The lightweight aluminium Bianchi saga continues. Be aware...
Ken
problems myself, and these generated a bit of discussion, so here is the
latest:
In June 2000, my Bianchi Mega Pro XL (aluminium) developed a crack in the
weld at the underside of the down tube/head tube joint. It was less than a
year old, and was replaced under warranty, with an EV2 frame (the top of the
range Bianchi aluminium). The EV2 frame featured prominent reinforcing webs
welded under the down tube at the head tube junction.
Today, after completing a race, I discovered a crack of about 100mm running
parallel to the direction of the downtube and passing through the gear
adjuster boss on the left side. Inspection of the right hand side showed a
rough area of paint which looked like the start of another crack in the same
area. This frame is under 6 months old (and that includes 3 months of winter
with very little use).
I have returned the frame to the retailer, and have learnt that another
local rider has had a Bianchi frame crack in exactly the same area. This is
the only first hand evidence I have of a similar problem, but I understand
from the email correspondence last year that other riders may have
experienced premature frame failures.
This is not an internet defamation job. I am awaiting the response from
Bianchi, and I'm not going to make any sweeping comments about their frames,
but I would advise anyone with a lightweight aluminium Bianchi frame to keep
a close eye on it. I have been lucky twice, and I wouldn't want anyone else
to have an accident because a crack developed un-noticed.
Cheers
Ken
Rob
developed a creak. the LBS tried everything: I even changed the entire
groupset and wheels.
the frame was creaking around the BB shell.
the shop admitted it wasn't uncommon.
the only way it could creak is movement around a weld? movement leads to
wear and failure, right?
not as serious as your problem, but related.
I swapped the frame for another brand: no problems so far.
Ken <ken{remove_this_bit_to_reply}rus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:93qip9$d7h$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
FTSoft
one for about 6 months.
Frank
Kristy
As far as "catastrophic" failure, isnt that what the failure of aluminum
is called? you are supposed to be able to flex the tubes for a certain
finite number of times, say for example (just for convenience here) 999
times. On the 100th time, it will fail, no matter if you flex the
frame/tubes 1 mm or 100 mm. AFAIK, that is called catastrophic
failure. I guess what Kris meant by catastrophic was a tube completely
breaking off or something, not just cracking?
I do not know much detail about Bianchi as a company, but have they
recently moved their production to Taiwan or China? That might explain
the seemingly sudden lowering of standards.
Also, isnt it quite common, if a frame is going to crack, that it will
crack right *after* the weld? Just like behind a headtube, or by a BB.
Technically I guess it would be only a matter of time before any
aluminum frame cracks; but by most standards, that time will (well,
should!! obviously ppl crack frames) never be in any of our lifetimes.
Maybe they're making the tubes too thin...
Just some thoughts here, please correct me if I am wrong...
Kristy
Mark Hickey
>I bought a Bianchi L last year from the LBS. within about a month it
>developed a creak. the LBS tried everything: I even changed the entire
>groupset and wheels.
>
>the frame was creaking around the BB shell.
>
>the shop admitted it wasn't uncommon.
>
>the only way it could creak is movement around a weld? movement leads to
>wear and failure, right?
The noise was almost certainly coming from the interface between the
BB shell (the bike) and the BB cartridge. Any movement between these
two will eventually lead to metal-to-metal contact (by displacing the
grease and/or teflon tape), and cause boatloads of noise (a frame
makes a pretty fair accoustic transducer).
If it's common on a lightweight frame, I'd suspect that the BB shell
has been designed to "subnormal" specs, and allows deflection within
the shell itself (eeeek).
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
peter.kidwell
Kristy <mtb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A61C634...@mindspring.com...
Aluminium as no fatigue strength at all if you bend it it,s had it.
PK
Mike Jacoubowsky
> recently moved their production to Taiwan or China? That might explain
> the seemingly sudden lowering of standards.
Not necessarily. My experience has been that, at least in the case of
Taiwan, they will build to whatever standards they are allowed to get away
with. If you push them, and have your own people over their for QC, they
can do a great job. If you just bid out production and let it go from
there, you're going to get some pretty ugly stuff. I've seen both examples
in the bike world, and no doubt others are familiar with the extremely high
quality of some, but not all, Taiwan computer hardware.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Per Erik
memmory serves me right it´s deda tubing on those frames
as if that would help !
the local racing team where I live is sponsored by Bianchi bikes and
almost all bikes had to be sent back becouse of cracks on the downtube
Perry
--
The man with the plan would find ME on 3rd st. "HEY PAPA WHAS UP? NEED
SOMETHIN'TODAY?"
And every trip back I ventured lower and east-er 'Til I stood with my
back to the FDR Drive
And I finally said fuck it and let myself fall
Right off the edge of New York
Steve Earle
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Dan Connelly
wouldn't be so worried about TSMC, a rather formidable foundry.
Dan
A Muzi
everything is defective, the large numbers of Binkys are going to include
proportionally large numbers of failures. Since Bianchi has a warranty, and
since you're covered, no problem. Bianchi has lots of plants and lots of
subcontractors, just like everybody else, but on the whole seems to keep it
together enough to cover their occaisional error and remain profitable. If the
rate of defect changed dramatically, they would need to either change the vendor
or change the warranty.
"peter.kidwell" wrote:
--
Yellow Jersey, Ltd
http://www.yellowjersey.org
http://www.execpc.com/yellowje
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Henry Chang
wrote:
>Well all Bianchi frames are made at Reparto Corse in Italy and if my
>memmory serves me right itæ„€ deda tubing on those frames
>as if that would help !
>
>the local racing team where I live is sponsored by Bianchi bikes and
>almost all bikes had to be sent back becouse of cracks on the downtube
I have a theory about the Bianchi's and about the Italian aluminum
frames in general:
When Cannondale first started making their aluminum frames they used
to fail all the time - posts on this newsgroup demonstrate that some
people still have a hard time getting over the old 'creak n fail'
reputation.
However, the more recent Cannondales are no longer prone to breaking.
I think it's because they've spent so many years making them that
improvements in the frame engineering along with improvements in
manufacturing processes have resulted in the reliability gain.
Aluminum is relatively new to the Italian bike industry. I think
they're just going through some of the same teething problems that
Cannondale used to have. I also think that it's a process that any
aluminum manufacturer of performance frames is going to go through.
There isn't as big a margin of error in aluminum as there is with
titanium or steel.
I'll bet Bianchi will get it worked out in a few years, but right now
they obviously suck from a reliability standpoint.
speculating,
Henry
tubus_nl, import & framebouw
>
> I bought a Bianchi L last year from the LBS. within about a month it
> developed a creak. the LBS tried everything: I even changed the entire
> groupset and wheels.
>
> the frame was creaking around the BB shell.
>
remove bracket unit, wrap with several layers of teflon tape, reinstall
--
Marten Gerritsen
WWW: HTTP://tubus.nl
Rob
>
> The noise was almost certainly coming from the interface between the
> BB shell (the bike) and the BB cartridge. Any movement between these
> two will eventually lead to metal-to-metal contact (by displacing the
> grease and/or teflon tape), and cause boatloads of noise (a frame
> makes a pretty fair accoustic transducer).
rhe BB was installed bone dry, as was everything on the whole bike.
Lubricant and thread lock etc was nowhere.
I tried copaslip, and PTFE. the BB was a perfect fit, so that wasn't the
problem. I changed the BB and indeed the whole groupset to Shimano. exactly
the same noise. it was the frame, no doubt, not the threads:-(
Qui si parla Campagnolo
in the
weld at the underside of the down tube/head tube joint >>
Not surprised that the failure rate of a lot of very light framesets of any
material is high.
No such thing as free lunch.
IMO, saving a pound(2.7 or so) to 3.7 or so is not worth poor relaibility and
throw away framesets-
Not to mention framesets at the 1 kilo point-
Does that 1 to 1.5 pound savings really make ya a better cyclist?
Doubt it-
Peter Chisholm
"Vecchio's" Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
Qui si parla Campagnolo
in the
weld at the underside of the down tube/head tube joint. >>
Lots snipped-
Expect other very light stuff to fail at higher rates-handlebars, forks, stems,
wheels, seatposts....
Mike Arnold
turned out to be the seat post. There was no cracking just movement between
the post and frame, it took a heck of a lot of grease to stop it. Easy to
diagnose though the noise stops when you stand up! It took me a long time
and several bottom bracket and crank rebuilds to work this out. Out of
interest a US ng carried a similar string last year (just before I got my
Bianchi). All the failures in the US seemed to be of the extra lightweight
frames not the megapro L's. Is this the case here?
--
Mike Arnold on behalf of Cycle Daventry. Visit our web site at
http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/luge/843/index.htm
"Mark Hickey" <mhi...@cynetfl.com> wrote in message
news:3a61c650....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
A Muzi
that way?
Rob wrote:
--
John Verheul
fre...@connectnet.com (Henry Chang) wrote:
> I have a theory about the Bianchi's and about the Italian aluminum
> frames in general:
>
> When Cannondale first started making their aluminum frames they used
> to fail all the time - posts on this newsgroup demonstrate that some
> people still have a hard time getting over the old 'creak n fail'
> reputation.
>
> However, the more recent Cannondales are no longer prone to breaking.
> I think it's because they've spent so many years making them that
> improvements in the frame engineering along with improvements in
> manufacturing processes have resulted in the reliability gain.
>
> Aluminum is relatively new to the Italian bike industry. I think
> they're just going through some of the same teething problems that
> Cannondale used to have. I also think that it's a process that any
> aluminum manufacturer of performance frames is going to go through.
> There isn't as big a margin of error in aluminum as there is with
> titanium or steel.
That's a reasonable enough theory, although I think the decreased
margin of error is more a result of producing sub-3lb frames than it is
the material itself.
Super-lightweight first-generation steel, titanium, and carbon-
composite frames have cracked as well. It takes some trial and error to
get durability from a super-lightweight frame (another way of stating
your point).
John Verheul
Rob
I tried everything. the bike was off the road half of the summer:-(
got a new Cinelli just as the weather started to change:-(
the creak was definitely the frame. we tried EVERYTHING else
Mike Arnold <mar...@ncieh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:93vi2e$ua5$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mark Hickey
>
>>
>> The noise was almost certainly coming from the interface between the
>> BB shell (the bike) and the BB cartridge. Any movement between these
>> two will eventually lead to metal-to-metal contact (by displacing the
>> grease and/or teflon tape), and cause boatloads of noise (a frame
>> makes a pretty fair accoustic transducer).
>
>rhe BB was installed bone dry, as was everything on the whole bike.
>Lubricant and thread lock etc was nowhere.
>
>I tried copaslip, and PTFE. the BB was a perfect fit, so that wasn't the
>problem. I changed the BB and indeed the whole groupset to Shimano. exactly
>the same noise. it was the frame, no doubt, not the threads:-(
The only thing I can recommend at this point is chasing and facing the
BB shell. Maybe there are some bits of aluminum left in the threads
taht are causing the problem - make sure to remove any trace of
material left over from cutting / chasing the threads. Facing the BB
shell might help as well.
Also, don't forget to grease the interface between the BB cups and the
cartridge. Probably not the problem if it's all new, but I've seen a
little surface rust develop on the steel parts of the cartridge cause
a LOT of noise.
Good luck,
Neverwas
This is getting too close to greasing the BB spindle for comfort.
Michael Nelson
>This is getting too close to greasing the BB spindle for comfort.
Why would you grease the BB spindle for comfort? I can't see what kind of
comfort that would provide.
Michael
--
Michael Nelson San Francisco, CA
John W Curtin
news:slrn968f8c...@dsl-seahunt.corp.sgi.com...
> Neverwas wrote:
>
> >This is getting too close to greasing the BB spindle for comfort.
>
> Why would you grease the BB spindle for comfort? I can't see what kind of
> comfort that would provide.
Ever wondered why it is called a *bottom* bracket, and why grease would aid
insertion? ;-)
Regards
John W Curtin
j...@curtin.demon.co.uk
Dan Connelly
John W Curtin wrote:
>
> "Michael Nelson" <nel...@dsl-seahunt.corp.sgi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrn968f8c...@dsl-seahunt.corp.sgi.com...
> > Neverwas wrote:
> >
> > >This is getting too close to greasing the BB spindle for comfort.
> >
> > Why would you grease the BB spindle for comfort? I can't see what kind of
> > comfort that would provide.
>
> Ever wondered why it is called a *bottom* bracket, and why grease would aid
> insertion? ;-)
>
I think we should reserve such questions for Ken, unless his plug's
been pulled, or if it has, depending on ones parsing decisions.
Dan
Henry Chang
Of course you're right - it's possible to under-engineer frames of any
material.
I specifically singled out aluminum because I've noticed more failures
on frames of that material than any other material. Plus, I've done
quite a bit of welding on steel, some on titanium and none on aluminum
and can say that steel and titanium are fairly forgiving of poor
welding. The welders I know all say that aluminum is the trickiest to
get right. The weld bead runs a lot faster than titanium or steel.
I do concede however, that anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute
proof.
Henry
Willie
vecc...@aol.com (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
>>kenrussel-<< In June 2000, my Bianchi Mega Pro XL developed a crack
It's rather a matter of looking at the engineering of the frame than
the weight. I have been riding aluminium frames below 2,5lbs since the
mid eighties, with lots of mileage and abuse, without any failures.
Fifteen years later, light frames are failing because of poor design
and quality. In contrast to your thoughts, I have cracked a few 4,5 lb
steel frames within one and a half years racing and training. Today,
welding light tubing together, without using lugs and very careful heat
treatment is looking for trouble. Some do get it right though.
Willie
http://www.exclusive-cycling.com
David E. Belcher
Welded, yes. Don't forget that Alan "screwed and glued" aluminium frames
have been around for a good few years.
David E. Belcher
Dept. of Chemistry,
University of York
Mark Hickey
>It's rather a matter of looking at the engineering of the frame than
>the weight.
Unfortunately it's not always obvious enough to avoid a bad design.
The problem is that it only takes one weak spot in the design to
render your uberframe into recycling fodder.
>I have been riding aluminium frames below 2,5lbs since the
>mid eighties, with lots of mileage and abuse, without any failures.
Perhaps the key to the above statement is the plural form of the word
"frame". Most folks don't swap frames / bikes all that often, and are
not well served if they buy a 3 year frame for a 30 year mission.
>Fifteen years later, light frames are failing because of poor design
>and quality. In contrast to your thoughts, I have cracked a few 4,5 lb
>steel frames within one and a half years racing and training. Today,
>welding light tubing together, without using lugs and very careful heat
>treatment is looking for trouble. Some do get it right though.
It happens (though there will be more failures anyway - just maybe not
at an epidemic level).
Henry Chang
<deb...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> Aluminum is relatively new to the Italian bike industry.
>
>Welded, yes. Don't forget that Alan "screwed and glued" aluminium frames
>have been around for a good few years.
Having experience gluing frames together doesn't help them out in the
process of learning how to make TIG welded ones.
Henry
Todd Kuzma
> It's rather a matter of looking at the engineering of the frame than
> the weight. I have been riding aluminium frames below 2,5lbs since the
> mid eighties,
I wasn't aware of any sub-2.5 pound frames in the mid-80s. What were you
riding? Was it a custom?
Todd Kuzma
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL 815-223-1776
http://www.tullios.com
Raleigh-Schwinn-Specialized
Bianchi-Waterford-Heron
GT/Dyno-Burley-Co-Motion
David E. Belcher
Henry Chang wrote:
>
>
> >> >> Aluminum is relatively new to the Italian bike industry.
> >
> >Welded, yes. Don't forget that Alan "screwed and glued" aluminium frames
> >have been around for a good few years.
>
> Having experience gluing frames together doesn't help them out in the
> process of learning how to make TIG welded ones.
>
Fair point.
dave_...@my-deja.com
All Bianchi's with the "XL" before the name, (I.E. XL EV-2 alum. , XL
Boron, XL Ti, as well as the Chromo lite Cyclo cross and Chromo lit
Pista) are built in Bianchi's Reparto Corse factory in Italy.
Dave
Willie
Vitus 979, 56cm c-c, frame without fork pulls the scale pretty close to
2,5lbs. I guess a 54cm would be below 2,5lbs. The aluminium tubes are
epoxy glued into the lugs. A little flexible by today's standards, but
I still use it for training often, and still enjoy riding it. Purchased
in 1986.
Willie
http://www.exclusive-cycling.com
Willie
Todd Kuzma
> Vitus 979, 56cm c-c, frame without fork pulls the scale pretty close to
> 2,5lbs. I guess a 54cm would be below 2,5lbs.
My recollection is a bit fuzzy on the 979 specs, but I don't remember it
being listed as anything close to 2.5 pounds. Were you able to weigh a
bare frame?
Tom Kunich
news:945rcf$9t8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A65D0AD...@TheRamp.net>,
> Todd Kuzma <tul...@TheRamp.net> wrote:
> > Willie wrote:
> >
> >>It's rather a matter of looking at the engineering of the frame than
> >>the weight. I have been riding aluminium frames below 2,5lbs since the
> >>mid eighties,
> >
> >I wasn't aware of any sub-2.5 pound frames in the mid-80s. What were
> >you riding? Was it a custom?
>
> 2,5lbs. I guess a 54cm would be below 2,5lbs. The aluminium tubes are
> epoxy glued into the lugs. A little flexible by today's standards, but
> I still use it for training often, and still enjoy riding it. Purchased
> in 1986.
My large 60 cm Vitus 992 is undoubtedly under 3 lbs.
John Verheul
Todd Kuzma <tul...@TheRamp.net> wrote:
> Willie wrote:
>
> > Vitus 979, 56cm c-c, frame without fork pulls the scale pretty
close to
> > 2,5lbs. I guess a 54cm would be below 2,5lbs.
>
> My recollection is a bit fuzzy on the 979 specs, but I don't remember
it
> being listed as anything close to 2.5 pounds. Were you able to weigh
a
> bare frame?
Giroposte lists the "797" at 1.6kg (3.5 lb) for a 56cm frame. The
Carbone is probably a bit lighter, while the 992 is undoubtedly heavier.
John Verheul
Tom Kunich
news:947mk2$ss0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Frame or frame-and-fork?
I have a 60 cm Vitus 992 and my 62 cm Bottecchia. One has Campi parts and
the other DuraAce parts. But the build on both of them is almost identical
with the same seat and same type of wheels etc.
The Vitus weighs 21 lbs flat and the Bottechia 24 lbs and a couple ounces.
Almost all of the weight difference would have to be in the frame and fork.
Since I would estimate the Bottecchia at 7 lbs that would put a frame and
fork on the 992 at about 4 lbs. An aluminum road fork weighs about a lb.
Of course the really important thing is that the 992 rides like a dream. No
flex that I can notice and no wobbles or strange happenings.
John Verheul
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@cadence.com> wrote:
> "John Verheul" <John.an...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > Carbone is probably a bit lighter, while the 992 is undoubtedly
heavier.
>
> Frame or frame-and-fork?
It didn't specify, but I have a hard time believing it included the
fork. An aluminum fork with a steel steerer is typically 500 grams or
more. www.damonrinard.com shows the lightest Vitus fork at 496 grams
normalized for a 175mm steerer, that would make the frame alone 2.42lbs
(very hard to believe).
> I have a 60 cm Vitus 992 and my 62 cm Bottecchia. One has Campi parts
and
> the other DuraAce parts. But the build on both of them is almost
identical
> with the same seat and same type of wheels etc.
>
> The Vitus weighs 21 lbs flat and the Bottechia 24 lbs and a couple
ounces.
> Almost all of the weight difference would have to be in the frame and
fork.
> Since I would estimate the Bottecchia at 7 lbs that would put a frame
and
> fork on the 992 at about 4 lbs. An aluminum road fork weighs about a
lb.
See Damon's site for actual weight of a Vitus fork, besides which the
fork on your 60 will be heavier than the 175mm steerer by .89g per mm
(Damon's number again). Assuming you have a 200mm steerer, your fork
would be more like 518 grams (1.136lbs). That's not a lot of weight,
but since we're talking fractions of a lb it's significant.
But I cannot believe you actually think your guesstimation method of
"weighing" these two frames is valid. You already admitted they have
different components (the Campy and Dura Ace groups can differ greatly
in weight depending on the year), so that's a difference right there.
Then you base the weight of the Vitus on your approximation of the
weight of the Bottechia frame/fork. Based on all these variables, I
think it's nearly impossible to identify the weight of your Vitus frame
other than to say it's probably lighter than the Bottechia.
> Of course the really important thing is that the 992 rides like a
dream. No
> flex that I can notice and no wobbles or strange happenings.
No argument here, the 992 was/is a fine frame. But let's not pretend
these things were lighter than they really were. At the time Vitus
frames were popular for racing (pre-1990) any frame/fork under 5lbs was
considered a lightweight, and they were in comparison with the lugged
steel frames most people rode.
Willie
My 979 Vitus frame only, for 56cm, weighs exactly 2,816 pounds. I have
a 56cm 992 Vitus as well, which is very stiff by comparison, but the
weight is more than 1lb heavier than the 979. I'm not sure what the
frame only weighs on the 992, as it comes assembled with the fork and
the headset, in the box. But with fork and headset, the 992 weighed,
5,45lbs. As a matter of interest, Vitus went bust in 2000 and the stock
Giro Post has, is old stuff. Vitus was bought out by Look and still
make the 992, in a painted version. Sadly, the company is not the same
though. Apparently, they are bringing out an Aluminium frame with a
carbon rear triangle this year.
Willie