"brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score

[Doug Taylor]

It's raining so that's my excuse for sitting on my ass reading the
ENTIRE friggin' thread this a.m. while sipping my morning coffee.

Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.

My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
masses.

This is evident thread after thread.

Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
Reaction. And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science /
engineering.

Call me a modernist riding a Fuji carbon frame and fork which I
purchased from a local pro for cheap, because 1) it had been crashed
once or twice, and 2) and his team "gave" him a new Orbea. Enabling
me to build a 16 lb bike this spring for $3000 +/-. Which has passed
the"ping" test, rides great, and has 3000 miles on since April.

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:s0q7e3da79imfro1ql5841e5bpktimq82k@4ax.com...
> It's raining so that's my excuse for sitting on my ass reading the
> ENTIRE friggin' thread this a.m. while sipping my morning coffee.
>
> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.
>
> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
> and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
> masses.

jb does not exhibit "correct thinking" - if you really have been following
the threads, it'll be obvious that jim beam is no scientist. He is someone
who may have had some technician training, who may also have read a few book
on mettalurgy because it interested him. However, he then fancied himself
as a "mettalurgist", and went on to inflate his qualifications and capacity
beyond his actual ability. Time and time again he has been proven wrong on
all the major issues, yet with the passage of time he slowly and shiftily
adopts the corrections as if he thought of them himself.

Sorry, but you'll be sadly misguided if you follow the beam.

> This is evident thread after thread.

> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
> retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
> Reaction.

Good call.

> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science /
> engineering.

Bad call. But it's your life.

> Call me a modernist riding a Fuji carbon frame and fork which I
> purchased from a local pro for cheap, because 1) it had been crashed
> once or twice, and 2) and his team "gave" him a new Orbea. Enabling
> me to build a 16 lb bike this spring for $3000 +/-. Which has passed
> the"ping" test, rides great, and has 3000 miles on since April.

Great. None of this validates jim beams "theories" on "magical" CF.

[spikenettles@earthlink.net]

On Sep 9, 8:07 am, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> snip
> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.
> snip

With all due respect, I do not think this is the case here in the
current or in many similar past threads. I do believe there is a
dichotomy, but rather it is between one hostile, innumerate, failed
individual, jim -- more than just an order of magnitude off - beam,
and the vast majority who, regardless of any specific expertise, are
able to read with a minimum of critical discernment.
--
Spike

[Tim McNamara]

In article <s0q7e3da79imfro1ql5841e5bpktimq82k@4ax.com>,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> It's raining so that's my excuse for sitting on my ass reading the
> ENTIRE friggin' thread this a.m. while sipping my morning coffee.
>
> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.

If you truly think that, then you are really not reading the thread with
attention and comprehension.

> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
> and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
> masses.

Mike is generally very reasonable and has many years' experience in
riding, retailing and repairing bicycles. I usually enjoy his posts and
his viewpoint. jim beam, OTOH, shows little grasp of scientific method
but, I will agree, shows more than a little madness.

> This is evident thread after thread.

Indeed, but not in the way that you meant it.

> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
> retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
> Reaction.

If I lived anywhere near Mike's business, that would be something I
would explore, too. My impression is that Mike would be a standup guy
to do business with.

> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.

In this you are a fool.

[jim beam]

Jambo wrote:
> "Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
> news:s0q7e3da79imfro1ql5841e5bpktimq82k@4ax.com...
>> It's raining so that's my excuse for sitting on my ass reading the
>> ENTIRE friggin' thread this a.m. while sipping my morning coffee.
>>
>> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
>> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
>> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.
>>
>> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
>> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
>> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
>> and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
>> masses.
>
> jb does not exhibit "correct thinking" - if you really have been following
> the threads, it'll be obvious that jim beam is no scientist. He is someone
> who may have had some technician training, who may also have read a few book
> on mettalurgy because it interested him. However, he then fancied himself
> as a "mettalurgist"

jeepers you moron, you can't even spell it!!!


>, and went on to inflate his qualifications and capacity
> beyond his actual ability. Time and time again he has been proven wrong on
> all the major issues, yet with the passage of time he slowly and shiftily
> adopts the corrections as if he thought of them himself.
>
> Sorry, but you'll be sadly misguided if you follow the beam.
>
>> This is evident thread after thread.
>
>> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
>> retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
>> Reaction.
>
> Good call.
>
>> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science /
>> engineering.
>
> Bad call. But it's your life.
>
>> Call me a modernist riding a Fuji carbon frame and fork which I
>> purchased from a local pro for cheap, because 1) it had been crashed
>> once or twice, and 2) and his team "gave" him a new Orbea. Enabling
>> me to build a 16 lb bike this spring for $3000 +/-. Which has passed
>> the"ping" test, rides great, and has 3000 miles on since April.
>
> Great. None of this validates jim beams "theories" on "magical" CF.
>
>

[Doug Taylor]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:44:41 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:


>> Call me a modernist riding a Fuji carbon frame and fork which I
>> purchased from a local pro for cheap, because 1) it had been crashed
>> once or twice, and 2) and his team "gave" him a new Orbea. Enabling
>> me to build a 16 lb bike this spring for $3000 +/-. Which has passed
>> the"ping" test, rides great, and has 3000 miles on since April.
>
>Great. None of this validates jim beams "theories" on "magical" CF.

No. It's merely anecdotal. But I would love to see the face of any
of the chicken little rbt retrogrouches if I offered them the chance
to ride my twice-crashed-by-the-prior-owner carbon Fuji down a grade
where they could get over 50 mph.

And having experienced the performance - and loving the strength to
weight ratio - I can assure you that my next bike, if and when, will
be carbon as well.

Though it WILL be brand new :-)

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:gKWdne493_PmiHnbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Jambo wrote:
>> jb does not exhibit "correct thinking" - if you really have been
>> following the threads, it'll be obvious that jim beam is no scientist.
>> He is someone who may have had some technician training, who may also
>> have read a few book on mettalurgy because it interested him. However,
>> he then fancied himself as a "mettalurgist"
>
> jeepers you moron, you can't even spell it!!!

Notice you don't deny it! Thankfor the admission ****tard, you slipped up
again! HAHAHAHAHA!

[!Jones]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:54:25 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Doug Taylor
<dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

>No. It's merely anecdotal. But I would love to see the face of any
>of the chicken little rbt retrogrouches if I offered them the chance
>to ride my twice-crashed-by-the-prior-owner carbon Fuji down a grade
>where they could get over 50 mph.
>
>And having experienced the performance - and loving the strength to
>weight ratio - I can assure you that my next bike, if and when, will
>be carbon as well.

I have never ridden a CF machine; however, close friends have them and
like them.

My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
little or no environmental regulation.

Like anything else, there's a marginal curve. A frame built from a
higher grade of butted tubing will be much lighter and more responsive
than one of straight tubing. As one gets further up in the exotic
materials, the returns diminish... the question becomes: what is the
point at which the marginal cost (where "cost" may be measured in
units other than money) produces no measurable gain? My own personal
definition of "no measurable gain" is fairly low; therefore, I ride
lugged steel with good (as opposed to the best possible) components.

