the cut with sheet ti to create a smaller surface to meet the dropout. Since few people are weight conscious enough these days I’ve only built some 15 or so of these so far, but some of them have done some serious miles (my personal frame is 1004g and has done some 5000 miles this year) and seem to work ok. I don’t like the look of that either though. I’d much rather use tapered stays such as the Reynolds (or the Deda) but the problem of bending remains.
No chance of anybody using tapered S-bend stays? And yes, it’s the Serotta 3D dropout. I’m not really desperate for work just now, so rather than doing a job the look of which I don’t like, or wasting time on making tools for the bending I’ll tell the guy I don’t want to repair the frame. The only motiviation to go ahead with it is that I personaly don’t like throwing things away more than the payment for the repair anyway.
Cheers,
M.
Am 16.10.2014 23:41 Uhr schrieb "Wissahickon Cyclery" unter <wissc...@gmail.com>:
So this bicycle has been floating around the interwebs with its problem. There was most definitely a bad batch of 7/8" and 1" tubing that had many companies dealing with the warranty of a tube that split down the length of the tube. It sucked for all the companies involved with the issue. You really want to replace both stays.
I HATE DIMPLES ON ALL TUBES (meaning steel and titanium and aluminum for that matter). Do yourself a favor and spend the time to make the stays of all your bikes not require dimples (that is my only advice here beyond the repair involved).
This bike has the 3D Serotta drop outs I assume? Similar to the mini hoods on a Salsa drop out? The bullets are your answer to using standard CWSR 7/8" tubing and making your own chainstays. Insert bullet and then miter the bullet like it was a tapered stay.
Did I mention I hate dimples? It is a really HIGH risk move on CWSR titanium.
My $.02
-Drew
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mark Bulgier <Ma...@bulgier.net> wrote:
Mathias Scherer wrote:
> I don't usually use
> tapered stays for frames which require bent stays. He wants to use 38mm
> tires which I don't think will work with denting alone. Using ovalised
> 7/8" won't work because there's not enough real estate at the dropout
Could the problem of real estate at the dropout be fixed with "bullets"? Paragon makes nice ones in 7/8", two sizes depending on wall thickness of tubing. Just machine the dropout interface on the bullet whatever distance up the curve gives you the right size to match up with the dropout.
Mark Bulgier
Seattle
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Framebuilders" group.
Searchable archives for this group can be found at http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders (recent content) and http://search.bikelist.org (older content).
To post to this group, send email to frameb...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Framebuilders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to framebuilder...@googlegroups.com <mailto:framebuilders%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Mathias Scherer
Oct 17, 2014, 6:03:14 AM10/17/14
to Sean Chaney, Wissahickon Cyclery, Mark Bulgier, Framebuilders
Hi,
It’s a CX frame with 435mm. It was specified to use with 38mm tires, and he want’s some thing again. Deda don’t do bent stays from what I know, I’ve used them (and Reynolds) in the past but wasn’t aware the used CP. Reynolds is 3/2.5 though. If it is CP I personally don’t like that for the stays. I use CP for welded ZS44 Headtubes (middlepart only) and for little machined things for internal routing or things like that, chainstays I wouldn’t like though. Maybe that’s just me though, and maybe Deda is an option. I’ll contact them about readily bent stays to find out what they have. Thank you for the information.
M.
It’s a CX frame with 435mm. It was specified to use with 38mm tires, and he want’s some thing again. Deda don’t do bent stays from what I know, I’ve used them (and Reynolds) in the past but wasn’t aware the used CP. Reynolds is 3/2.5 though. If it is CP I personally don’t like that for the stays. I use CP for welded ZS44 Headtubes (middlepart only) and for little machined things for internal routing or things like that, chainstays I wouldn’t like though. Maybe that’s just me though, and maybe Deda is an option. I’ll contact them about readily bent stays to find out what they have. Thank you for the information.
M.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Framebuilders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to framebuilder...@googlegroups.com <mailto:framebuilders%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Mathias Scherer
Oct 17, 2014, 7:02:39 AM10/17/14
to Ari Rosenzweig, Framebuilders
Hi Ari,
I’ve tried a number of sources, among them some Chinese. I’m not sure one does them justice by taring them all with the same brush, but some of these I didn’t like for manipulating. That said I personally was not happy with the way some of the US-Made CWSR responded to dimpling either. From the impression I got annealing pretty much is the way to go, more so than country of origin. If you can find a US source for annealed grade 9 I personally would prefer it over anything CWSR. I went for Grade 9, annealed, from Ukrainia, which even though it is considerably more expensive than the Sandvik CWSR you mention it is “the best” for bending and denting, at least when compared to CWSR. It’s almost like CP or stainless steeel even. But then that may be my processes and my tools only.
M.
Am 17.10.2014 12:24 Uhr schrieb "Ari Rosenzweig" unter <ma...@aricycles.com>:
I’ve tried a number of sources, among them some Chinese. I’m not sure one does them justice by taring them all with the same brush, but some of these I didn’t like for manipulating. That said I personally was not happy with the way some of the US-Made CWSR responded to dimpling either. From the impression I got annealing pretty much is the way to go, more so than country of origin. If you can find a US source for annealed grade 9 I personally would prefer it over anything CWSR. I went for Grade 9, annealed, from Ukrainia, which even though it is considerably more expensive than the Sandvik CWSR you mention it is “the best” for bending and denting, at least when compared to CWSR. It’s almost like CP or stainless steeel even. But then that may be my processes and my tools only.
M.
Am 17.10.2014 12:24 Uhr schrieb "Ari Rosenzweig" unter <ma...@aricycles.com>:
Hi Mathias,
In my experience the Chinese cwsr are way more prone to cracks. I've managed to do some rough manipulating, small radius bending and post ovalising with the Sandvik tubing from Paragon without any signs of cracks. My main incentive to use American made ti tubing!
Though I'm currently riding an mtb with dedacciai s-bend cp stays. So far they seem to be fine. I think that both Reynolds and Deda use Chinese sourced tubing that they manipulate. They are not so radically bend so they might work on a cx as well.
Ari
Sent from my iPhone
On 17/10/2014, at 12.57, Mathias Scherer <Mat...@Ludwigundscherer.com> wrote:
Re: [Frame] RE: Titanium Chainstays Hi Drew,
Thank you for your input.
I’ve spend quite some time trying to reliably dimple chainstays without having visible cracks on the inside. From my “research” I’d say about 40% of the CWSR tubes (I cut them up to check because I wanted to be sure there wouldn’t be any problems before I started using them in frames) had cracks visible form the inside only. Hardly acceptable for framebuilding. My solution in the end was either not to dimple, or to use CP tubes (no visible cracks but shit for a number of other reasons), or grade 9 annealed. With people asking for shortish stays and wide 29” tires not dimpling isn’t always possible, so I went and sourced annealed tubes which seem to work well, given you have the process of dimpling dialled so as to be repeatable. And you want the shape of the dimple to be safe. To be honest I had Grade 9 CWSR that I wasn’t happy to even simply bend for chainstays let alone dimple, but that may just be me. At the end of the day I’d say manipulating tubes to make them suit your needs is the single most challenging thing with ti. I made some dies for bending seattubes for instance, all pretty straightforward with 1 1/4 tubes, pretty shit with 1 3/8 though (all 0.035 WT). I sometimes think my life would be a lot easier if I were to build steel instead. Who wants easy though? My personal experiences only of course.
The bullets are an idea, but I don’t like the look of that. On lightweight road frames I ovalise the stays, cut them and blank the cut with sheet ti to create a smaller surface to meet the dropout. Since few people are weight conscious enough these days I’ve only built some 15 or so of these so far, but some of them have done some serious miles (my personal frame is 1004g and has done some 5000 miles this year) and seem to work ok. I don’t like the look of that either though. I’d much rather use tapered stays such as the Reynolds (or the Deda) but the problem of bending remains.
No chance of anybody using tapered S-bend stays? And yes, it’s the Serotta 3D dropout. I’m not really desperate for work just now, so rather than doing a job the look of which I don’t like, or wasting time on making tools for the bending I’ll tell the guy I don’t want to repair the frame. The only motiviation to go ahead with it is that I personaly don’t like throwing things away more than the payment for the repair anyway.
Cheers,
M.
Am 16.10.2014 23:41 Uhr schrieb "Wissahickon Cyclery" unter <wissc...@gmail.com>:
Wissahickon Cyclery
Oct 17, 2014, 1:21:39 PM10/17/14
to Team Caletti, Mathias Scherer, Framebuilders
John,
I do bend and form CWSR in both 7/8" and 1" for the chainstays. I can get 2.75" of actual clearance for both sizes on the MTB while running as short as a 420mm chainstay length. As for the cross bikes I work with two variables that separate the amount of clearance. Racing bikes which get shorter stays and often want to run road cranks I limit it around the 33mm tire being used. Monster cross get longer stays and more clearance (and often 135mm spacing and disc brakes). Either way I have tested and tested and tested ways to dimple and in the end it cracks the stays either then or later. Forming the stays with a much more gradual change in size has never yielded a crack (for me). I have put countless hours and dollars into getting my ovalized stays and every penny was worth it. I really want to keep the bikes with CWSR tubing and not compromise this for the sake of tire clearance.
I can not comment on the hooded drop outs as I never use them. I have my plate drop outs made at Paragon and have just recently started getting my caps water jet cut. My stays change in wall thickness from .028" - .039" depending on the end user and application. I bump the O.D. up to 1" before going to a .049" wall thickness.
Cheers,
Drew
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Team Caletti <in...@teamcaletti.com> wrote:
Deda makes a mtb S bend ovalized tapered chainstay - you can get them through Bringhelli here in the US
You could replace the dropouts as well as the chainstays? Or modify the dropouts?
Also, DREW: do you ovalize and bend the chainstays for clearance or use plate/Paragon wishbone there? I’m interested to hear more on the dimple thing and options there. I don’t use CWSR when doing any bending, ovalizing, shaping, dimpling for chainstays since I have a handful of those in the recycle bend with cracks. It seems to me that dimpling is weaker than an untouched tube, but if tire clearance is needed, would dimpling be better/worse than ovalizing/shaping? I wonder if the dimple’s 3D shape sort of acts as a flute or something, stiffening the stay from lateral flexing more than ovalizing/flattening the tube in that area. Maybe the concern is more for not cracking than stiffness?
- I’ve been thinking of doing some testing of this stuff, along with plate versus hooded dropouts, and .035” vs. .049 wall - how much stiffer and how much more weight - good for big dudes and 29ers perhaps at a small weight increase.
Thanks for the discussion and insight everyone,
John Caletti
Mathias Scherer
Oct 17, 2014, 2:59:25 PM10/17/14
to Greg Christensen, Framebuilders
Possibly. You don’t want to heat the tubes with a torch though because once you get over roughly 500°C ti will start oxidising, which is something you don’t want. I use a programmable heat gun and doublecheck with an infrared thermometer. Heating to 250° makes a difference already.
Am 17.10.2014 17:15 Uhr schrieb "Greg Christensen" unter <greg.chr...@mines.sdsmt.edu>:
Am 17.10.2014 17:15 Uhr schrieb "Greg Christensen" unter <greg.chr...@mines.sdsmt.edu>:
Hi,
Is dimpling done cold? Can it be done with the metal heated to avoid cracking of the metal?
Thanks,
Greg
framebuilder...@googlegroups.com <mailto:framebuilders%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:framebuilders%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Framebuilders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to framebuilder...@googlegroups.com <mailto:framebuilders%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:framebuilders%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Mathias Scherer
Oct 17, 2014, 3:09:28 PM10/17/14
to Wissahickon Cyclery, Team Caletti, Framebuilders
Hi Drew,
What’s wrong with annealed tubes? Why would you think CWSR is preferable?
As I said I try to avoid dimpling as much as possible and would prefer ovalising any time if it gives enough clearance. That said I’d still say that annealed is a completely different cup of tea to CWSR when it comes to manipulating, the problem is only the getting hold of the tubes. That together with carefully monitored heat (as I wrote already I shoot for 250° C) has lead to consistent enough results in testing for me to use dimpling with a carefully shaped die as a last resort. That’s just me though.
M.
What’s wrong with annealed tubes? Why would you think CWSR is preferable?
As I said I try to avoid dimpling as much as possible and would prefer ovalising any time if it gives enough clearance. That said I’d still say that annealed is a completely different cup of tea to CWSR when it comes to manipulating, the problem is only the getting hold of the tubes. That together with carefully monitored heat (as I wrote already I shoot for 250° C) has lead to consistent enough results in testing for me to use dimpling with a carefully shaped die as a last resort. That’s just me though.
