OCLV durability
Jim Flom
centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
Thanks.
Jim Flom
PPWrench
Tuff to say but I have seen about 6 broken OCLVs and I'm not even a TREK/Lemond
dealer-
I doubt you will ever see 10 year old OCLV framesets if they have been ridden
consistently-Just MO-I would get a steel frameset, well built, if you want a
'lifetime' bike'-
peter
jim....@apachecorp.com
with about 40,000 miles on it. The model I got does have a lifetime warranty
and the frame appears to be in good shape. I don't know if later models
still have the lifetime warranty. As far as having trouble with a frame, I
know of people having trouble with all types of frames. One potential
problem with steel is corrosion. If you sweat a lot or if you live in an
area where corrosion is a problem you might want to avoid a steel bike.
In article <748md3$3n0$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
"Jim Flom" <jf...@erols.com> wrote:
> I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
> centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
> 8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
> to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
> think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
> skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim Flom
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jan Sacharuk
>I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
>centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
>8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
>to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
>think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
>skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
I can't say anything directly about the road bikes, actually, but I
own a Trek 9700 OCLV MTB. The frame is tough as hell, and has taken
less damage in my spills than I have. So, from that perspective, I
can't fault OCLV. However, the design of my MTB is going to be
completely different than your road bike, and they might not be as
well designed (from the stories I've heard.)
The only reasons that I went with an OCLV bike instead of a steel or
Ti bike are
1) Trek has a lifetime warranty, and more importantly
2) I have a good relationship with my LBS, and they told me that if I
brought the bike in and the frame was busted, and *they* thought it
wasn't abuse, *they* would take care of talking to Trek for me. Never,
ever try to deal with Trek on your own. There are more than enough
stories to bear that advice out.
Good luck.
Jan Sacharuk
--
**** **** ===== Remove dontspamme from my address to mail me ============
** *** ** GCS d- s++:-- a--- C++++@>$ UISX++>$ P L>++ E>++$ W++ N+ o? K-?
** * ** w---(++++) !O !M V-- PS+>$ PE Y+ !PGP- t- 5+++>++++ X+ R tv--
** j.s ** b++>+++ DI++++ D+ G++(+++)>++++ e>+++ h>$ r++ y+**
** + ** -----------------------------------------------------------------
**v.y** Surviving is an instinct.
** ** Living takes guts.
* -Lance Armstrong
jver...@lucent.com
"Jim Flom" <jf...@erols.com> wrote:
> I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
> centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
> 8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
> to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
> think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
> skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
>
>
> Jim Flom
I'm skeptical too. It sounds as though the LBS is trying to sell you a bike
based on what you are willing to spend, rather than what you need. The Trek
OCLV's are great racing frames because they are light, stiff, have fairly
aggressive racing geometry. That racing geometry and short wheelbase is
absolutely not what you want for long rides and centuries. The light weight
is always nice, but it's more important for racing than anything else. If
you're riding at your own pace, what's an extra pound or two up a hill?
As to durability, I've seen many cracked OCLV's. Keep in mind that most
active racers replace their bikes pretty regularly. A glance at all the
late-model bikes in any USCF race will tell you that. The OCLV being a bit
prone to cracking is an OK tradeoff for a racer who wants such a light bike.
Trek is very good about replacing these frames (in my experience) too. But
that does you no good if you're on a long ride in the middle of nowhere. In
short, a Trek OCLV is a great racing bike, but not at all designed for what
you want to do.
I'd recommend a heavier, longer frame that's designed for what it is you want
to do. Any well built frame designed for durability and comfort should do,
regardless of material. The trouble is that there are not many of these
around. I think the old Bridgestone road bikes were good examples, but they
are not made anymore. Perhaps a Rivendell or a custom steel bike? Anyone else
out there know of any good bikes for this purpose?
Marketing hype has made everyone believe they need a light, stiff, short
wheelbase racing bike with steep angles - and that's just not true in my
opinion.
John
Rob Shane
>I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
>centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
>8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
>to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
>think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
>skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jim Flom
>
For that kind of money, you can get a custom built steel frame from a local
framebuilder and a nice compnent group. The fit will be perfect.
Good Luck
--
Rob
<robs...@bigfoot.com>
Alex Wetmore
>I'd recommend a heavier, longer frame that's designed for what it is you
want
>to do. Any well built frame designed for durability and comfort should do,
>regardless of material. The trouble is that there are not many of these
>around. I think the old Bridgestone road bikes were good examples, but they
>are not made anymore. Perhaps a Rivendell or a custom steel bike? Anyone
else
>out there know of any good bikes for this purpose?
Trek has some such bikes (not sure of model #s in the $2000 price range
though). Anything which they call a touring bike besides the 520 or 540
(true touring bikes) is pretty much classic road geometry (1220 comes to
mind). The Bianchi Eros also has such a geometry, and is pretty much a
classic steel frame w/ low-end Campy components.
I know that if I were going to spend $2000 to $2500 on a single road bike
that I'd go custom. At this price point in stock bikes you start to get
crazy light components (such as the Rolf wheels on the Treks) instead of
better fit. The fit is probably more important.
alex
Mark VandeKamp
>In article <748md3$3n0$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> "Jim Flom" <jf...@erols.com> wrote:
>> I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
>> centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
>> 8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
>> to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
>> think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
>> skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
>I'd recommend a heavier, longer frame that's designed for what it is you want
>to do. Any well built frame designed for durability and comfort should do,
>regardless of material. The trouble is that there are not many of these
>around. I think the old Bridgestone road bikes were good examples, but they
>are not made anymore. Perhaps a Rivendell or a custom steel bike? Anyone else
>out there know of any good bikes for this purpose?
I'll second the motion for going with a less race-oriented bike. I also
agree with Alex Wetmore's suggestion of going custom. I do pretty much
the kind of riding you are describing with some logging roads thrown in
for spice and I recently had a steel custom frame made by a local builder.
I'm very happy with my choice. I got exactly what I wanted in the bike.
It's designed for my body, my riding position, and my type of riding. It
weighs more than an OCLV or comparable race bike, but the weight is in the
right places to create a durable and reliable bike. The only downside to
going custom was the wait. Custom frames are always late -- add at least
a month to what the builder says. Still, now is the time to get in line
for a bike to ride next spring/summer.
Mark Vande Kamp
P.S. If you are worried about a more relaxed geometry bike being slow,
take a look at what guys like Eddy Merckx raced on. Century geometry was
race geometry not that long ago.