Of course, any "bikie" worth his or her beans would buy something made
from whooping crane eggs to make the bicycle lighter. As a group, we
have a poor environmental track record in spite of the fact that we're
not petrol-powered.

Jones

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:pk88e3hntpqh9jqaocrgtm33nponn4phoa@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:44:41 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>
>
>>> Call me a modernist riding a Fuji carbon frame and fork which I
>>> purchased from a local pro for cheap, because 1) it had been crashed
>>> once or twice, and 2) and his team "gave" him a new Orbea. Enabling
>>> me to build a 16 lb bike this spring for $3000 +/-. Which has passed
>>> the"ping" test, rides great, and has 3000 miles on since April.
>>
>>Great. None of this validates jim beams "theories" on "magical" CF.
>
> No. It's merely anecdotal. But I would love to see the face of any
> of the chicken little rbt retrogrouches if I offered them the chance
> to ride my twice-crashed-by-the-prior-owner carbon Fuji down a grade
> where they could get over 50 mph.

Why would that be of any relevance to the issue of CF's low damage
tolerance? The fact that you've been lucky so far is not considered proof
of anything. On the other hand, I'd love to see your face if I offered you
the chance to fly in a plane that has CF components that have been
twice-crashed-by-the-prior-owner. Are you game?


> And having experienced the performance - and loving the strength to
> weight ratio - I can assure you that my next bike, if and when, will
> be carbon as well.
>
> Though it WILL be brand new :-)

Sigh. The fact that CF has desirable specific modulus over metals has
nothing to do with the issue of the low damage tolerance CF has compared to
metals. Good luck on your new bike.

[jim beam]

!Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:54:25 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Doug Taylor
> <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> No. It's merely anecdotal. But I would love to see the face of any
>> of the chicken little rbt retrogrouches if I offered them the chance
>> to ride my twice-crashed-by-the-prior-owner carbon Fuji down a grade
>> where they could get over 50 mph.
>>
>> And having experienced the performance - and loving the strength to
>> weight ratio - I can assure you that my next bike, if and when, will
>> be carbon as well.
>
> I have never ridden a CF machine; however, close friends have them and
> like them.
>
> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
> little or no environmental regulation.

dude, have you any idea how much carbon dioxide gets produced in the
manufacture of steel? or how much [resource expensive] electricity is
used in aluminum production? how about titanium extraction and
refinement???


>
> Like anything else, there's a marginal curve. A frame built from a
> higher grade of butted tubing will be much lighter and more responsive
> than one of straight tubing. As one gets further up in the exotic
> materials, the returns diminish... the question becomes: what is the
> point at which the marginal cost (where "cost" may be measured in
> units other than money) produces no measurable gain? My own personal
> definition of "no measurable gain" is fairly low; therefore, I ride
> lugged steel with good (as opposed to the best possible) components.
>
> Of course, any "bikie" worth his or her beans would buy something made
> from whooping crane eggs to make the bicycle lighter. As a group, we
> have a poor environmental track record in spite of the fact that we're
> not petrol-powered.

powering a bike with beans causes a whole different set of greenhouse
gas emissions...

[Doug Taylor]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:43:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
>> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
>> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.
>
>If you truly think that, then you are really not reading the thread with
>attention and comprehension.
>
>> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
>> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
>> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
>> and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
>> masses.
>
>Mike is generally very reasonable and has many years' experience in
>riding, retailing and repairing bicycles. I usually enjoy his posts and
>his viewpoint. jim beam, OTOH, shows little grasp of scientific method
>but, I will agree, shows more than a little madness.
>
>> This is evident thread after thread.
>
>Indeed, but not in the way that you meant it.
>
>> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
>> retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
>> Reaction.
>
>If I lived anywhere near Mike's business, that would be something I
>would explore, too. My impression is that Mike would be a standup guy
>to do business with.
>
>> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.
>
>In this you are a fool.

As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.

In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
merit of any kind.

I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.

But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
electronic.

Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
you get what you pay for.

For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
missing the boat. And the point.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <nsb9e35lr3pj5mtabi71if27ce37aj5b5a@4ax.com>,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:43:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to
> >> two sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and
> >> the open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as
> >> that.
> >
> >If you truly think that, then you are really not reading the thread
> >with attention and comprehension.
> >
> >> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
> >> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
> >> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his
> >> blunt and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the
> >> uninformed masses.
> >
> >Mike is generally very reasonable and has many years' experience in
> >riding, retailing and repairing bicycles. I usually enjoy his posts
> >and his viewpoint. jim beam, OTOH, shows little grasp of scientific
> >method but, I will agree, shows more than a little madness.
> >
> >> This is evident thread after thread.
> >
> >Indeed, but not in the way that you meant it.
> >
> >> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of
> >> the retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be
> >> Chain Reaction.
> >
> >If I lived anywhere near Mike's business, that would be something I
> >would explore, too. My impression is that Mike would be a standup
> >guy to do business with.
> >
> >> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.
> >
> >In this you are a fool.
>
> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.

It's not jim beam and Mike against the rest of r.b.t., I suspect, but in
the context of the thread most posters don't want to get sucked in.

> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design
> or technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
> merit of any kind.

Hardly true, if you look back. Threadless stems and headsets, which I
don't like personally, have their champions among the folks you'd
probably lump into the "retrogrouch" crowd. As for disk brakes, my
complaint about them is specific to the caliper placement of front
brakes vis a vis the fork dropouts. As a concept, I think disk brakes
are mostly superfluous but there'd nothing wrong with them. They aren't
useful to me, but I don't do the type of riding in which they would be
useful (rides in deep mud, for example, or long technical mountain
descents where rim heating poses a safety problem). I do have a tandem
and arguably disk brakes could be useful there, but again the terrain
around here poses no problems with the existing brakes. "New spoke
lacing patterns" generally mean "not enough spokes for the wheel to be
ridable if one breaks," which is a failure of design. Integrated
headsets have no mechanical benefit and several potential problems. As
to the external bearing BBs I am as yet agnostic. I've never had
significant problems with standard BBs and have only seen one of the
newish Shimano designs taken apart. My main concern there is Q factor-
I like a Q factor of 140 mm which is obtainable readily with Campy
components and by mixing and matching other components (I use the old
style Ritchey cranks on 116 mm Campy Veloce BBs with good results).
Shimano cranks tend to be too far apart already for my tastes.

As for your grouping of the "retrogrouch" crowd, I don't mind being
lumped together with Peter Chisolm; but Ozark is an idiot with whom I
almost never agree and whose various sock puppets live in my killfile
because he's such a twit.

> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient
> overpriced junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible
> public.

True in all categories of consumer goods.

> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be
> quite beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
> electronic.

OF course it can.

> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
> you get what you pay for.

Lighter, stronger, stiffer and more prone to catastrophic failure. You
left that point out. Also, there are different types of "stronger" to
be considered. CF is stronger in some ways and not in others. Whether
"stiffer" in the context of bike frames is necessarily a good is
debatable.

> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> missing the boat. And the point.

That's true. But I think you are confusing skepticism with Luddism.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Sep 9, 11:11 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>
> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>
> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
> merit of any kind.
>
> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.
>
> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
> electronic.

I think what trips you up is the idea of diminishing returns.
Technically trained people tend to be more familiar with this idea.

Many consumers are very, very impressed by every whiz-bang idea that
hits the market. They look at a bike that has 10 cogs instead of
nine, or weighs 18 pounds instead of 20 pounds, and they seem to think
"Wow, that's a 10 percent difference!!! I'll be 10 percent
faster!!!"

The worst of them seem to think the same thing if it's just the
handlebar they're weighing - i.e. a handlebar 10% lighter will make
them 10% faster. And they seem to think that, because they've used a
number - any number - they must be as smart as anyone else who uses a
different number.

I've seen an interesting approach to analyzing bicycle improvements.
IIRC, it popped up in the book _Bicycling Science_ by David G. Wilson
of MIT, and perhaps in an old article on bicycling in _Scientific
American_. The approach involves calculating the ultimate theoretical
performance benefit - that from riding a bicycle with zero mass, and/
or zero aerodynamic drag.

It turns out that a massless bicycle just wouldn't help you a whole
lot. That's simply because most of what you're moving is your own
body. Reducing bike mass by ten percent takes only about ONE percent
off the mass of the system. Obviously, the acceleration or climbing
speed aren't going to show detectable changes. Reducing frame mass
(as opposed to whole bike mass) by ten percent has even less effect.

So what's the gain in removing half a pound of frame weight by
switching to carbon fiber? Probably nothing detectable, except when
you lift the bike onto your roof rack - or when your team mechanic
does it for you.

What's the detriment? The detriments are what we've been talking
about - the fact that pushing toward the technical bleeding edge
almost always demands that _everything_ work exactly as planned,
within ever-closer tolerances, to prevent a total failure. In the
case of carbon fiber components, what has to work properly is every
step of the design process (to handle the anisotropy), matrix
compounding, layup steps, compaction, curing, plus the usage and
service history of the part (no dings!!! no overtightening!!!) and its
periodic inspection by untrained users. And when failure happens, it
tends to be much less forgiving.

Sure, lots of carbon fiber parts are fine. And there are plenty of
examples of stupid-light parts in other materials. Frankly, my
objections are less toward carbon fiber per se, and more toward
"stupid-light" in particular, and "gotta have the latest whiz-bang" in
general.


> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
> you get what you pay for.

The very fact that you're suckered in by marketing hype like "state of
the art!!!" and "lighter, stronger, stiffer" says a lot. Sorry, dude,
but getting eight chainrings in a Buycycling magazine review doesn't
mean it's going to transform your riding experience - unless you're
just in it for the bragging rights.

> >> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.

I prefer people like David Gordon Wilson. Of course, he's merely an
MIT engineering prof who's devoted a lot of his professional life to
the physics of cycling. So maybe it is silly to trust him instead of
an anonymous supposed ex-metallurgist who says "prick" a lot!

- Frank Krygowski

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:nsb9e35lr3pj5mtabi71if27ce37aj5b5a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:43:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.
>>
>>In this you are a fool.
>
> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.

It's beamboy's guesses and incorrect deductions, coinciding with the limited
experience of Jacoubowsky (sorry, it's not meant to denigrate him, he's just
had CF frames for a lot less time than any of his metal frames). beamboy's
extent of knowledge is this: "I crashed my CF fork once, and I'm still using
it so everything's ok". Fine for him, but to extrapolate and say that
because of this, CF's well-documented low tolerance for damage (by the
aircraft industry) is nonsense, is just moronic. For you to believe beamboy
is just religion.

> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
> merit of any kind.

Don't swipe at your ghosts - deal with each case individually. I didn't see
anything ("thread after thread"? come off it) that indicates this is a
retrogrouch issue.


> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.

Great.

> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
> electronic.

Electronic's got nothing to do with composites. Case by case, individually,
remember that. CF is not proven in biking applications, and together with
aircraft industry experience, should be used with caution.

> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
> you get what you pay for.

Right, just like those poor fools over at mtbr.com who paid big bucks for CF
handlebars, seatposts, stems...

> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> missing the boat. And the point.

And you're basing this on your singular experience. I have two uncles who
smoked 2 packs a day until they died of old age in their 90s. This must mean
that smoking causing cancer is just a whole lot of bull****.

[Doug Taylor]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:11:20 -0400, Doug Taylor
<dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> the retrogrouch crowd -
>you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. -

And

[Doug Taylor]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:11:20 -0400, Doug Taylor
<dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> the retrogrouch crowd -
>you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. -

And Frank Krygowski and Jambo...

[Peter Cole]

Doug Taylor wrote:

> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.

This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the drawbacks
not quite so obvious.


> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
> merit of any kind.

This is also an overstatement. It makes sense to look at all of these
developments with some skepticism, after all, bicycles are an old
technology with a history of hype. The claimed benefits of innovations
are well known because they are advertised and promoted, the drawbacks
are often less recognized. Most innovations have context sensitivity --
good for some, no benefit or actually bad for others.



> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.
>
> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
> electronic.

Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and driven
by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in other
mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics, not bikes
to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts the high-end
less than mid & low-end.


> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
> you get what you pay for.

Well, you don't -- not in the sense that there's a linear relation
between price and weight. There is a knee in the curve. Where its
properties can be exploited (e.g. frames & forks) CF can enable
significant weight savings. In other commonly sold applications, its use
is not nearly so advantageous (posts, bars). No material is perfect, and
the hype around CF "5x stronger than steel!" is misleading, and
important safety issues are not given the same air time.

Besides the material science issues, there are the quality
control/economic issues with the material. CF fabrication is inherently
labor intensive. As it becomes fashionable, corners will be cut. There's
a difference between someone buying a Madone at a dealer & having it
serviced vs generic mail order CF and DIY maintenance.


> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> missing the boat. And the point.

Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. I admit it's hard
not to comment on the irony of fat guys obsessed with shaving a pound or
two off their bikes and paying handsomely for it, but that's not where
the bulk of these threads have focused.

Personally, I'd rather have a robotic-made powder coated aluminum frame
with "toothpaste" welds. I like stiff frames, don't care about
aesthetics or an extra pound. I'll just recycle it when it's done. I
like standard parts because I usually do a fair amount of
replacement/swapping around. I don't think that makes me a Luddite,
frugal and pragmatic, OK.

[Michael Press]

In article
<nsb9e35lr3pj5mtabi71if27ce37aj5b5a@4ax.com>,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:43:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
> >> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
> >> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.
> >
> >If you truly think that, then you are really not reading the thread with
> >attention and comprehension.
> >
> >> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
> >> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
> >> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
> >> and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
> >> masses.
> >
> >Mike is generally very reasonable and has many years' experience in
> >riding, retailing and repairing bicycles. I usually enjoy his posts and
> >his viewpoint. jim beam, OTOH, shows little grasp of scientific method
> >but, I will agree, shows more than a little madness.
> >
> >> This is evident thread after thread.
> >
> >Indeed, but not in the way that you meant it.
> >
> >> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
> >> retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
> >> Reaction.
> >
> >If I lived anywhere near Mike's business, that would be something I
> >would explore, too. My impression is that Mike would be a standup guy
> >to do business with.
> >
> >> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.
> >
> >In this you are a fool.
>
> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>
> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
> merit of any kind.
>
> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.
>
> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
> electronic.
>
> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
> you get what you pay for.
>
> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> missing the boat. And the point.

The point is: who will pay to test the bicycling
industry's newest offering? I expect to be paid to
test new stuff.

Aluminum frames are good now. At first they were too
flexy. Then they hammered the rider into pulp. Now most
Al frames are good rides. Before Al frames became
ubiquitous, steel frames were being made that were
perfect. Perfect in that for their intended purpose
they had exactly the correct balance of trade-offs.
Manufacturers know how to build a proper Al frame
because of all the people who paid money to test them
for the manufacturers.

--
Michael Press

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:Z_ednRNDG8VpXnnbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> dude, have you any idea how much carbon dioxide gets produced in the
> manufacture of steel? or how much [resource expensive] electricity is
> used in aluminum production? how about titanium extraction and
> refinement???

Well, do you? I knew it. HAHAHAHAHA! ****tard.


> powering a bike with beans causes a whole different set of greenhouse
> gas emissions...

Yeah, you're living proof!

[!Jones]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
>> little or no environmental regulation.
>
>dude, have you any idea how much carbon dioxide gets produced in the
>manufacture of steel? or how much [resource expensive] electricity is
>used in aluminum production? how about titanium extraction and
>refinement???

Yes, in fact, I do have some idea of that. It's not possible to live
without consuming resources... this does not mean that, because
feedlots are environmentally bad, I should eat veal three times a day.
Steel production isn't exactly an "earth friendly" industry, I'll
grant you... CF production is far worse for the slight weight savings
we get.

Where I live, we have banned jet skiers from the barrier islands.
Their major argument was: "Yes, but... look at *them*! They're
polluting worse than we are." Similarly, titanium would evoke the
same feeling of disgust as CF, so why raise it?

Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
can afford.

But... it does perform well, which was your point; therefore, I agree
with you.

Jones

[jim beam]

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:gKWdne493_PmiHnbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> jb does not exhibit "correct thinking" - if you really have been
>>> following the threads, it'll be obvious that jim beam is no scientist.
>>> He is someone who may have had some technician training, who may also
>>> have read a few book on mettalurgy because it interested him. However,
>>> he then fancied himself as a "mettalurgist"
>> jeepers you moron, you can't even spell it!!!
>
> Notice you don't deny it! Thankfor the admission ****tard, you slipped up
> again! HAHAHAHAHA!

learn to spell, moron - at least then attention won't be diverted from
your expression of your personal issues.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 10, 6:57 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:11:20 -0400, Doug Taylor
>
> <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> > the retrogrouch crowd -
> >you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. -
>
> And

Spell my name right Dug....

[jim beam]

!Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
>>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
>>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
>>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
>>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
>>> little or no environmental regulation.
>> dude, have you any idea how much carbon dioxide gets produced in the
>> manufacture of steel? or how much [resource expensive] electricity is
>> used in aluminum production? how about titanium extraction and
>> refinement???
>
> Yes, in fact, I do have some idea of that. It's not possible to live
> without consuming resources... this does not mean that, because
> feedlots are environmentally bad, I should eat veal three times a day.
> Steel production isn't exactly an "earth friendly" industry, I'll
> grant you... CF production is far worse for the slight weight savings
> we get.

i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.


>
> Where I live, we have banned jet skiers from the barrier islands.
> Their major argument was: "Yes, but... look at *them*! They're
> polluting worse than we are." Similarly, titanium would evoke the
> same feeling of disgust as CF, so why raise it?
>
> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
> can afford.

i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
"have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
/begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.


>
> But... it does perform well, which was your point; therefore, I agree
> with you.

much better to stick with the facts.

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:14:05 GMT, !Jones wrote:

> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
> can afford.

Do you feel the same way about cars and motorbikes? Decent ones
cost much more to buy and run over several years than a mass-market
CF bike.

[Ben C]

On 2007-09-11, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
> !Jones wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
>>>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
>>>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
>>>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
>>>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
[...]
> i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
> production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
> convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
> process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.

They use a lot of energy but see the original point about toxic waste,
which IMO is a more pressing concern than CO2 or energy.

Of all the steel and aluminium produced how much goes into bike frames
anyway? I've probably consumed more of each of those materials in the
form of soda cans in my lifetime.

[...]
>> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
>> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
>> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
>> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
>> can afford.
>
> i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
> all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
> here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
> price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
> "have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
> personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
> need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
> rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
> /begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
> the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.

I suspect they can afford these CF bikes but there's a certain pride
(and deserved respect) that comes from keeping a good old steel bike
going for 35 years or riding 300,000 miles.

With that may come a sneaking repressed desire to try one of the new
gleaming CF machines. This may be the true source of the retrogrouchism.

My advice is buy the new bike but keep the old one anyway.

[!Jones]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:15:08 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>> Yes, in fact, I do have some idea of that. It's not possible to live
>> without consuming resources... this does not mean that, because
>> feedlots are environmentally bad, I should eat veal three times a day.
>> Steel production isn't exactly an "earth friendly" industry, I'll
>> grant you... CF production is far worse for the slight weight savings
>> we get.
>
>i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
>production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
>convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
>process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.

*I* didn't bring up aluminum and wouldn't use titanium for the same
reason I would stay away from CF. Carbon fiber has its applications;
OTOH, to build a bicycle frame out of it represents a fetish. The
cost of the frame in environmental terms is high and, in economic
terms, well beyond the means of the average wage earner.

Basically, I try to build my bikes such that I can ride anyplace in
the world and keep a straight face. I can bike across an
international border where I live, for example; a CF bicycle would
cost more than a modest home in that city... I'd be stared at on CF;
my '68 Paramount does not attract attention.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:15:08 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
> all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
>here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
>price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
>"have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
>personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
>need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
>rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
>/begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
>the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.

Have you ever heard the term: "conspicuous consumption"? Essentially,
it comes down to taking a perfectly healthful idea and turning it into
an obscene fetish. A person can do it with anything... it's not just
grossly expensive bicycles. Bicycles are fine, taken in moderation;
they make a great hobby. On the other hand, if your objective is to
see how much of your life's resources you can throw into one, then I
would suggest that you have crossed the line into that "conspicuous
consumption" idea I mentioned earlier.

Are you saving for your retirement? Social Security will probably go
belly-up soon and CF is a hideous investment.

Jones

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:xNqdnT9DP-IPi3vbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:gKWdne493_PmiHnbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> jb does not exhibit "correct thinking" - if you really have been
>>>> following the threads, it'll be obvious that jim beam is no scientist.
>>>> He is someone who may have had some technician training, who may also
>>>> have read a few book on mettalurgy because it interested him. However,
>>>> he then fancied himself as a "mettalurgist"
>>> jeepers you moron, you can't even spell it!!!
>>
>> Notice you don't deny it! Thankfor the admission ****tard, you slipped
>> up again! HAHAHAHAHA!
>
> learn to spell, moron - at least then attention won't be diverted from
> your expression of your personal issues.

Just like "sikorski"?

Lying ****tard.

[jim beam]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-09-11, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> !Jones wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
>>>>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
>>>>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
>>>>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
>>>>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
> [...]
>> i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
>> production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
>> convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
>> process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.
>
> They use a lot of energy but see the original point about toxic waste,
> which IMO is a more pressing concern than CO2 or energy.
>
> Of all the steel and aluminium produced how much goes into bike frames
> anyway? I've probably consumed more of each of those materials in the
> form of soda cans in my lifetime.
>
> [...]
>>> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
>>> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
>>> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
>>> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
>>> can afford.
>> i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
>> all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
>> here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
>> price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
>> "have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
>> personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
>> need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
>> rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
>> /begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
>> the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.
>
> I suspect they can afford these CF bikes but there's a certain pride
> (and deserved respect) that comes from keeping a good old steel bike
> going for 35 years or riding 300,000 miles.

but some of those old steel bikes are a shimmy nightmare because they
use skinny tube that's not torsionally stiff. /much/ better to go with
a modern frame with big tube and therefore much better torsional stiffness.


>
> With that may come a sneaking repressed desire to try one of the new
> gleaming CF machines. This may be the true source of the retrogrouchism.
>
> My advice is buy the new bike but keep the old one anyway.

yeah, hang if on the wall of the den as art. rust-proof it first. then
ride the new one.

[Jay Beattie]

On Sep 11, 6:43 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
<huge snip>

> > (D. Taylor) For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> > ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> > missing the boat. And the point.
>
> Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. I admit it's hard
> not to comment on the irony of fat guys obsessed with shaving a pound or
> two off their bikes and paying handsomely for it, but that's not where
> the bulk of these threads have focused.

But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
and no epidemic of failures. I'm no expert on this, so I'll keep my
mouth mostly shut.

I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
frames to last like they used to. I broke a set of Al bars after
about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM crap on my Cannondale cross
bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
feel much better. Now throw in the RBT Chicken Little scenarios, and
I am quivering in fear at the LBS when I buy anything other than a
patch kit. Now, don't tell me Rema patch kits are failing
catastrophically! -- Jay Beattie.

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
<peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>> electronic.
>
>Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and driven
>by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in other
>mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics, not bikes
>to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts the high-end
>less than mid & low-end.

I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
roughly contemporaneous. The evolution of bicycles may not follow
Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however, to
rbt retrogrouches.

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Doug Taylor wrote:
>
>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>
> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the drawbacks
> not quite so obvious.

but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
mentality that seems to be so endemic. after all, if it's such a
dangerous material, where are the failures? why don't they outnumber
failures for other materials?


>
>
>> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
>> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
>> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
>> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
>> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
>> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
>> merit of any kind.
>
> This is also an overstatement. It makes sense to look at all of these
> developments with some skepticism, after all, bicycles are an old
> technology with a history of hype. The claimed benefits of innovations
> are well known because they are advertised and promoted, the drawbacks
> are often less recognized. Most innovations have context sensitivity --
> good for some, no benefit or actually bad for others.
>
>
>
>> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
>> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
>> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.
>>
>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>> electronic.
>
> Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and driven
> by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in other
> mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics, not bikes
> to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts the high-end
> less than mid & low-end.
>
>
>> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
>> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
>> you get what you pay for.
>
> Well, you don't -- not in the sense that there's a linear relation
> between price and weight. There is a knee in the curve. Where its
> properties can be exploited (e.g. frames & forks) CF can enable
> significant weight savings. In other commonly sold applications, its use
> is not nearly so advantageous (posts, bars). No material is perfect, and
> the hype around CF "5x stronger than steel!" is misleading, and
> important safety issues are not given the same air time.
>
> Besides the material science issues, there are the quality
> control/economic issues with the material. CF fabrication is inherently
> labor intensive. As it becomes fashionable, corners will be cut. There's
> a difference between someone buying a Madone at a dealer & having it
> serviced vs generic mail order CF and DIY maintenance.
>
>
>> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
>> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
>> missing the boat. And the point.
>
> Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. I admit it's hard
> not to comment on the irony of fat guys obsessed with shaving a pound or
> two off their bikes and paying handsomely for it, but that's not where
> the bulk of these threads have focused.
>
> Personally, I'd rather have a robotic-made powder coated aluminum frame
> with "toothpaste" welds. I like stiff frames, don't care about
> aesthetics or an extra pound. I'll just recycle it when it's done. I
> like standard parts because I usually do a fair amount of
> replacement/swapping around. I don't think that makes me a Luddite,
> frugal and pragmatic, OK.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Sep 11, 1:55 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 6:43 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> > things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> > simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. ...
>
> But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
> disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
> seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
> and no epidemic of failures....

I'm not sure about your statement "we [on r.b.t.] love our Chicken
Little scenarios." We love discussing technical matters, and we're
involved in an activity that relies on technology - and whose
manufacturers and magazines chase market share by hyping minuscule
improvements in that technology, never mentioning detriments. The
balance of advantages and (especially) disadvantages isn't going to
get discussed anywhere else. Are we supposed to not discuss? Are we
supposed to never mention the problems?

I think r.b.t. has a collection of contributors whose total depth and
breadth of technical expertise exceeds that of many bike and bike-
component companies. Yes, our judgment may differ from that of a
given company's. Our judgment may _certainly_ differ from that of the
"gee whiz" editors of the bike magazines, and that of their
technically untrained, gullible readers. But that doesn't mean we're
the ones that are wrong!

And incidentally, it seems a bit odd for an American lawyer to be
saying, in effect, "This design is fine, and nobody should complain
about it's failing. After all, lots of people have not been hurt by
it." I was under the impression that product liability worked a bit
differently!

> I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
> clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
> frames to last like they used to.

Exactly. Companies have been nibbling away at safety factors for many
years, largely because the market (driven by enthusiast magazines)
wants everything to be lighter and lighter - even if it's too light
for safety over a reasonable life span.

> I broke a set of Al bars after
> about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM crap on my Cannondale cross
> bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
> you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
> from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
> feel much better.

Your broken handlebar experience is evidence that the anti-stupid-
light stance of many r.b.t. engineers is _not_ a "chicken little"
phenomenon.

And by your apparent standards, if you can't demonstrate an "epidemic
of failures" of Cinelli bars, you have no reason to complain.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jambo]

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:1189533320.658918.115560@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
> disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
> seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
> and no epidemic of failures. I'm no expert on this, so I'll keep my
> mouth mostly shut.

I see no relation between disc brakes and CF components. You may like
lumping totally unrelated things together and try to extract arguments from
one to the other, but that's just not logical.

> I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
> clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
> frames to last like they used to. I broke a set of Al bars after
> about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM crap on my Cannondale cross
> bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
> you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
> from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
> feel much better. Now throw in the RBT Chicken Little scenarios, and
> I am quivering in fear at the LBS when I buy anything other than a
> patch kit. Now, don't tell me Rema patch kits are failing
> catastrophically! -- Jay Beattie.

One of the biggest problems in rbt is the inability of many people to see
different levels of caution. It's either CF will fail like brittle glass,
or CF is indestructible. When it is flagged that CF has inherently low
damage tolerance, based on decades of experience and research in the
aerospace industry, those who have invested in CF components scream "chicken
little" because their CF components haven't failed yet. These same people
ignore the failures that have been documented in other fora (mtbr.com - with
pictures!).

Just like Al, just like metal, CF has specific requirements for structural
integrity, but the latter requirements are NOT THE SAME as for the former
two. You want to use CF, fine. You want to ignore CF characteristics that
indicate a disadvantage, fine. People like the faker beamboy continuously
bleating about how CF is risk free, and virtually indestructible does no one
any service.

Jacoubowsky still hasn't responded to the question: what do CF component
manufacturers tell him about CF inspection/damage assessment, and how are
those different for Al and metal? Could it be that CF requires more
careful, more conservative assessments than AL or metal? If so, why is
that?

[Michael Press]

In article
<1189533320.658918.115560@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>
,
Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

> On Sep 11, 6:43 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <huge snip>
>
> > > (D. Taylor) For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> > > ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> > > missing the boat. And the point.
> >
> > Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> > things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> > simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. I admit it's hard
> > not to comment on the irony of fat guys obsessed with shaving a pound or
> > two off their bikes and paying handsomely for it, but that's not where
> > the bulk of these threads have focused.
>
> But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
> disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
> seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
> and no epidemic of failures. I'm no expert on this, so I'll keep my
> mouth mostly shut.

All the front disc brake ruckus was on the part of
those who denied there is a brake reaction force
directed on the axle in the direction of the downward
facing fork tips.

>
> I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
> clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
> frames to last like they used to. I broke a set of Al bars after
> about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM crap on my Cannondale cross
> bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
> you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
> from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
> feel much better. Now throw in the RBT Chicken Little scenarios, and
> I am quivering in fear at the LBS when I buy anything other than a
> patch kit. Now, don't tell me Rema patch kits are failing
> catastrophically!

--
Michael Press

[Jay Beattie]

On Sep 11, 2:04 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:55 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 6:43 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> > > things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> > > simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. ...
>
> > But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
> > disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
> > seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
> > and no epidemic of failures....
>
> I'm not sure about your statement "we [on r.b.t.] love our Chicken
> Little scenarios." We love discussing technical matters, and we're
> involved in an activity that relies on technology - and whose
> manufacturers and magazines chase market share by hyping minuscule
> improvements in that technology, never mentioning detriments. The
> balance of advantages and (especially) disadvantages isn't going to
> get discussed anywhere else. Are we supposed to not discuss? Are we
> supposed to never mention the problems?
>
> I think r.b.t. has a collection of contributors whose total depth and
> breadth of technical expertise exceeds that of many bike and bike-
> component companies. Yes, our judgment may differ from that of a
> given company's. Our judgment may _certainly_ differ from that of the
> "gee whiz" editors of the bike magazines, and that of their
> technically untrained, gullible readers. But that doesn't mean we're
> the ones that are wrong!
>
> And incidentally, it seems a bit odd for an American lawyer to be
> saying, in effect, "This design is fine, and nobody should complain
> about it's failing. After all, lots of people have not been hurt by
> it." I was under the impression that product liability worked a bit
> differently!
>
> > I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
> > clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
> > frames to last like they used to.
>
> Exactly. Companies have been nibbling away at safety factors for many
> years, largely because the market (driven by enthusiast magazines)
> wants everything to be lighter and lighter - even if it's too light
> for safety over a reasonable life span.
>
> > I broke a set of Al bars after
> > about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM crap on my Cannondale cross
> > bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
> > you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
> > from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
> > feel much better.
>
> Your broken handlebar experience is evidence that the anti-stupid-
> light stance of many r.b.t. engineers is _not_ a "chicken little"
> phenomenon.

Not really, Frank, because the group would tell me to dump the CF bars
on my racing bike and keep the Cinelli Al bars -- and the Al bars
broke after a short period of service. The CF bars are going strong
after more years of much harder service. They are also lighter and
more comfortable. (God knows after posting this they will explode on
the way home!)

I agree that stupid light is . . . stupid. But my Cinelli bars were
relatively heavy. I wish it were just a matter of lightness, because
then you could always pick the heavier of two products and be somewhat
sure that you were getting the "stronger" one. -- Jay Beattie.

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

someone with neither name or email address writes:

>> But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios
>> -- disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF --
>> which seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for
>> 20 years and no epidemic of failures. I'm no expert on this, so
>> I'll keep my mouth mostly shut.

> I see no relation between disc brakes and CF components. You may
> like lumping totally unrelated things together and try to extract
> arguments from one to the other, but that's just not logical.

>> I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has
>> become clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect
>> parts or frames to last like they used to. I broke a set of Al
>> bars after about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM crap on my
>> Cannondale cross bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my
>> 70's Cinelli bars -- you could use those for a framing hammer. I
>> don't know what to expect from products anymore, and the one-season
>> warranties don't make me feel much better. Now throw in the RBT
>> Chicken Little scenarios, and I am quivering in fear at the LBS
>> when I buy anything other than a patch kit. Now, don't tell me
>> Rema patch kits are failing catastrophically!

> One of the biggest problems in RBT is the inability of many people
> to see different levels of caution. It's either CF will fail like
> brittle glass, or CF is indestructible. When it is flagged that CF
> has inherently low damage tolerance, based on decades of experience
> and research in the aerospace industry, those who have invested in
> CF components scream "chicken little" because their CF components
> haven't failed yet. These same people ignore the failures that have
> been documented in other fora (mtbr.com - with pictures!).

> Just like Al, just like metal, CF has specific requirements for
> structural integrity, but the latter requirements are NOT THE SAME
> as for the former two. You want to use CF, fine. You want to
> ignore CF characteristics that indicate a disadvantage, fine.
> People like the faker beamboy continuously bleating about how CF is
> risk free, and virtually indestructible does no one any service.

> Jacoubowsky still hasn't responded to the question: what do CF
> component manufacturers tell him about CF inspection/damage
> assessment, and how are those different for Al and metal? Could it
> be that CF requires more careful, more conservative assessments than
> AL or metal? If so, why is that?

The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the rude
style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I hope that
those who have something to offer omit self righteous name calling and
four letter words. Such posts generally cancel opinions expressed and
degrade the level of discourse to trash.

Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty your own space.

Jobst Brandt

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <nsb9e35lr3pj5mtabi71if27ce37aj5b5a@4ax.com>,
> Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:43:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
>>>> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
>>>> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.
>>> If you truly think that, then you are really not reading the thread with
>>> attention and comprehension.
>>>
>>>> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
>>>> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
>>>> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
>>>> and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
>>>> masses.
>>> Mike is generally very reasonable and has many years' experience in
>>> riding, retailing and repairing bicycles. I usually enjoy his posts and
>>> his viewpoint. jim beam, OTOH, shows little grasp of scientific method
>>> but, I will agree, shows more than a little madness.
>>>
>>>> This is evident thread after thread.
>>> Indeed, but not in the way that you meant it.
>>>
>>>> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
>>>> retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
>>>> Reaction.
>>> If I lived anywhere near Mike's business, that would be something I
>>> would explore, too. My impression is that Mike would be a standup guy
>>> to do business with.
>>>
>>>> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.
>>> In this you are a fool.
>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>
>> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
>> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
>> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
>> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
>> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
>> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
>> merit of any kind.
>>
>> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
>> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
>> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.
>>
>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>> electronic.
>>
>> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
>> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
>> you get what you pay for.
>>
>> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
>> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
>> missing the boat. And the point.
>
> The point is: who will pay to test the bicycling
> industry's newest offering? I expect to be paid to
> test new stuff.
>
> Aluminum frames are good now. At first they were too
> flexy. Then they hammered the rider into pulp. Now most
> Al frames are good rides. Before Al frames became
> ubiquitous, steel frames were being made that were
> perfect. Perfect in that for their intended purpose
> they had exactly the correct balance of trade-offs.
> Manufacturers know how to build a proper Al frame
> because of all the people who paid money to test them
> for the manufacturers.
>
but the same principle applies to cars, planes, boats, motorcycles,
computers, guns, sewing machines, even low-tech stuff like an ax. it
applies to anything manufactured. it's called "evolution".

[Peter Cole]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2:04 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Your broken handlebar experience is evidence that the anti-stupid-
>> light stance of many r.b.t. engineers is _not_ a "chicken little"
>> phenomenon.
>
> Not really, Frank, because the group would tell me to dump the CF bars
> on my racing bike and keep the Cinelli Al bars -- and the Al bars
> broke after a short period of service. The CF bars are going strong
> after more years of much harder service. They are also lighter and
> more comfortable. (God knows after posting this they will explode on
> the way home!)
>
> I agree that stupid light is . . . stupid. But my Cinelli bars were
> relatively heavy. I wish it were just a matter of lightness, because
> then you could always pick the heavier of two products and be somewhat
> sure that you were getting the "stronger" one. -- Jay Beattie.

CF is at its most advantageous for highly shaped parts with joints --
because it can be molded to shape and eliminate the joints. This gives
the most bang-for-buck to frames & forks. I don't worry much about frame
failures, but am a bit more cautious about forks. Bars and posts to me
are about the worst places for CF, you don't gain (lose) much in weight
and you really have to be careful about over clamping and gouging.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <d4fee3dhh7irid29i8jk173gv01hdlogir@4ax.com>,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be
> >> quite beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on
> >> the electronic.
> >
> >Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and
> >driven by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in
> >other mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics,
> >not bikes to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts
> >the high-end less than mid & low-end.
>
> I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
> example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
> roughly contemporaneous. The evolution of bicycles may not follow
> Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
> anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
> buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however,
> to rbt retrogrouches.

Sorry, Doug, but "newer is better" != intelligence. For that matter,
the formula "newer != progress" is also true. That CF has significant
drawbacks in this application just seems to escape your notice.

[Peter Cole]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>>> electronic.
>> Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and driven
>> by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in other
>> mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics, not bikes
>> to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts the high-end
>> less than mid & low-end.
>
> I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
> example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
> roughly contemporaneous.

How much "evolution" has there been in non solid state electronics?
Outside of large scale integrated circuits, there has been almost none
even in solid state electronics. I commonly see the exact same discrete
components in current consumer goods that I designed with 30 years ago.


> The evolution of bicycles may not follow
> Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
> anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
> buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however, to
> rbt retrogrouches.

No need to get insulting.

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:09:33 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>Sorry, Doug, but "newer is better" != intelligence. For that matter,
>the formula "newer != progress" is also true. That CF has significant
>drawbacks in this application just seems to escape your notice.

It did not. While we're on the subject, did my post above escape your
notice?:


I am not saying - and don't quote me out of context - that marketing
ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.

But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
electronic.

Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
you get what you pay for.

For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a marketing
ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
missing the boat. And the point.

There are those cyclists who legitimately not only want, but require
the state of the art. They are called racers. I used to be one (and
the older I get, the better I used to be :-). My observations of that
group as well as cohorts who still ride damn hard a few days a week,
old age notwithstanding, shows that:

All carbon fiber forks are ubiquitous. Lighter, stronger, stiffer. And
it was a scant 2 or 3 years ago the retros cautioned against carbon
steerers.

Almost as ubiquitous are carbon cranks, handlebars, and seatposts.

The Campy guys/girls have carbon brake calipers, shifters and rear
derailleurs.,

Carbon frames will take over in another season or two as aluminum and
titanium ones are retired to rain bikes (steel is already gone). Right
now I'd say it's about 50-50.

A sub 17 lb. bike can be built for the price an 18 or 19 lb bike cost
2 or 3 years ago. 15 and 16 lb bikes abound because strong and stiff
and light enough carbon frames are available if you have the bucks to
get into that range, and want or "need" to.

Deny it, ignore it, resist it all you want. It's progress to me. It's
my hobby. I ride road and off road, long slow distance and
hammerfest.; I like to buy new parts; I like to build new bikes every
2 or 3 years, and I bet don't spend any more than the golf crowd does
with their $400 apiece golf clubs they keep replacing and buying. And
both the road and the woods don't have green fees.

The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Sep 11, 10:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
> > On 2007-09-11, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> !Jones wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
> >>> <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
> >>>>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
> >>>>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
> >>>>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
> >>>>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
> > [...]
> >> i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
> >> production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
> >> convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
> >> process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.
>
> > They use a lot of energy but see the original point about toxic waste,
> > which IMO is a more pressing concern than CO2 or energy.
>
> > Of all the steel and aluminium produced how much goes into bike frames
> > anyway? I've probably consumed more of each of those materials in the
> > form of soda cans in my lifetime.
>
> > [...]
> >>> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
> >>> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
> >>> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
> >>> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
> >>> can afford.
> >> i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
> >> all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
> >> here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
> >> price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
> >> "have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
> >> personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
> >> need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
> >> rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
> >> /begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
> >> the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.
>
> > I suspect they can afford these CF bikes but there's a certain pride
> > (and deserved respect) that comes from keeping a good old steel bike
> > going for 35 years or riding 300,000 miles.
>
> but some of those old steel bikes are a shimmy nightmare because they
> use skinny tube that's not torsionally stiff.

What the hell are you talking about? I rode skinny tubed steel bikes
for a long time. I still ride a steel bike along with a Ti bike.
Still no shimmy problems.

Andres

/much/ better to go with
> a modern frame with big tube and therefore much better torsional stiffness.
>

>
> > With that may come a sneaking repressed desire to try one of the new
> > gleaming CF machines. This may be the true source of the retrogrouchism.
>
> > My advice is buy the new bike but keep the old one anyway.
>
> yeah, hang if on the wall of the den as art. rust-proof it first. then
> ride the new one.

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>
>> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the
>> drawbacks not quite so obvious.
>
> but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
> afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
> mentality that seems to be so endemic.

"Can't afford it"? C'mon. "Poison the well"? Sheesh.

> after all, if it's such a
> dangerous material, where are the failures?

Didn't you have a fork failure?

> why don't they outnumber
> failures for other materials?

I never had a fork failure.

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Doug Taylor wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>>>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>>>> electronic.
>>> Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and
>>> driven by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in
>>> other mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics,
>>> not bikes to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts
>>> the high-end less than mid & low-end.
>>
>> I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
>> example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
>> roughly contemporaneous.
>
> How much "evolution" has there been in non solid state electronics?
> Outside of large scale integrated circuits, there has been almost none
> even in solid state electronics. I commonly see the exact same discrete
> components in current consumer goods that I designed with 30 years ago.
>
>
>> The evolution of bicycles may not follow
>> Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
>> anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
>> buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however, to
>> rbt retrogrouches.
>
> No need to get insulting.
>
how about getting real? /you/ argue just for the sake of it - to hell
with accuracy.

[_]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:38:35 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>>>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>>>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>>>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>>
>>> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the
>>> drawbacks not quite so obvious.
>>
>> but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
>> afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
>> mentality that seems to be so endemic.
>
> "Can't afford it"? C'mon. "Poison the well"? Sheesh.
>
>> after all, if it's such a
>> dangerous material, where are the failures?
>
> Didn't you have a fork failure?
>
>> why don't they outnumber
>> failures for other materials?
>
> I never had a fork failure.

Peter, this is the guy that was trying to tell all and sundy that cut
threads on brake bolts were a disaster waiting to happen - despite the fact
that failures due to cut threads on brake bolts don't happen (jim beam did
try to give us an example, but as Sheldon Brown delicately pointed out,
that was a blatant lie^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ extremely parsimonious with
the truth).

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>>>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>>>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>>>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>>
>>> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the
>>> drawbacks not quite so obvious.
>>
>> but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
>> afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
>> mentality that seems to be so endemic.
>
> "Can't afford it"? C'mon. "Poison the well"? Sheesh.

so what is underinformed misinformation that is intended to scare?


>
>> after all, if it's such a dangerous material, where are the failures?
>
> Didn't you have a fork failure?

yes i did, a kestrel. it started cracking. still got me home though.
and guess what, i don't ride kestrel any more. /and/ i test my forks
with nakashima's squeeze test.


>
>> why don't they outnumber failures for other materials?
>
> I never had a fork failure.

outside of kestrel, neither have i. and the wheel-smashing incident i
had over a year ago would almost certainly have bent a steel fork. the
look carbon fork i have on that bike didn't blink and has been ridden
most days ever since.

[Tom Nakashima]

"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c6idnT14etjZYXrbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> I don't worry much about frame failures, but am a bit more cautious about
> forks

There are cautions when there are voids in the CF with forks, that said
there is a difference when the front wheel is in place, where it might not
be as noticeable when riding on the road.

John Slawta of LandShark Bicycles would do a simple test by
grabbing the fork blades with one hand (with the wheel removed)
and gently squeezing them towards eachother. If there is a failure, you'll
know. He's actually cracked a few new ones by using this method, and believe
it or not, one fork that was already in service.
It might be a good idea to perform this simple task on occasions.
btw: I still ride the steel fork.
-tom

[jim beam]

andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
> On Sep 11, 10:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-09-11, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> !Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
>>>>> <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
>>>>>>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
>>>>>>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
>>>>>>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
>>>>>>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
>>> [...]
>>>> i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
>>>> production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
>>>> convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
>>>> process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.
>>> They use a lot of energy but see the original point about toxic waste,
>>> which IMO is a more pressing concern than CO2 or energy.
>>> Of all the steel and aluminium produced how much goes into bike frames
>>> anyway? I've probably consumed more of each of those materials in the
>>> form of soda cans in my lifetime.
>>> [...]
>>>>> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
>>>>> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
>>>>> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
>>>>> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
>>>>> can afford.
>>>> i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
>>>> all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
>>>> here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
>>>> price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
>>>> "have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
>>>> personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
>>>> need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
>>>> rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
>>>> /begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
>>>> the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.
>>> I suspect they can afford these CF bikes but there's a certain pride
>>> (and deserved respect) that comes from keeping a good old steel bike
>>> going for 35 years or riding 300,000 miles.
>> but some of those old steel bikes are a shimmy nightmare because they
>> use skinny tube that's not torsionally stiff.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? I rode skinny tubed steel bikes
> for a long time. I still ride a steel bike along with a Ti bike.
> Still no shimmy problems.

what size do you ride? i ride 60cm-64cm, and the larger they are with
old fashioned tube, the worse they are. modern dish wheels don't help
either.


>
> Andres
>
> /much/ better to go with
>> a modern frame with big tube and therefore much better torsional stiffness.
>>
>
>>> With that may come a sneaking repressed desire to try one of the new
>>> gleaming CF machines. This may be the true source of the retrogrouchism.
>>> My advice is buy the new bike but keep the old one anyway.
>> yeah, hang if on the wall of the den as art. rust-proof it first. then
>> ride the new one.
>
>

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:j07ge39q7q0h64bjd8ok9q9kju1t9pd4o1@4ax.com...
> I like to buy new parts; I like to build new bikes every
> 2 or 3 years, and I bet don't spend any more than the golf crowd does
> with their $400 apiece golf clubs they keep replacing and buying.
>
> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.

Say no more....

[Tim McNamara]

In article <j07ge39q7q0h64bjd8ok9q9kju1t9pd4o1@4ax.com>,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:09:33 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> >Sorry, Doug, but "newer is better" != intelligence. For that
> >matter, the formula "newer != progress" is also true. That CF has
> >significant drawbacks in this application just seems to escape your
> >notice.
>
> It did not. While we're on the subject, did my post above escape
> your notice?:
>
> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of context - that
> marketing ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient
> overpriced junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible
> public.
>
> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be
> quite beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
> electronic.
>
> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
> you get what you pay for.
>
> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a marketing
> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite