Steel frames and le Tour

[Steven Bornfeld]

A Muzi wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> and, fyi, my $1000 aluminum bianchi frame doesn't ride anything
>>>>> like my
>>>>> $100 aluminum nashbar frame. but you already knew that.
>
>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>> My '85 25" Cannondale touring bike with straight-gauge tubing rides
>>>> differently from my '05 25" Cannondale touring bike with shaped,
>>>> tapered and butted tubing. But it is not clear which one rides
>>>> "better". I'm much happier with my old C'dale-- but that could easily
>>>> be a matter of its 70/70 degree angles versus my new bike's 73/72.5
>>>> angles.
>>>>
>>>> I have observed no correlation between the cost or weight of a bike
>>>> frame and its overall ride quality. I've owned a lot of bikes, from
>>>> full customs on down to alley foundlings, and I have had a lot of
>>>> opportunity to compare and contrast frames of different pedigrees.
>>>> It's obvious to me that more money can buy a lighter bike, but it
>>>> isn't at all obvious that more money can buy a better ride.
>>>>
>>>> I have a couple of bikes-- one that I bought for $50 and another I got
>>>> for free, that I'm all but certain are more satisfactory rides than
>>>> anything I could find in stock, in my city of population one million,
>>>> for any amount of money.
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Well said.
>>> My favorite ride, lo these many long years, sold new for $26 as a
>>> complete bike.
>
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> Wow. Dare I ask when it was new, and to describe it?
>> Steve ('82 Olmo , Columbus SL)
>
> '53 Raleigh Sports. After you scrap all the original steel parts, the
> classic frame (eventually) rides very well.


I'll bet it does--thanks!

Steve

[Bob Schwartz]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Is superlight steel cost effective or as durable as carbon fiber at
> the same weight?

Bianchi makes a very light steel bike.

Bob Schwartz

[Lou Holtman]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:37:12 -0700 (PDT), 2bowlers@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Jul 12, 7:48 am, Lou Holtman <lholditn...@planet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Steel is unnecessary heavy IMO.
>> Certainly steel isn't the weight weenie material of choice. However,
>> for discussion, my LandShark weighs in at approx. one pound more than
>> my Calfee Tetra Pro (17 vs 16 lbs). Both have Campy 10sp drivetrains
>> and relatively heavy clincher wheels (1600g, 32 spokes, box rims). If
>> I set-up the 'Shark with lighter crank, saddle and a set of light
>> tubulars I could easily go under 16 pounds with it. If I weenied the
>> Calfee I can get it under 14, maybe close to 13 if silly light parts
>> were used.
>>
>> Steel really isn't as heavy as some folks expect. Rides nice too but
>> that is subjective of course :-)
>>
>>> (best value for) the money is my aluminum bike.
>
> Is superlight steel cost effective or as durable as carbon fiber at
> the same weight?
>

Certainly not.

Lou

[Howard Kveck]

In article <WUaek.32267$ZE5.10716@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVE.global.net> wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > Is superlight steel cost effective or as durable as carbon fiber at
> > the same weight?
>
> Bianchi makes a very light steel bike.

I hear they're appaling.

("I am aware of all Internet traditions..." - Gerard Vanderleun)

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[hizark21]

Yes a 953 will weigh around 2 pounds and have a yield strength around
375,000 psi. This roughly 2-1/2 times the strength of any composite
frame available today

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > Is superlight steel cost effective or as durable as carbon fiber at
> > the same weight?
>
> Bianchi makes a very light steel bike.
>
> Bob Schwartz

[Bill C]

On Jul 12, 9:50*pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >>>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>>> and, fyi, my $1000 aluminum bianchi frame doesn't ride anything
> >>>>> like my
> >>>>> $100 aluminum nashbar frame. *but you already knew that.
>
> >>> Chalo wrote:
> >>>> My '85 25" Cannondale touring bike with straight-gauge tubing rides
> >>>> differently from my '05 25" Cannondale touring bike with shaped,
> >>>> tapered and butted tubing. *But it is not clear which one rides
> >>>> "better". *I'm much happier with my old C'dale-- but that could easily
> >>>> be a matter of its 70/70 degree angles versus my new bike's 73/72.5
> >>>> angles.
>
> >>>> I have observed no correlation between the cost or weight of a bike
> >>>> frame and its overall ride quality. *I've owned a lot of bikes, from
> >>>> full customs on down to alley foundlings, and I have had a lot of
> >>>> opportunity to compare and contrast frames of different pedigrees.
> >>>> It's obvious to me that more money can buy a lighter bike, but it
> >>>> isn't at all obvious that more money can buy a better ride.
>
> >>>> I have a couple of bikes-- one that I bought for $50 and another I got
> >>>> for free, that I'm all but certain are more satisfactory rides than
> >>>> anything I could find in stock, in my city of population one million,
> >>>> for any amount of money.
>
> >> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> Well said.
> >>> My favorite ride, lo these many long years, sold new for $26 as a
> >>> complete bike.
>
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >> * * Wow. *Dare I ask when it was new, and to describe it?
> >> Steve ('82 Olmo , Columbus SL)
>
> > '53 Raleigh Sports. After you scrap all the original steel parts, the
> > classic frame (eventually) rides very well.
>
> * * * * I'll bet it does--thanks!
>
> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Steve
I think most of us have one, or a few old/older bikes we just can't
seem to part with. I've still got got my Benotto which I love to do a
club TT on once in a while, and then there's the early 80s Team Fuji
with Biopace rings that's kinda funky and fun. Both are steel and a
lot of fun.
The Kids have an IF Crown Jewel that was/is their primary race bike
that they love, and I don't ever ride, but they say the Masi 3V might
be more comfortable and climb better. I can't believe the Masi has
survived carrying my ass since I put on the weight. It's amazing that
it hasn't snapped in half.
That's a big reason I don't ride the others right now.
Not sure how long they can last with proper maint., Framesaver, and
tlc touching up the paint and stuff when it gets chipped, but so far,
so good.
Bill C

[Michael Press]

In article
<f9e5cdeb-213d-4e90-96d2-013bbdfb0f51@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Scott <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 11, 7:50*pm, Bret Wade <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> > > If the question is, is the rider using a lead bike or not, then yes,
> > > it's a yes/no scenario.
> >
> > OK Scott, consider a tee shot on a par 3 golf course. Whether a hole in
> > one is scored is also a yes/no scenario. The ball either ends up in the
> > cup or it doesn't. Unless you're willing to argue that every golfer who
> > tees up on a par 3 hole has a 50% probability of scoring a hole in one,
> > then you're going to have to concede that the Hendricks Theory of
> > Probability has just blown up like a Louisiana fatty master peloton at
> > the base of L'Alpe d'Huez.
> >
> > We're riding cross bikes into the hills early Sunday morning. Do you
> > want to join us?
> >
> > Bret
>
> Last things first... don't currently have a working 'cross bike, AND I
> just finished the Triple Bypass today. I doubt I'd be worth a damn
> for a ride tomorrow.
>
> As for the first thing, I think you/I may be misunderstanding a few
> points that I haven't been clear on. In the case of a 'hole in one'
> vs 'not', there are infinite possibilities of 'not', with only one
> possibility of 'hole in one'. So, no... it's not a 50% probability
> that a golfer will get a hole in one. Frankly, considering the bike
> choice issue, it's not really 50/50 there, either... because you've
> got human involvement in the choice of the frame. But let's say you
> have only two frames to choose from and one of them is steel, the
> other isn't, not a choice of a steel frame vs nearly infinite choices
> of all other types of frames. If the rider isn't aware which frame
> is which, it's a 50/50 probability they'll select the steel one vs the
> other one.
>
> The point I was trying to make earlier was that it's not really
> accurate to arbitrarily say that it's a 1 in 1000 chance or whatever
> that any rider will select a steel bike and you shouldn't just throw
> out an even more absurd number by multiplying that by the number of
> riders. You have to define the parameters somewhere, and it could
> just as easily be a 1 in 2 chance as a 1 in 1000 chance. I mentioned
> poker as an example, because with a set number of cards you can define
> very clear probabilities of a given card being played next. In the
> frame choice scenario, it's not so easily defined.
>
> Hope that helps clarify the point that clearly got way off point
> earlier.

First, you are at liberty to assign whatever prior
probability you want. So far you have not made a good
case for your choice. Nevertheless, you are at liberty
to assign whatever prior probability you want. Nothing
is settled until people back their choice with money.

This will clarify everything
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability>
Be sure to follow up on the references.

--
Michael Press

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Scott
<hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote:

>As for the first thing, I think you/I may be misunderstanding a few
>points that I haven't been clear on. In the case of a 'hole in one'
>vs 'not', there are infinite possibilities of 'not', with only one
>possibility of 'hole in one'. So, no... it's not a 50% probability
>that a golfer will get a hole in one. Frankly, considering the bike
>choice issue, it's not really 50/50 there, either... because you've
>got human involvement in the choice of the frame. But let's say you
>have only two frames to choose from and one of them is steel, the
>other isn't, not a choice of a steel frame vs nearly infinite choices
>of all other types of frames. If the rider isn't aware which frame
>is which, it's a 50/50 probability they'll select the steel one vs the
>other one.

Still digging, aren't you.
>
>The point I was trying to make earlier was that it's not really
>accurate to arbitrarily say that it's a 1 in 1000 chance or whatever
>that any rider will select a steel bike and you shouldn't just throw
>out an even more absurd number by multiplying that by the number of
>riders.

I didn't mulitply it, though I could see how you would think I did
since I didn't go into detail. If the change for any particular rider
was, say, i in 100,000 then the chance of at least once rider in 200
doing it is much higher. I'm not good at math so I won't work it out,
but I'm clever enough to understand that. And I still know the chance
is super-low.

>You have to define the parameters somewhere, and it could
>just as easily be a 1 in 2 chance as a 1 in 1000 chance.

No. *Not* "just as easily." An educated guess, or estimate, puts it
more likely one way than the other. We know (or at least I know), from
the nature of the sport and the technology that it's more liley to be
1 in 10000 than 1 in 2.

Your problem is two-fold. One is not understand probablilyt. And the
other is your parameters -- not undestanding the economics of the
sport, the technology of the sport and the psychology of the sport as
played at that level. Those three things rule out any chance beyond
most extremely minute that there is steel frame in that race.

[Bret Wade]

Scott wrote:

> Last things first... don't currently have a working 'cross bike, AND I
> just finished the Triple Bypass today. I doubt I'd be worth a damn
> for a ride tomorrow.

You make me feel like a slacker for only riding to Brainard Lake on Sat.
Fix the cross bike situation, we had a good ride on Sunday.

Bret

[hizark21]

This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
frame that you have bad day and crash.

Scott wrote:
> On Jul 11, 10:12Â*pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
> > is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
> > years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
> > ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
> >
> > Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Â*Composites do save
> > weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
> > basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
> > crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
> > a pound heavier.
> >
> >
> >
> > bfd wrote:
> > > On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
> > > > "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
> > > > choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
> > > > (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
> > > i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
> > > Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
> > > Carbonframes). Â*Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
> > > custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
> > > any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You don't even have to crash hard. Hell, I broke the nicest riding
> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
> month old. Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Anyway, I didn't see the
> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifting
> the rear wheel to clear the curb and flipped myself over the bars.
> Luckily, I landed in the grass. My bike landed on it's side, with the
> rear derailleur striking the curb. Cracked the seatstay about 3
> inches above the derailleur hanger, although the stay didn't hit the
> ground.
>
> Yeah... I'm bummed.

[Scott]

On Jul 12, 9:57*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <f9e5cdeb-213d-4e90-96d2-013bbdfb0...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 7:50*pm, Bret Wade <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Scott wrote:
> > > > If the question is, is the rider using a lead bike or not, then yes,
> > > > it's a yes/no scenario.
>
> > > OK Scott, consider a tee shot on a par 3 golf course. Whether a hole in
> > > one is scored is also a yes/no scenario. The ball either ends up in the
> > > cup or it doesn't. Unless you're willing to argue that every golfer who
> > > tees up on a par 3 hole has a 50% probability of scoring a hole in one,
> > > then you're going to have to concede that the Hendricks Theory of
> > > Probability has just blown up like a Louisiana fatty master peloton at
> > > the base of L'Alpe d'Huez.
>
> > > We're riding cross bikes into the hills early Sunday morning. Do you
> > > want to join us?
>
> > > Bret
>
> > Last things first... don't currently have a working 'cross bike, AND I
> > just finished the Triple Bypass today. *I doubt I'd be worth a damn
> > for a ride tomorrow.
>
> > As for the first thing, I think you/I may be misunderstanding a few
> > points that I haven't been clear on. *In the case of a 'hole in one'
> > vs 'not', there are infinite possibilities of 'not', with only one
> > possibility of 'hole in one'. *So, no... it's not a 50% probability
> > that a golfer will get a hole in one. *Frankly, considering the bike
> > choice issue, it's not really 50/50 there, either... because you've
> > got human involvement in the choice of the frame. *But let's say you
> > have only two frames to choose from and one of them is steel, the
> > other isn't, not a choice of a steel frame vs nearly infinite choices
> > of all other types of frames. * If the rider isn't aware which frame
> > is which, it's a 50/50 probability they'll select the steel one vs the
> > other one.
>
> > The point I was trying to make earlier was that it's not really
> > accurate to arbitrarily say that it's a 1 in 1000 chance or whatever
> > that any rider will select a steel bike and you shouldn't just throw
> > out an even more absurd number by multiplying that by the number of
> > riders. *You have to define the parameters somewhere, and it could
> > just as easily be a 1 in 2 chance as a 1 in 1000 chance. * I mentioned
> > poker as an example, because with a set number of cards you can define
> > very clear probabilities of a given card being played next. *In the
> > frame choice scenario, it's not so easily defined.
>
> > Hope that helps clarify the point that clearly got way off point
> > earlier.
>
> First, you are at liberty to assign whatever prior
> probability you want. So far you have not made a good
> case for your choice. Nevertheless, you are at liberty
> to assign whatever prior probability you want. Nothing
> is settled until people back their choice with money.
>
> This will clarify everything
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability>
> Be sure to follow up on the references.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

thanks, Michael, but I wasn't making a choice and therefore there is
nothing to make a case for. I was trying to make a point about the
absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jul 12, 9:07*pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:57*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > As for the first thing, I think you/I may be misunderstanding a few
> > > points that I haven't been clear on. *In the case of a 'hole in one'
> > > vs 'not', there are infinite possibilities of 'not', with only one
> > > possibility of 'hole in one'. *So, no... it's not a 50% probability
> > > that a golfer will get a hole in one. *Frankly, considering the bike
> > > choice issue, it's not really 50/50 there, either... because you've
> > > got human involvement in the choice of the frame. *But let's say you
> > > have only two frames to choose from and one of them is steel, the
> > > other isn't, not a choice of a steel frame vs nearly infinite choices
> > > of all other types of frames. * If the rider isn't aware which frame
> > > is which, it's a 50/50 probability they'll select the steel one vs the
> > > other one.
>
> > > The point I was trying to make earlier was that it's not really
> > > accurate to arbitrarily say that it's a 1 in 1000 chance or whatever
> > > that any rider will select a steel bike and you shouldn't just throw
> > > out an even more absurd number by multiplying that by the number of
> > > riders. *You have to define the parameters somewhere, and it could
> > > just as easily be a 1 in 2 chance as a 1 in 1000 chance. * I mentioned
> > > poker as an example, because with a set number of cards you can define
> > > very clear probabilities of a given card being played next. *In the
> > > frame choice scenario, it's not so easily defined.
>
> > > Hope that helps clarify the point that clearly got way off point
> > > earlier.
>
> > First, you are at liberty to assign whatever prior
> > probability you want. So far you have not made a good
> > case for your choice. Nevertheless, you are at liberty
> > to assign whatever prior probability you want. Nothing
> > is settled until people back their choice with money.
>
> > This will clarify everything
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability>
> > Be sure to follow up on the references.
>
>
> thanks, Michael, but I wasn't making a choice and therefore there is
> nothing to make a case for. *I was trying to make a point about the
> absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.

