Aluminum frames for fitness skater.
DJA
seriously consider aluminum frames for the first time. I've previously
focused on Rollerblade polycarb frames for two reasons; I like the
"self-locking" bolts, and I've become accustomed to rockered wheels.
Both of these features are available with my current frames. My
preference would be to stay with Rollerblade because I've been very
happy with the way they fit.
Do RB alu frames (ex: Aero 7 ALU) allow rockering? Do the wheel bolts
have any locking capability or do they progressive tighten as any other
bolt? The RB website is fairly sparse on technical specifics.
I don't compete and I don't really worry about LGwS. By mid-summer, I
should be skating 16-20mi, 3-4 times a week. Is there a genuine and
appreciable benefit to aluminum vs. polycarb for someone like me? Or, is
there simply a psychological benefit to having "professional" looking
skates?
David
Motorblade
no
>Do the wheel bolts
>have any locking capability or do they progressive tighten as any other
>bolt?
they lock into little ridges in the frame and bolt
>I don't compete and I don't really worry about LGwS. By mid-summer, I
>should be skating 16-20mi, 3-4 times a week. Is there a genuine and
>appreciable benefit to aluminum vs. polycarb for someone like me? Or, is
>there simply a psychological benefit to having "professional" looking
>skates?
>
alu frames seem stronger ,lighter and transfer power more directly'
composite frames can occasionally crack but actually survive scratching better
than alu imho
composite give a softer ride, absorb more vibration , but transfer power less
directly and can often be rockered.
>David
>
>
>
>
>
"fritz"
http://www.londonskaters.com/interview_fritz_blaw.htm
www.motorblade.com
Birdy(Parker), Brazil(Gilliam),and Brewster McCloud(Altman)
DaDaddyio
for me after Aluminum. I'm 225lbs and the metal frames seem to handle my weight
better and have better power transfer. I don't think I'd go back at this point.
Craig
John Doe
> I don't compete and I don't really worry about LGwS. By mid-summer, I
> should be skating 16-20mi, 3-4 times a week. Is there a genuine and
> appreciable benefit to aluminum vs. polycarb for someone like me? Or, is
> there simply a psychological benefit to having "professional" looking
> skates?
I agree they look nice. Get aluminum if you can.
They probably are better overall. They usually are included on better
skates. But I am not convinced of the claim/benifit of transferring power
more directly.
Composite tennis rackets transfer power very well.
Aluminum frames might be lighter, sturdier, and respond slightly better to
your movements. Perhaps that is what "power transfer" means. My idea of
ordinary power transfer would be like from start of stroke to finish, seems
to me composite would be about the same. Road surface, rubber wheels, and
skate shoe fabric also play a part in transferring power. I might be wrong,
I am not very experienced, it's just an interesting subject which I ponder
about. The assumed slight mushyness (in addition to the other factors)
during the stroke might wear on the stroke as a whole. But, well, it just
isn't easy for me to understand.
Fit is more important to me than frame type. If it feels good, buy it.
Bob Cardone
make sense. A tennis racket like a composite hockey stick has to have
some "whip" to it. You certainly don't want that quality in a skate
frame.
Bob
Motorblade
thats always been the tech reasoning put forward in most manufacturers info
I understand the skepticism but the alu frames have been the standard for a
while now
Tap a metal tool against a composite frame and a alu frame and you can hear and
feel the difference in the transfer of vibration to the boot. The tap on a
composite frame is muffled and transfers less to the boot then when you rap on
a alu frame.
DJA
>
> Tap a metal tool against a composite frame and a alu frame and you can hear and
> feel the difference in the transfer of vibration to the boot. The tap on a
> composite frame is muffled and transfers less to the boot then when you rap on
> a alu frame.
>
>
Aluminum:
Slightly better transfer of effort into forward movement.
"Pro" look.
Less vibration absorption.
Usually doesn't permit rockering.
All else being equal, higher cost.
Composite:
Vice versa.
Based on what I'm reading, I'm going to answer my own question. For me,
the slight efficiency gained by the rigid alu frame won't outweigh the
down side factors. However, I can see where alu would benefit someone
seeking uncompromised efficiency for competition or as a personal
preference.
It does seem that for someone simply trying to put in brisk miles to
resist the laws of time and nature, a composite frame is clearly a
viable option. Composite material does offer some unique benefits. I
think I'll stay with this technology for the time being.
Thanks,
David
John Doe
> I understand the skepticism but the alu frames have been the standard
> for a while now
>
> Tap a metal tool against a composite frame and a alu frame and you can
> hear and feel the difference in the transfer of vibration to the boot.
> The tap on a composite frame is muffled and transfers less to the boot
> then when you rap on a alu frame.
Try tapping on the wheels, where the skate meets the road.
DJA
> Tap a metal tool against a composite frame and a alu frame and you can hear and
> feel the difference in the transfer of vibration to the boot. The tap on a
> composite frame is muffled and transfers less to the boot then when you rap on
> a alu frame.
>
Aluminum:
Slightly better transfer of effort into forward movement.
"Pro" look.
Less vibration absorption.
Usually doesn't permit rockering.
All else being equal, higher cost.
Composite:
Vice versa.
Based on what I'm reading, I'm going to answer my own question. For me,
the slight efficiency gained by the rigid alu frame won't outweigh the
down side factors. However, I can see where alu would benefit someone
seeking uncompromised efficiency for competition or as a personal
preference.
It does seem that for someone simply trying to put in some brisk miles
as a fitness effort, a composite frame is clearly a viable option.
Composite material does offer some unique benefits, so I think I'll stay
Povl H. Pedersen
> alu frames seem stronger ,lighter and transfer power more directly'
>
> composite frames can occasionally crack but actually survive scratching better
> than alu imho
>
> composite give a softer ride, absorb more vibration , but transfer power less
> directly and can often be rockered.
Polycarbs are way stronger than Al, and stronger than Magnesium alloy if
made right. There is a reason they are replacing Mg-alloy parts suffering
from fractures on the F/A-18 withg polycarb parts.
--
Povl H. Pedersen - NoS...@my.terminal.dk (yes - it works)
Get 5% discount on VMWare use discount/referral code: MRC-POVPED260
John Doe
Bob Cardone <spam1!@!mindspring.com> wrote
> Comparing the qualities of a tennis racket to a skate frame doesn't
> make sense. A tennis racket like a composite hockey stick has to have
> some "whip" to it. You certainly don't want that quality in a skate
> frame.
Altho you could conceivably whip someone with a tennis racket, tennis
rackets do not have "whip" Bob. The reason tennis players use composite
is because composite is strong and light. It might absorb shock better than
metal too.
> Bob
>
>
>
> Path:
> bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!w
> nmaster11!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!207.217.77.102!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfee
> d.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthli
> nk.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!fed24efd!not-for-mail
> From: Bob Cardone <spam1!@!mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.skating.inline
> Subject: Re: Aluminum frames for fitness skater.
> Reply-To: spam!@!mindspring.com
> Message-ID: <4iqe90hdmnndjvipu...@4ax.com>
> References: <FfCdnfEtuf2...@comcast.com>
> <Xns94DF24D3F400...@204.127.36.1> X-Newsreader: Forte
> Agent 1.92/32.572 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 48
> Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:05:48 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.154.110.179
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
> X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1083665148 4.154.110.179
> (Tue, 04 May 2004 03:05:48 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 May 2004
> 03:05:48 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Xref: wnmaster11 rec.sport.skating.inline:84707
> X-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:05:49 GMT
> (bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net)
>
Corey Gibson
> Comparing the qualities of a tennis racket to a skate frame doesn't
> make sense. A tennis racket like a composite hockey stick has to have
> some "whip" to it. You certainly don't want that quality in a skate
> frame.
>
> Bob
And in addition you need to consider the design parameters and
contraints. A tennis raquet uses a closed cross-section formed into a
closed loop (or hoop). Only tiny holes are needed and no fasteners to
attach the strings. Relativly simple and cheap to make from
composites. Also, the energy transfer is largely reliant on the
quality of the strings, not the raquet (yes we have come along way in
raquet technology though).
A skate frame is typically a 'U' or 'A' cross-section which is
straight (not closed). It may very well be possible to make a frame as
stiff and strong as aluminium from composites, as well as lighter, but
it would be damn expensive.
In short, as Bob suggests, Tennis and Skating is apple and bananas.
Corey 'But my apple is more efficient than your banana' Gibson
Corey Gibson
>
> Polycarbs are way stronger than Al, and stronger than Magnesium alloy if
> made right. There is a reason they are replacing Mg-alloy parts suffering
> from fractures on the F/A-18 withg polycarb parts.
Are you talking polycarb or carbon composite. They are different things.
Corey
Corey Gibson
>
> Aluminum:
> Slightly better transfer of effort into forward movement.
> "Pro" look.
> Less vibration absorption.
> Usually doesn't permit rockering.
> All else being equal, higher cost.
>
>
> Composite:
> Vice versa.
>
> Based on what I'm reading, I'm going to answer my own question. For me,
> the slight efficiency gained by the rigid alu frame won't outweigh the
> down side factors. However, I can see where alu would benefit someone
> seeking uncompromised efficiency for competition or as a personal
> preference.
>
> It does seem that for someone simply trying to put in some brisk miles
> as a fitness effort, a composite frame is clearly a viable option.
> Composite material does offer some unique benefits, so I think I'll stay
> with this technology for the time being.
OK, after reading this thread, I am now confused. In the original
post, David, are the frames carbon composite, or polycarb, cause
they're two completely different things in themselves.
Now, were these Rollerblade frame actually Carbon-fibre composite, or
carbon-composite, cause again, that can be interperated in different
ways.
The 'composite' frame on say the current Aero 5, is a carbon-composite
frame, which means it has carbon/graphite filler in the plastic (PPA
or PPE most likely). Carbon fibre composite, well, that stuff is nice,
and much more expensive to make stuff from than either filled plastics
or aluminium.
But to back up you answering yourself, yes, there is no problem with a
skater like yourself for the kind of thing you do using what is
essentially a plastic frame (read composite). In fact, it will
probably be better for your fitness, since you'll waste a tiny bit
more energy with each stroke.
Corey '55mm wheels are good for your fitness too' Gibson
John Doe
> Composite material does offer some unique benefits,
Not knocking metal, FWIW, I think metal is great, but. You can sort of
repair a composite frame/boot with super glue.
I suppose this is more applicable to hard shell skates. However, super glue
can also be very useful (if not perfect) for nylon. So it can be used to
hold threads from coming further unraveled, and other things. Partly
depends on whether the materials at the point of application have to flex
much. Even if the area has to flex a little, if the surrounding area is
flexible, it might still work.
On colored plastic which shows a white scratch mark, if nothing else glue
can put the natural color back on the skate surface. You can use fine
sandpaper on it before application, or after the glue dries. For color
refreshment, probably better to apply the glue after sanding.
Carefully.
I know some people have trouble with using super glue, so sorry if that is
the case for an individual. Besides risk of stuck fingers, it tends to run,
especially if applied quickly. It is very tricky. As mentioned, skillfully
used, super glue is perfect for certain nylon string applications. In fact,
my monitor is suspended over me by nylon ropes which are joined firmly by
one square knot each with about ten drops of super glue. The knots are hard
as rocks. It also produces fumes which can rise and irritate/burn your eyes
when applied several drops at a time.
--
Sorry for the change of subject, but I got into writing about the stuff and
ventured far into other materials and uses for skates.
Bob Cardone
Aluminum or Magnesium Frames have the advantage of not twisting as
compared to the composite ( another word for plastic) frame.
Bob
Bob Cardone
>
>Altho you could conceivably whip someone with a tennis racket, tennis
>rackets do not have "whip" Bob. The reason tennis players use composite
>is because composite is strong and light. It might absorb shock better than
>metal too.
>
Ther reason it " absorbs" shock is because it has some give or flex to
it. This also gives it a whipping action like a composite hockey
stick.
Bob
DJA
>
> OK, after reading this thread, I am now confused. In the original
> post, David, are the frames carbon composite, or polycarb, cause
> they're two completely different things in themselves.
>
I began the thread by using the term 'polycarb' because I thought the
mid-line skate frame material is a type of polycarbonate plastic. It may
actually be a carbon/graphite or glass reinforced nylon, but I think
most people here refer to these blends generically as a 'composite'.
I was not referring to the high-end carbon fiber stuff.
David
DJA
>
> OK, after reading this thread, I am now confused. In the original
> post, David, are the frames carbon composite, or polycarb, cause
> they're two completely different things in themselves.
>
I began the thread by using the term 'polycarb' because I thought the