Jim Flom
Chorus group, largely because Torelli takes the time at their website to
explain how and why they design each frame. But I'm wide open.
jver...@lucent.com wrote in message <7498rl$ip3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <748md3$3n0$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> "Jim Flom" <jf...@erols.com> wrote:
>> I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
>> centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000
to
>> 8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want
it
>> to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
>> think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
>> skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jim Flom
>
>I'm skeptical too. It sounds as though the LBS is trying to sell you a bike
>based on what you are willing to spend, rather than what you need. The Trek
>OCLV's are great racing frames because they are light, stiff, have fairly
>aggressive racing geometry. That racing geometry and short wheelbase is
>absolutely not what you want for long rides and centuries. The light weight
>is always nice, but it's more important for racing than anything else. If
>you're riding at your own pace, what's an extra pound or two up a hill?
>
>As to durability, I've seen many cracked OCLV's. Keep in mind that most
>active racers replace their bikes pretty regularly. A glance at all the
>late-model bikes in any USCF race will tell you that. The OCLV being a bit
>prone to cracking is an OK tradeoff for a racer who wants such a light
bike.
>Trek is very good about replacing these frames (in my experience) too. But
>that does you no good if you're on a long ride in the middle of nowhere. In
>short, a Trek OCLV is a great racing bike, but not at all designed for what
>you want to do.
>
>I'd recommend a heavier, longer frame that's designed for what it is you
want
>to do. Any well built frame designed for durability and comfort should do,
>regardless of material. The trouble is that there are not many of these
>around. I think the old Bridgestone road bikes were good examples, but they
>are not made anymore. Perhaps a Rivendell or a custom steel bike? Anyone
else
>out there know of any good bikes for this purpose?
>
KSmith9576
with the frame. I've also owned steel and aluminum, no problems with them.
Some people just seem to generate problems.
ma...@abtcorp.com
> >I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
> >centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
> >8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
> >to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
> >think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
> >skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
the oclv bikes are excellent, in my opinion. i sold a hundred or so of them,
and saw a handful (pretty much all early versions) that started to separate at
joints. they don't fail dramatically, they just start to make some noise, and
then you realize it's cracked and you get it fixed.
with that said, i recommend steel. not so much for the last and last part,
though my steel frame is holding up well. i see close to as many cracked steel
frames (percentage-wise) as i do cracked carbon frames. i like steel just
because it rides better (imho), creaks less and costs less. many steel frames
(especially custom or older frames) have clearance for various tire sizes too,
which is mighty handy if you plan on riding on a variety of surfaces. as
someone else pointed out, you could get a pretty sweet custom frame for the
same price as the trek.
i wouldn't worry about the oclv bike holding up, but if you don't have a
complex about steel (many customers have been brainwashed by ads to think of
it as an inferior material), and you can afford 2-3 grand, i would suggest
chasing down a local builder of custom frames, and get him to whip you up a
sweet ride with whatever braze-ons you want, in whatever color you want, with
clearance for real tires if you want. It might weigh 1 1/2 lbs more. big
deal. it's not like it's a mountain bike or something where weight is
important. mw
jew...@intrnet.net
jver...@lucent.com wrote:
> In article <748md3$3n0$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> "Jim Flom" <jf...@erols.com> wrote:
> > centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
> > 8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
> > to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
> > think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
> > skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
I have had a trek 5500 for a couple of years now, probably 10,000 on it, of
mostly hard and fast riding. on crappy roads no less. no problems with it.
in addition, i have a friend who is retired and bought himself a 5200 in 94.
all he does is travel and do rides, like long century across the state type
stuff. i would have to guess he puts ~10,000 a year on it, no problems ever.
then again, all my racing buddies say, "remember . . ., he had an OCLV that
cracked."
PUNCHESFTW
Unfortuately, Trek no longer offers a lifetime warranty on OCLV frames
Randy
frames eat road vibration for lunch. It the the most comfortable frame
I have ever been on. Everyone knows of somebody who has cracked a
frame; regardless of the material it happens.
A very happy Lemond Chambery owner (after I upgraded to DA that is).
Jim Flom wrote:
>
> I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
> centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
> 8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
> to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
> think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
> skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim Flom
--
*******************
Share the Road,
___~0
_'\ >_
(*)/ (*)
It's One Less Car!
*******************
Chris Neary
>Unfortuately, Trek no longer offers a lifetime warranty on OCLV frames
False.
Trek dropped the lifetime warranty a couple of years back, but they've
reinstated it. All current Trek frames have a lifetime warranty.
Chris Neary
dia...@aimnet.com
"It doesn't get any easier - you just go faster" - Greg Lemond
Jim Flom
Carbon 7 votes and Ti 1 (plus a couple sidebar comments about Trek's
warranty). Thing is, no one really seems to know how long a carbon will
last. My skepticism stems from it being a relatively young frame material,
development-wise (versus especially steel), plus the VeloNews articles, plus
the well known, time tested qualities of steel and repair-ability. Unless
someone jumps up and says, "But wait!..." It's looking like steel is real.
Thanks for some great bike suggestions!
Jim
Randy wrote in message <3668A65B...@home.com>...
Jon Isaacs
>Carbon 7 votes and Ti 1
Maybe if you had included Ti in your original post as a choice, you would have
gotten different results.
Gehoff5
have a facorable opinion of steel bikes are more likely to reply to a post.
It may be relevant hat the population of steel bike owners from which to
obtain a reply is larger. :)
Greg
(steel bike)
PUNCHESFTW
>
>False.
>
>Trek dropped the lifetime warranty a couple of years back, but they've
>reinstated it. All current Trek frames have a lifetime warranty.
>
>
>
>Chris Neary
>dia...@aimnet.com
Really.., Are you a Trek dealer?
Jim Flom
Torelli comes with a three year warranty on the frame.
JF
Jim Flom
JF
TC
carbon fiber frames that are constructed with lugs are not known for
their durability under heavy use. I have seen a OCLV frame's headtube
severe from the rest of the frame when the rider cought a stick in the
front spokes, not spokes were broken nor bent, but the headtube severed
from the frame... Of course you can have a lugged carbon frame that last
you a long time if you ride it casually.. and/or you weight very
little..
I wouldn't buy an OCLV framed bike, not even if it is at a great deal.
TC
Chris Neary
>Really.., Are you a Trek dealer?
No, just someone willing to take the time to check their website.
Considering you are the one spreading false information, have you considered
posting an apology instead of an accusation?
Chris Neary
dia...@aimnet.com
"Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the
same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on
a bicycle" - Helen Keller
Chris Neary
>He did add that the legal definition of "lifetime" in the US is 5 years.
Sounds like B.S. to me. Otherwise, why did Trek at one point change their
warranties from Lifetime to 5 years?
