Scientific American aluminum rims 1896

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

"The Eagle Bicycle" appeared in "Scientific American" January 11,
1896, p. 20, and describes among other things the aluminum rims that
increased the cost about $2 per bicycle ($40,000 extra on a 20,000
bike production run):

http://i11.tinypic.com/819x2ed.jpg

As the Eagle bike article indicates, there were actually lots of
aluminum bike parts before 1900. The free NYT archive mentions the
1896 Eagle aluminum rim here, second page, near top of second column:


http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9E03E2D6153EE333A25750C2A9679C94679ED7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

And here's an 1896 aluminum "wheel" (meaning a bicycle, which in turn
meant the frame):


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406EED7153EE333A25752C2A9679C94 679ED7CF

And more aluminum frames are noted here, half-way down the first
column:


http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF

The old story that I used to believe was that the tiny aluminum cap on
the Washington monument was incredibly expensive and that there were
no pre-1900 aluminum bicycle parts.

But the cap was cast in 1884. The complicated estimate for the
original copper-aluminum cap was only $50 (gold plated!) or $75 (for
platinum plating), while the final pure aluminum cap cost only
$256.10, about the price of two bicycles in 1884, for a one-off 6.27
lb casting:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9511/Binczewski-9511.html

By the 1890s, aluminum was kinda-sorta like titanium is today.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:13:03 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net may have
said:

>The old story that I used to believe was that the tiny aluminum cap on
>the Washington monument was incredibly expensive and that there were
>no pre-1900 aluminum bicycle parts.
>
>But the cap was cast in 1884. The complicated estimate for the
>original copper-aluminum cap was only $50 (gold plated!) or $75 (for
>platinum plating), while the final pure aluminum cap cost only
>$256.10, about the price of two bicycles in 1884, for a one-off 6.27
>lb casting:

I've seen similar accounts about the "fantastically expensive"
aluminum cap on the Washington monument, and one of them may have had
more truth in it than usual. The one in question stated that when the
monument was first proposed, the idea was to make the top four feet
(approximately) of the spire from aluminum, which would have been
quite amazingly expensive; the plan was revised and the cap's size
reduced so that it would be within the budget, but it still ended
causing a modest cost overrun as you noted.

It should be remembered that until cheap and efficient extraction
became common, aluminum was regarded as being a precious metal despite
the fact that it is one of the most plentiful ones on the planet. As
late as 1855, it was far more expensive than silver, and nearly as
costly as gold.

The methods of large-scale extraction of aluminum from bauxite via the
use of electricity and cryolite did not reach large-scale production
usage until around 1887-88, and the price of aluminum fell from about
equal to that of silver (1875) to not remarkably more than the cost of
high-quality steel for the same volume (1895) once the process was in
widespread use. Had the monument been built ten years later, the cap
would probably have cost about one tenth as much.

A century later, weathering had eroded the aluminum so much that it
had to be replaced. I have not been able to find a figure for how
much the new one cost.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Michael]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
> "The Eagle Bicycle" appeared in "Scientific American" January 11,
> 1896, p. 20, and describes among other things the aluminum rims that
> increased the cost about $2 per bicycle ($40,000 extra on a 20,000
> bike production run):
>
> http://i11.tinypic.com/819x2ed.jpg
>
> As the Eagle bike article indicates, there were actually lots of
> aluminum bike parts before 1900. The free NYT archive mentions the
> 1896 Eagle aluminum rim here, second page, near top of second column:
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9E03E2D6153EE333A25750C2A9679C94679ED7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
>
> And here's an 1896 aluminum "wheel" (meaning a bicycle, which in turn
> meant the frame):
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406EED7153EE333A25752C2A9679C94 679ED7CF
>
> And more aluminum frames are noted here, half-way down the first
> column:
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF
>
> The old story that I used to believe was that the tiny aluminum cap on
> the Washington monument was incredibly expensive and that there were
> no pre-1900 aluminum bicycle parts.
>
> But the cap was cast in 1884. The complicated estimate for the
> original copper-aluminum cap was only $50 (gold plated!) or $75 (for
> platinum plating), while the final pure aluminum cap cost only
> $256.10, about the price of two bicycles in 1884, for a one-off 6.27
> lb casting:
>
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9511/Binczewski-9511.html
>
> By the 1890s, aluminum was kinda-sorta like titanium is today.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


The antique definition of "wheel" would have thrown me, notwithstanding the fact
that I am familiar with it. While a teenager I was puzzled by my grandfather's
always saying "wheel" when he meant my obviously 2-wheeled J.C. Higgins.

---
Michael

[* * Chas]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:usl0m35rrd862a3gm42t71p8n65281upse@4ax.com...
> "The Eagle Bicycle" appeared in "Scientific American" January 11,
> 1896, p. 20, and describes among other things the aluminum rims that
> increased the cost about $2 per bicycle ($40,000 extra on a 20,000
> bike production run):
>
> http://i11.tinypic.com/819x2ed.jpg
>
> As the Eagle bike article indicates, there were actually lots of
> aluminum bike parts before 1900. The free NYT archive mentions the
> 1896 Eagle aluminum rim here, second page, near top of second column:
>
>
>
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9E03E2D6153EE333A25750C2A9679C94679ED7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
>
> And here's an 1896 aluminum "wheel" (meaning a bicycle, which in turn
> meant the frame):
>
>
>
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406EED7153EE333A25752C2A9679C94 679ED7CF
>
> And more aluminum frames are noted here, half-way down the first
> column:
>
>
>
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF
>
> The old story that I used to believe was that the tiny aluminum cap on
> the Washington monument was incredibly expensive and that there were
> no pre-1900 aluminum bicycle parts.
>
> But the cap was cast in 1884. The complicated estimate for the
> original copper-aluminum cap was only $50 (gold plated!) or $75 (for
> platinum plating), while the final pure aluminum cap cost only
> $256.10, about the price of two bicycles in 1884, for a one-off 6.27
> lb casting:
>
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9511/Binczewski-9511.html
>
> By the 1890s, aluminum was kinda-sorta like titanium is today.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

History of Alcoa:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/print_430000.html

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Alcoa-Inc-Company-History.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoa

Chas.

[datakoll]

http://books.google.com/books?id=n4sNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=history+of+aluminum+metallurgy&source=web&ots=r81rG5sNAM&sig=tKTtIknetkjjKDUFNqo9Gdrzk5Q

a brief search doesn't bring up the distinctions or chronologies
between aluminum as a garbage material and aluminum the metal. Tyco
has a relevant patent for 1968, AL bicycle rims became relevant
following 1968? Aluminum block 454 chevy's appear around that time but
are not well thought of beyond racing rebuilds.
When does AL surface in bicycle racing rims?
Clearly AL components from 1985 are not the equal of AL in 2005

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:57:16 -0600, Werehatrack
<rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:13:03 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net may have
>said:

>>But the cap was cast in 1884. The complicated estimate for the
>>original copper-aluminum cap was only $50 (gold plated!) or $75 (for
>>platinum plating), while the final pure aluminum cap cost only
>>$256.10, about the price of two bicycles in 1884, for a one-off 6.27
>>lb casting:

[snip]

>A century later, weathering had eroded the aluminum so much that it
>had to be replaced. I have not been able to find a figure for how
>much the new one cost.

Dear Werehatrack,

Well, at current prices, 6.27 pounds of aluminum costs less than ten
bucks on the international market, more at your local salvage yard.

The casting would be more expensive than the material, but some
patriotic metalworker would probably be proud to do it for free.

With my fear of heights, no one could pay me enough to put the thing
on top of the monument.

So I suppose that whoever climbed up and put the new cap into
place--shudder!--was by far the biggest expense.

Of course, they might have taken the approach of a nearby church,
whose modest white steeple I trusted for years until one day I walked
my dog through their parking lot and found that it had been taken down
for repairs of some kind.

Up close, I discovered that the damn thing was a fake plastic steeple!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[datakoll]

awwwww a fake. how could they?
the adjusted rate for the GW is @ $125,000 materails, labor and
shipping extra. owowowoow sheckelsville. stick that in your shimano
and smoke it.

[datakoll]

On Dec 13, 9:01 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> awwwww a fake. how could they?
> the adjusted rate for the GW is @ $125,000 materails, labor and
> shipping extra. owowowoow sheckelsville. stick that in your shimano
> and smoke it.

WRONG CHART! DIVIDE BY 140. PASS THE SOBRANIE!

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:08:50 GMT, Michael <NoSpam@gmail.com> wrote:

>The antique definition of "wheel" would have thrown me, notwithstanding the fact
>that I am familiar with it. While a teenager I was puzzled by my grandfather's
>always saying "wheel" when he meant my obviously 2-wheeled J.C. Higgins.
>
>---
>Michael

Dear Michael,

People stopped calling a bicycle a "wheel" long ago, probably because
the singular noun doesn't describe the two equally large wheels and
masssive frame of a modern safety bicycle.

Calling a highwheeler a "wheel" makes sense--the huge front wheel
overwhelms the tiny trailing wheel and the frame:

http://i12.tinypic.com/4tz3tp0.jpg

Maybe unicyclists could revive the term.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[datakoll]

On Dec 13, 2:06 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:08:50 GMT, Michael <NoS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The antique definition of "wheel" would have thrown me, notwithstanding the fact
> >that I am familiar with it. While a teenager I was puzzled by my grandfather's
> >always saying "wheel" when he meant my obviously 2-wheeled J.C. Higgins.
>
> >---
> >Michael
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> People stopped calling a bicycle a "wheel" long ago, probably because
> the singular noun doesn't describe the two equally large wheels and
> masssive frame of a modern safety bicycle.
>
> Calling a highwheeler a "wheel" makes sense--the huge front wheel
> overwhelms the tiny trailing wheel and the frame:
>
> http://i12.tinypic.com/4tz3tp0.jpg
>
> Maybe unicyclists could revive the term.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

amung the slow, using the dim inutive implies familiarity thus
intelligence