Yes, but:

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made
a choice." -- Benjamin Franklin.

It's a little-known fact that Geddy Lee wrote a master's
thesis on Bayesian statistics. Basically, when choosing
the assignment of probabilities, you have to make some
assumption about what type of outcomes are "equally
likely."

For example, if we want to guess what frame type
Joe F. Master is riding in tomorrow's criterium, should
we assign roughly equal probabilities to the alternatives
of steel, aluminum, carbon, and titanium? Or we could
make the probabilities proportional to the number of
frame models of each type offered by major manufacturers.
Or we could make them proportional to sales figures
for each type (if we knew those). All of these are imperfect,
since for example Fat Masters racers are a biased sample
of the bike-buying public. Then we'd go out to the criterium
and count the numbers of frame types and adjust our
estimates based on what we counted. This would improve
our estimate for, say, the percentages of frame types for the
road race next month.

The assignment of the initial guesses is what Michael
referred to, the prior probability. You are right that the
initial guesses have to be more or less assigned arbitrarily,
but there are better and worse ways of doing that. The
fundamental fact that Geddy Lee expresses, though, is that
even when we think we're making an impartial
assignment of probability, we're encoding our assumptions
by guessing what are the equal-probability outcomes.

Ben
Also, "2112" is actually about Fermat's Last Theorem.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Scott
<hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I was trying to make a point about the
>absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.

You're being an *******. I was just using those numbers to show that
the chance is near-zero. The real absurdity is to "not be surprised"
by something that has nearly zero chance of happening.

That's absurd.

[Tosspot]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

<snip>

> Also, "2112" is actually about Fermat's Last Theorem.

You jest! I was thinking I'm the only one here that recognised Geddy
Lee, but I've not heard of that one.

[jim beam]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
<snip for clarity>

> It's a little-known fact that Geddy Lee wrote a master's
> thesis on Bayesian statistics.

<snip>

> Also, "2112" is actually about Fermat's Last Theorem.

dude, you come up with some real nuggets some times...

[Tom Sherman]

hizark21 ? wrote:

[Top posting corrected]
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> Is superlight steel cost effective or as durable as carbon fiber at
>>> the same weight?
>>
>> Bianchi makes a very light steel bike.
>>
> Yes a 953 will weigh around 2 pounds and have a yield strength around
> 375,000 psi. This roughly 2-1/2 times the strength of any composite
> frame available today
>
Steel has a density about 4½ times that of CFRP, so CRFP will still have
a specific strength about 2½ times that of Reynolds 953.

Of course, the above is too simplistic to compare bicycle frames, since
stiffness will govern over strength in some instances; and as always the
construction of joints and attachment points is more important than the
bulk properties of the material used.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Scott]

On Jul 13, 3:37*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>
> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I was trying to make a point about the
> >absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.
>
> You're being an *******. *I was just using those numbers to show that
> the chance is near-zero. *The real absurdity is to "not be surprised"
> by something that has nearly zero chance of happening.
>
> That's absurd.

JT,

Like others have suggested to me, let me suggest to you: let it go.

[jim beam]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> hizark21 ? wrote:
>
> [Top posting corrected]
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> Is superlight steel cost effective or as durable as carbon fiber at
>>>> the same weight?
> >>
>>> Bianchi makes a very light steel bike.
> >>
>> Yes a 953 will weigh around 2 pounds and have a yield strength around
>> 375,000 psi. This roughly 2-1/2 times the strength of any composite
>> frame available today
>>
> Steel has a density about 4� times that of CFRP, so CRFP will still have
> a specific strength about 2� times that of Reynolds 953.
>
> Of course, the above is too simplistic to compare bicycle frames, since
> stiffness will govern over strength in some instances; and as always the
> construction of joints and attachment points is more important than the
> bulk properties of the material used.
>

wow - let today go down in history! tom sherman posts something factual
and relevant! dare i encourage you to stick with this program?

[Howard Kveck]

In article <g5d2rc$m6f$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> hizark21 ? wrote:
>
> [Top posting corrected]
> > Bob Schwartz wrote:
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>> Is superlight steel cost effective or as durable as carbon fiber at
> >>> the same weight?
> >>
> >> Bianchi makes a very light steel bike.
> >>
> > Yes a 953 will weigh around 2 pounds and have a yield strength around
> > 375,000 psi. This roughly 2-1/2 times the strength of any composite
> > frame available today
> >
> Steel has a density about 4½ times that of CFRP, so CRFP will still have
> a specific strength about 2½ times that of Reynolds 953.
>
> Of course, the above is too simplistic to compare bicycle frames, since
> stiffness will govern over strength in some instances; and as always the
> construction of joints and attachment points is more important than the
> bulk properties of the material used.

Additionally, with carbon the builder can add material and form shapes to
strengthen the frame that can't be done easily (if at all) with steel.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[jim beam]

Scott wrote:
> On Jul 13, 3:37�am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>>
>> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I was trying to make a point about the
>>> absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.
>> You're being an *******. �I was just using those numbers to show that
>> the chance is near-zero. �The real absurdity is to "not be surprised"
>> by something that has nearly zero chance of happening.
>>
>> That's absurd.
>
> JT,
>
> Like others have suggested to me, let me suggest to you: let it go.
>

but you're the one with the math problem - you "let it go".

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Scott
<hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 13, 3:37*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>>
>> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > I was trying to make a point about the
>> >absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.
>>
>> You're being an *******. *I was just using those numbers to show that
>> the chance is near-zero. *The real absurdity is to "not be surprised"
>> by something that has nearly zero chance of happening.
>>
>> That's absurd.
>
>JT,
>
>Like others have suggested to me, let me suggest to you: let it go.

Let what go? Being right?

When you're wrong, it's important to let it go rather than keeping
digging.

[Robert Chung]

On Jul 13, 7:52*am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Like others have suggested to me, let me suggest to you: *let it go.

Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand. This isn't one of those
times.

[Scott]

On Jul 13, 9:15*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 13, 3:37*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>
> >> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I was trying to make a point about the
> >> >absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.
>
> >> You're being an *******. *I was just using those numbers to show that
> >> the chance is near-zero. *The real absurdity is to "not be surprised"
> >> by something that has nearly zero chance of happening.
>
> >> That's absurd.
>
> >JT,
>
> >Like others have suggested to me, let me suggest to you: *let it go.
>
> Let what go? Being right?
>
> When you're wrong, it's important to let it go rather than keeping
> digging.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

JT,

From the very beginning, you've missed my point and you apparently
missed my point in my suggestion to let it go. You recently suggested
that my comment about absurdity was me being an *******. Let's go
back to the beginning. Some guy asks about the last time someone used
a steel frame in the tour. I said I wouldn't be surprised if someone
were doing it this year. That's all. I wouldn't be surprised.

For some silly-ass reason, YOU decide to chime in to tell me, in
essence, I'm stupid for making my comment. Who's the *******?

Look, you've made your point. You're smarter than me. I give up.
You win.