M.
--
Mathias Scherer
Oct 17, 2014, 3:21:35 PM10/17/14
to Wissahickon Cyclery, Team Caletti, Framebuilders
Hi,
Just read a reply from Deda, and after adding them to the drawing I think these will do nicely:
http://dedacciai.com/website/download/disegnitecnici/Titanium_MTB.pdf
They are CP, which wouldn’t be my first choice, I’ll tell the customer what it is and where it comes from, and leave him to choose. My gut feeling is that it’s Deda, and who am I to argue with their choice.
Thanks to everybody for helping,
Just read a reply from Deda, and after adding them to the drawing I think these will do nicely:
http://dedacciai.com/website/download/disegnitecnici/Titanium_MTB.pdf
They are CP, which wouldn’t be my first choice, I’ll tell the customer what it is and where it comes from, and leave him to choose. My gut feeling is that it’s Deda, and who am I to argue with their choice.
Thanks to everybody for helping,
M.
Am 17.10.2014 19:21 Uhr schrieb "Wissahickon Cyclery" unter <wissc...@gmail.com>:
--
Wissahickon Cyclery
Oct 17, 2014, 6:22:57 PM10/17/14
to Mathias Scherer, Team Caletti, Framebuilders
Mathias,
I use domestic titanium as often as possible. The tubes are far superior in quality and strength. To me annealed is a compromise in quality. The tubes will work fine but not maximize the amazing features of titanium. Using annealed and CP is like using hi-ten steel or basic 4130. Yes it works but super steels are better and make for better bikes (At least IMO). I tried all the tubes and had people give feedback on all the tubes and ALWAYS the bikes with the annealed tubing got an OK rating but the bikes that were all CWSR always got the "this bike is amazing". The chain stays are a very important part of a bikes stiffness, strength and ride quality. I won't compromise in this department. Not saying everyone needs to do this but I won't use non domestic tubing unless there is no other option (i.e. 1.75" down tube material).
Even the 2" tubing I use for head tubes there is a major difference in the Russian stuff compared to the Chinese stuff. The Chinese stuff is like rubber compared to the Russian stuff.
Cheers,
Drew
Mathias Scherer
Oct 18, 2014, 3:38:01 AM10/18/14
to Wissahickon Cyclery, Team Caletti, Framebuilders
Drew,
I take it you are using Grade 9 CWSR. I’m talking about Grade 9 annealed. That’s exactly the same material with an additional heat treating process after the drawing of the tube. That’s not Chinese, or Ukrainian/Russian, or US-American, it’s just a process the manufacturer of the tubes adds with the further use of the tube in mind (does it need to be further manipulated or not). The stiffness of the tube depends on the material’s E-modulus, which does not change with heat treating. Actually it does not change betweeen CP and Grade 5 or Grade 9, or any other Titanium. What does change is tensile strenght. I personally am not sure what effect other than reducing the chance of the tube getting dented in use that has though.
I am aware of the American preference for American made tubes. I’m German, so that’s not that important to me. I personally have tried quite a number of sources, and I made it a habit to have every batch of material analysed to make sure it is what it’s supposed to be. From my experience there occasionally is American made stuff which is not what it says it is in terms of what it constists of. I also clean the tubes with scotch brite on the lathe before finally cutting them to lenght, and often enough I find that a tube is not really round, or you cant see ring marks or even irregularities on the inside from the drawing process. I bin these tubes, or use them to build climbing racks or stuff like that for the kids. I’ve tried quite a lot of sources, and from what I’ve found it’s not always a question of where the stuff is made but more a question of adhering to processes while making it. From my limited experience I’d say the chances you get a less than perfect tube from China heavily depend on the mill it comes from. Given a choice my ranking would be Ukrainia, USA, China. The Ukrainian stuff (which is were I get my 7/8” chainstays, grade 9, annealed, from) is amazing. It also is more expensive than US made tubes, but with the prices of Titanium frames my preference is for the best I can get in terms of material, and if it adds 50 Euro to the price of the material, then so be it. For the main tubes American is good enough for me most of the time, as is some Chinese stuff. Still I binned (as I’m sure you too have done) tubes because I wasn’t happy with both from China and the US. Actually this mailing here started with me asking about faulty US-made Chainstays and possible replacements.
I find the judging of something ( Ukainian made Grade 9 annealed tubing) that one has never eben seen or worked with or analysed, going by it’s Non-US-American origin only, somewhat irritating. But maybe that’s just me being of non US-American origin myself.
Thanks everybody for your help
M.
I take it you are using Grade 9 CWSR. I’m talking about Grade 9 annealed. That’s exactly the same material with an additional heat treating process after the drawing of the tube. That’s not Chinese, or Ukrainian/Russian, or US-American, it’s just a process the manufacturer of the tubes adds with the further use of the tube in mind (does it need to be further manipulated or not). The stiffness of the tube depends on the material’s E-modulus, which does not change with heat treating. Actually it does not change betweeen CP and Grade 5 or Grade 9, or any other Titanium. What does change is tensile strenght. I personally am not sure what effect other than reducing the chance of the tube getting dented in use that has though.
I am aware of the American preference for American made tubes. I’m German, so that’s not that important to me. I personally have tried quite a number of sources, and I made it a habit to have every batch of material analysed to make sure it is what it’s supposed to be. From my experience there occasionally is American made stuff which is not what it says it is in terms of what it constists of. I also clean the tubes with scotch brite on the lathe before finally cutting them to lenght, and often enough I find that a tube is not really round, or you cant see ring marks or even irregularities on the inside from the drawing process. I bin these tubes, or use them to build climbing racks or stuff like that for the kids. I’ve tried quite a lot of sources, and from what I’ve found it’s not always a question of where the stuff is made but more a question of adhering to processes while making it. From my limited experience I’d say the chances you get a less than perfect tube from China heavily depend on the mill it comes from. Given a choice my ranking would be Ukrainia, USA, China. The Ukrainian stuff (which is were I get my 7/8” chainstays, grade 9, annealed, from) is amazing. It also is more expensive than US made tubes, but with the prices of Titanium frames my preference is for the best I can get in terms of material, and if it adds 50 Euro to the price of the material, then so be it. For the main tubes American is good enough for me most of the time, as is some Chinese stuff. Still I binned (as I’m sure you too have done) tubes because I wasn’t happy with both from China and the US. Actually this mailing here started with me asking about faulty US-made Chainstays and possible replacements.
