Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands

[A Muzi]

> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.

Chalo wrote:
> I've used plenty of seamless pipe for high pressure hydraulics. I
> consider the difference to be purely semantic.
>
> The way I make the semantic distinction between pipe and tubing, I
> guess a "screwed and glued" frame would be made from pipe (because its
> ends are threaded into joints) while a brazed frame would be made from
> tubing. Copper household plumbing is tubing, iron or red brass
> household plumbing is pipe. I think they're all seamed.

Now I'm curious - what's the definition if both can be seamed?

(I also considered 'pipe' to be a seamed tube but I'll listen)

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

[Ted Bennett]

In article <1392jf836mvlkc4@corp.supernews.com>,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> > On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
> >> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
>
> Chalo wrote:
> > I've used plenty of seamless pipe for high pressure hydraulics. I
> > consider the difference to be purely semantic.
> >
> > The way I make the semantic distinction between pipe and tubing, I
> > guess a "screwed and glued" frame would be made from pipe (because its
> > ends are threaded into joints) while a brazed frame would be made from
> > tubing. Copper household plumbing is tubing, iron or red brass
> > household plumbing is pipe. I think they're all seamed.
>
> Now I'm curious - what's the definition if both can be seamed?
>
> (I also considered 'pipe' to be a seamed tube but I'll listen)


I'm curious about this distinction too. According to Wikipedia:

"The terms 'pipe' and 'tubing' are interchangeable. 'Pipe' is
generally specified by the internal diameter (ID) whereas 'tube' is
usually defined by the outside diameter (OD) but may be specified by any
combination of dimensions (OD, ID, wall thickness), depending upon which
are considered the most important to the designer. 'Tube' is often made
to custom sizes and may often have more specific sizes and tolerances
than pipe. The term 'tubing' is more widely used in the USA and 'pipe'
elsewhere in the world."

That would seem to agree with Chalo's assertion that the difference is a
matter of semantics.

jim beam wrote:
"copper and brass are all seamless afaik. there are plated seamed
versions, but i've always known those as pipe.

you have a point regarding common usage - definite confusion."

Absolutely correct. There are many systems for sizing and nomenclature.
It would seem useful to specify the ID and OD, the material and the
method of production as well as mechanical properties.

--
Ted Bennett

[jim beam]

Ted Bennett wrote:
> In article <1392jf836mvlkc4@corp.supernews.com>,
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>>>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> I've used plenty of seamless pipe for high pressure hydraulics. I
>>> consider the difference to be purely semantic.
>>>
>>> The way I make the semantic distinction between pipe and tubing, I
>>> guess a "screwed and glued" frame would be made from pipe (because its
>>> ends are threaded into joints) while a brazed frame would be made from
>>> tubing. Copper household plumbing is tubing, iron or red brass
>>> household plumbing is pipe. I think they're all seamed.
>> Now I'm curious - what's the definition if both can be seamed?
>>
>> (I also considered 'pipe' to be a seamed tube but I'll listen)
>
>
> I'm curious about this distinction too. According to Wikipedia:
>
> "The terms 'pipe' and 'tubing' are interchangeable.

if a frame maker paid for tube and got pipe, they would have been ripped
off. the terms are /not/ interchangeable regardless of application.


> 'Pipe' is
> generally specified by the internal diameter (ID) whereas 'tube' is
> usually defined by the outside diameter (OD) but may be specified by any
> combination of dimensions (OD, ID, wall thickness), depending upon which
> are considered the most important to the designer. 'Tube' is often made
> to custom sizes and may often have more specific sizes and tolerances
> than pipe. The term 'tubing' is more widely used in the USA and 'pipe'
> elsewhere in the world."
>
> That would seem to agree with Chalo's assertion that the difference is a
> matter of semantics.
>
> jim beam wrote:
> "copper and brass are all seamless afaik. there are plated seamed
> versions, but i've always known those as pipe.
>
> you have a point regarding common usage - definite confusion."
>
> Absolutely correct. There are many systems for sizing and nomenclature.
> It would seem useful to specify the ID and OD, the material and the
> method of production as well as mechanical properties.
>

[John Thompson]

On 2007-07-08, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>>>> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>>>>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.

> if a frame maker paid for tube and got pipe, they would have been ripped
> off. the terms are /not/ interchangeable regardless of application.

There are more than a few examples of decent quality steel frame tubing
made from seamed tubes, e.g. Reynolds 501, True Temper, Colombus Allele,
Ishiwata 028, etc. In these cases the seamed tube is usually drawn
over a series of mandrels after welding to obliterate the weld seam
and add butting, but it starts out as ordinary seamed tubing.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

[jim beam]

John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-07-08, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>>>>>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
>
>> if a frame maker paid for tube and got pipe, they would have been ripped
>> off. the terms are /not/ interchangeable regardless of application.
>
> There are more than a few examples of decent quality steel frame tubing
> made from seamed tubes, e.g. Reynolds 501, True Temper, Colombus Allele,
> Ishiwata 028, etc. In these cases the seamed tube is usually drawn
> over a series of mandrels after welding to obliterate the weld seam
> and add butting, but it starts out as ordinary seamed tubing.
>
indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is not
as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one has
higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and fatigue.
another analogy is compressed gas cylinders. low pressure stuff like
butane can use a welded or even polymer cylinder. high pressure stuff
like oxygen is typically used in seamless.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> ...
> indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is not
> as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one has
> higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and fatigue....

Does Dura-Ace really provide greater strength and fatigue resistance (a
citation of test results would be useful here), or merely lighter weight
and better finish (particularly when compared to Ultegra and 105)?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[jim beam]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>> ...
>> indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is not
>> as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one has
>> higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and fatigue....
>
> Does Dura-Ace really provide greater strength and fatigue resistance (a
> citation of test results would be useful here), or merely lighter weight
> and better finish (particularly when compared to Ultegra and 105)?
>
i've not seen formal comparisons published, but let's examine what we
know about dura-ace from public data:

1. dura-ace failures reported on r.b.t - i'm still on the fingers of one
hand. given the sheer volume of product and time in service, that's a
very important qualitative indicator.
2. it's cold forged - the ultimate for strength and fatigue resistance.
3. surface finish is superb - again, best fatigue performance.

every single design element of dura-ace is the best that it can be.
given that the other groupos are not cold forged and are clearly
distinguishable in terms of finish or deliberately reserve scope for
improvement, i'm very confident of that ranking.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>> ...
>>> indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is
>>> not as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one
>>> has higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and
>>> fatigue....
>>
>> Does Dura-Ace really provide greater strength and fatigue resistance
>> (a citation of test results would be useful here), or merely lighter
>> weight and better finish (particularly when compared to Ultegra and 105)?
>>
> i've not seen formal comparisons published, but let's examine what we
> know about dura-ace from public data:
>
> 1. dura-ace failures reported on r.b.t - i'm still on the fingers of one
> hand. given the sheer volume of product and time in service, that's a
> very important qualitative indicator.

How many failures of Ultegra and 105 have been reported? Surely, these
have sold in greater quantities than Dura-Ace?

> 2. it's cold forged - the ultimate for strength and fatigue resistance.
> 3. surface finish is superb - again, best fatigue performance.
>
> every single design element of dura-ace is the best that it can be.
> given that the other groupos are not cold forged and are clearly
> distinguishable in terms of finish or deliberately reserve scope for
> improvement, i'm very confident of that ranking.

However, Dura-Ace parts are lighter than Ultegra and 105, which will
compromise fatigue life.

So, is there any data beyond speculation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[jim beam]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is
>>>> not as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one
>>>> has higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and
>>>> fatigue....
>>>
>>> Does Dura-Ace really provide greater strength and fatigue resistance
>>> (a citation of test results would be useful here), or merely lighter
>>> weight and better finish (particularly when compared to Ultegra and
>>> 105)?
>>>
>> i've not seen formal comparisons published, but let's examine what we
>> know about dura-ace from public data:
>>
>> 1. dura-ace failures reported on r.b.t - i'm still on the fingers of
>> one hand. given the sheer volume of product and time in service,
>> that's a very important qualitative indicator.
>
> How many failures of Ultegra and 105 have been reported? Surely, these
> have sold in greater quantities than Dura-Ace?

in the u.s., that's debatable! and are they used for the same mileage?
serious cyclists that put in the big miles generally don't use low end
groupos.

>
>> 2. it's cold forged - the ultimate for strength and fatigue resistance.
>> 3. surface finish is superb - again, best fatigue performance.
>>
>> every single design element of dura-ace is the best that it can be.
>> given that the other groupos are not cold forged and are clearly
>> distinguishable in terms of finish or deliberately reserve scope for
>> improvement, i'm very confident of that ranking.
>
> However, Dura-Ace parts are lighter than Ultegra and 105, which will
> compromise fatigue life.
>
> So, is there any data beyond speculation?
>

fatigue is a matter of design, execution and materials. on all three
counts, the "speculation" accords with known factors that are /proven/
to mitigate fatigue. what's next - trying to prove that ignoring design
execution and materials /doesn't/ affect fatigue?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:02:30 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:

>How many failures of Ultegra and 105 have been reported? Surely, these
>have sold in greater quantities than Dura-Ace?

I'm not so sure about that. With Ultegra it's quite possible that
once someone decides to spend the big $ on a bike they go all the way
and buy the Dura-Ace. I don't know, but would not be surprised if
Ultegra was outsold by Dura-Ace.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jul 9, 12:02 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman obnoxiously and
pointlessly wrote:


> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>

Who? Who? Who? Who? GMAFB, Jobst wannabe

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:02:30 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> How many failures of Ultegra and 105 have been reported? Surely, these
>> have sold in greater quantities than Dura-Ace?
>
> I'm not so sure about that. With Ultegra it's quite possible that
> once someone decides to spend the big $ on a bike they go all the way
> and buy the Dura-Ace. I don't know, but would not be surprised if
> Ultegra was outsold by Dura-Ace.

Maybe this depends on geography and preferred type of activity. When I
had the time to ride regularly with a (non-racing) club, and from what I
see on invitational rides in the Upper Midwest, steel and aluminium
frame bikes with Sora to Ultegra level components are the most common.
Maybe where jim beam lives (SF/Silly Cone Valley) people automatically
buy the most expensive components (Dura-Ace, Record and boutique).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle (who?) anonymously snipes:
> On Jul 9, 12:02 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman obnoxiously and
> pointlessly wrote:
>
>
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>
>
> Who? Who? Who? Who? GMAFB, Jobst wannabe

Don't feel left out. ;)

P.S. Are you this snarky to your customers?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com