S.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Bill C wrote:
>
> Hey Steve
> I think most of us have one, or a few old/older bikes we just can't
> seem to part with. I've still got got my Benotto which I love to do a
> club TT on once in a while, and then there's the early 80s Team Fuji
> with Biopace rings that's kinda funky and fun. Both are steel and a
> lot of fun.
> The Kids have an IF Crown Jewel that was/is their primary race bike
> that they love, and I don't ever ride, but they say the Masi 3V might
> be more comfortable and climb better. I can't believe the Masi has
> survived carrying my ass since I put on the weight. It's amazing that
> it hasn't snapped in half.
> That's a big reason I don't ride the others right now.
> Not sure how long they can last with proper maint., Framesaver, and
> tlc touching up the paint and stuff when it gets chipped, but so far,
> so good.
> Bill C


I remember when I first started to ride about 1979 walking into the old
Stuyvesant Bicycles on W. 14th St. That place really SMELLED like a
bike shop should. I remember seeing the blue Raleigh Pro with Campy
Record gruppo, for about $1K. I was talking to another customer--one
who raced, and said he changed his frame every 2 years or so, because
the frame went "dead" after that much time. Now, I've heard of bikes
where tubes or lugs cracked--that's for sure, but this guy wasn't any
bigger than I was. I certainly can't feel any fatigue in my frame, and
it's got a lot of miles in it. But I suppose it's nice to be able to
get a new frame every 2 years.

Steve


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[jim beam]

andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
> On Jul 12, 8:34 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> andresm...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 2:49�am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:38:01 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:12:32 -0700 (PDT), hizark21
>>>>> <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
>>>>>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
>>>>>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
>>>>>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>>>>>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. �Composites do save
>>>>>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
>>>>>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
>>>>>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
>>>>>> a pound heavier.
>>>>> Do you race bikes? �For a hobby bike racer, and OCLV will last a bunch
>>>>> of years.
>>>> For hobby bike racers, an OCLV frame or similar quality carbon fiber
>>>> frame will last a bunch of years.
>>> For about $600 or more. However, for about $100-$200 you can have an
>>> al frame that will perform the same. I"m not against carbon. It makes
>>> into a nice light bike. However, it costs a good $$$$$$. In terms of
>>> reliability, they are ok as are steel and al bikes. The thing with
>>> fibers is that they tear just like clothing. Most often they don't and
>>> sometimes they do. Same thing with aluminum. Most of the time they are
>>> fine, but once in a while they crack.
>> no dude. unless you have a serious crash, which no other frame would
>> survive either, quality carbon will not crack. in fact, it'll handle a
>> good deal /more/ abuse. as for fiber "tearing", it's not tissue paper.
>>
>> bottom line, you can't condemn a whole class of materials if you don't
>> understand how they work or acknowledge that, like most other things,
>> quality is a factor.
>
> Of course it is. Yet, I've seen CF frames that have cracked and you
> could see that the fibers have torn.

of course! metal tears when it fractures too!


> I don't know much about
> development so, I have to go by what I see. I have a friend who lived
> next door to me he had an oclv that cracked twice with normal use.

"normal use"?


> Both times he sent it back to Trek and he got a new frame no questions
> asked, since the frames were pretty new. He still has the third one
> and its been a while. That wasn't the first time that I've seen CF
> frames with cracks/tears. So, I feel a little uncomfortable about a
> material that on occasions exhibit these sort of behavior after
> crashes, etc.

where did it crack? and what was "normal use"?

example: i like to tinker with cars. one day, neighbor george comes
over asking for help because he can't start his car. i check it out and
notice that the plug leads are on in the wrong order. but instead of
saying that, i decide to prolong his agony a little [because i'm like
that].

me: "so, what have you done here then george?"
g: "nothing"
me: "are you sure?"
g: "yeah, haven't touched a thing"
me: "nothing at all?"
g: "yeah - i checked the oil, checked the radiator, now the car won't start"

[and so on]

after about 10 minutes of me having him swear up and down that there was
absolutely nothing that could have possibly been wrong, i swap the
leads, and sure enough, the car starts immediately.

the moral of the story is that unless you were actually present when the
fracture occurred, and you know for certain what the history is, you
can't trust a damned thing anyone says about "oh, it just broke". his
teenage son could have been using that bike as a parking stop in the
garage for all you know - guaranteed to crack a frame.

>
> With CF components, it is laughable the way they seem to exploit

"exploit"?

> on
> accidents. The campy CF rear derailleurs and briefters are a joke.

no they're not. i've used them for years, and crashed with them. they
hold up real well.


> I've seen tons of these parts after accidents and in shops and they
> look like they've exploded or something. I've never seen allow
> components damaged in the way CF components get damaged.

it's cfrp!!! when it fractures, by definition, because it's not
ductile, it's fracture appearance is going to be different to metal. if
you break a piece of wood, you don't complain about /its/ lack of
ductility do you?


> Usually after
> an accident when the frame is toast, you get a new frame and switch
> all the components, get on the bike and go. Not with CF. Also, it is
> always recommended that you toss the ones that superficially survived,
> after crashes.

and the magnitude of the crash is???

>
> It is likely that, as you suggest, steel is even weaker than carbon. I
> can't argue with that. However, I've had plenty of falls on steel and
> the frames never seem damaged. Even when bent out of alignment, I
> could cold set them back into their normal shape. So, from my own
> limited experience, steel seems safer and more durable to me. Also, it
> is cheaper.

then you don't have any real experience with carbon, you're merely
extrapolating hearsay and vocalizing uninformed fear.


>
> So, to me, the advantage of CF is that it is lighter.

no, it's lighter, stronger, more fatigue resistant, and on top of that,
helps attenuate some vibration transmission.


> When you pick up
> a modern CF bike, it is always very light. However, I've ridden CF
> bikes and I don't notice any performance improvement.

then you need to ride harder?


> So, I am not
> willing to make the investment. In truth, I like the sort of "dead/
> hollow" feeling that you get when ridding CF. Some people don't but I
> do. It is a very nice feeling. However, it is only just that.

most people like not having their ass pounded /quite/ so hard. that's
why i have cfrp seat posts even on my beaters. on long rides, feeling
fresher longer means just a little more energy for a grand finale.


> I don't
> go any faster on a CF bike and forget about that feeling after 10
> minutes of riding. Those that have CF bikes don't go any faster than
> me or have any more endurance.
>
> So, for Joe average, it don't make no difference. If you are wealthy
> and have to have the best, by all means get carbon.

it's not that simple andres. see above.


However, it won't
> make you a better cyclist, Just like a Rolex won't give better time
> than a Seiko.

but the rolex gets you more chicks...


>
> Andres
>
>
>
>>> I like ti cause it
>>> looks new with a touch of sandpaper. Every year after taking my custom
>>> made chines ti bike apart and sandpappering it I have a new bike.
>> no you don't, you have a bike with a bunch of new surface scratches that
>> is becoming less dimensionally consistent.
>>
>>> None
>>> of the other materials can do this.
>> or should do this!
>>
>>> But, in terms of bang for buck,
>>> there is no question that AL is the best. I just got a brand new
>>> Javelin TT bike with 105 components and a 76 degree AL frame for $600.
>>> There is no material except for AL that will give you a perfectly
>>> fine, ready to race bike for less than $900.
>> on that we agree.
>

[hizark21]

I agree with you. The problem is that price has become so high in
relation to the weight reduction gain it no longer makes at the very
high end. Now if the durability was as good or better than it would
make more sense. I used to work in a shop and follow the industry
quite closely. I am still amazed that consumers are still buying these
types of CF frames.

andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
> On Jul 12, 8:34Â*am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> > andresm...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 2:49�am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:38:01 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
> >
> > >> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:12:32 -0700 (PDT), hizark21
> > >>> <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
> > >>>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
> > >>>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
> > >>>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance..
> > >>>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. �Composites do save
> > >>>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
> > >>>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
> > >>>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
> > >>>> a pound heavier.
> > >>> Do you race bikes? �For a hobby bike racer, and OCLV will last a bunch
> > >>> of years.
> > >> For hobby bike racers, an OCLV frame or similar quality carbon fiber
> > >> frame will last a bunch of years.
> >
> > > For about $600 or more. However, for about $100-$200 you can have an
> > > al frame that will perform the same. I"m not against carbon. It makes
> > > into a nice light bike. However, it costs a good $$$$$$. In terms of
> > > reliability, they are ok as are steel and al bikes. The thing with
> > > fibers is that they tear just like clothing. Most often they don't and
> > > sometimes they do. Same thing with aluminum. Most of the time they are
> > > fine, but once in a while they crack.
> >
> > no dude. Â*unless you have a serious crash, which no other frame would
> > survive either, quality carbon will not crack. Â*in fact, it'll handle a
> > good deal /more/ abuse. Â*as for fiber "tearing", it's not tissue paper.
> >
> > bottom line, you can't condemn a whole class of materials if you don't
> > understand how they work or acknowledge that, like most other things,
> > quality is a factor.
>
> Of course it is. Yet, I've seen CF frames that have cracked and you
> could see that the fibers have torn. I don't know much about
> development so, I have to go by what I see. I have a friend who lived
> next door to me he had an oclv that cracked twice with normal use.
> Both times he sent it back to Trek and he got a new frame no questions
> asked, since the frames were pretty new. He still has the third one
> and its been a while. That wasn't the first time that I've seen CF
> frames with cracks/tears. So, I feel a little uncomfortable about a
> material that on occasions exhibit these sort of behavior after
> crashes, etc.
>
> With CF components, it is laughable the way they seem to exploit on
> accidents. The campy CF rear derailleurs and briefters are a joke.
> I've seen tons of these parts after accidents and in shops and they
> look like they've exploded or something. I've never seen allow
> components damaged in the way CF components get damaged. Usually after
> an accident when the frame is toast, you get a new frame and switch
> all the components, get on the bike and go. Not with CF. Also, it is
> always recommended that you toss the ones that superficially survived,
> after crashes.
>
> It is likely that, as you suggest, steel is even weaker than carbon. I
> can't argue with that. However, I've had plenty of falls on steel and
> the frames never seem damaged. Even when bent out of alignment, I
> could cold set them back into their normal shape. So, from my own
> limited experience, steel seems safer and more durable to me. Also, it
> is cheaper.
>
> So, to me, the advantage of CF is that it is lighter. When you pick up
> a modern CF bike, it is always very light. However, I've ridden CF
> bikes and I don't notice any performance improvement. So, I am not
> willing to make the investment. In truth, I like the sort of "dead/
> hollow" feeling that you get when ridding CF. Some people don't but I
> do. It is a very nice feeling. However, it is only just that. I don't
> go any faster on a CF bike and forget about that feeling after 10
> minutes of riding. Those that have CF bikes don't go any faster than
> me or have any more endurance.
>
> So, for Joe average, it don't make no difference. If you are wealthy
> and have to have the best, by all means get carbon. However, it won't
> make you a better cyclist, Just like a Rolex won't give better time
> than a Seiko.
>
> Andres
>
>
>
> >
> > > I like ti cause it
> > > looks new with a touch of sandpaper. Every year after taking my custom
> > > made chines ti bike apart and sandpappering it I have a new bike.
> >
> > no you don't, you have a bike with a bunch of new surface scratches that
> > is becoming less dimensionally consistent.
> >
> > > None
> > > of the other materials can do this.
> >
> > or should do this!
> >
> > > But, in terms of bang for buck,
> > > there is no question that AL is the best. I just got a brand new
> > > Javelin TT bike with 105 components and a 76 degree AL frame for $600..
> > > There is no material except for AL that will give you a perfectly
> > > fine, ready to race bike for less than $900.
> >
> > on that we agree.

[Tuschinski]

On 13 jul, 17:36, "andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course it is. Yet, I've seen CF frames that have cracked and you
> could see that the fibers have torn. I don't know much about
> development so, I have to go by what I see. I have a friend who lived
> next door to me he had an oclv that cracked twice with normal use.
> Both times he sent it back to Trek and he got a new frame no questions
> asked, since the frames were pretty new. He still has the third one
> and its been a while. That wasn't the first time that I've seen CF
> frames with cracks/tears. So, I feel a little uncomfortable about a
> material that on occasions exhibit these sort of behavior after
> crashes, etc.

Anecdotes. I'll give you mine (and yes, not a lie there). I have been
racing competitvel 15 years now

I have seen quality steel frames (front forks) give way. I have once
seen an Alu steering stem break. my 60 kilo GF fell with a reynolds
531 frame 9inncoent fall). It had a torn downtube, just behind the
steerer tube. that is actually a rather common spot, due to the butted
spot and how forces strike it with a head on collision. So far I never
seen a carbon component go, but I'm 100% sure that is just luck, but
the idea that steel is magically bullet proof or inherently safe is
complete romantic, luddite nonsense. Fram/fork breakage is never fun.

>
> With CF components, it is laughable the way they seem to exploit on
> accidents. The campy CF rear derailleurs and briefters are a joke.
> I've seen tons of these parts after accidents and in shops and they
> look like they've exploded or something.

I call bull****. You haven't seen tons of failed Carbon parts. And no,
I havent seen tons of steel or alu fails. Your claim however is
clearly hyperbole.

>I've never seen allow
> components damaged in the way CF components get damaged. Usually after
> an accident when the frame is toast, you get a new frame and switch
> all the components, get on the bike and go. Not with CF. Also, it is
> always recommended that you toss the ones that superficially survived,
> after crashes.

Oh get off it. When you have a big crash with a CF bike, with broken
frame you can continue with the old parts, except steering bar. If you
wouldn't replace an alu or steel steerer bar after a similar crash you
are just as stupid though.

>
> It is likely that, as you suggest, steel is even weaker than carbon. I
> can't argue with that. However, I've had plenty of falls on steel and
> the frames never seem damaged. Even when bent out of alignment, I
> could cold set them back into their normal shape. So, from my own
> limited experience, steel seems safer and more durable to me. Also, it
> is cheaper.

Ahhhh... and here you admit it is completely anecdotical, after a full
frontal attack on other materials.

And good quality steel is not always that cheap. Alu can be cheap.
similar quality steel is usually not much cheaper than Carbon fibre.

[Donald Munro]

Scott wrote:
>> Like others have suggested to me, let me suggest to you: Â*let it go.

Robert Chung wrote:
> Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand. This isn't one of those times.

Are we playing strip poker now ?

[still just me]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:17:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> Additionally, with carbon the builder can add material and form shapes to
>strengthen the frame that can't be done easily (if at all) with steel.


And then there's this:
http://picasaweb.google.com/dbiked/BrotherSBikeCrash?authkey=iOs1rM3MJzo

Somehow I can't envision a steel frame snapping under similar
circumstances. I've seen stick in spokes with a higher tensile
strength than that squirrel that just snapped right off.

So CF is a problem for race boys who crash, and amateurs who ride in
the country. What small slice does that leave where CF is safe?

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Jul 13, 10:17*am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> *Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> > hizark21 ? wrote:
>
> > [Top posting corrected]
> > > Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > >> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > >>> Is superlight steel cost effective or as durable as carbon fiber at
> > >>> the same weight?
>
> > >> Bianchi makes a very light steel bike.
>
> > > Yes a 953 will weigh around 2 pounds and have a yield strength around
> > > 375,000 psi. This roughly 2-1/2 times the strength of any composite
> > > frame available today
>
> > Steel has a density about 4½ times that of CFRP, so CRFP will still have
> > a specific strength about 2½ times that of Reynolds 953.
>
> > Of course, the above is too simplistic to compare bicycle frames, since
> > stiffness will govern over strength in some instances; and as always the
> > construction of joints and attachment points is more important than the
> > bulk properties of the material used.
>
> * *Additionally, with carbon the builder can add material and form shapes to
> strengthen the frame that can't be done easily (if at all) with steel.

Well, yes and no. Starting with a tubeset, you can't
build an arbitrary shape out of steel and necessarily
maintain light weight - aluminum also, but the weight
penalty for glopping on more aluminum is lower.

However, builders had a good deal of success
reinforcing lightweight steel frames at key points
with gussets. Bontrager's frames were well-known
for this, adding strength at points that had been okay
for traditional road bike construction but were failure
points for MTBs. As long as it's done smartly and the
extra welds don't put the heat affected zone in a bad
place, it's very affective. Gusseting is also used on
some production lightweight aluminum frames.

Basically, arguments about frame materials are
to some extent hair-splitting. You could make an
arbitrarily strong frame out of steel, titanium,
aluminum, or carbon. At a given level of technology
and strength, steel frames will be a bit heavier
and may have more gentle failure modes. Al
and CFRP have turned out to be quite durable
under normal uses. You could, however, go the
extra mile and make an extraordinarily durable frame
and fork out of carbon fiber, too.

Nobody does this, because when manufacturers make
a CFRP frame, they're trying to make a lightweight
performance bike, not a super-duty CFRP bike that
weighs as much as an old Columbus SP frameset.
That would last forever unless it got run over by a
truck, but it wouldn't sell.

So it makes little sense to talk about frame materials
in isolation. You have to consider the design choices,
and that also means the market niches. Which brings
us back to the Tour. Bikes at the Tour are about
two things, winning and selling, not necessarily in that
order.

Ben

[jim beam]

still just me wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:17:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, with carbon the builder can add material and form shapes to
>> strengthen the frame that can't be done easily (if at all) with steel.
>
>
> And then there's this:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/dbiked/BrotherSBikeCrash?authkey=iOs1rM3MJzo
>
> Somehow I can't envision a steel frame snapping under similar
> circumstances.

no, it wouldn't snap, it would bend. at a lower stress level. and you'd
still be on your ass.


> I've seen stick in spokes with a higher tensile
> strength than that squirrel that just snapped right off.

how much force to do you think it takes to cut through a squirrel with a
spoke? i bet you can't do it. you can snap a twig easily enough though.


>
> So CF is a problem for race boys who crash, and amateurs who ride in
> the country. What small slice does that leave where CF is safe?

such emotive fud.

here's a question: you own teeth, and you use them every day. but are
you qualified to advise other people about dental surgery? no? even
though you must have heard about someone who once had a bad dentist?

so when i comes to bikes, what perversion of logic qualifies anyone to
advise others and talk like they know more than the people that make
them? some random failure pics, un-analyzed, are sufficient grounds on
which to form an opinion?

seriously, how does logic and fact get defeated by emotional drivel?

[Tom Sherman]

still just me wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:17:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, with carbon the builder can add material and form shapes to
>> strengthen the frame that can't be done easily (if at all) with steel.
>
>
> And then there's this:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/dbiked/BrotherSBikeCrash?authkey=iOs1rM3MJzo
>
> Somehow I can't envision a steel frame snapping under similar
> circumstances. I've seen stick in spokes with a higher tensile
> strength than that squirrel that just snapped right off.
>
What is the tensile strength of a tree rat?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[A Muzi]

> Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>> Additionally, with carbon the builder can add material and form shapes to
>> strengthen the frame that can't be done easily (if at all) with steel.

still just me wrote:
> And then there's this:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/dbiked/BrotherSBikeCrash?authkey=iOs1rM3MJzo
>
> Somehow I can't envision a steel frame snapping under similar
> circumstances. I've seen stick in spokes with a higher tensile
> strength than that squirrel that just snapped right off.
>
> So CF is a problem for race boys who crash, and amateurs who ride in
> the country. What small slice does that leave where CF is safe?

Steel frames wreck too when the forces exceed the material's limits. As
do aluminum and titanium. Without quantifying anything about a specific
failure (and believe me every crash in a singular event!) we can't
generalize about failures in the way you suggest. Steel is usually
repairable, carbon usually not.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 13, 11:40*am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:17:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
>
> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > * Additionally, with carbon the builder can add material and form shapes to
> >strengthen the frame that can't be done easily (if at all) with steel.
>
> And then there's this:http://picasaweb.google.com/dbiked/BrotherSBikeCrash?authkey=iOs1rM3MJzo
>
> Somehow I can't envision a steel frame snapping under similar
> circumstances. I've seen stick in spokes with a higher tensile
> strength than that squirrel that just snapped right off.
>
> So CF is a problem for race boys who crash, and amateurs who ride in
> the country. What small slice does that leave where CF is safe?

Squirrels are tougher than twigs and far more ductile (based on my
testing at home with random squirrel and twig samples). Get a squirrel
in your forks, and you're going OTB regardless of the fork material.
But it is probably true that a steel fork would not snap. If you could
find a sling for your broken collar bone, you probably could ride the
bike home -- assuming the wheel was not trashed and that the fork was
not so bent that the wheel overlapped the down tube.

I have CF forks on several bikes but will be the first to admit that I
do not like the fact that you cannot tell from a visual inspection
whether CF has suffered internal damage which would subject it to
catestrophic failure. There are no mysteries with steel. You can see
(and often hear) a crack before it results in a failure. -- Jay
Beattie.

[jim beam]

Scott wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:15�am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 13, 3:37�am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>>>> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I was trying to make a point about the
>>>>> absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.
>>>> You're being an *******. �I was just using those numbers to show that
>>>> the chance is near-zero. �The real absurdity is to "not be surprised"
>>>> by something that has nearly zero chance of happening.
>>>> That's absurd.
>>> JT,
>>> Like others have suggested to me, let me suggest to you: �let it go.
>> Let what go? Being right?
>>
>> When you're wrong, it's important to let it go rather than keeping
>> digging.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> JT,
>
> From the very beginning, you've missed my point and you apparently
> missed my point in my suggestion to let it go. You recently suggested
> that my comment about absurdity was me being an *******. Let's go
> back to the beginning. Some guy asks about the last time someone used
> a steel frame in the tour. I said I wouldn't be surprised if someone
> were doing it this year. That's all. I wouldn't be surprised.

a 50/50 chance??? puhleeeeze. you're done bud.


>
> For some silly-ass reason, YOU decide to chime in to tell me, in
> essence, I'm stupid for making my comment. Who's the *******?
>
> Look, you've made your point. You're smarter than me. I give up.
> You win.

maybe if you stick to what you know rather than what you're merely [and
mistakenly] presuming... you could even ask questions!

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:52:58 -0700 (PDT), Scott
<hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I said I wouldn't be surprised if someone
>were doing it this year. That's all. I wouldn't be surprised.
>
>For some silly-ass reason, YOU decide to chime in to tell me, in
>essence, I'm stupid for making my comment. Who's the *******?

I said you'd be wrong. If you take that as meaning I was calling you
stupid, then that's your interpretation.

But if you want to keep going on about how you wouldn't be surprised,
then yeah that's pretty stupid.

[jim beam]

hizark21 wrote:
> This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
> frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
> program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
> frame that you have bad day and crash.
>
> Scott wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 10:12 pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
>>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
>>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
>>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>>>
>>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Composites do save
>>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
>>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
>>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
>>> a pound heavier.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bfd wrote:
>>>> On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
>>>>> "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
>>>>> choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
>>>>> (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
>>>> i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
>>>> Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
>>>> Carbonframes). Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
>>>> custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
>>>> any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> You don't even have to crash hard. Hell, I broke the nicest riding
>> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
>> month old. Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
>> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Anyway, I didn't see the
>> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifting
>> the rear wheel to clear the curb and flipped myself over the bars.
>> Luckily, I landed in the grass. My bike landed on it's side, with the
>> rear derailleur striking the curb. Cracked the seatstay about 3
>> inches above the derailleur hanger, although the stay didn't hit the
>> ground.
>>
>> Yeah... I'm bummed.


eh? no lifetime warranty??? you have all the warranty and support you
need for long enough to know whether it's going to fail. [bathtub
curve]. all you have to do is ride the freakin' thing hard enough to
test it.

and any crash-damaged frame is still crash-damaged. regardless of material.

[jim beam]

hizark21 wrote:
> I agree with you. The problem is that price has become so high in
> relation to the weight reduction gain it no longer makes at the very
> high end. Now if the durability was as good or better than it would
> make more sense. I used to work in a shop and follow the industry
> quite closely. I am still amazed that consumers are still buying these
> types of CF frames.
>
> andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 8:34 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> andresm...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Jul 12, 2:49�am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:38:01 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>>> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:12:32 -0700 (PDT), hizark21
>>>>>> <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
>>>>>>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
>>>>>>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
>>>>>>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>>>>>>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. �Composites do save
>>>>>>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
>>>>>>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
>>>>>>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
>>>>>>> a pound heavier.
>>>>>> Do you race bikes? �For a hobby bike racer, and OCLV will last a bunch
>>>>>> of years.
>>>>> For hobby bike racers, an OCLV frame or similar quality carbon fiber
>>>>> frame will last a bunch of years.
>>>> For about $600 or more. However, for about $100-$200 you can have an
>>>> al frame that will perform the same. I"m not against carbon. It makes
>>>> into a nice light bike. However, it costs a good $$$$$$. In terms of
>>>> reliability, they are ok as are steel and al bikes. The thing with
>>>> fibers is that they tear just like clothing. Most often they don't and
>>>> sometimes they do. Same thing with aluminum. Most of the time they are
>>>> fine, but once in a while they crack.
>>> no dude. unless you have a serious crash, which no other frame would
>>> survive either, quality carbon will not crack. in fact, it'll handle a
>>> good deal /more/ abuse. as for fiber "tearing", it's not tissue paper.
>>>
>>> bottom line, you can't condemn a whole class of materials if you don't
>>> understand how they work or acknowledge that, like most other things,
>>> quality is a factor.
>> Of course it is. Yet, I've seen CF frames that have cracked and you
>> could see that the fibers have torn. I don't know much about
>> development so, I have to go by what I see. I have a friend who lived
>> next door to me he had an oclv that cracked twice with normal use.
>> Both times he sent it back to Trek and he got a new frame no questions
>> asked, since the frames were pretty new. He still has the third one
>> and its been a while. That wasn't the first time that I've seen CF
>> frames with cracks/tears. So, I feel a little uncomfortable about a
>> material that on occasions exhibit these sort of behavior after
>> crashes, etc.
>>
>> With CF components, it is laughable the way they seem to exploit on
>> accidents. The campy CF rear derailleurs and briefters are a joke.
>> I've seen tons of these parts after accidents and in shops and they
>> look like they've exploded or something. I've never seen allow
>> components damaged in the way CF components get damaged. Usually after
>> an accident when the frame is toast, you get a new frame and switch
>> all the components, get on the bike and go. Not with CF. Also, it is
>> always recommended that you toss the ones that superficially survived,
>> after crashes.
>>
>> It is likely that, as you suggest, steel is even weaker than carbon. I
>> can't argue with that. However, I've had plenty of falls on steel and
>> the frames never seem damaged. Even when bent out of alignment, I
>> could cold set them back into their normal shape. So, from my own
>> limited experience, steel seems safer and more durable to me. Also, it
>> is cheaper.
>>
>> So, to me, the advantage of CF is that it is lighter. When you pick up
>> a modern CF bike, it is always very light. However, I've ridden CF
>> bikes and I don't notice any performance improvement. So, I am not
>> willing to make the investment. In truth, I like the sort of "dead/
>> hollow" feeling that you get when ridding CF. Some people don't but I
>> do. It is a very nice feeling. However, it is only just that. I don't
>> go any faster on a CF bike and forget about that feeling after 10
>> minutes of riding. Those that have CF bikes don't go any faster than
>> me or have any more endurance.
>>
>> So, for Joe average, it don't make no difference. If you are wealthy
>> and have to have the best, by all means get carbon. However, it won't
>> make you a better cyclist, Just like a Rolex won't give better time
>> than a Seiko.
>>
>> Andres
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I like ti cause it
>>>> looks new with a touch of sandpaper. Every year after taking my custom
>>>> made chines ti bike apart and sandpappering it I have a new bike.
>>> no you don't, you have a bike with a bunch of new surface scratches that
>>> is becoming less dimensionally consistent.
>>>
>>>> None
>>>> of the other materials can do this.
>>> or should do this!
>>>
>>>> But, in terms of bang for buck,
>>>> there is no question that AL is the best. I just got a brand new
>>>> Javelin TT bike with 105 components and a 76 degree AL frame for $600.
>>>> There is no material except for AL that will give you a perfectly
>>>> fine, ready to race bike for less than $900.
>>> on that we agree.

because they're light, fatigue resistant, strong and comfortable?

[2bowlers@gmail.com]

> Calfee is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty.

FWIW, Calfee frames do not come with a lifetime warranty. It's 25
years on the Tetra Pro and the Dragonfly and 10 years on the Luna and
the bamboo bikes. The warantee is transferable if you sell the
frameset but the new owner has to pay a fee ($250) and the frame needs
to be inspected by the factory to make the transfer.

Calfee also has a crash replacement program for folks that stack 'em
and can likely repair >25 year old framesets if one were in need.

Since you said you'd consider Calfee, note that amongst Calfee owners
folks are hard pressed to discern any difference in ride between the
Tetra and Luna. There is a small weight difference and the waranty
part as discussed but the savings are worth it if neither is a huge
concern.

Mark

[Howard Kveck]

In article <DuCdnfd-zcznz-fVnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> still just me wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:17:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
> > <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Additionally, with carbon the builder can add material and form shapes
> >> to
> >> strengthen the frame that can't be done easily (if at all) with steel.
> >
> >
> > And then there's this:
> > http://picasaweb.google.com/dbiked/BrotherSBikeCrash?authkey=iOs1rM3MJzo
> >
> > Somehow I can't envision a steel frame snapping under similar
> > circumstances.
>
> no, it wouldn't snap, it would bend. at a lower stress level. and you'd
> still be on your ass.

Exactly - the ensuing crash could just as easily lead to the same injury levels.
You'd still have to replace at least a fork and quite likely the frame too. Not a big
net gain... Whether the frame has "snapped" or not is immaterial - a steel frame
that's bent on the top and down tubes is still trash.

> > I've seen stick in spokes with a higher tensile
> > strength than that squirrel that just snapped right off.
>
> how much force to do you think it takes to cut through a squirrel with a
> spoke? i bet you can't do it. you can snap a twig easily enough though.

The squirrel is more ductile. It'll bend much further before it "snaps." people
are hung up on "tensile strength" here when there are other factors that have to do
with how strong or tough a frame is.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Scott]

On Jul 13, 1:11Â*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 9:15�am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>
> >> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 13, 3:37�am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Scott
> >>>> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I was trying to make a point about the
> >>>>> absurdity of picking a probability number out of thin air.
> >>>> You're being an *******. �I was just using those numbers to show that
> >>>> the chance is near-zero. �The real absurdity is to "not be surprised"
> >>>> by something that has nearly zero chance of happening.
> >>>> That's absurd.
> >>> JT,
> >>> Like others have suggested to me, let me suggest to you: �let it go.
> >> Let what go? Being right?
>
> >> When you're wrong, it's important to let it go rather than keeping
> >> digging.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > JT,
>
> > From the very beginning, you've missed my point and you apparently
> > missed my point in my suggestion to let it go. Â*You recently suggested
> > that my comment about absurdity was me being an *******. Â*Let's go
> > back to the beginning. Â*Some guy asks about the last time someone used
> > a steel frame in the tour. Â*I said I wouldn't be surprised if someone
> > were doing it this year. Â*That's all. Â*I wouldn't be surprised.
>
> a 50/50 chance??? Â*puhleeeeze. Â*you're done bud.
>
>
>
> > For some silly-ass reason, YOU decide to chime in to tell me, in
> > essence, I'm stupid for making my comment. Â*Who's the *******?
>
> > Look, you've made your point. Â*You're smarter than me. Â*I give up.
> > You win.
>
> maybe if you stick to what you know rather than what you're merely [and
> mistakenly] presuming... Â*you could even ask questions!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jim,

I'm sorry, refresh my memory, please... who asked you anything?