I find the judging of something ( Ukainian made Grade 9 annealed tubing) that one has never eben seen or worked with or analysed, going by it’s Non-US-American origin only, somewhat irritating. But maybe that’s just me being of non US-American origin myself.
Thanks everybody for your help
M.
Wissahickon Cyclery
Oct 18, 2014, 7:45:13 AM10/18/14
to Mathias Scherer, Team Caletti, Framebuilders
My findings are based on the materials available through common distribution in the US. ALL the stuff from Haynes, Sandvik and Anco Tech (old surplus) have proven the be super clean, straight (often no more than .003" per 24") and mirror finish on the interior. Non of these features apply to the Chinese supplies we have available in the US. Plus the tubes cut different and even weld different. If you have better stuff available by all means use it. I know I would.
Not arguing just explaining my reasons.
-Drew
Jim Adney
Oct 24, 2014, 1:20:39 PM10/24/14
to Framebuilders
On 17 Oct 2014 at 21:09, Mathias Scherer wrote:
> What¹s wrong with annealed tubes? Why would you think CWSR is preferable?
This has been an interesting thread, but for those of us who are not
> What¹s wrong with annealed tubes? Why would you think CWSR is preferable?
familiar with using Ti in bicycle frames, what does CWSR stand for?
I'm guessing that CP means Commerially Pure.
As for annealing, isn't it always clear that any metal you hope to
form should be in an annealed state?
--
*******************************
Jim Adney, jad...@vwtype3.org
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
*******************************
Mathias Scherer
Oct 24, 2014, 2:30:53 PM10/24/14
to Jim Adney, Framebuilders
Hi Jim,
CWSR stands for cold worked, stress relieved. Pretty much the standard for
Ti tubes in bike frames. After the drawing of the tubes the residual
stresses in the structure of the alloy is relieved by a heat treatment
process. Annealing is a bit like the larger brother. The alloy is heated to
a higher temperatur, kept there and then cooled down slowly. Since this is
an additional process it is likely to affect the price of the material. I
personally would agree with your statement concerning forming and annealing.
CP is either Grade 1 or Grade 2 Titanium, and yes, it stands for comercialy
pure. Grade 1 and 2 are easier for machined which requires deep holes
drilled or internal threads tapped. Both of which generally is a bit of a
pain in the ass with ti because of work hardening processes. It's not very
cool for chainstays in particular because it's not as scratch resistant as
Grade 9 (commonly used). Which in the case of ti is a bit crap because often
enough scratches are where fractures start. Since it's easier to form and
shape than Grade 9 it still is used by Dedacciai for instance for flared and
bend stays.
Does that make sense? English is not my native language, and once it gets
really technical I often am at a loss for specific vocabulary, so if all
this sound like hoghwash let me know and I'll try again.
M.
Am 24.10.2014 19:20 Uhr schrieb "Jim Adney" unter <jad...@vwtype3.org>:
> On 17 Oct 2014 at 21:09, Mathias Scherer wrote:
>
>> What¹s wrong with annealed tubes? Why would you think CWSR is preferable?
>
> This has been an interesting thread, but for those of us who are not
> familiar with using Ti in bicycle frames, what does CWSR stand for?
> I'm guessing that CP means Commerially Pure.
>
> As for annealing, isn't it always clear that any metal you hope to
> form should be in an annealed state?
--
CWSR stands for cold worked, stress relieved. Pretty much the standard for
Ti tubes in bike frames. After the drawing of the tubes the residual
stresses in the structure of the alloy is relieved by a heat treatment
process. Annealing is a bit like the larger brother. The alloy is heated to
a higher temperatur, kept there and then cooled down slowly. Since this is
an additional process it is likely to affect the price of the material. I
personally would agree with your statement concerning forming and annealing.
CP is either Grade 1 or Grade 2 Titanium, and yes, it stands for comercialy
pure. Grade 1 and 2 are easier for machined which requires deep holes
drilled or internal threads tapped. Both of which generally is a bit of a
pain in the ass with ti because of work hardening processes. It's not very
cool for chainstays in particular because it's not as scratch resistant as
Grade 9 (commonly used). Which in the case of ti is a bit crap because often
enough scratches are where fractures start. Since it's easier to form and
shape than Grade 9 it still is used by Dedacciai for instance for flared and
bend stays.
Does that make sense? English is not my native language, and once it gets
really technical I often am at a loss for specific vocabulary, so if all
this sound like hoghwash let me know and I'll try again.
M.
Am 24.10.2014 19:20 Uhr schrieb "Jim Adney" unter <jad...@vwtype3.org>:
> On 17 Oct 2014 at 21:09, Mathias Scherer wrote:
>
>> What¹s wrong with annealed tubes? Why would you think CWSR is preferable?
>
> This has been an interesting thread, but for those of us who are not
> familiar with using Ti in bicycle frames, what does CWSR stand for?
> I'm guessing that CP means Commerially Pure.
>
> As for annealing, isn't it always clear that any metal you hope to
> form should be in an annealed state?
--
Martin Manning
Oct 24, 2014, 6:26:46 PM10/24/14
to Jim Adney, Framebuilders
http://www.sevencycles.com/blog/tag/cwsr/
MPM
MPM
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Framebuilders" group.
>
> Searchable archives for this group can be found at http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders (recent content) and http://search.bikelist.org (older content).
>
> To post to this group, send email to frameb...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> framebuilder...@googlegroups.com
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Framebuilders" group.
>
> Searchable archives for this group can be found at http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders (recent content) and http://search.bikelist.org (older content).
>
> To post to this group, send email to frameb...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> framebuilder...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Framebuilders" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to framebuilder...@googlegroups.com.
> http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Framebuilders" group.
Mathias Scherer
Oct 25, 2014, 1:25:41 AM10/25/14
to Martin Manning, Jim Adney, Framebuilders
I personally am not fully convinced that all websites dealing with the
selling of products allways contain nothing but the truth. This is a general
remark though, and I may be wrong in this case. The basic facts are the same
as can be found here though:
http://www.smt.sandvik.com/en/materials-center/material-datasheets/tube-and-
pipe-seamless/sandvik-ti-grade-9/
The reduction in yield strength is why the material in it's annealed state
is easier to manipulate, so I think depending on what you want to do with a
tube this is positive, not negative. As you can find on that sheet the state
to use if tensile strength was the most important thing would be cold
reduced, not CWSR. And we should all be using grade 5 instead of grade 9
anyway.