Anyone with a legal background in contracts who can offer an educated
opinion on this?
Clownie
forever. Offer a lifetime warranty to the original owner only, and it is
mathematically like a 3 year warranty...
PUNCHESFTW
Well Chris, perhaps you should practice a little tolerance yourself. Where did
I accuse anyone of anything? I don't have anything to apologize for. I asked
you if you were a Trek dealer.., (thinking maybe you had heard something from
Trek that I hadn't) That's all. The proper response would be to tell me no that
you are not. But, you chose to act like a jerk.
I will check the website. But, my written policy from Trek
and my Trek rep says 5-years.., I tend to trust that information. I'll
talk to the president of Trek on Monday and post the answer here.
Doug
Bard Brors
> After 24 hours, including those who replied personally, it's Steel 9 votes,
> Carbon 7 votes and Ti 1 (plus a couple sidebar comments about Trek's
> warranty). Thing is, no one really seems to know how long a carbon will
> last. My skepticism stems from it being a relatively young frame material,
> development-wise (versus especially steel), plus the VeloNews articles, plus
> the well known, time tested qualities of steel and repair-ability. Unless
> someone jumps up and says, "But wait!..." It's looking like steel is real.
> Thanks for some great bike suggestions!
I did not follow this thread closely, but was the fatigue test presented by the
german "Tour" magazine mentioned? The Trek OCLV passed the test without
breaking and so did two aluminium frames (Cannondale and Principia). Generally,
the carbon fibre and aluminium frames lasted the longest, titanium a little
shorter
and steel shortest. The results are presented (in german) at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/efbe.biketest/tour1097.htm
Bard Brors
JAVAEYE
>and my Trek rep says 5-years.., I tend to trust that information. I'll
>talk to the president of Trek on Monday and post the answer here.
>
>Doug
This is only from memory....a deja news search will give you details. As I
recall, Trek originally had a lifetime warranty on OCLV frames, went to a 5
year warranty for some period of time, and then went back to a "lifetime"
warranty. Hope this helps.
Brian Lafferty
Chris Neary
> I asked you if you were a Trek dealer.., (thinking maybe
> you had heard something from Trek that I hadn't)
Then the proper question would have been to ask what my source of
information was.
>But, my written policy from Trek and my Trek rep says 5-years..,
>I tend to trust that information. I'll talk to the president of Trek
>on Monday and post the answer here.
And how old is your bike?
As I *originally* posted, Trek did revert to a 5 year warranty at one point
before going back to the lifetime warranty.
Aside from the information you get from Trek, please take the remainder of
this discussion to e-mail as I doubt it is of any value to the original
poster.
Randy
--
jew...@intrnet.net
dia...@aimnet.com (Chris Neary) wrote:
> "Jim Flom" <jf...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >He did add that the legal definition of "lifetime" in the US is 5 years.
>
> Sounds like B.S. to me. Otherwise, why did Trek at one point change their
> warranties from Lifetime to 5 years?
>
> Anyone with a legal background in contracts who can offer an educated
> opinion on this?
>
> Chris Neary
> dia...@aimnet.com
I'm not an attorney yet, but after having contract I & II, lifetime would
seem to mean lifetime. if the implied duration of limetime is 5 years, there
must be something that i am missing. if lifetime can be taken to be something
other than lifetime, why 5 years. it would seem to me that it would be more
benefical for trek to make lifetime equal to 1 year (or less). i guess if
that were the conclusion, allowing 5 years just shows they(trek) do things
out of the kindness in their heart, not for money.
>
> "It doesn't get any easier - you just go faster" - Greg Lemond
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Splattski
(JAVAEYE) writes:
<<Trek originally had a lifetime warranty on OCLV frames, went to a 5 year
warranty for some period of time, and then went back to a "lifetime" warranty.
>>
This is correct.
splattski
Jack/Kathy
>
> >
> >>Really.., Are you a Trek dealer?
> >
> >No, just someone willing to take the time to check their website.
> >
> >Considering you are the one spreading false information, have you considered
> >posting an apology instead of an accusation?
> >
> >Chris Neary
> >dia...@aimnet.com
> >
> >"Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the
> >same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on
> >a bicycle" - Helen Keller
>
> Well Chris, perhaps you should practice a little tolerance yourself. Where did
> you if you were a Trek dealer.., (thinking maybe you had heard something from
> you are not. But, you chose to act like a jerk.
> and my Trek rep says 5-years.., I tend to trust that information. I'll
> talk to the president of Trek on Monday and post the answer here.
>
never get in a pissing contest with a skunk.
Jack
Brian Nystrom
Jim Flom wrote:
> I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
> centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
> 8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
> to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
> think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
> skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
I cannot comment on OCLV durability, but if you're looking for a true lifetime
frame, you should really consider Titanium. Ti has higher fatigue resistance
than Al, steel or carbon fiber and doesn't rust or corrode. The ride of Ti
frames combines the liveliness of steel with the light weight of carbon or Al.
It's really impressive. I've just bought my second Ti frame (after owning
several steel, carbon and Al bikes) and I wouldn't go back to any of the other
materials (few Ti riders would).
If you're on a budget, Habernero offers a nice Ti frame for $700. I've seen
them and they're very nicely assembled. All '98 Litespeeds are on closeout
right now at nice prices. Check with High Tech Bikes, Colorado Cyclist
(on-line or in this month's Bicycling!) or your local Litespeed dealer. At the
very least, ride a Ti bike before you make your final decision.
--
Regards
Brian
tp
frame problems. I also have a custom built (in 1988) Serotta Nova Special,
the drive side drop out cracked when it had about 15,000 miles. Go figure.
Jim Flom wrote:
> I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
> centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
> 8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
> to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
> think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
> skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim Flom
Mike DeMicco
>I cannot comment on OCLV durability, but if you're looking for a true lifetime
>frame, you should really consider Titanium. Ti has higher fatigue resistance
>than Al, steel or carbon fiber and doesn't rust or corrode. The ride of Ti
>frames combines the liveliness of steel with the light weight of carbon or Al.
>It's really impressive. I've just bought my second Ti frame (after owning
>several steel, carbon and Al bikes) and I wouldn't go back to any of the other
>materials (few Ti riders would).
That's baloney. My friend broke his Ibis Ti mountain bike frame. No frame
material is inherently immune from breakage. Get a frame with a good
warranty from a reputable manufacturer that's going to be around for a
while if you plan on keeping your bike for a long time.
--
Mike DeMicco <dem...@home.com>
Damon Rinard
>
> I cannot comment on OCLV durability,
Check out http://home.t-online.de/home/efbe.biketest/tour1097.htm .
