Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?

[John Thompson]

On 2007-07-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> Troll Report wrote:
>>
>> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
>> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bull**** that a
>> lot of lemmings fell for.

> "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
> of any material. even steel.

But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
that of high-tech materials. And a steel chain is much harder than an
aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur. A steel frame
is much closer in hardness to a steel chain and will not be affected as
much.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

[Michael Warner]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:06:03 -0500, John Thompson wrote:

> But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
> that of high-tech materials. And a steel chain is much harder than an
> aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur.

So the problem is actually the lack of carbon chains.

[jim beam]

John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-07-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Troll Report wrote:
>>> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
>>> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bull**** that a
>>> lot of lemmings fell for.
>
>> "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
>> of any material. even steel.
>
> But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
> that of high-tech materials.

1. some steels are as spectacular in failure as they are unforgiving.
2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and is
better researched and understood than any other structural material on
earth doesn't make it otherwise.

> And a steel chain is much harder than an
> aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur. A steel frame
> is much closer in hardness to a steel chain and will not be affected as
> much.

you have a point, but it really depends. i'm uncomfortable with such a
broad brush statement.

[hizark21@yahoo.com]

What type of material was the frame made of...?? Seems quite odd that
a dent could cause a crack. Unless he really forced the crank once the
chain was stuck. It would seem that a tubing such as 9000 series
aluminum such Columbus Starship tubing would be very brittle.

On Jul 8, 7:06 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
> On 2007-07-06, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > Troll Report wrote:
>
> >> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
> >> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bull**** that a
> >> lot of lemmings fell for.
> > "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
> > of any material. even steel.
>
> But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
> that of high-tech materials. And a steel chain is much harder than an
> aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur. A steel frame
> is much closer in hardness to a steel chain and will not be affected as
> much.
>
> --
>
> John (j...@os2.dhs.org)

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> ...
> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and is
> better researched and understood than any other structural material on
> earth doesn't make it otherwise....

Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood, stone
and brick?

--
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:
>> ...
>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and is
>> better researched and understood than any other structural material on
>> earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>
> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood, stone
> and brick?
>
ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that wood
stone and brick were not researched until about the same time as steel,
and in many respects are much less well understood.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and is
>>> better researched and understood than any other structural material
>>> on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>
>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood, stone
>> and brick?
>>
> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that wood
> stone and brick were not researched until about the same time as steel,
> and in many respects are much less well understood.

Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal with,
since their properties are relatively consistent and known.

--
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:
>>>> ...
>>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and
>>>> is better researched and understood than any other structural
>>>> material on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>>
>>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood,
>>> stone and brick?
>>>
>> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that wood
>> stone and brick were not researched until about the same time as
>> steel, and in many respects are much less well understood.
>
> Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal with,
> since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
>
from a materials viewpoint, that's way too vague. you need much bigger
safety margins for inconsistent materials like, wood, stone and brick.
the point is, you can't say for sure how strong a brick is or piece of
timber, or a piece of stone. all you can do is assign probabilities and
margins - you're lucky to get one digit on the front of the zeros. with
steel, you can button that thing down to two or even three digits - it's
the most "known", and more importantly, /predictable/ material there is.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and
>>>>> is better researched and understood than any other structural
>>>>> material on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>>>
>>>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood,
>>>> stone and brick?
>>>>
>>> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that
>>> wood stone and brick were not researched until about the same time as
>>> steel, and in many respects are much less well understood.
>>
>> Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal with,
>> since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
>>
> from a materials viewpoint, that's way too vague. you need much bigger
> safety margins for inconsistent materials like, wood, stone and brick.
> the point is, you can't say for sure how strong a brick is or piece of
> timber, or a piece of stone. all you can do is assign probabilities and
> margins - you're lucky to get one digit on the front of the zeros. with
> steel, you can button that thing down to two or even three digits - it's
> the most "known", and more importantly, /predictable/ material there is.

Still, the types and dimensions of the materials are known, which
simplifies the problem greatly.

--
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:
>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and
>>>>>> is better researched and understood than any other structural
>>>>>> material on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>>>>
>>>>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood,
>>>>> stone and brick?
>>>>>
>>>> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that
>>>> wood stone and brick were not researched until about the same time
>>>> as steel, and in many respects are much less well understood.
>>>
>>> Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal
>>> with, since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
>>>
>> from a materials viewpoint, that's way too vague. you need much
>> bigger safety margins for inconsistent materials like, wood, stone and
>> brick. the point is, you can't say for sure how strong a brick is or
>> piece of timber, or a piece of stone. all you can do is assign
>> probabilities and margins - you're lucky to get one digit on the front
>> of the zeros. with steel, you can button that thing down to two or
>> even three digits - it's the most "known", and more importantly,
>> /predictable/ material there is.
>
> Still, the types and dimensions of the materials are known, which
> simplifies the problem greatly.
>
dimensions???

[jim beam]

hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:
> What type of material was the frame made of...?? Seems quite odd that
> a dent could cause a crack. Unless he really forced the crank once the
> chain was stuck. It would seem that a tubing such as 9000 series
> aluminum such Columbus Starship tubing would be very brittle.

it's not a simple dent, its chain gouge. that is a sharp notch which is
excellent at initiating fatigue - exactly what happened here.

>
> On Jul 8, 7:06 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>> On 2007-07-06, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Troll Report wrote:
>>>> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
>>>> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bull**** that a
>>>> lot of lemmings fell for.
>>> "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
>>> of any material. even steel.
>> But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
>> that of high-tech materials. And a steel chain is much harder than an
>> aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur. A steel frame
>> is much closer in hardness to a steel chain and will not be affected as
>> much.
>>
>> --
>>
>> John (j...@os2.dhs.org)
>
>

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" ? wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer
>>>>>>> and is better researched and understood than any other structural
>>>>>>> material on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood,
>>>>>> stone and brick?
>>>>>>
>>>>> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that
>>>>> wood stone and brick were not researched until about the same time
>>>>> as steel, and in many respects are much less well understood.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal
>>>> with, since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
>>>>
>>> from a materials viewpoint, that's way too vague. you need much
>>> bigger safety margins for inconsistent materials like, wood, stone
>>> and brick. the point is, you can't say for sure how strong a brick is
>>> or piece of timber, or a piece of stone. all you can do is assign
>>> probabilities and margins - you're lucky to get one digit on the
>>> front of the zeros. with steel, you can button that thing down to
>>> two or even three digits - it's the most "known", and more
>>> importantly, /predictable/ material there is.
>>
>> Still, the types and dimensions of the materials are known, which
>> simplifies the problem greatly.
>>
> dimensions???

Hey, I deal with engineering problems where not only are the
characteristics of the materials defined with a high degree of
uncertainty, but also with great uncertainty as to the boundary between
materials (damn geological processes).

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

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