I'd say Grade 9 CWSR has a track record of working well for bike frames.
With 29er frames in particular short chainstays, fat tires and chainrings
make it necessary to manipulate the chainstays though. Grade 9 in it's
annealed state makes this forming easier, depending on what you want to do
it makes it possible even.
I'd say use what works for you and your processes.
M.
John Caletti
Oct 25, 2014, 1:26:45 PM10/25/14
to Framebuilders
Since we have established that stiffness (Modulus of elasticity) of the various states of the material we are using are the same, then we move on to what other characteristics are we after for a great bike? Not cracking/breaking? If so, then we need to not only use a good process for forming but the right material that will successfully yield to our methods and needs. Dimples, bends have been done in the millions successfully, and CP, annealed, etc. have proven successful as well, so it seems it becomes the combination of shaping and material as well as cleaning, joining and use that determines the longevity of the frame. A tube that is “stronger/better?” but is likely to crack when shaping (CWSR) might actually be inferior, as it’s closer to the edge of integrity after shaping, than using an annealed tube and more dramatic shaping - as we are looking at how good is the end product - how far from it’s limit is it when we have it in the bike frame? We might throw into the mix here, what shapes and dimples do to the feel of the frame, the stiffness in different dimensions, as given we have figured out various combinations of forming and material selection to yield a durable result, the next question becomes performance/ride feel.
Ok, let me know what you guys think here. Good discusssion.
John Caletti
Wissahickon Cyclery
Oct 25, 2014, 1:26:58 PM10/25/14
to Mathias Scherer, Martin Manning, Jim Adney, Framebuilders
Not arguing your position but this is a straight quote from Sandvik:
Fabrication
Bending
Ti-3-2.5 tubing can be bent at room temperature using standard bend tooling and techniques. The CWSR grade of tubing is routinely bent on a radius of three times the tube diameter. Thin walled tubing requires adequate support of the ID during bending. Due to the high strength and low modulus of this alloy, springback is about twice that of stainless steel and must be taken into account.
IMO the key to the quote is adequate support. My DiAcro's have never ever had a single issue bending even as thin a wall as .020" with no distortion or buckling. As for forming them again if the procedure is sound and all items are supported well the forming can be done. With that said I prefer the tensile strength. Things like chainsuck (which is definitely less common now) can destroy a bike in a heartbeat. If the chainstay can fight off the chain for even a tad longer it will save the bike. Plus I have seen chainstays worn straight through from people ignoring the tire rubbing. This is not what you should work towards as an issue but heck if we can fight it why not do it.
Cheers,
Drew
Mathias Scherer
Oct 25, 2014, 2:35:40 PM10/25/14
to Wissahickon Cyclery, Martin Manning, Jim Adney, Framebuilders
Hi Drew,
I’ve worked with CP, CWSR and annealed tubes. Bending is not a problem with either of them, and I never said it was. It’s dimples and ovalising once you’re pushing limits. I’ve tried to optimise procedures which does certainly help. I think everybody who works with ti is likely to have an impressive collection of tubes sacrificed to the development and improvement of shaping procedures. As you rightly say it’s something that defines a builder and his style. If for instance I modify a process I usually go just a little bit further than I need to to see when the tubes start cracking. I then get what I’d call the safety margin. I find the margin with CWSR narrower than with annealed. Hence I prefer annealed. Since the price is significantly higher I only use this option for chainstays of 435mm or less on a 29er, in combination with 2.3” or wider tires though . Seven’s solution, just to mention it, appears to be not to offer 29er frames with stays shorter than 445mm. Not what I would like to do.
Annealed may actually be better in fighting off the chain because it is less likely to crack. That’s something one would have to test though. As you have correctly said a chainsuck can destroy a frame in a heartbeat. The majority of ti frames that suffered this fate in the past are made of CWSR. I’m not suggesting that his happened because it’s inferior, it’s just that ti in general does not seem to like that sort of treatment. Deda uses CP for their stays, not my first choice, but they build these frames in considerable quantities and don’t seem to have any problems (I’m pretty much the only Ti builder in Germany who does repair work occasionaly, so I guess I have a fairly good idea of that). What I’m trying to say is just that I’m quite sure there’s more than one road to reach Rome.
I’m not sure there is a difference in the materials’ resistance to rubbing tires. To be honest I personally think there is a point where trying to factor in stupidity reaches a limit though. I’m not choosing a material because it is particularly resistant to rubbing tires. If I did I’d use solid rods instead of tubes.
I guess there may be different approaches of which possibly more than one leads to reliable frames and happy customers.
Cheers,
M.
I’ve worked with CP, CWSR and annealed tubes. Bending is not a problem with either of them, and I never said it was. It’s dimples and ovalising once you’re pushing limits. I’ve tried to optimise procedures which does certainly help. I think everybody who works with ti is likely to have an impressive collection of tubes sacrificed to the development and improvement of shaping procedures. As you rightly say it’s something that defines a builder and his style. If for instance I modify a process I usually go just a little bit further than I need to to see when the tubes start cracking. I then get what I’d call the safety margin. I find the margin with CWSR narrower than with annealed. Hence I prefer annealed. Since the price is significantly higher I only use this option for chainstays of 435mm or less on a 29er, in combination with 2.3” or wider tires though . Seven’s solution, just to mention it, appears to be not to offer 29er frames with stays shorter than 445mm. Not what I would like to do.
Annealed may actually be better in fighting off the chain because it is less likely to crack. That’s something one would have to test though. As you have correctly said a chainsuck can destroy a frame in a heartbeat. The majority of ti frames that suffered this fate in the past are made of CWSR. I’m not suggesting that his happened because it’s inferior, it’s just that ti in general does not seem to like that sort of treatment. Deda uses CP for their stays, not my first choice, but they build these frames in considerable quantities and don’t seem to have any problems (I’m pretty much the only Ti builder in Germany who does repair work occasionaly, so I guess I have a fairly good idea of that). What I’m trying to say is just that I’m quite sure there’s more than one road to reach Rome.
I’m not sure there is a difference in the materials’ resistance to rubbing tires. To be honest I personally think there is a point where trying to factor in stupidity reaches a limit though. I’m not choosing a material because it is particularly resistant to rubbing tires. If I did I’d use solid rods instead of tubes.
I guess there may be different approaches of which possibly more than one leads to reliable frames and happy customers.
Cheers,
M.
Am 25.10.2014 19:26 Uhr schrieb "Wissahickon Cyclery" unter <wissc...@gmail.com>:
Not arguing your position but this is a straight quote from Sandvik:
Fabrication
Bending
Ti-3-2.5 tubing can be bent at room temperature using standard bend tooling and techniques. The CWSR grade of tubing is routinely bent on a radius of three times the tube diameter. Thin walled tubing requires adequate support of the ID during bending. Due to the high strength and low modulus of this alloy, springback is about twice that of stainless steel and must be taken into account.
IMO the key to the quote is adequate support. My DiAcro's have never ever had a single issue bending even as thin a wall as .020" with no distortion or buckling. As for forming them again if the procedure is sound and all items are supported well the forming can be done. With that said I prefer the tensile strength. Things like chainsuck (which is definitely less common now) can destroy a bike in a heartbeat. If the chainstay can fight off the chain for even a tad longer it will save the bike. Plus I have seen chainstays worn straight through from people ignoring the tire rubbing. This is not what you should work towards as an issue but heck if we can fight it why not do it.
Cheers,
Drew
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Mathias Scherer <Mat...@ludwigundscherer.com> wrote:
I personally am not fully convinced that all websites dealing with the
selling of products allways contain nothing but the truth. This is a general
remark though, and I may be wrong in this case. The basic facts are the same
as can be found here though:
http://www.smt.sandvik.com/en/materials-center/material-datasheets/tube-and-
pipe-seamless/sandvik-ti-grade-9/ <http://www.smt.sandvik.com/en/materials-center/material-datasheets/tube-and-pipe-seamless/sandvik-ti-grade-9/>
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
>>
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Framebuilders" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Mathias Scherer
Ludwig & Scherer GmbH
Wintringerstrasse 19
66271 Kleinblittersdorf
Geschäftsführer Mathias Scherer
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Framebuilders" group.
Searchable archives for this group can be found at http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders (recent content) and http://search.bikelist.org (older content).
To post to this group, send email to frameb...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Framebuilders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to framebuilder...@googlegroups.com <mailto:framebuilders%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Mike Mcdermid
Nov 1, 2014, 7:18:43 PM11/1/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com
Matthias I buy mine from the USA ,Drew speaks the truth ,cold working hardens the material and increases its tensile strength ,this is the opposite of annealing which basically makes the material softer and whilst it improves formability it also reduces its tensile strength or ability to resist deformation this is the same with cro mo look at the normalzed and annealed figures
Mathias Scherer
Nov 2, 2014, 4:35:45 AM11/2/14
to Mike Mcdermid, frameb...@googlegroups.com
Hi Mike,
I didn't say what Drew wrote wasn't correct. I think it may even have been
my who brought E-modulus and tensile strength up. Regardless of where you
buy your tubes my point was that in cases where you need to shape the stays
from 22.2mm down to 14mm for instance CWSR leaves you with a lower margin of
error than say half annealed or annealed. Regardless of where you buy your
tubes again. And I then wondered how important tensile strength is in
chainstays of 0.9mm WT anyway. I mean what does it do? Are frames from
materials with lower tensile strength (aluminium would come to mind there) a
technical impossibility? And no, annealed does not have a lower ability to
resist elastic deformation. It's only when we talk about plastic that it
makes a difference. That's nothing I would want in any of my frames during
normal riding anyway. I've done a bit of research in the meantime, and I can
assure you that using half annealed at least for chainstays is not at all
uncommon with some builders.
Why do some of you guys place so much importance on where your tubes come
from? Wouldn't it be a better idea to place quality first? I mean the
Serotta with the split stays I'm having here to repair has split stays. The
fact that they are "domestic" didn't stop them from splitting. If they had
been made properly in Burkina Faso of all places instead of badly in the US
I'd say the frame wouldn't be with me. That said I too use US made tubes.
After having the material analysed and after checking each and every one
first. Which is something I'd recommend regardless of what material you use
and where it comes from.
Again I'd say each to their own, do and use whatever it takes to build a
frame you and your customers are happy with.
Cheers,
M.
Am 02.11.2014 0:18 Uhr schrieb "Mike Mcdermid" unter
<compos...@gmail.com>:
I didn't say what Drew wrote wasn't correct. I think it may even have been
my who brought E-modulus and tensile strength up. Regardless of where you
buy your tubes my point was that in cases where you need to shape the stays
from 22.2mm down to 14mm for instance CWSR leaves you with a lower margin of
error than say half annealed or annealed. Regardless of where you buy your
tubes again. And I then wondered how important tensile strength is in
chainstays of 0.9mm WT anyway. I mean what does it do? Are frames from
materials with lower tensile strength (aluminium would come to mind there) a
technical impossibility? And no, annealed does not have a lower ability to
resist elastic deformation. It's only when we talk about plastic that it
makes a difference. That's nothing I would want in any of my frames during
normal riding anyway. I've done a bit of research in the meantime, and I can
assure you that using half annealed at least for chainstays is not at all
uncommon with some builders.
Why do some of you guys place so much importance on where your tubes come
from? Wouldn't it be a better idea to place quality first? I mean the
Serotta with the split stays I'm having here to repair has split stays. The
fact that they are "domestic" didn't stop them from splitting. If they had
been made properly in Burkina Faso of all places instead of badly in the US
I'd say the frame wouldn't be with me. That said I too use US made tubes.
After having the material analysed and after checking each and every one
first. Which is something I'd recommend regardless of what material you use
and where it comes from.
Again I'd say each to their own, do and use whatever it takes to build a
frame you and your customers are happy with.
Cheers,
M.
Am 02.11.2014 0:18 Uhr schrieb "Mike Mcdermid" unter
<compos...@gmail.com>:
Mike Mcdermid
Nov 2, 2014, 5:14:37 AM11/2/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com, compos...@gmail.com
mattias your answering your own question here
Why do some of you guys place so much importance on where your tubes come
from? Wouldn't it be a better idea to place quality first?
from? Wouldn't it be a better idea to place quality first?
that is exactly what they are doing if a formula has worked for 20 years
the quick answer is when youv'e worked with a material on things more highly stressed than a bike and see its annealed counterpart have half the fatigue life of its sibling then .............
don't become a victim of saving a few pennies and if you cant find the quality your lokking for try and get someone to make the quality your looking for
Mathias Scherer
Nov 2, 2014, 7:23:06 AM11/2/14
to Mike Mcdermid, frameb...@googlegroups.com
Drew, apparently you have not read what I wrote. I have tried and tested different types of tubes, and different sources. For me “domestic” is not US American, I have to import regardless of where I buy. My choice is to go for what works best for me. Price is secondary, if a tube or a welding wire, or a gas of higher purity, or a helmet, or a torch does a better job for me, I use it. In the case of annealed tubing (I get mine from Ukrania)for chainstays the tubes are significantly more expensive than the tubes I get from the US. I have no idea what your prior experience is, if you found a way of doing things that works for you, fine by me. Depending on what needs to be done with the tubes annealed is also used in in aviation though. On the rest (tensile strength, elastic and plastic shaping, e-modulus) I commented in previous mails.
I repeat: the original post I started was a question about a possible replacement for some American made Serotta stays which had broken. Telling me that you need to use American only (even though I never said anything else, I said use what works for you, not use French, Chinese, Canadian or anything) to avoid failure is decidedly not an answer to what I originally asked. And your assumption that something needs to be American to be be usable will not stop me building frames even though I’m German, if that’s ok with you. I use a Lorch welder and a Deckel mill instead of a Miller and a Bridgeport, and, lo and behold, they both work just fine even though they are not US American. I will also continue to use material from the US, Ukrainia and China, and I will very likely also continue to scrap material from the US, Ukrainia and China if analyses or inspections suggests it has a problem. Some tube sizes (40mm and 42) I bought in the states only to find out it was Chinese. And I strongly suspect that Paragon for instance didn’t go to the length of sourcing Chinese stock only to be able to sell the odd tube a buck cheaper. Maybe I’m wrong there though.
Rant over. And once again: Use whatever material or process works for you.
Cheers,
M.<<<<<<<
I repeat: the original post I started was a question about a possible replacement for some American made Serotta stays which had broken. Telling me that you need to use American only (even though I never said anything else, I said use what works for you, not use French, Chinese, Canadian or anything) to avoid failure is decidedly not an answer to what I originally asked. And your assumption that something needs to be American to be be usable will not stop me building frames even though I’m German, if that’s ok with you. I use a Lorch welder and a Deckel mill instead of a Miller and a Bridgeport, and, lo and behold, they both work just fine even though they are not US American. I will also continue to use material from the US, Ukrainia and China, and I will very likely also continue to scrap material from the US, Ukrainia and China if analyses or inspections suggests it has a problem. Some tube sizes (40mm and 42) I bought in the states only to find out it was Chinese. And I strongly suspect that Paragon for instance didn’t go to the length of sourcing Chinese stock only to be able to sell the odd tube a buck cheaper. Maybe I’m wrong there though.
Rant over. And once again: Use whatever material or process works for you.
Cheers,
M.<<<<<<<
<compos...@gmail.com <javascript:> >:
> Matthias I buy mine from the USA ,Drew speaks the truth ,cold working hardens
> the material and increases its tensile strength ,this is the opposite of
> annealing which basically makes the material softer and whilst it improves
> formability it also reduces its tensile strength or ability to resist
> deformation this is the same with cro mo look at the normalzed and annealed
> figures
Mike Mcdermid
Nov 2, 2014, 8:32:41 AM11/2/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com, compos...@gmail.com
was that directed at Drew or me?
Wissahickon Cyclery
Nov 2, 2014, 8:51:41 AM11/2/14
to Mike Mcdermid, Framebuilders
For the record those chainstays on the Serotta were absolutely not from a domestic mill. The flawed tubing was from China that folks used.
And yes I did read what you wrote.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Framebuilders" group.
Searchable archives for this group can be found at http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders (recent content) and http://search.bikelist.org (older content).
To post to this group, send email to frameb...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
framebuilder...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/framebuilders?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Framebuilders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to framebuilder...@googlegroups.com.
M-gineering
Nov 2, 2014, 9:29:46 AM11/2/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com
On 11/2/2014 2:51 PM, Wissahickon Cyclery wrote:
> For the record those chainstays on the Serotta were absolutely not from
> a domestic mill. The flawed tubing was from China that folks used.
quality controls and a higher reject ratio than an American plant.
If that is what the american buyer wants ....
--
mvg
Marten Gerritsen (not building frames from locally sourced cheese in)
Kiel Windeweer
Netherlands
Mathias Scherer
Nov 2, 2014, 12:04:32 PM11/2/14
to Wissahickon Cyclery, Mike Mcdermid, Framebuilders
I thought they specifically made a point of them manufacturing in the US with Ti sourced from the US, at least I remember them saying so on the website.
Be that as it may, I still think that there’s no genetic problem with the Chinese as such (I personally believe that all man are built equal), so at the end of the day you want a certain quality, and I still think that is not determined by geographic origin but by procedures and adherence to it. I may be wrong though. I still say use good quality, if that means buying US American, fine, if it means buying German, or Chinese, then so be it.
Guys, this is the internet. I build frames in my workshop. If I was so wired that I wanted to do things on the net I’d choose a different carreer. I’ve found a way to do things so that they work for me as far as framebuilding is concerned. I’ve only started with some 100 frames under my belt, and I’m still learning every day. Chances are I may be wrong and the only way to build a decent frame is to do things exactly as you guys say with exactly the tubes you use. I’m prepared to learn the hard way if necessary. I’m not prepared to wage a flamewar in what to me is a foreign language about the quality of Chinese tubing though. A subject by the way neither dear to my heart nor one I’m particularly qualified to talk about. In a previous professional life I spent some time in China doing quality management for a German company, but that’s hardly a sound basis for judgement. I have neither seen all of China, nor have I been to all titanium mills in China. As far as I’m concerned I still strongly recommend using the stuff you feel most comfortable with. That’s perfectly ok with me.
One brief remark on what Marten Gerritsen wrote:
Making things with quality in mind requires developing procedures, and, once you’ve done so, adhering to them. Often China is choosen as a place of production by salesmen with an eye on price alone. The lower the price limit these salesmen are looking for, the higher the chance that adhering to the procedures defined becomes a problem. You want qualified workers, qualification costs money, as does scrapping things which are substandard. As Marten rightly says the lower cost of labout plus the heavy subsidies of energy-intensive industries in China allows for a higher reject ratio with the same price for the final product. Often the quality of products sufferes more from salesmen dumping prices than from the location of a factory. That’s a general observation though and not directed at anything specific, I just think Marten may have a point there.
Cheers,
M.
Be that as it may, I still think that there’s no genetic problem with the Chinese as such (I personally believe that all man are built equal), so at the end of the day you want a certain quality, and I still think that is not determined by geographic origin but by procedures and adherence to it. I may be wrong though. I still say use good quality, if that means buying US American, fine, if it means buying German, or Chinese, then so be it.
Guys, this is the internet. I build frames in my workshop. If I was so wired that I wanted to do things on the net I’d choose a different carreer. I’ve found a way to do things so that they work for me as far as framebuilding is concerned. I’ve only started with some 100 frames under my belt, and I’m still learning every day. Chances are I may be wrong and the only way to build a decent frame is to do things exactly as you guys say with exactly the tubes you use. I’m prepared to learn the hard way if necessary. I’m not prepared to wage a flamewar in what to me is a foreign language about the quality of Chinese tubing though. A subject by the way neither dear to my heart nor one I’m particularly qualified to talk about. In a previous professional life I spent some time in China doing quality management for a German company, but that’s hardly a sound basis for judgement. I have neither seen all of China, nor have I been to all titanium mills in China. As far as I’m concerned I still strongly recommend using the stuff you feel most comfortable with. That’s perfectly ok with me.
One brief remark on what Marten Gerritsen wrote:
Making things with quality in mind requires developing procedures, and, once you’ve done so, adhering to them. Often China is choosen as a place of production by salesmen with an eye on price alone. The lower the price limit these salesmen are looking for, the higher the chance that adhering to the procedures defined becomes a problem. You want qualified workers, qualification costs money, as does scrapping things which are substandard. As Marten rightly says the lower cost of labout plus the heavy subsidies of energy-intensive industries in China allows for a higher reject ratio with the same price for the final product. Often the quality of products sufferes more from salesmen dumping prices than from the location of a factory. That’s a general observation though and not directed at anything specific, I just think Marten may have a point there.
Cheers,
M.
Daniel J Niedziocha
Nov 3, 2014, 8:30:06 AM11/3/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com, compos...@gmail.com
hahah, the funniest part of this post is that Drew has a Deckel and just replaced his bridgeport with a french built Cincinnati toolmaster, so clearly in agreement with you, he chooses quality over country of origin. Sorry to speak for you Drew, but it had to be said....
Daniel Niedziocha
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:23:06 AM UTC-5, Mathias Scherer wrote:
And your assumption that something needs to be American to be be usable will not stop me building frames even though I’m German, if that’s ok with you. I use a Lorch welder and a Deckel mill instead of a Miller and a Bridgeport, and, lo and behold, they both work just fine even though they are not US American. I will also continue to use material from the US,
Wissahickon Cyclery
Nov 3, 2014, 8:41:59 AM11/3/14
to Daniel J Niedziocha, Mike Mcdermid, Framebuilders
Plus a lathe from England a cold saw from Holland and plenty of tools from Poland and Japan. Also IMO the Bridgeport is an OK mill but hardly lust worthy. They are cheap and available is the truth.
-Drew
Mike Mcdermid
Nov 3, 2014, 3:22:46 PM11/3/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com
The problem being the same no matter what industry you work in you can have all the rejects you like, margin for error ,you start with crap material by the end all you have done is refine crap material
M-gineering
Nov 3, 2014, 3:56:36 PM11/3/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com
On 11/3/2014 9:22 PM, Mike Mcdermid wrote:
> The problem being the same no matter what industry you work in you can have all the rejects you like, margin for error ,you start with crap material by the end all you have done is refine crap material
>
starts with ensuring that the incoming goods are as requested
--
mvg
Marten Gerritsen
Kiel Windeweer
Netherlands
Mike Mcdermid
Nov 3, 2014, 5:01:18 PM11/3/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com
Marten when the two biggest tube mills in Europe state they cant obtain decent material to draw down tubes in inclined not to debate it
Mark Bulgier
Nov 4, 2014, 1:07:21 AM11/4/14
to Mike Mcdermid, frameb...@googlegroups.com
You seriously going to drop that bomb and walk away without giving specifics? Not cool. C'mon, out with it man!
Mark Bulgier
Seattle
Mike Mcdermid wrote
Mark Bulgier
Seattle
Mike Mcdermid wrote
M-gineering
Nov 4, 2014, 2:39:49 AM11/4/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com
My initial thought would be that big mills would need big quantities and
big customers, a smaller mill might not have the same problem
--
mvg
Marten Gerritsen
Gerritsen & Meijers, Ingenieurs
Framebuilding & Imports
Dorpsstraat 132
9605 PD Kiel Windeweer
Netherlands
Tel: +31 598 491865
www.m-gineering.nl
big customers, a smaller mill might not have the same problem
mvg
Marten Gerritsen
Gerritsen & Meijers, Ingenieurs
Framebuilding & Imports
Dorpsstraat 132
9605 PD Kiel Windeweer
Netherlands
Tel: +31 598 491865
www.m-gineering.nl
Mark Bulgier
Nov 5, 2014, 12:58:23 AM11/5/14
to frameb...@googlegroups.com, compos...@gmail.com
After Mike Mcdermid wrote
> Marten when the two biggest tube mills in Europe state they cant obtain
> decent material to draw down tubes in inclined not to debate it
I replied:
> You seriously going to drop that bomb and walk away without giving specifics? Not cool. C'mon, out with it man!
Well, Mike replied to me privately and gave me the details, but asked me not to repeat it on the list and explained why, and I see his point, so I won't. Maybe he didn't even want me to say this much, but since I confronted him on-list over his "debate tactics", I feel it's only fair to say that I now see why he doesn't give more details. (Calm down, it's not like its juicy gossip or anything. It's just not completely appropriate to type in a public forum, for business reasons.)
Let's leave it at that. (Just my advice, take it or leave it.) It seems to me that all sides were actually not disagreeing all that much, or lets say the stuff you disagreed on is minor compared to all the stuff you agree on.
Mark Bulgier
Seattle
Let's leave it at that. (Just my advice, take it or leave it.) It seems to me that all sides were actually not disagreeing all that much, or lets say the stuff you disagreed on is minor compared to all the stuff you agree on.
Mark Bulgier
Seattle
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages