STEEL/CF FRAME ESSAY

[datakoll]

http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-not-carbon


A few more minutes at Pashley....

[Dan O]

On Jun 2, 7:29 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-...

>
> A few more minutes at Pashley....

A good argument, and the author has a knack for just the right humor.

I'm in a different place, though, in that I wouldn't go for a custom
21st century steel frame (unless that money tree in th backyard ever
starts yielding fruit); I'm more a ~$300 complete bike / good score on
ebay kind of guy. That Miyata 914, for example. If the money tree
produced a bit of a windfall, I might be able to spring for one of the
NOS Miyata Pro-level frames that one seller on ebay had a bunch of
(blue ones, even :-)

[datakoll]

magazines feed off advertizing
advertizing feeds off disposable income.

that magazines offer information is secomdary to the ends

journals offer information.

butbutbut idea was....how do we transport a CF ?

awwww givemeabreakwillya ?

who would fab a bike not transportable ?

Jill Claybrook and Jimmy Carter, the moralists ?

not quiet who would build an auto not capable of stopping or destroying the planet

but moving nonetheless.

mooooooo

[datakoll]

........


OT. NYT offers an overview

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/chinas-economic-empire.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[thirty-six]

On Jun 3, 7:29 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 7:29 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >  http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-...
>
> >    A few more minutes at Pashley....
>
> A good argument, and the author has a knack for just the right humor.
>
> I'm in a different place, though, in that I wouldn't go for a custom
> 21st century steel frame (unless that money tree in th backyard ever
> starts yielding fruit);

At least you made a good start. Most can't even get the seed to
germinate.

> I'm more a ~$300 complete bike / good score on
> ebay kind of guy.  That Miyata 914, for example.  If the money tree
> produced a bit of a windfall,

You got flowers already?

[SMS]

On 6/2/2013 11:29 PM, Dan O wrote:

<snip>

> I'm in a different place, though, in that I wouldn't go for a custom
> 21st century steel frame (unless that money tree in th backyard ever
> starts yielding fruit); I'm more a ~$300 complete bike / good score on
> ebay kind of guy. That Miyata 914, for example. If the money tree
> produced a bit of a windfall, I might be able to spring for one of the
> NOS Miyata Pro-level frames that one seller on ebay had a bunch of
> (blue ones, even :-)

That's one of the other beauties of steel, there are so many older
bicycles for sale with non-compact, lugged, steel frames from the days
when manufacturers made them in 2cm increments from 48-64cm. Not custom,
but no need for ridiculously long seat tubes or stem adapters like you
now see with compact frames that remind you of the old Midas Muffler
commercial of "fit? We'll _MAKE_ it fit." The CF fad has helped spur the
availability of those used steel bikes--when the fad is over there will
be a lot of riders spending a lot of money to buy custom steel frames.

There are still lugged production frames such as Rivendell though when
my nephew went to a shop inquiring about one the owner told him that
he'd be better off with a custom frame in terms of cost because there
were so many frame builders in his area (St. Paul MN), from when Trek
was building steel frames in the U.S.A., that a custom bicycle would be
no more expensive.

[Jay Beattie]

PDX has a custom builder under every rock, and none are cheap.
http://bikeportland.org/resources/links (scroll down to the links for
bike builders).
Pick one at random -- say Ira Ryan -- $2,850 USD for a lugged frame.
Get an all natural girl-made bike -- SweetPea -- for only $2,500 USD
no fork and a three year wait for a mundane steel frame. Don't get me
going on Vanilla -- a lovely frame, I think a five or six year wait
and $3-4K USD. There are some TIG frame builders in the $1,600 range
no fork.

I do not like the ultra-compact design of some of the more comfort-
driven CF frames -- the XL being a 57-58cm with a 260mm head tube,
etc. That results in too much seat post for 6'3" rider. But I don't
need custom -- and most people don't.

I ride a conventional-design 63cm Cannondale. I bought my son a 64cm
cheap-ass Bike Island Windsor made-in-Taiwan aluminum frame -- he's
over 6'5" -- and it fits fine, although the head tube is short, IMO,
but that was easily remedied with some spacers and stem rise. That
frame was $195 shipped, which was kind of steep compared to Nashbar
$99 frames, but those ran too small. The Windsor is not light and has
a heavy carbon fork, but the bike is stiff and surprisingly fast and
climbs well -- and it's built like a tank. A steel frame in that size
would probably not be as stiff for the weight, but I didn't look too
hard for steel because even a cheap frame would have been twice as
much with no fork, and any super large retro frames would have short
top-tubes, and even that market is pretty hot price-wise if you want
something decent.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Ace]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 11:29:31 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 2, 7:29 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-...
>

> A good argument, and the author has a knack for just the right humor.

I didn't find his arguments convincing. To scare you
about CF frames going soft, he tells you that older
monocoque frames feel noodly now. Even if that's true,
is it inherent to CF or is it a problem with a particular
way some frames were made? It's about like saying don't
buy aluminum because of what 1970s Alan frames were like.

He should get in touch with aerospace engineers who think
they have a handle on CF. He should tell them a couple
anecdotes about old frames going soft to set them straight.

The author tells you his sun sign in his bio.

Tom Ace

[Duane]

On 6/3/2013 12:27 PM, Tom Ace wrote:
> On Sunday, June 2, 2013 11:29:31 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 7:29 pm, datakoll<datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-...
>>
>> A good argument, and the author has a knack for just the right humor.
>
> I didn't find his arguments convincing. To scare you
> about CF frames going soft, he tells you that older
> monocoque frames feel noodly now. Even if that's true,
> is it inherent to CF or is it a problem with a particular
> way some frames were made? It's about like saying don't
> buy aluminum because of what 1970s Alan frames were like.

Yeah, how long before my triple monocoque gets noodly? Saturday the
only thing noodly were my quads. My 2009 bike was fine.

[sms]

On 6/3/2013 9:27 AM, Tom Ace wrote:

<snip>

> He should get in touch with aerospace engineers who think
> they have a handle on CF. He should tell them a couple
> anecdotes about old frames going soft to set them straight.

Using "aerospace" in a discussion of aluminum or carbon fiber bicycles
is akin to Godwin's law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law>.

Remember in the early days of aluminum bicycle frames when you saw so
many frame failures but you had proclamations regarding passenger jets
being made out of aluminum and not experiencing metal fatigue. I'm
convinced that the training material from the bicycle manufacturers
included something like "if your customer is worried about the
durability of aluminum frames tell them that passenger jets have
aluminum fuselages." Then you had the Aloha Airlines incident which was
a direct result of metal fatigue which led to all sorts of rules
regarding maximum pressurization cycles and fuselage inspections.

It's the same with trying to compare the use of CF in aircraft and CF
bicycle frames.

[Duane]

Yeah, but on the other hand, CF frames have been around for a while now
and where is the empirical evidence that they don't last, break easily,
have catastrophic failures etc. compared to any other frame material?

[sms]

On 6/3/2013 9:49 AM, Duane wrote:

> Yeah, but on the other hand, CF frames have been around for a while now
> and where is the empirical evidence that they don't last, break easily,
> have catastrophic failures etc. compared to any other frame material?

The constant recalls and the large number or warranty replacements. Not
as many as aluminum, but CF isn't really mass market yet.

To be fair, most of the CF recalls are for stems and forks and
handlebars, and seat posts, and some pedals, not for the actual frames.

CF forks and stems, handlebars, and seat posts are really what should be
avoided at all costs. The frame failures are usually the result of
damage inflicted to the frame either from a crash or from not being
careful during transport (clamping the frame) or from over-tightening
bolts such as seat post bolts.

It's interesting to look at recalls. Surly recalled some steel forks
because "the fork can bend at the disc brake mount." But the CF fork
recalls always talk about catastrophic failures. The bigger problem is
that not all potential problems are found prior to catastrophic failures.

Considering that CF is still really used only on higher end bicycles,
the number of recalls is very high even though the quantities for each
recall are fairly small.

A sampling:

<http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2013/01/25/specialized-recalls-forks-tarmac-sl4-crux-and-secteur#.UazOFEAck4I>

<http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2012/09/25/specialized-recalls-about-12-000-globe-bikes#.UazOLUAck4I>

<http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2012/05/21/police-fork-fatal-accident-not-recalled#.UazOX0Ack4I>

<http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2012/05/22/ridley-recalls-4za-carbon-stems#.UazQM0Ack4I>

<http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2012/01/04/performance-recalls-2-900-forte-pedals#.UazQeUAck4I>

<http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2010/10/14/hive-issues-brake-recall#.UazQ5kAck4I>

<http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2012/Shimano-Recalls-to-Repair-PRO-VIBE-Bicycle-Handlebars-Due-to-a-Fall-Hazard/>

<http://wheelworks.com/articles/ritchey-wcs-carbon-1-bolt-seatpost-recall-pg296.htm>

Now the class-action lawyers are smelling blood
<http://www.newsomelaw.com/blog/2013/05/22/carbon-fiber-bikes-may-be-susceptible-sudden-failure>.

The bottom line is that even if you're a weight weenie and absolutely
must have a CF frame, you might want to consider avoiding CF handlebars,
brakes, stems, forks, seat posts and wheels. As one frame and bicycle
manufacturer states "Manufacturers are building to weight, and as a
result, the number of failures and recalls in "high-end" frames and
forks and components has skyrocketed."

For frames, you can have a CF frame inspected with ultrasound for hidden
flaws. It's a good idea to have this done every few years even if you're
not aware of any impacts to the frame, and certainly you should have it
done if anything happens that could have resulted in non-visible damage.

It's also vitally important to purchase CF bicycles from shops that will
go to bat for you with the manufacturer if you do have a frame failure
since there are reports of the manufacturer simply claiming "impact
damage" even when there's no evidence of it, and refusing warranty
replacement. There's a shop near me that's a very good Trek tied shop
and I know people that have had their Madones repaired or replaced under
warranty with no hassle (the owner used to post in this group).

[Duane]

Most of these are recalls that were instituted because of reported
failures. Not all are even carbon. In the case of the Globes, they're
aluminum. I believe there were 4 damaged forks out of 12000 after 4
years according to one of the comments. Personally, I'm happy to know
that Specialized recalled those bikes because of reported fork damage.

My question was whether there was any empirical evidence of CF being
less durable than other frame materials. Most people that I now have CF
bikes. In my club that would be hundreds. There are 460 members in my
bike club.

I know that if you over torque bolts you can damage your frame but I
don't know anyone who has done this. The only frame damage that I've
seen is due to crashes and it's hard to say if there would have been any
less damage with other materials. I haven't seen any crashes caused by
CF failure - forks snapping etc. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen.
But if it's so prevalent you would think that out of probably 400 CF
bikes, one would have had a problem.

>
> Now the class-action lawyers are smelling blood
> <http://www.newsomelaw.com/blog/2013/05/22/carbon-fiber-bikes-may-be-susceptible-sudden-failure>.
>
>

class-action lawyers always smell blood.

> The bottom line is that even if you're a weight weenie and absolutely
> must have a CF frame, you might want to consider avoiding CF handlebars,
> brakes, stems, forks, seat posts and wheels. As one frame and bicycle
> manufacturer states "Manufacturers are building to weight, and as a
> result, the number of failures and recalls in "high-end" frames and
> forks and components has skyrocketed."
>
> For frames, you can have a CF frame inspected with ultrasound for hidden
> flaws. It's a good idea to have this done every few years even if you're
> not aware of any impacts to the frame, and certainly you should have it
> done if anything happens that could have resulted in non-visible damage.
>
> It's also vitally important to purchase CF bicycles from shops that will
> go to bat for you with the manufacturer if you do have a frame failure
> since there are reports of the manufacturer simply claiming "impact
> damage" even when there's no evidence of it, and refusing warranty
> replacement. There's a shop near me that's a very good Trek tied shop
> and I know people that have had their Madones repaired or replaced under
> warranty with no hassle (the owner used to post in this group).
>

I agree with this part. A good bike shop is important for a lot of
reasons. Interfacing with the manufacturer for you is just one of them.

[Dan O]

On Jun 3, 9:27 am, Tom Ace <tom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 2, 2013 11:29:31 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 7:29 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >  http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-...
>
> > A good argument, and the author has a knack for just the right humor.
>
> I didn't find his arguments convincing.

I didn't say I was convinced, either; it's just that a lot of that
stuff about craftsmanship resonated with me. In fact it didn't sway
me in the least, but I could imagine it persuading some people
(whether or not it was grounded in solid fact). It *seemed* cogent.

> To scare you
> about CF frames going soft, he tells you that older
> monocoque frames feel noodly now.

I wasn't scared, either.

> Even if that's true,
> is it inherent to CF or is it a problem with a particular
> way some frames were made?

Well, the article was about 4 years old, I think, and I think he did
emphasize the particular way some frames were made.

> It's about like saying don't
> buy aluminum because of what 1970s Alan frames were like.
>

Okay, that's a good point (even if the "noodly" thing *were* true,
which I don't think it is - at least today... with well made bikes).
It wasn't really a *great* argument.

But anyway if you're reading here you know that I just have to "open
my mouth" all the time and say *something*, didn't really have much to
say (except the part you snipped where I laid out my *differences*
with his approach).

Moreover, I've never ridden any CF bike - let a alone enough to make a
judgement. what I do know about CF in general tells me it could make
an excellent bike, but I'm not so sure it would suit my bicycling
lifestyle.

(Plus I simply have a fetish for certain of those '80s era lugged
diamond frame bikes :-)

> He should get in touch with aerospace engineers who think
> they have a handle on CF.  He should tell them a couple
> anecdotes about old frames going soft to set them straight.
>
> The author tells you his sun sign in his bio.
>

It's a strongly opinionated piece example of persuasive writing, with
a liberal smattering of humor; and that's how it came off to me.

[James]

On 04/06/13 02:41, Duane wrote:
> On 6/3/2013 12:27 PM, Tom Ace wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 2, 2013 11:29:31 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 7:29 pm, datakoll<datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-...
>>>>
>>>
>>> A good argument, and the author has a knack for just the right humor.
>>
>> I didn't find his arguments convincing. To scare you
>> about CF frames going soft, he tells you that older
>> monocoque frames feel noodly now. Even if that's true,
>> is it inherent to CF or is it a problem with a particular
>> way some frames were made? It's about like saying don't
>> buy aluminum because of what 1970s Alan frames were like.
>
> Yeah, how long before my triple monocoque gets noodly? Saturday the
> only thing noodly were my quads. My 2009 bike was fine.
>

It would be instructive to measure the frame stiffness of a new CFRP
frame, then let it be used and re-measure yearly.

I could be wrong, but I doubt you can accurately remember what it was
like 3-4 years ago.

--
JS

[James]

On 04/06/13 06:09, Duane wrote:

> My question was whether there was any empirical evidence of CF being
> less durable than other frame materials. Most people that I now have CF
> bikes. In my club that would be hundreds. There are 460 members in my
> bike club.

It depends mostly on the design and manufacture. It is not easy to make
direct comparisons. Tube thickness and stress raisers in design make
huge differences.

http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

--
JS

[James]

Forgot a reference.

http://www.renovobikes.com/wood-seriously/


Ooo, also..

http://talu.com/materials.php

"Aluminum has the worst fatigue endurance of the different metals
commonly used in bicycle tubing. Therefore, aluminum bicycle frames are
sometimes designed to be jarringly stiff in order to avoid fatigue
failures and to give the aluminum frame an acceptable service life."

And then...

http://www.calfeedesign.com/tech-papers/technical-white-paper/

So Renovo says wood is best naturally, Sheldon's test says Al is best
though Talu says Al is worst, and finally Calfee says CFRP is unbeatable.

No one likes steel. Think I'm going to cry.

http://www.google.com/#q=fatigue+life+of+bicycle+frame+materials

--
JS

[James]

BTW, I broke an Al frame in a year of riding. Just over 10,000km for
me. Steel frames last me ? years. I haven't broken one yet, though I
have bent a few in crashes. A mate gets a replacement CFRP frame every
few years under lifetime warranty, when a crack appears. Jay has broken
steel frames. I know others that have too.

I don't believe there is a real answer to your question.

--
JS

[Jay Beattie]

I've broken aluminum, too -- but my first generation Cannondale "Black
Lightning" lasted for over 20 years and tens of thousands of miles --
many of them racing. It was stiffer and lighter than any of my
Columbus or Reynolds frames, and it lasted a decade longer. Later
Cannondales were failure prone, and for me, primarily at the rear drop
outs or near the rear drop outs. Nothing catastrophic. I'm now riding
a CAAD 9 as a free replacement. I'm a CAAD behind current production,
and its not CF, but it is a pretty swanky frame.

In fact, I was riding this weekend and thinking how really plush it
rides, but that could be the saddle or a number of other things. The
most noticeable thing about the bike is that it is far more quiet than
it was about a month ago. I switched to 10sp STI and put the rattly
9sp levers on my son's bike. I got some good, straight-cut headset
spacers which remedied the clunking in the front end, and I switched
out my BB30 for a different kludge to accommodate my Shimano Ultegra
crank. I popped in some Endura BB30 bearings and used the Wheels MFG
spacers. No more press-fit screw-though kludge, and the creaking is
gone . . . for now.

The only problem I encountered last weekend was that my pedal fell
apart while I was riding in the outskirts of suburbia on my way home.
I bought some half-priced Keo Max 2 pedals to replace some old,
smaller platform Keos in an effort to stabilize my left ankle (both of
my ankles have been surgically repaired and tend to roll). The
f****** pedal literally came off the spindle. I stopped and plucked
the platform off my cleat and bang it back on to the spindle. The
sales guys say that it was a fluke, and I'll take their word for it
and get a replacement rather than a credit. The larger platform was
modestly helpful.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Calling Lieberman! Pun opportunity here!
Steel Israel!

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

[datakoll]

On Monday, June 3, 2013 4:09:20 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
> On 6/3/2013 1:49 PM, sms wrote:
>
> > On 6/3/2013 9:49 AM, Duane wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Yeah, but on the other hand,

holding boat hulls, Vette bodywork, Loti !

flinging BS here, composites never cure as steel is cured. Composites change compostion, generally steel does not.

Steel is founded a a facility supplying other uses whereas composites are in house for singular uses. That is composites are less subject to market pressures and screwtinny than steel/Al.

Al suffers samely: Al goes to beer cans ect and so your AL frame may be relative to Budweiser not F111. Welding probs.

Stats here are from an org repping factories no ? All recall positives stamped on failure not failure stamped on factory processes.

A pound IS a lot of dinero lost maybe

[datakoll]

000000000000x

I left out the thougt duhduhduh we do not expect ever curing composites to change for the better over time do we ?

gnaw

pros rests

[James]

On 04/06/13 09:22, Jay Beattie wrote:

> I've broken aluminum, too -- but my first generation Cannondale "Black
> Lightning" lasted for over 20 years and tens of thousands of miles --
> many of them racing. It was stiffer and lighter than any of my
> Columbus or Reynolds frames, and it lasted a decade longer. Later
> Cannondales were failure prone, and for me, primarily at the rear drop
> outs or near the rear drop outs. Nothing catastrophic. I'm now riding
> a CAAD 9 as a free replacement. I'm a CAAD behind current production,
> and its not CF, but it is a pretty swanky frame.

This is basically in line with what one of the references I linked to
earlier said. Al frames that are built to last have generously
oversized tubes and consequently are exceedingly stiff - some say harsh.
The extreme stiffness limits how much the tubes actually bend during
use, which in turn reduces stress and improves durability.

Back in the 80's and 90's while steel was on its way out and everyone
wanted a new fangled Al frame, steel couldn't compete on weight (still
can't), and consequently the tube wall thickness came down in an attempt
to remain competitive on weight, while flexibility increased and
durability decreased. You broke frames in this era I believe, as did my
brother.

Today you can get double oversize steel tubes with even thinner walls
than those from your last steel frame, that are still not as light as
Al, but very stiff compared to the old 1" tubes and anything Al. It's
hard to compare apples with tomatoes.

> In fact, I was riding this weekend and thinking how really plush it
> rides, but that could be the saddle or a number of other things. The
> most noticeable thing about the bike is that it is far more quiet than
> it was about a month ago. I switched to 10sp STI and put the rattly
> 9sp levers on my son's bike. I got some good, straight-cut headset
> spacers which remedied the clunking in the front end, and I switched
> out my BB30 for a different kludge to accommodate my Shimano Ultegra
> crank. I popped in some Endura BB30 bearings and used the Wheels MFG
> spacers. No more press-fit screw-though kludge, and the creaking is
> gone . . . for now.

My bike was a bit harsh on rough chip sealed roads. Stiff aero rims,
stiff frame and no real comfort in the seat. I put a 25mm tyre on the
back, and the ride is very much more plush. I've won two races and
finished second out of three starts since. For one of the races I won,
I rode to the start and raced with my dynamo on the bike, then rode
home. That got a few people talking.

> The only problem I encountered last weekend was that my pedal fell
> apart while I was riding in the outskirts of suburbia on my way home.
> I bought some half-priced Keo Max 2 pedals to replace some old,
> smaller platform Keos in an effort to stabilize my left ankle (both of
> my ankles have been surgically repaired and tend to roll). The
> f****** pedal literally came off the spindle. I stopped and plucked
> the platform off my cleat and bang it back on to the spindle. The
> sales guys say that it was a fluke, and I'll take their word for it
> and get a replacement rather than a credit. The larger platform was
> modestly helpful.

I use Keo Max 2 pedals also. I imagine they could be a little flimsy
for a bigger and stronger rider, but are so much lighter and cheaper
than the DA pedals I had before, there's no going back for me.

I was getting a slight squeak from the left cleat after some months
(maybe a year?) since putting new cleats on. I could see the cleat
surface had worn down a little where it contacts the SS plate on the
pedal. I drilled a few blind holes in the cleat and bulked up the
surface with some Plastibond. No squeaks or unwanted movement and the
Plastibond seems to be wearing well. I.e. wearing slowly.

http://www.selleys.com.au/trade/building-products/fillers-and-gap-fillers/plasti-bond-heavy-duty

--
JS

[Jay Beattie]

> http://www.selleys.com.au/trade/building-products/fillers-and-gap-fil...

That is very useful info about the pedals. I'm hoping they are not
flimsy and that I just got a bad one.

And full disclaimer about steel -- I have never ridden a modern steel
racing frame made from OS tubes. Every once in a while, a guy parks a
54-ish cm Speedvagen in the rack near me. It is the semi-production
frame from the guy who makes Vanilla frames here in PDX. http://vanillabicycles.com/
Vanilla isn't even taking orders any more because the wait list is so
long. I think it is still possible to get a Speedvagen. Price is
still not cheap -- $3,500 USD for a "stock" frame. About $4,200 for a
custom.

Anyway, the Speedvagen was super light. I didn't want to man-handle
it and check bottom bracket deflection, but it seemed solid. I don't
know what the same frame would be like in a 62cm (which would fit
nicely according to the Speedvagen geometry page) -- and I'll never
know, because I'm not going to wait an eon for a frame or pay $3,500.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:27:15 -0700 (PDT), Tom Ace <tom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

While it is not CARBON fiber I read an article in "Practical Boat
Owner", a British sailing magazine, quite some time ago. One of their
editors bought either the first or second fiberglass yacht built in
Great Britain. The magazine did some tests, cut cores, etc and had
them tested. They found that the hull retained more than 90% of its
calculated original strength.

I don't remember the date the hull was made but it would probably have
been the very early 1970's if it was the first or second built and the
article was in the very early 2000's so it would have been at least a
30 year old hull.

Bicycle frames, it is said, are made with epoxy resin which does not
have the shortcomings of the Polyester resin used in boat building.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:31:28 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Further to the above, I just came across a study that indicate that
carbon - epoxy composite loses strength and weight when exposed to
both UV radiation and moisture. It is a PDF file so do a google search
on:

Degradation of Carbon Fiber-reinforced
Epoxy Composites by Ultraviolet
Radiation and Condensation

This does not indicate that Carbon is a poor material for bicycles,
rather that it is not a lifetime solution.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[datakoll]

correct, the subject is 'of concern.'

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=gw&q=Search%20for%20topics#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=composite+materials+degradation+over+time&oq=composite+materials+degradation+over+time&gs_l=hp.12...2725.23279.0.28392.57.44.0.1.1.6.451.7707.0j17j10j6j1.34.0...0.0...1c.1.15.psy-ab.NVwrolBn-e0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47244034,d.dmg&fp=60e734443bed28d0&biw=1152&bih=635

discussion of custom steel intrigueing. Surprised demand supports many builders.

but my 2 bikes doahn fit me so...nothing to obssess abou$

[thirty-six]

so what's the failure rate of properly gusseted aluminium frames?
Seems to me the obvious solution, where the cost of flaring tubes is
prohibitive, as we have been riding on aluminium rims and they don't
seem to be suffering from riding fatigue, except when using excessive
spoke tension and/or over-pressurizing tyres. Aluminium in arches
seems fine, it's all about limiting stress to what the material can
withstand.

[thirty-six]

On Jun 3, 10:29 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:27 am, Tom Ace <tom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 2, 2013 11:29:31 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
> > > On Jun 2, 7:29 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >  http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-...
>
> > > A good argument, and the author has a knack for just the right humor.
>
> > I didn't find his arguments convincing.
>
> I didn't say I was convinced, either; it's just that a lot of that
> stuff about craftsmanship resonated with me.  In fact it didn't sway
> me in the least, but I could imagine it persuading some people
> (whether or not it was grounded in solid fact).  It *seemed* cogent.
>
> > To scare you
> > about CF frames going soft, he tells you that older
> > monocoque frames feel noodly now.
>
> I wasn't scared, either.
>
> > Even if that's true,
> > is it inherent to CF or is it a problem with a particular
> > way some frames were made?
>
> Well, the article was about 4 years old, I think, and I think he did
> emphasize the particular way some frames were made.
>

> > It's about like saying don't
> > buy aluminum because of what 1970s Alan frames were like.

http://youtu.be/xNxCRgNBjSw

>
> Okay, that's a good point (even if the "noodly" thing *were* true,
> which I don't think it is - at least today... with well made bikes).
> It wasn't really a *great* argument.

So they've created a polymer resin that doesn't break down with
mineral oil contact or is it just that all ball bearings are sealed
and no-one with a plastic bike oils their chain anymore, except with
tallow, castor oil and beeswax? And the same guys also stopped
slapping on sun-lotion?

[thirty-six]

On Jun 4, 4:19 am, John B. <slocom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:31:28 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.com>

perhaps they could design the polymer filler to change colour, maybe
to orange so as the user would know and slap on some paint.

[Duane Hébert]

Considering that I can't accurately remember what I was like 3-4 years
ago I would tend to agree.

[Duane Hébert]

That's my point.

[John B.]

I believe that carbon frames usually have clear coat on them which may
serve as a UV screen.

The point isn't that your brand spanking new Carbon frame is going to
collapse tomorrow morning at 09:31:30 but that the UV and moisture
degradation might be the reason for someone saying that "older
monocoque frames feel noodly now" could be because the frame is not as
strong as it was years ago.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[datakoll]

> > I don't believe there is a real answer to your question.

> That's my point.

..............

amazing.

evidence denied.

group hysteria and denial as nuerosis

composites decay ...and crack

steel and AL do not

spending 3500 on a short lived toy for a one pound gain is therefore justified.

'like' who wanted yawl justify the toy cost ?

the fork paranoia group.

in a very vague and reasonably unfair observation, my experience on road with the CF contingent

[Duane]

On 6/4/2013 7:40 AM, datakoll wrote:
>
>
>>> I don't believe there is a real answer to your question.
>
>> That's my point.
>
> ..............
>
> amazing.
>
> evidence denied.
>

What evidence? There are examples of frame failure on all types of
frames, even steel.

> group hysteria and denial as nuerosis
>

??

> composites decay ...and crack

Eventually so do we.

> steel and AL do not
>

The only frame failure that I've had after riding for more years than I
can remember was an aluminum fork that cracked.

> spending 3500 on a short lived toy for a one pound gain is therefore justified.

> 'like' who wanted yawl justify the toy cost ?
>

I thought that it was Andre who was telling people that he knew which
bike was better for everyone? At least if I can understand you, you
seem to be telling me that my bike is a toy compared to your serious
tool or vehicle or whatever.

[Jay Beattie]

Also recall that in the olden days, people claimed that their steel
frames had gone soft and no longer had snap, crackle or pop. I am
positive that there has been localized tectonic shifting that has
caused the hills to become steeper. Time also moves faster now -- and
more time passes, even though the distance covered on my bike remains
the same. This is very mysterious!

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 6/4/2013 4:18 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> The point isn't that your brand spanking new Carbon frame is going to
> collapse tomorrow morning at 09:31:30 but that the UV and moisture
> degradation might be the reason for someone saying that "older
> monocoque frames feel noodly now" could be because the frame is not as
> strong as it was years ago.

I think that most people that buy CF frames and components understand
the metal versus plastic trade-off that they're making, at least in
terms of longevity, since the same trade-off is made on other products
as well.

A CF frame or CF part is expected to be replaced periodically (well at
least racers understand that they're trading weight for durability). You
may have a few people that are in denial but I've never actually met any
in person, only seen their posts in this group. The difference is that
on other products, metal costs more than plastic. Of course there's
always the "lifetime warranty" to the original purchaser, but that's a
marketing thing.

The real concern is not longevity, but it's all the catastrophic
failures of CF, especially forks, seat posts, stems, and increasing
number of wheels. Frames are one thing, when they fail it usually
doesn't result in injury and you get a free replacement if you're the
original owner and the failure was not the result of a crash, or other
abuse. But it quickly became irresistible to make all those other pieces
out of CF which is too bad.

[SMS]

On 6/4/2013 7:17 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Also recall that in the olden days, people claimed that their steel
> frames had gone soft and no longer had snap, crackle or pop. I am
> positive that there has been localized tectonic shifting that has
> caused the hills to become steeper. Time also moves faster now -- and
> more time passes, even though the distance covered on my bike remains
> the same. This is very mysterious!

I've used same steel frame road bicycle for more than 25 years. I have
noticed that some of my favorite hills have become steeper as the
bicycle has aged.

[Duane]

On 6/3/2013 6:44 PM, James wrote:

> No one likes steel. Think I'm going to cry.
>
> http://www.google.com/#q=fatigue+life+of+bicycle+frame+materials

Hey I have an old steel lug beauty. I like it just fine. Looks like a
real bike without those oversized dorky looking tubes. I just don't
want to carry it up those hills. <g>

[Duane]

On 6/4/2013 10:17 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Indeed.

[Duane]

Guys with old RaboBank knockoffs would be at a disadvantage.

[AMuzi]

Sure we all have our preferences but everything breaks to
some measurable and predictable extent. Everything.

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 4, 6:10 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/2013 7:40 AM, datakoll wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> I don't believe there is a real answer to your question.
>
> >> That's my point.
>
> > ..............
>
> > amazing.
>
> > evidence denied.
>
> What evidence?  There are examples of frame failure on all types of
> frames, even steel.
>
> > group hysteria and denial as nuerosis
>
> ??
>
> > composites decay ...and crack
>
> Eventually so do we.
>
> > steel and AL do not
>
> The only frame failure that I've had after riding for more years than I
> can remember was an aluminum fork that cracked.
>
> > spending 3500 on a short lived toy for a one pound gain is therefore justified.
> > 'like' who wanted yawl justify the toy cost ?
>
> I thought that it was Andre who was telling people that he knew which
> bike was better for everyone?  At least if I can understand you, you
> seem to be telling me that my bike is a toy compared to your serious
> tool or vehicle or whatever.

I'm a little confused by the post, too. Have we established that CF
decays? I always thought plastic was one of those things that never
decayed.

Anyway, the $3,500 toy could last a lifetime and continue to renew
itself after every failure. My current CAAD 9 is the the descendant
of a bike I bought in 1992 -- a Cannondale 2.8. It broke at the rear
cantilevered drop out. There were a couple of mishaps after that, and
now I have a really neat new frame. No expense except for the cost of
upgrading to accommodate various changes in headset and BB types.
Otherwise, I just migrate parts. I'm without a frame for a week or
so, and then I just ride another bike. I look at it as an opportunity
to meet the local Cannondale rep and learn the difference between
hiddenset, internal, integrated, etc. I get the new car smell.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

The carbon fibers are not the problem. The various adhesives
and binders and clear coats seem less stable.

[James]

On 04/06/13 21:40, datakoll wrote:

>
> composites decay ...and crack
>
> steel and AL do not

Yes they do decay, fatigue and crack. Ti doesn't decay so much, but can
still fatigue and crack.

--
JS

[James]

On 05/06/13 00:17, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Also recall that in the olden days, people claimed that their steel
> frames had gone soft and no longer had snap, crackle or pop. I am
> positive that there has been localized tectonic shifting that has
> caused the hills to become steeper. Time also moves faster now -- and
> more time passes, even though the distance covered on my bike remains
> the same. This is very mysterious!
>

Google "stiffness degradation rule of composite materials under fatigue
loading" and see what comes up. There are plenty of resources.

Change the search terms to "stiffness degradation of steel under fatigue
loading" and see more references.

I would also draw your attention to
http://www.renovobikes.com/storage/fatigue-graph-sharp.jpg

I only studied material science for 6 months in first year engineering,
so I'm by no means an expert, but I would have thought that as strength
reduces with cyclic loading, that so would stiffness. I shall ask a
mech. eng. with materials bent who made my bike frame.

Now for the fun part...

http://now.msn.com/scientists-were-literally-running-out-of-time

"For those of us already struggling to cross that last item off our "to
do" list each day, there's bad news: Time is slowing down and will
eventually run out. That's according to a team of Spanish scientists who
claim that the growth of the universe is decelerating, slowing time and
making everything appear to take place faster. Researchers theorize that
eventually time will grind to a complete halt and cease to exist, but
it's happening so slowly that it's imperceptible to humans. This might
give nightmares to the Sheldon Coopers among us, but we prefer to think
of it as the perfect, scientifically backed excuse for just not having
enough time to get everything done."


--
JS

[davethedave]

> The carbon fibers are not the problem. The various adhesives and binders
> and clear coats seem less stable.

They have improved massively over the years though. Realistically though
you are paying for performance and not a bike frame. The lifetime
guarantee seems to be covered by having paid for three or four in the
initial outlay.

A: Those <brand>s are reliable.
B: Yes. It's only my third frame.

On the plus side it keeps the brand on the road. It's not overall a bad
way to do business so long as they keep the warranty stuff tight and
timely.

Though my own choice would be for something that just does what it says
on the tin for a looooooong time. It's a machine though. Something will
always go wrong but the frame shouldn't be part of that equation to my
mind, but in the end it's horses for courses. Performance vs Longevity.
what do you want?
--
davethedave

[James]

On 05/06/13 06:46, Jay Beattie wrote:

> I'm a little confused by the post, too. Have we established that CF
> decays? I always thought plastic was one of those things that never
> decayed.

Some plastics are designed to decay. Plastic shopping bags are one
example. There are many plastic materials, each with their own
properties. Some dissolve in light hydrocarbons (petrol). Some decay
in UV light. Some handle heat ok, others don't. Some are soft, others
hard, etc, etc, etc.

> Anyway, the $3,500 toy could last a lifetime and continue to renew
> itself after every failure. My current CAAD 9 is the the descendant
> of a bike I bought in 1992 -- a Cannondale 2.8. It broke at the rear
> cantilevered drop out. There were a couple of mishaps after that, and
> now I have a really neat new frame. No expense except for the cost of
> upgrading to accommodate various changes in headset and BB types.
> Otherwise, I just migrate parts. I'm without a frame for a week or
> so, and then I just ride another bike. I look at it as an opportunity
> to meet the local Cannondale rep and learn the difference between
> hiddenset, internal, integrated, etc. I get the new car smell.
>

An attraction many seek.

--
JS

[davethedave]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:17:03 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Also recall that in the olden days, people claimed that their steel
> frames had gone soft and no longer had snap, crackle or pop. I am
> positive that there has been localized tectonic shifting that has caused
> the hills to become steeper. Time also moves faster now -- and more time
> passes, even though the distance covered on my bike remains the same.
> This is very mysterious!

Also we could check out the Yachties who use the same / similar materiels
in bulding and have a deep interest in non failure of parts.

http://www.morganscloud.com/2013/05/03/cycle-loading8-tips-for-boat-and-
gear-buying/


--
davethedave

[datakoll]

lawyer's disease

remedy ?

1 year in Polynesia

........

toy / a matter of language and logic not choice. Listen, you wanna CF do it and so I suggested to JB like do it caws its the thing and you're in it.

But everyone isn't JB.

During the last Lance years, we discussed...with more pro attendees than today...the possibly real,idea that the glut of TdF frames was holding cycling prisoner of a narrow sales perspective...Lance sold TdF frames

Where TdF frames can be a incorrect frame fersure.

Sheeet. I slowed my '78 Raleigh down on today's tires with a woman's fork 1/8" longer giving more controll over sand skim on asphalt. As I'm gfast enough, help from the frame I doahn need: to tiring.

The CF-Steel-Al discussion is but talk.

Yet there is truth. Was looking at a Zonda thru Yaaaaahhhhhooooo.National Inquierer. A toy ? where ya gonna drive a Zonda ? itsa toy.

But before, with Jobst on board et al....an ergonomist math dude would pop up explaining what the 1 pound meant at 50 or 100 miles or even touring where a can of beans throws CF's logic out...in terms of energy output of 1 pound at the top of the other pounds.

Nonetheless !!! 1 pound means what to the average CF rider ? and loop loop we're back to the TdF criticism.

Anyway, these Cf talks usually begin with the paranoid CF supplicant not us steel guys.

BTW, FYI....I am the oldest living Volvo owner in North America.
with a rebuilt '78 Raleigh and a STEEL REPLICA of Redlines World Champ cyclocrosser.

eeeyahhahhahha...shit. when looking at Al I declined caws i didnah wannah get the tubes bunged n depressed.

doahn take offense.

[datakoll]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:29:06 PM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
> http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-not-carbon
>
>
>
>
>
> A few more minutes at Pashley....

......

here's my old buddy Bruno in future form


http://www.imagekind.com/custom-Volvo-PV--art?IMID=4e9e71cb-71b6-4019-beb3-d9ef6b9c60ed

[John B.]

Sure sounds good... although in the 20 years I've been fooling around
in boats I've never found cyclic loading to present a problem as it
appears that boat builders recognized the problem fairly early on and
have been over building boats to compensate for the phenomena
practically since the dawn of time.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:03:27 -0400, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
wrote:

Well, you can do as the Jute did and add an electric motor to get you
up those pesky hills.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[James]

Quite likely. Increased safety factor or over design will result in a
product that lasts well above expectations.

But boats are not immune..

http://www.mustoskiff.com/sub-pages/insurance-and-masts.htm

--
JS

[datakoll]

a sellers market fersure...

http://www.sailboatlistings.com/

[datakoll]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:36:35 PM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
> a sellers market fersure...
>
>
>
> http://www.sailboatlistings.com/

....

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar02-110.pdf

[John B.]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:27:19 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course they are not immune. You build for the 100 years storm and
Damn! It hits you with a 101 year blow :-)

But the site you referenced was about racing boats and like racing
bicycles (and some of the pseudo racers) they want it light, why else
would they be using carbon fiber? A couple of years ago there was a
particular racing class boat that lost their keels - the keel
separated from the boat. the fix? Put in bolts that wouldn't break.
Bigger and heavier, but they don't break.

The dinghy mast problem is not very likely to be cyclic loading. It is
far more likely to be carrying too much sail in too much wind.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[datakoll]

CF in 'normal' boats ? The absence suggestive...and I never get to write this...in and of itself.

CF is prob rare in canoes and kayaks unless looking thru used boat classifieds...
IAOI

I missed seeing Oracle's racer caws I doahn watch TV or local radio. But there's the accident. But related video on UUBE. OkeanosCF.

[Duane]

My 20 year old steel bike is in pretty much the same shape as it was
when I bought it. A couple nicks and scratches but in good working
order. I don't think for a second that the CF bike will last 20 years.
Well maybe if I can get the frame to crack every 5 years or so. At my
age, I'm not sure if it needs to.

It bugs me to hear people posting about how fragile CF frames are and
how less durable or whatever. I don't see it. Usually it's someone
that sees a bike as a utilitarian thing and scoffs at sports cycling or
recreational riding or whatever. Just annoys me.

I wanted a bike that handled and performed better than the Bianchi
Volpe. The Tarmac got me a bike that met my needs and was within my
budget. I bought an Elite and after a couple years upgraded the wheels.
It's a lot more fun to ride than the Bianchi, even if I'm just
commuting.

A comparable steel bike would have been out of my price range. I have
friends that spend lots of money on bikes. They mostly don't have kids
getting ready for college etc. so WTF? You can spend money on worse things.

[datakoll]

.....


sheeet a wheelbarrow handles better than a Bianchi Volpe

[Duane]

lol. I used to do more long distance touring and handling was less of
an issue. The ride was comfortable and it dealt with the shitty roads
better than the AL Cannondale that I had before.

[Dan O]

http://www.google.com/search?q=clambake+goop

[datakoll]

Yes, Bianchi riders usually sport a grin.
At least NEW Bianchi riders. Snowbirds on our bike paths. But seen 7 yeasr ago.

Currently ? no idea.

[Dan O]

Comfortable. Physical sensation aside, I am comfortable with steel.
That's not to say that I'm *uncomfortable* with another material;
comfort - as I've said re; riding two hours to work on a winter
morning - is relative.

I kind of know steel. It works. CF would probably work. Other
materials would probably work. But I'm comfortable with steel... and
it works.

Many, many, *many* skilled fabricators are also very, very, *very*
comfortable working with steel. _I_ and comfortable working with
steel. I have a more intimate relatinship with steel than other
materials.

Many, many, *many* superb steel bikes are out there collecting dust -
waiting for someone to clean out the garage and put them out for sale
to be claimed by an appreciative new owner who will become an
enthusiastic bicyclist.

I could go on and on (and on... )

[Duane]

It depends on what you're looking for. I wanted a bike that was more
responsive and higher performance than what I had. I looked at steel
first. This company http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/ is in Quebec and they
make nice bikes. Some of which are steel. Their price for a steel
version of what I was looking for was out of my range. There aren't a
lot of builders around here. I guess I could have bought a custom frame
and built the bike but I'm more interested in riding it than building
it. The bike I bought does what I want and was in my range. I am
happy with it.

BTW, if I ride to work on a winter morning, I'll probably take the steel
bike anyway. Though maybe not...

[Dan O]

> first. This companyhttp://www.marinoni.qc.ca/is in Quebec and they

> make nice bikes. Some of which are steel. Their price for a steel
> version of what I was looking for was out of my range. There aren't a
> lot of builders around here. I guess I could have bought a custom frame
> and built the bike but I'm more interested in riding it than building
> it. The bike I bought does what I want and was in my range. I am
> happy with it.
>

Sure - absolutely. CF is almost certainly *better* for certain
applications. Nothing wrong with that!

> BTW, if I ride to work on a winter morning, I'll probably take the steel
> bike anyway. Though maybe not...

If you ride... well, then we've got something to talk about, don't
we :-)

[Duane]

On 6/5/2013 2:03 PM, Dan O wrote:
<snip>

> If you ride... well, then we've got something to talk about, don't
> we :-)

I ride. What's on your mind :?

[AMuzi]

Naturally:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACROS2.JPG

[thirty-six]

eek, red tape!

[Duane]

On 6/5/2013 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 12:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
>> Yes, Bianchi riders usually sport a grin.
>> At least NEW Bianchi riders. Snowbirds on our bike paths. But seen 7
>> yeasr ago.
>>
>> Currently ? no idea.
>>
>
> Naturally:
>
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACROS2.JPG
>

Mine is black with "gangreen" trim.

[AMuzi]

this model?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqLE33qS2Os

[AMuzi]

On 6/5/2013 2:19 PM, Duane wrote:

The new 2014 Black with Tricolore is nice too:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/oltre13a.jpg

[James]

On 06/06/13 08:42, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 2:19 PM, Duane wrote:
>> On 6/5/2013 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2013 12:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
>>>> Yes, Bianchi riders usually sport a grin.
>>>> At least NEW Bianchi riders. Snowbirds on our bike paths.
>>>> But seen 7
>>>> yeasr ago.
>>>>
>>>> Currently ? no idea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Naturally:
>>>
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACROS2.JPG
>>>
>>
>> Mine is black with "gangreen" trim.
>
> The new 2014 Black with Tricolore is nice too:
>
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/oltre13a.jpg
>

But is there clearance for 28mm tyres and fenders?

--
JS

[datakoll]

what's needed here is a photo of A.Muzi ridin the composite singlespeed hru snow, pref falling snow with a street light.

Yeah smiling bianchi owners...?

I wuz yaken aback by the phenomena

but with the van, notoriety, and a

I LOVE MY VOLVO

front plate

I see all Mustang drivers smile.

Maybe for sim reasons ?

[datakoll]

...tasteless

on a level of vermouth and tomato juice

[Dan O]

Nothing in particular; I just meant that's our basic common bond
here. The rest is just details.

[Ralph Barone]

I suspect that due to the difference between hydrodynamic drag and wind
drag, and also that there are very few hills in the open water, that weight
isn't "optimized" as insanely for racing boats as it is for racing bikes.

[datakoll]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1152&bih=635&q=carbon+fiber+canoe&oq=carbon+fiber+canoe&gs_l=img.12..0l2j0i24l5.2053.16577.0.27166.36.32.1.3.3.0.228.4746.4j22j6.32.0...0.0...1ac.1.16.img.r0VsuN0BDSU#facrc=_&imgrc=QBvrjBCi4ghYPM%3A%3BfXftswaTkYkG3M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.clearbluehawaii.com%252Fproducts%252Fboats%252Fmoreimages%252Fnapali%252Fimages%252Fnapali3.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fboards.core77.com%252Fviewtopic.php%253Ff%253D22%2526t%253D12210%2526start%253D15%3B580%3B435


letter from the urethane/CF ribbed kayak:

Alexandros, you are suffering from a lack of information.
Please spend the rest of the afternoon at www.boatdesign.net

Under the "Forums" heading check out the "Construction" section, in particular the "Materials" section.

Also spend some time in the "Directory", again the "Materials" section.
i.e. wood:
http://boatdesign.net/Directory/Materials/Wood/

[thirty-six]

must try

[Duane Hébert]

On 6/5/2013 6:41 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 2:19 PM, Duane wrote:
>> On 6/5/2013 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2013 12:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
>>>> Yes, Bianchi riders usually sport a grin.
>>>> At least NEW Bianchi riders. Snowbirds on our bike paths.
>>>> But seen 7
>>>> yeasr ago.
>>>>
>>>> Currently ? no idea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Naturally:
>>>
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACROS2.JPG
>>>
>>
>> Mine is black with "gangreen" trim.
>
> this model?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqLE33qS2Os
>

Similar color.

[Duane Hébert]

Fat tubes though.

[Duane Hébert]

That's sometime where the devils are.

[John B.]

And you'd be wrong, in most cases. A boat hull responds differently
depending on it's position (trim) in the water so serious boaters will
be very sensitive to the trim of the boat. And even worse, all racing
classes are very sensitive to heel, the little ones use a trapeze to
allow the crew to hang out over the water to keep the boat upright and
larger boats, like America's cup boats, have most of the crew sitting
on the up-wind rail to try and limit heel.

My guess it that the serious yacht racing crowd are, perhaps, even
more fanatical than most bike crow. I know of one crew, of a 40 ft
boat, that limited excess cargo to one CD and weighed everyone's bag
before they went aboard and made them leave anything over the weight
limit on the dock.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:10:07 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
> On 6/4/2013 7:40 AM, datakoll wrote:
>
> > spending 3500 on a short lived toy for a one pound gain is therefore justified.
>
> > 'like' who wanted yawl justify the toy cost ?

> I thought that it was Andre who was telling people that he knew which
> bike was better for everyone?

It's typical of those wannabe flame warriors on the net, like Daniels, to accuse innocent bystanders of their own crimes.

For the record, I want people to buy different bikes from my own, especially those with minds of engineering bent, and guys who put up big mileages, so that the pool of knowledge may be expanded. What would we learn if everyone bought the same bike I ride?

> At least if I can understand you [Daniels], you

>
> seem to be telling me that my bike is a toy compared to your serious
>
> tool or vehicle or whatever.

LOL. It's a double challenge. First you have to understand what you're being challenged to, then you have to justify your expenditure against a dumpster diver's treasure trove. This could get to be amusing. We've seen it before though, when that fellow who fancied himself a materials expert wanted us all to buy carbon bikes.

Andre Jute
Let a thousand flowers bloom -- Chairman Mao

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:23:14 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:03:27 -0400, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 6/3/2013 6:44 PM, James wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> No one likes steel. Think I'm going to cry.
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.google.com/#q=fatigue+life+of+bicycle+frame+materials
>
> >
>
> >Hey I have an old steel lug beauty. I like it just fine. Looks like a
>
> >real bike without those oversized dorky looking tubes. I just don't
>
> >want to carry it up those hills. <g>
>
> >
>
> Well, you can do as the Jute did and add an electric motor to get you
>
> up those pesky hills.
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> John B.

It's simple math. My bike, with day-tour gear and full water bottles and me, battery for the motor onboard, weighs upwards of an eighth of a ton. So let's say I get a carbon bike that saves twenty pounds in the frame and lighter wheels and tyres because the forks aren't wide enough to take my fave 60mm Big Apples. Will a saving of 10% get me up the hills? Nope. That combo will just cause extra work for my cardiologist or the undertaker. So I may as well be comfortable on my steel bike with the big balloons and the motor to help with the biggest hills.

Andre Jute

[Duane]

My only advice would be to buy a bike that fits your needs and one that
you will ride often.

But this could mean anything. I have a friend who was basically a fat
single old guy that road a bike when he was young but got out of shape.
There's a grueling charity ride here to raise money for cancer. He
signed up for it and bought a very expensive bike. We all thought he
was nuts. He started training. lost 80 pounds and finished the
challenge. This was a couple of years ago and he's still riding.
Probably saved his life. If spending that much money on a bike instead
of french fries and beer helped to motivate him, why not?

[datakoll]

.....

A TOY is unecessary. You decide. aha ! you decide not sales, advert, or market>peer group hysteria.

Off course one man's toy is another man's tool

But take the Zonda, itsnot for everyone.

It would kill Jute !

He'd blow a valve into turn one.

[datakoll]

........


a link from CARBON FIBER CANOE in GooImages

http://www.carbon-fiber-hood.net/uses-for-cf

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 6, 4:17 am, John B. <slocom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 03:51:06 GMT, Ralph Barone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <address...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >John B. <slocom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:27:19 +1000, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com>

Yes and no. I used to crew on a Santana 35. We raced one-design,
which meant you had to race a stock boat with Dacron sails. Kevlar
sails were prohibited back then. The best sailors won. 12 meters are a
variant of one-design, but they are not OTC boats, and the design
limitations are basically freeboard, sail area, length and some pretty
general parameters. You can dump millions in to those boats.

I raced on some other boats on an ad hoc basis, and they were in
various, odd fleets -- like wood hull or antique or cruising yachts.
They were handicapped, and racing was like a time trial -- not a fleet
all coming around the mark together. You had to wait until the
regatta was entirely over to figure out where you placed.

I showed up one day for a race on the Santana, and it was the wrong
day. Another fleet was racing. I was standing around the dock,
watching this big cruiser getting ready to go out for the start, and
it turns our they're short handed, and they ask me if I want to work
cockpit. This was about a 50' boat owned by a Mormon dentist who had
a bunch of kids who worked as his crew. The boat was a comfy steep
aboard -- not one of those gutted racers filled with sails. Racing
with these guys was a hoot -- mom was down in the galley making
sandwiches. The boys were like machines and communicated
telepathically and dad was a good driver. We won, but it took a while
to find out because of all the handicaps. That was an expensive boat,
but nothing was lightened up. There was probably a T.V. somewhere
below deck.

The funny thing is that i couldn't sail a sunfish anything else to
save my life. I just got drafted in to sailing on racing boats by a
friend back in the early '80s. I could have been replaced by a
motorized winch.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

A wise man, that.
It's not what you have, it's what you do.

[Jay Beattie]

It's amazing to me how many bike sales are generated by charity
rides. I've heard this story many times from others.

I think that there is a certain presumptuousness to buying racing gear
and not racing, so I have shied away from buying a CF race bike.
Anyway, other people don't seem to care. This morning, I passed some
woman wearing sandals and riding a Roubaix. WTF?

BTW, sun is out in PDX and all the fair weather cyclists are on the
road. Riding to work today was like swimming up stream with the
spawning salmon -- most of them swimming at half speed.

-- Jay Beattie.

[datakoll]

only so much water vapor to go around.

gurgle gurgle

one thing we know ! if you buy waaay upscale for your 'needs' as a toy to appreciate that upper level

its cheap. no insurance.

and quiet

no VAROOOOOM RRRRRUMPRUPOMRPRORTRORTRORT

next time you see the old bag tell her abt shimano.

[Duane]

This same guy passed my going up a CAT3 last Saturday and he's still
carrying more weight than me. Must have been that fancy bike. lol.
More likely it was his muscles used to hauling 80 extra pounds.

> BTW, sun is out in PDX and all the fair weather cyclists are on the
> road. Riding to work today was like swimming up stream with the
> spawning salmon -- most of them swimming at half speed.
>

Weather here seems to be cycling between 30C and 10C. Some commuters
out but not as many as when it's 24C. Very windy lately as well. All
in all, it's mostly cars and trucks in my way these days and not bikes.
That will change when the weather stabilizes.

[sms]

On 6/6/2013 8:53 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

> I think that there is a certain presumptuousness to buying racing gear
> and not racing, so I have shied away from buying a CF race bike.
> Anyway, other people don't seem to care. This morning, I passed some
> woman wearing sandals and riding a Roubaix. WTF?

There's also a lot of CF sales generated by bike clubs where there is
significant peer pressure to be on CF.

But the most ridiculous thing is the trend toward carbon fiber forks on
aluminum or steel framed bicycles. Why would someone choose to have the
only carbon fiber piece of a bicycle be something that is so prone to
failure and where the failures often result in bad things happening?

<https://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+fiber+fork+recall&oq=carbon+fiber+fork+recall&aqs=chrome.0.57j62l3.6501j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8>

[Duane]

Your link is to a search returning a list of companies announcing
recalls to avoid incidents where they think their forks may fail. Not
of actual failures.


Toyota recently announce a recall on 2009 models that have a potential
brake failure. Should I stop buying cars with brakes made of the same
material?

Interestingly, in your link there was one link that wasn't about recalls:

http://isolatecyclist.bostonbiker.org/2011/02/21/carbon-bicycle-forks-cautions-facts-and-misconceptions/

[datakoll]

SHOULD I stop buying Part A because Part A fractures I half below 45 degrees 10 of 1000 parts ?

Who cares what the %FF&&G!! you do ?

(please list at bottom)

We can tell you the company making Part A is in deepsheeet.

Is Part A in stock at Bullmeisters ?

well, doah go there nomore.

You know when you call asking for Part A you can hear sniggering in background.

[AMuzi]

Gene, when young people scream out 'part A', they aren't
talking about bicycle parts.

[davethedave]

I had a similar thing with a motorcycle. ZXR400 It was a fabulous thing
but a bit underpowered but zippy. (ho hum.) The subframe (bit that you
sit on got to the point where it was held on by one tight bolt and one
loose one where it should have had four. handling had become suspect. My
cleaning scehdule involved once a month strip down of fairings and
checking stuff. I discovered the missing bits and sorted it. Fortunately
before my nuts became grated between the frame and the wheel.

Regular maintenence and checking of stuff is a good thing. 60 Horsepower
or two leg power. Check and be sure. I would say crashes hurt just as
much at 20mph as 100 but at 100 I have always been wearing much more
protection. I've suffered much more pain at 2mph or less on a peadal
cycle.{1]


{1] Your crashing may vary.
--
davethedave

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 7:37:37 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:

> But the most ridiculous thing is the trend toward carbon fiber forks on
>
> aluminum or steel framed bicycles. Why would someone choose to have the
>
> only carbon fiber piece of a bicycle be something that is so prone to
>
> failure and where the failures often result in bad things happening?

I have a piece of carbon fibre on my bike. It is an ironic statement. It is the bottle cage, the least critical component on the bike.

Andre Jute

[James]

Because steel forks are like a boat anchor by comparison.

100,000km on my previous steel frame with the same carbon forks (Giant
blades with Al steerer) through it's life. When I rebuilt it for a
mate, I put on some new forks - but not "uber light stuff", more like
"over engineered but still heaps lighter than steel" forks.

My new steel bike has CFRP forks with Al steerer. Eastern EC70.
They've done 2-3 years already and seem to be just fine, and much
lighter than a steel fork.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/easton-ec70-carbon-road-forks/

(I didn't look very hard)
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/surly-steamroller-hack-bike-forks/

Note that there is little tyre clearance on the EC70 fork, but I have no
intention of using a wider tyre on the front.

EC70 about half the weight in 1.1/8"

I don't fuss /too/ much about weight - heck I race a steel frame and
deep Al rims. But I don't see the point in lugging extra kgs around for
the heck of it. $60 extra? $60 is nothing in the grand scheme.

--
JS