Tour Magazine fatigue tested 12 high-end road frames. OCLV tied with
Cannondale for the longest life. The three shortest lives were steel
frames. Ti fell in the middle. Scroll down to the table to see the
number of cycles (Lastwechsel), then scroll down a little farther to see
the bar graph ranking the frames.
--
Damon Rinard
Damon Rinard's Bicycle Tech Site:
http://www.damonrinard.com/
KBeyersted
love my OCLV frame. I put in 3,000 miles this year on it and it still looks
and acts new. HTH, Mike
JAVAEYE
>warranty from a reputable manufacturer that's going to be around for a
>while if you plan on keeping your bike for a long time.
Exactly. I have a Reynolds 531 Austro-Daimler Ultima frame that is going strong
(like new) after 21 years. I had a Bianchi SL that cracked in the bb after two
years and they gave me a new and better Tange Prestige fram that is in its 9th
year of use. I have several friend who have had problem with Ti frames
(Merlin) and they have been warrantied with no problem. My bet though is that
cromoly
or mangmoly and ti will far outlast any carbon fiber frame
Brian Lafferty.
PUNCHESFTW
Doug
Jon Isaacs
>frame problems. I also have a custom built (in 1988) Serotta Nova Special,
>the drive side drop out cracked when it had about 15,000 miles.
The point about a steel bike is that any competent frame shop can repair a
cracked dropout. With the Trek, you have to hope for a replacement frame.
Regarding OCLV failure:
A major cause of frame failure is the crash which manufacturers do not
generally look upon as worth of free frame replacement. Since Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Composites are generally fail in a brittle manner rather than
ductile as steel does, I believe they are more likely to be damaged
irrepairably in a serious crash.
While yield strength can be high in Fiber Reinforced Composites, the strain to
failure is small so the energy to failure is smaller than a steel frame in a
crash. A titinium frame would also be superior to a carbon fiber frame in
this regard. Since the steel frame can be straighten after a crash, I believe
this to be a significant advantage to steel.
RLentz1161
I have the 1999 Trek brochure right in front of me as I write this. On nearly
every page it states "All Trek frames come with a limited lifetime warranty."
This warranty is also stated in full inside the rear cover of the brochure.
It doesn't cover crashes and abuse naturally and the warranty applies only to
the original owner.
Rick.
hoffman
by the
> german "Tour" magazine mentioned? The Trek OCLV passed the test without
> breaking and so did two aluminium frames (Cannondale and Principia).
Generally,
> the carbon fibre and aluminium frames lasted the longest, titanium a
little
> shorter and steel shortest. The results are presented (in german) at:
I haven't followed the thread closely either, but if were talking
durability
I just want to add my experiences as a carbon bike owner. I can only
say that I've never had a problem, other than perhaps overflexibility,
in the 10 years I've had my bike. I have beat the living hell out of
my "Alan" carbon fiber road bike (dont ask me why please) and I
have done things on it that only mountain bikers and BMX guys would
do (i.e. going through rough trails, hopping over curbs and other assorted
idiotic stuff that I did to my bike when I was younger...) but through
all the abuse my carbon has held up as good as any metal, if not
better..
I suspect that the old fashioned carbon bikes like I have which
were made with the external lugs are probably more durable
than todays carbon bikes which either have internal lugs or no
lugs at all, as the bike is made of one molded piece (monoque).
Photogray
consider the likelihood of having to use it. From what I've heard, that
likelihood with the OCLV Treks is higher than with other frame manufacturers,
and specifically the problems have arisen due to uneven expansion /contraction
characteristics of materials used in the construction.
photogray***@AOL.com
remove spam proof asterisks
Jim Flom
<19981206205602...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
Exactly (but stated better than I ever could). Fatigue strength seems like
only one (albeit important) factor.
I had already eliminated the Ti frames because of risk of current state of
the technology (still a few years away), contaminated welds, cost of repair
and initial cost. Somebody had a pro-Ti post with great prices on
Lightspeed closeouts, etc. I'm still a few months away, plus, given my
price range I'd seem to have to go with Shimano components or Veloce.
Athena is my minimum compromise.
A friend has an OCLV he got when his 2400(?) frame cracked, and was able to
upgrade. He raved about it when it was new, but just yesterday said he
wouldn't get one otherwise. Everybody's got their opinion. He knows bikes,
his OCLV and he knows me.
Seems like if I pay careful attention to geometry (I can see a whole 'nother
thread coming), a good 853/753 type production frame will give me the bang
for the buck I'm looking for and enable me to spring for the Campy Chorus
groupo I really want. It'll be easier to repair when that crash comes and
may actually be under warranty. There are good arguments all the way
around. I was hoping this would be simpler, more clear cut. Bottom line is
I can't go out and get a new few-thousand-dollar bike every three to five
years. The input has been enlightening, though in some ways I'm more
befuddled than ever. Thanks!
Jim
Jim Flom
>I just want to point out that many Ti fabricators, such as Litespeed,
>started out as defense contractors. I believe the defense industry has
>spent sufficient $$$ and man hours developing Ti for the state of the
>technology to be pretty advanced, and a company such as Litespeed will
>have far more sophisticated tooling/welding equipment than ANY steel
>or other material bike builder. these industrys started with a blank
>check from the DoD......
Ultimately unswayed, I maintained:
Didn't know that, though I am aware of Lightspeed's good work. I'm sure my
post will generate a lot of similar "in defense of Ti" responses. Still,
for my money, it's looking a lot like steel.
Jim
Jim Flom
michele
Jim Flom
"It's short for an exacting technique we call Optimum Compaction Low Void.
"Optimum Compaction" is a process of combining a perfect blend of 65% carbon
fiber with 35% thermoset epoxy matrix. "Low Void" is the resulting
minimization of air pockets to a purity of less than 1% voids -- which is on
par with aerospace standards for jet fighter wings! Combined, these
processes create the stiffest, strongest, lightest composite frames
available."
Yeah, but what about elongation?
I had to search around, but there you have it! :-)
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Michele <ma...@pge.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: OCLV durability - what does it stand for???
>What does OCLV stand for?
>
>
michele wrote in message <74hmlv$g6...@news02.comp.pge.com>...
>What does OCLV stand for?
>
>
Russ Gordon
Bard Brors wrote in message <36693FD9...@civil.sintef.no>...
>Jim Flom wrote:
>
>> After 24 hours, including those who replied personally, it's Steel 9
votes,
>> Carbon 7 votes and Ti 1 (plus a couple sidebar comments about Trek's
>> warranty). Thing is, no one really seems to know how long a carbon will
>> last. My skepticism stems from it being a relatively young frame
material,
>> development-wise (versus especially steel), plus the VeloNews articles,
plus
>> the well known, time tested qualities of steel and repair-ability.
Unless
>> someone jumps up and says, "But wait!..." It's looking like steel is
real.
>> Thanks for some great bike suggestions!
>
the
>
>german "Tour" magazine mentioned? The Trek OCLV passed the test without
>breaking and so did two aluminium frames (Cannondale and Principia).
Generally,
>
>the carbon fibre and aluminium frames lasted the longest, titanium a little
>shorter
>and steel shortest. The results are presented (in german) at:
>
>
>Bard Brors
>
I most certainly do not have any "hard evidence" regarding the change from
"lifetime" to the 5 year policy. I simply hegded my bets
at the dealer by buying, off the floor at a significant discount, the older
model with the lifetime warranty vs. the newer model with the 5 year
warranty.
For me though, a year after this decision, I would say the frame warranty is
the least of your considerations. So much changes in this sport. If you're
so worried about the frame warranty then you'd better be some super serious
cyclist. Granted, there's not a lot of us edging up into this price group,
but for those that do I'll bet 5 years down the road you're wanting a new
frame anyway.
So all in all, I'd say it's a mind game.
Jonathan Bode
warranty. In addition to this, the lifetime warranty applied
retroactively to all OCLV frames which originally came with a 5 year
warranty. I don't know about the road OCLV frame (when did that first
come out anyway?), but when the mountain OCLV frame first came it, it had
a 5 year warranty. So, for mountain at least, the warranty was never
downgraded.
jb
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Chris Neary wrote:
> "Jim Flom" <jf...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >He did add that the legal definition of "lifetime" in the US is 5 years.
>
> Sounds like B.S. to me. Otherwise, why did Trek at one point change their
> warranties from Lifetime to 5 years?
>
> Anyone with a legal background in contracts who can offer an educated
> opinion on this?
>
>
>
>
> Chris Neary
> dia...@aimnet.com
>
Randy
stoop so low as to actually post a response to this newsgroup? By the
way, my Lemond OCLV frame only has a 5 year warranty, but I love it all
the same.
Jim Flom
"isn't worthy" of good (DA, Record, Chorus) components. It was in the
middle of a lot of techno-spiel, so I couldn't ask him to explain himself.
Is this custom bike snobbery or is there something to this? He also sells
Bianchi and LeMond. Thanks thanks thanks.
Jim
PUNCHESFTW
We are one of the largest Trek dealers in the country and have sold hundreds
of OCLV's with no problems. I have needed to warranty exactly 7-frames. 4 were
old generation Y-Mountain bikes, where the shock mount became un-bonded. One
was a 5500 with the BB problem and the other two were cosmetic flaws. That's
it!
Trek handled all the warranties and had the repaired or replacement frames
back to us within 2-weeks.
Doug
Stella Hackell
In article <74j48l$qr4$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Jim Flom"
<jf...@erols.com> wrote:
Stella Hackell ste...@wco.com
She who succeeds in gaining the mastery of the bicycle will gain the
mastery of life.
--Frances E. Willard, _How I Learned to Ride the Bicycle_
Robert Torre
have come across many people that bought aluminum bikes, only to wish
they had stayed with steel or went back to steel. I don't know anything
about the frame your talking about, but it sounds like aluminum. Steel
is the most elastic material on this planet, aluminum's use a real stiff
alloy to be able to handle the stress of a bike, titanium used to be
real stiff (that's why they all have carbon forks), but I've heard new
Ti alloys are more comfortable. Ti has the structural problem that their
failure point is very close to their bending point. Steel bends far from
it's failure point, that is how a steel frame is so thin and flexible
but able to withstand years of hard riding. If you want to buy a new
frame every other year, get Ti. If you want a bone crusher get aluminum.
If you want a bike to give to your grandchildern, get steel. If all you
want is a pure touring frame, you might have to go custom because it
seems like new bikes are either race geometry or MTB, at least in
America.
Bob Manson
frame, it'll forever taint the parts with the Curse of Unspeakable
Blackness and Desolation. This will not only make them unusable on a
custom frame, but it will eventually render them totally inoperable,
and may even cause them to explode! Your skill level probably isn't up
to the worthy parts anyway.
Your best bet is to get really cheap-junk parts for your unworthy
frame. Old Suntour MTB parts circa 1991 are especially coveted by
Unworthy Frame Riders. They won't give off permanently sterilizing
radiation when put on a "cheap-ass" frame.
In article <74j48l$qr4$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Jim Flom"
<jf...@erols.com> wrote:
> The guy at the custom shop yesterday said a even good production frame
> "isn't worthy" of good (DA, Record, Chorus) components. It was in the
Time to go somewhere else, methinks.
It may be that "you don't really need" the more-expensive crap,
because the less-expensive crap will work about as well (interpret
that however you want; I suggest Swahili), but it has nothing to do
with how worthy or unworthy the frame is. If a production frame is
unworthy of the more-expensive crap, just think of the money you'll
save! :-)
Oh, and make sure you get your wheels tied-n-soldered, and I hear
that...oh, what other sillies have been going around the group
lately... ah, yes, make sure you use UltraNippleLube on your nipples,
to prevent chafing. Johnson's UltraChainLube is far superior to any
other chain lubricant, and it's only $90 for .5oz. An inferior
non-custom frame will eventually weaken and turn into rubber after 2-3
years, so buy a titstecarb frame instead. Shop Smart! Shop S-Mart!
Bob
Andrew Blankeatz
: If you are going to have a bike for longer rides, stick with steel. I
Alex Wetmore
I don't know where you get this idea. There are plenty of stock, high
quality, true touring frames on the market. Off of the top of my head I can
think of the Trek 520 and 540, Cannondale T series, Bruce Gordon BLT,
Bianchi Volpe, REI/Novara Randonee and Fuji Touring Series. All of these
are in the $600-$1400 price range. I don't think that there are stock
touring bicycles that cost more then this, but then again I don't really
understand why any stock bicycles should cost much more then that... by the
time a single (not tandem) bike hits $2k I'd want something custom.
alex
Jim Flom
steel. Steel good. Ti maybe. No aluminum.
JF
Robert Torre wrote in message <366D88...@internetcds.com>...
>If you are going to have a bike for longer rides, stick with steel. I
>have come across many people that bought aluminum bikes, only to wish
>they had stayed with steel or went back to steel. I don't know anything
>about the frame your talking about, but it sounds like aluminum. Steel
>is the most elastic material on this planet, aluminum's use a real stiff
>alloy to be able to handle the stress of a bike, titanium used to be
>real stiff (that's why they all have carbon forks), but I've heard new
>Ti alloys are more comfortable. Ti has the structural problem that their
>failure point is very close to their bending point. Steel bends far from
>it's failure point, that is how a steel frame is so thin and flexible
>but able to withstand years of hard riding. If you want to buy a new
>frame every other year, get Ti. If you want a bone crusher get aluminum.
jbea...@my-dejanews.com
rto...@internetcds.com wrote:
> If you are going to have a bike for longer rides, stick with steel. I
> have come across many people that bought aluminum bikes, only to wish
> they had stayed with steel or went back to steel. I don't know anything
> about the frame your talking about, but it sounds like aluminum. Steel
> is the most elastic material on this planet, aluminum's use a real stiff
> alloy to be able to handle the stress of a bike, titanium used to be
> real stiff (that's why they all have carbon forks), but I've heard new
> Ti alloys are more comfortable. Ti has the structural problem that their
> failure point is very close to their bending point. Steel bends far from
> it's failure point, that is how a steel frame is so thin and flexible
> but able to withstand years of hard riding. If you want to buy a new
> frame every other year, get Ti. If you want a bone crusher get aluminum.
> If you want a bike to give to your grandchildern, get steel. If all you
> want is a pure touring frame, you might have to go custom because it
> seems like new bikes are either race geometry or MTB, at least in
> America.
>
Aluminum frames come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and you cannot say
categorically that aluminum is "harsher" than steel. Indeed, Alan frames are
noodles under a big guy like me, whereas my old 4130 custom CroMo could
rattle my teeth. Also, the fact that steel is ductile and will bend before
it breaks is really unimportant under ordinary circumstances. Whether a tube
breaks or bends, it needs to be replaced. Perhaps it would be better to have
a frame that bent instead of broke if bicycles had seat belts and occupant
protection was an issue. In the real world, however, a crash will launch the
rider OTB regardless of whether the frame bends, breaks, melts, or explodes
into a hair ball (like carbon fiber).
Buy what you like; I've owned steel and aluminum and have broken both --
probably due to manufacturing defects and not fatique.(I agree that steel has
better fatigue resistance, but I doubt that any rider gets anywhere near the
cycles necessary to trash a well made aluminum frame). I currently own three
aluminum frames but most often (in my retired-from-racing state)commute on a
second generation Cannondale (Circa 1984) "bone crusher" which I find
responsive and very rideable. In fact, I rode it in two Seattle-to-Portland
double centuries (my best time 8:42 (with stops) he says proudly), two Death
Rides and numerous road races and lived to tell about it. -- Jay Beattie
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
PUNCHESFTW
>real stiff (that's why they all have carbon forks), but I've heard new
>Ti alloys are more comfortable. Ti has the structural problem that their
>failure point is very close to their bending point.
Titanium stiff?....... I don't think so.
Chris Neary
>I don't know about the road OCLV frame (when did that first
>come out anyway?), but when the mountain OCLV frame first came it, it had
>a 5 year warranty. So, for mountain at least, the warranty was never
>downgraded.
I don't think so.
IIRC, my mountain OCLV is from the first year's production (1992?) and it
has a lifetime warranty.
Chris Neary
properties into a single post? :-)
Chris Neary
dia...@aimnet.com
"Information, usually seen as the precondition of debate,
is better understood as its by-product." - Christopher Lasch
n5...@my-dejanews.com
"Jim Flom" <jf...@erols.com> wrote:
> The guy at the custom shop yesterday said a even good production frame
> "isn't worthy" of good (DA, Record, Chorus) components. It was in the
> Is this custom bike snobbery or is there something to this? He also sells
> Bianchi and LeMond. Thanks thanks thanks.
>
> Jim
>
is only about 5%. I was stomped by a talented and unknown new rider
in a local criterium almost 20 years ago. He rode a Schwinn LeTour
in sneakers and cutoffs, and took second place. The next week he came
back with toe clips freshly installed, and took first! He stomped all
the bike snobs too!......ride safe........Ed
--
E.J. Wagner Jr.....Age and treachery will overcome youth and
skill....Fausto Coppi
Bob Brown
>: If you are going to have a bike for longer rides, stick with steel. I
>: have come across many people that bought aluminum bikes, only to wish
>: they had stayed with steel or went back to steel. I don't know anything
>: about the frame your talking about, but it sounds like aluminum. Steel
>: is the most elastic material on this planet, aluminum's use a real stiff
>: real stiff (that's why they all have carbon forks), but I've heard new
>: Ti alloys are more comfortable. Ti has the structural problem that their
>: it's failure point, that is how a steel frame is so thin and flexible
>: but able to withstand years of hard riding. If you want to buy a new
>: frame every other year, get Ti. If you want a bone crusher get aluminum.
>: If you want a bike to give to your grandchildern, get steel. If all you
>: want is a pure touring frame, you might have to go custom because it
>: seems like new bikes are either race geometry or MTB, at least in
>: America.
I'm sorry, but I'm really hard-pressed to find anything
accurate in this posting, it's a bunch of BS. As people who have
read my posts before know, I'm a big proponent of steel in bicycle frames,
and I'm glad there's still support for it, but don't go making stuff up
about materials.
I don't know which of the two names listed wrote this, but for reference:
Modulus of Elasticity
typ. Structural Steel: 29 Ksi
6061-T6 Aluminum: 10 Ksi
Ti 6Al-4V: 17.4 Ksi
As a material steel is about the stiffest in the bike biz. A frame can be
made stiff using any material, or flimsy using any material. You will not
be buying a new frame every other year with any material unless you purchase
a poorly deisgned or built bike of any material, or abuse your equipment.
As for comparing OCLV to aluminum, why don't you find out what OCLV is
before you make a rediculous post. It behaves differently from any metal
structure. The OCLV frames produced today rarely suffer from a material
failure, rather a bonding failure.
Bob
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Tan Wee Yeh
> If you are going to have a bike for longer rides, stick with steel. I
> have come across many people that bought aluminum bikes, only to wish
> they had stayed with steel or went back to steel. I don't know anything
> about the frame your talking about, but it sounds like aluminum. Steel
> is the most elastic material on this planet, aluminum's use a real stiff
> alloy to be able to handle the stress of a bike, titanium used to be
> real stiff (that's why they all have carbon forks), but I've heard new
> Ti alloys are more comfortable. Ti has the structural problem that their
> failure point is very close to their bending point. Steel bends far from
> it's failure point, that is how a steel frame is so thin and flexible
> but able to withstand years of hard riding. If you want to buy a new
> frame every other year, get Ti. If you want a bone crusher get aluminum.
> If you want a bike to give to your grandchildern, get steel. If all you
> want is a pure touring frame, you might have to go custom because it
> seems like new bikes are either race geometry or MTB, at least in
> America.
If you want to help others, get your facts right before
posting.
BTW, OCLV is carbon, as is said many times in earlier
postings if you even bothered to read them.
Just me,
Wire ...
--
Tan Wee Yeh wy...@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~wytan
For PGP public key : http://www.pobox.com/~wytan/pgp
PGP fingerprint = CB 11 61 BE 4E EF FB 84 71 15 CF 22 46 FD 4C B3
Jan Sacharuk
<Pine.A41.3.96.981207...@tigger.cc.uic.edu>,
>A Trek dealer I talked to said that ALL OCLV frames now had a lifetime
>warranty. In addition to this, the lifetime warranty applied
>retroactively to all OCLV frames which originally came with a 5 year
>come out anyway?), but when the mountain OCLV frame first came it, it had
>a 5 year warranty. So, for mountain at least, the warranty was never
>downgraded.
The 9700 that I recently bought has a lifetime warranty. I don't think
I would have gone for it otherwise. I'm really leery about buying
bikes that don't have long warranties. I'd prolly even pass on a Ti or
Steel bike that didn't have a lifetime warranty.
Jan Sacharuk
--
**** **** ===== Remove dontspamme from my address to mail me ============
** *** ** GCS d-(++) s+++:- a-- C++++$ ULAVISX++++$ P++$ L+++ E+++$ W--
** * ** N++ !o K? w---$ !O M- V-- PS+ PE Y !PGP t--- 5+++ X+ R+ tv--
** j.s ** b+++>++++ DI++++ !D G++ e+>+++ h++ r++>+++ y+**
** + ** -----------------------------------------------------------------
**v.y** Surviving is an instinct.
** ** Living takes guts.
* -Lance Armstrong
Tullio
> The 9700 that I recently bought has a lifetime warranty. I don't think
> I would have gone for it otherwise. I'm really leery about buying
> bikes that don't have long warranties. I'd prolly even pass on a Ti or
> Steel bike that didn't have a lifetime warranty.
Lifetime warranties are a marketing ploy. Manufacturers use them to
instill confidence in stupid light frames that WILL eventually fail.
When they fail, some will be replaced under the warranty, some will be
refused warranty coverage because of something in the warranty fine
print (no jumping, no "aggressive" riding, etc.), and others won't be
replaced because of the cost of all the new parts necessary to build the
replacement frame because the old parts are no longer compatible.
Your best bet is to find a frame that is suitable for your weight and
riding style. If you weigh over 200 pounds, it is not wise to buy a
sub-3 pound frame and expect it to last a lifetime.
Unfortunately, manufacturers are afraid to introduce a frame that is
appropriate for hard or heavy riders because it will labeled "too heavy"
by the magazines and newsgroup posters.
Todd Kuzma
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL
e-mail: tul...@TheRamp.net
Raleigh-Specialized-Bianchi
Waterford-Torelli-GT/Dyno
Burley-Co-Motion
Mary/Thom
Let's hear it for unworthy bike junk and their masters! Here's some good
emperical data for you: If I blow by Merlins with 9 speed wheels and high-gloss
Campy parts (riding my 1977 English road bike repleat with clips, fenders and
absolutely "primative" Shim600 parts, etc) then that means that if I get a
really NICE bike, I'll go slower....
But just remember this: high end road bikes look best on a Beemer 5 Series and
a full sus mountain bike are a must for your Hummer.
Grrrrr!! Run we'll run the snobs down with our clunkers.
-Tom
Mike DeMicco
> Steel is the most elastic material on this planet
Damn, more than rubber? Wow! Do you know when they are going to come out
with steel tires? :-)
--
Mike DeMicco <dem...@home.com>
Jon Isaacs
>As a material steel is about the stiffest in the bike biz. A frame can be
>made stiff using any material, or flimsy using any material.
Here is some non BS which I have posted previously. Steel is stiff, however
it's specific stiffness (young's modulus/density or specific weight) is similar
to both Ti and Al
Table:
>Modulus of Elasticity (PLease note the use of the correct units by me, Msi
rather than ksi)
>
E Specific Weight
Specific Stiffness
>typ. Structural Steel: 29 Msi .284 lb/in^3
102 (no units)
>6061-T6 Aluminum: 10 Msi .100 lb/in^3 100
>Ti 6Al-4V: 17.4 Msi .163lb/in^3
106
What this means is that tubes of equal weight and similar dimensions will have
similar stiffnesses in bending and torsion.
The way to engineer a stiffer frame is the increase the tubing diameter. The
maximum tube diameter is limited by the local buckling of the tube, ie "coke
can effect." Since these tubes are of equal weight, the steel tube will have
the thinnest wall and thus since buckling stress is of a higher power of the
wall thickness, it will buckle sooner than for either Ti or Al. So the fact is
that for a given frame weight a stiffer frame can be designed from aluminum
than either Ti or Steel.
>As for comparing OCLV to aluminum, why don't you find out what OCLV is
>before you make a rediculous post.
Some of us are familiar with the properties of carbon fiber re-inforced epoxy
composites and have discussed the various properties such as failure modes,
repairability, fatigue and fracture toughness. I hope you are not calling this
BS.
>The OCLV frames produced today rarely suffer from a material
>failure,
OCLV bike can suffer from material failure in crashes and accidents which are
not repairable.
I prefer steel bikes also, but I am aware of the limitations of steel and the
advantages of some of the lighter materials for frame fabrication.
Jon "1 OCLV road bike, 7 steel road bikes" Isaacs
Bob Brown
Jon Isaacs wrote in message
<19981210171746...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
Jon, my posting was not a discussion of frame structures, but rather
pointing out simple material properties that were vastly misrepresented in a
previous post. I agree if you are comparing tow identical weight tubes, in
practice, the Aluminum tube can be made stiffer. That was not the point
though. I purely stated the metalurgical
properties of the materials used to fabricate the tubing. You took the one
general statement I made about frame sturctures and quoted it. It makes no
reference to tubing weights, or wall thickness.
> >As for comparing OCLV to aluminum, why don't you find out what OCLV is
>>before you make a rediculous post.
>
>Some of us are familiar with the properties of carbon fiber re-inforced
epoxy
>composites and have discussed the various properties such as failure modes,
>repairability, fatigue and fracture toughness. I hope you are not calling
this
>BS.
>
>>The OCLV frames produced today rarely suffer from a material
>>failure,
>
>OCLV bike can suffer from material failure in crashes and accidents which
are
>not repairable.
>
Um, any frame material can suffer failure from crashing. I was talking
about inherant material faliure that is present from manufacturing on.
An accident is an outside cause for failure. If you read the original post
I don't think you will find me calling your discussion of re-inforced
carbon BS. I called the statement that "steel is the most elastic material
on earth" BS.
>I prefer steel bikes also, but I am aware of the limitations of steel and
the advantages of some of the lighter materials for frame fabrication.
>Jon "1 OCLV road bike, 7 steel road bikes" Isaacs
You know I'm not trying to start any kind of war here, just take what I
wrote for what is says rather than infering all kinds of other information
from it that was never written. I'd appreciate it.
Bob Brown
Chris Neary
>I'll talk to the president of Trek on Monday and post the answer here.
And?
PUNCHESFTW
> On 12/5/98 punch...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>I'll talk to the president of Trek on Monday and post the answer here.
>
>And?
>
>
>
>
>Chris Neary
>dia...@aimnet.com
>
>
Frankly, I haven't checked with him yet and have had other things to do. You
are not exactly at the top of my priority list. But, since it seems to be so
important to you, I'll try to get the official line today. It really doesn't
matter anyway though.., I've never had a problem having anything warranted from
Trek.
P.S. Weren't you the one that wanted this handled by private E-mail?
Doug
Chris Neary
>Frankly, I haven't checked with him yet and have had other things to do. You
>are not exactly at the top of my priority list. But, since it seems to be so
>important to you, I'll try to get the official line today.
Thank you!
You didn't make the commitment to me, but to the list in general. I know
other people who are interested in the answer.
>P.S. Weren't you the one that wanted this handled by private E-mail?
Nope, on 12/6/98 dia...@aimnet.com wrote:
>>"Aside from the information you get from Trek, please take the remainder
>> of this discussion to e-mail as I doubt it is of any value to the original poster."
Wonderboy
my bike cost more than my car. but I ride my bike more than I
drive my car, and I really enjoy riding my bike. I spend a lot
more time on my bike than I do driving. So I've invested more
money in my hobby than in my car. I hope people don't
look at my bike and think I must be a snob.
My friend has a $5000+ custom made titanium and carbon SEVEN.
(Titanium main triangle, and Carbon stays). Its beautiful. He is single,
with a great job, and he loves his bike. He has lots of money to spend
on his hobby. He's also a very nice guy, and
very humble cat 4 master. what's wrong with that?
Maybe you were just joking, and thats OK, but I know a lot
of people seem to have a real problem with slow people on expensive
bikes.
I agree that it is fun to pass someone on a trick bike, but not
because they are a snob. I race a cheap Mt. bike in NORBA for kicks.
bert
remove...@hotmail.com
You mentioned that you saw joint separation on the OCLVs pretty much on
earlier versions. Can you be a little more specific? What model year frames
did you see the problem?
Just curious, hoping it's before say... 1995.
Thanks,
Jim in Chicago
'95 5500 OCLV
--------------------
In article <749u48$60o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
ma...@abtcorp.com wrote:
>
> > >I'm planning to buy a good ($2000-$2500) road bike for longer rides and
> > >centuries, etc. sometime in the next few months, and riding maybe 6,000 to
> > >8,000 miles annually. I'm leaning heavily toward steel, because I want it
> > >to last and last and last. MY LBS guy (who is a great help) wants me to
> > >think about the Trek 5200 OCLV, and cites the lifetime guarantee. I'm
> > >skeptical. Anybody have any idea on OCLV's expected lifespan?
>
> the oclv bikes are excellent, in my opinion. i sold a hundred or so of them,
> and saw a handful (pretty much all early versions) that started to separate at
> joints. they don't fail dramatically, they just start to make some noise, and
> then you realize it's cracked and you get it fixed.
>
> with that said, i recommend steel. not so much for the last and last part,
> though my steel frame is holding up well. i see close to as many cracked steel
> frames (percentage-wise) as i do cracked carbon frames. i like steel just
> because it rides better (imho), creaks less and costs less. many steel frames
> (especially custom or older frames) have clearance for various tire sizes too,
> which is mighty handy if you plan on riding on a variety of surfaces. as
> someone else pointed out, you could get a pretty sweet custom frame for the
> same price as the trek.
>
> i wouldn't worry about the oclv bike holding up, but if you don't have a
> complex about steel (many customers have been brainwashed by ads to think of
> it as an inferior material), and you can afford 2-3 grand, i would suggest
> chasing down a local builder of custom frames, and get him to whip you up a
> sweet ride with whatever braze-ons you want, in whatever color you want, with
> clearance for real tires if you want. It might weigh 1 1/2 lbs more. big
> deal. it's not like it's a mountain bike or something where weight is
> important. mw
Mark Hickey
>titanium used to be
>real stiff (that's why they all have carbon forks),
Huh?
> but I've heard newTi alloys are more comfortable.
New alloys?
>Ti has the structural problem that their
>failure point is very close to their bending point.
Huh?
> If you want to buy a new frame every other year, get Ti.
Well, that's good advice. Unless he meant to imply the frames would
fail.... I choose to think he just meant everyone should buy a new ti
frame every year. Heck, it would take a few years just to get one of
each type!
>If you want a bone crusher get aluminum.
It seems like bone crushers should be heavier than that....
>If you want a bike to give to your grandchildern, get steel.
Most people buying bikes for their grandchildren do buy steel. Hard
to find a bike with 16" wheels made of anything else.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.cynetfl.com/habanero/
Home of the $695 ti frame
Damon Rinard
test of twelve high-end frames.
In summary:
FRAME MAT'L NUMBER OF CYCLES
Trek OCLV carbon 200,000 did not break
Cannondale alu 200,000 did not break
Principia alu 200,000 did not break
Time Helix HM carbon 182,000 broke in alu chainstay lug
Schmolke Titan ti 160,000 broke at shift boss
Klein Quantum alu 132,000 down tube cable guide
Barellia SLX steel 119,000 broke in head tube at down tube
Merlin Road ti 101,000 broke at shift boss
Stevens RPR4 alu 85,000 broke in chainstay
Nishiki Team steel 78,000 bb / seat tube / down tube
Fondriest steel 77,000 broke both chainstays
DeRosa SLX steel 57,000 broke in head tube at down tube
You can see all the carbon and aluminum bikes near the top, and all the
steel bikes near the bottom.
--
Damon Rinard
Damon Rinard's Bicycle Tech Site:
http://www.damonrinard.com/