Much like JT, it appears you insist on sticking your nose into a
discussion that isn't about you or that you weren't previously
involved in. If JT wants to call me an ******* and I want to tell him
he can kiss my shiny white backside, that's twixt us.

S.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 13, 12:18Â*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> hizark21 wrote:
> > This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
> > frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
> > program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
> > frame that you have bad day and crash.
>
> > Scott wrote:
> >> On Jul 11, 10:12 pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
> >>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
> >>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
> >>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>
> >>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Â*Composites do save
> >>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
> >>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
> >>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
> >>> a pound heavier.
>
> >>> bfd wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
> >>>>> "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
> >>>>> choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
> >>>>> (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
> >>>> i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
> >>>> Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
> >>>> Carbonframes). Â*Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
> >>>> custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
> >>>> any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> You don't even have to crash hard. Â*Hell, I broke the nicest riding
> >> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
> >> month old. Â*Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
> >> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Â*Anyway, I didn't see the
> >> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifting
> >> the rear wheel to clear the curb and flipped myself over the bars.
> >> Luckily, I landed in the grass. Â*My bike landed on it's side, with the
> >> rear derailleur striking the curb. Â*Cracked the seatstay about 3
> >> inches above the derailleur hanger, although the stay didn't hit the
> >> ground.
>
> >> Yeah... I'm bummed.
>
> eh? Â*no lifetime warranty??? Â*you have all the warranty and support you
> need for long enough to know whether it's going to fail. Â*[bathtub
> curve]. Â*all you have to do is ride the freakin' thing hard enough to
> test it.
>
> and any crash-damaged frame is still crash-damaged. Â*regardless of material.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In other words, crash damage is not covered by warranty. Warranties
cover defects in workmanship or design and are not the same as a free
replacement program. Cannondale does have a trade up program where
they will accept any POS broken frame in trade (plus some cash -- I
don't know how much) for a new frame -- so long as you are the
original owner of the old frame.

What is surprising about some very expensive frames is that the
warranty is void if the frame is ever raced -- regardless of whether
the ultimate failure of the frame is related to any racing
catastrophe. So, if you buy a Colnago C50 (are we up to the C60
yet?) and you race it, say goodbye to the warranty. At least that is
how I recall the Colnago warranty.

BTW, every time we have one of these CFRP threads, I am left wanting
some statistical evidence of their longevity as compared to aluminum
or MODERN steel (not SP/531 boat anchor material). We always end up
with the usual claims that CFRP is either Satan incarnate or the
second coming. -- Jay Beattie.

[Marty]

On Jul 13, 1:18Â*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> hizark21 wrote:
> > This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
> > frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
> > program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
> > frame that you have bad day and crash.
>
> > Scott wrote:
> >> On Jul 11, 10:12 pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
> >>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
> >>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
> >>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>
> >>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Â*Composites do save
> >>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
> >>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
> >>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
> >>> a pound heavier.
>
> >>> bfd wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
> >>>>> "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
> >>>>> choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
> >>>>> (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
> >>>> i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
> >>>> Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
> >>>> Carbonframes). Â*Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
> >>>> custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
> >>>> any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> You don't even have to crash hard. Â*Hell, I broke the nicest riding
> >> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
> >> month old. Â*Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
> >> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Â*Anyway, I didn't see the
> >> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifting
> >> the rear wheel to clear the curb and flipped myself over the bars.
> >> Luckily, I landed in the grass. Â*My bike landed on it's side, with the
> >> rear derailleur striking the curb. Â*Cracked the seatstay about 3
> >> inches above the derailleur hanger, although the stay didn't hit the
> >> ground.
>
> >> Yeah... I'm bummed.
>
> eh? Â*no lifetime warranty??? Â*you have all the warranty and support you
> need for long enough to know whether it's going to fail. Â*[bathtub
> curve]. Â*all you have to do is ride the freakin' thing hard enough to
> test it.
>
> and any crash-damaged frame is still crash-damaged. Â*regardless of material.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

388

[Marty]

On Jul 13, 1:18Â*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> hizark21 wrote:
> > This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
> > frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
> > program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
> > frame that you have bad day and crash.
>
> > Scott wrote:
> >> On Jul 11, 10:12 pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
> >>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
> >>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
> >>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>
> >>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Â*Composites do save
> >>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
> >>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
> >>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
> >>> a pound heavier.
>
> >>> bfd wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
> >>>>> "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
> >>>>> choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
> >>>>> (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
> >>>> i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
> >>>> Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
> >>>> Carbonframes). Â*Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
> >>>> custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
> >>>> any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> You don't even have to crash hard. Â*Hell, I broke the nicest riding
> >> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
> >> month old. Â*Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
> >> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Â*Anyway, I didn't see the
> >> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifting
> >> the rear wheel to clear the curb and flipped myself over the bars.
> >> Luckily, I landed in the grass. Â*My bike landed on it's side, with the
> >> rear derailleur striking the curb. Â*Cracked the seatstay about 3
> >> inches above the derailleur hanger, although the stay didn't hit the
> >> ground.
>
> >> Yeah... I'm bummed.
>
> eh? Â*no lifetime warranty??? Â*you have all the warranty and support you
> need for long enough to know whether it's going to fail. Â*[bathtub
> curve]. Â*all you have to do is ride the freakin' thing hard enough to
> test it.
>
> and any crash-damaged frame is still crash-damaged. Â*regardless of material.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

388

[Marty]

On Jul 13, 1:18Â*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> hizark21 wrote:
> > This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
> > frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
> > program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
> > frame that you have bad day and crash.
>
> > Scott wrote:
> >> On Jul 11, 10:12 pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
> >>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
> >>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
> >>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>
> >>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Â*Composites do save
> >>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
> >>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
> >>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
> >>> a pound heavier.
>
> >>> bfd wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
> >>>>> "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
> >>>>> choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
> >>>>> (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
> >>>> i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
> >>>> Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
> >>>> Carbonframes). Â*Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
> >>>> custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
> >>>> any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> You don't even have to crash hard. Â*Hell, I broke the nicest riding
> >> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
> >> month old. Â*Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
> >> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Â*Anyway, I didn't see the
> >> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifting
> >> the rear wheel to clear the curb and flipped myself over the bars.
> >> Luckily, I landed in the grass. Â*My bike landed on it's side, with the
> >> rear derailleur striking the curb. Â*Cracked the seatstay about 3
> >> inches above the derailleur hanger, although the stay didn't hit the
> >> ground.
>
> >> Yeah... I'm bummed.
>
> eh? Â*no lifetime warranty??? Â*you have all the warranty and support you
> need for long enough to know whether it's going to fail. Â*[bathtub
> curve]. Â*all you have to do is ride the freakin' thing hard enough to
> test it.
>
> and any crash-damaged frame is still crash-damaged. Â*regardless of material.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

388

[Marty]

On Jul 13, 1:18Â*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> hizark21 wrote:
> > This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
> > frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
> > program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
> > frame that you have bad day and crash.
>
> > Scott wrote:
> >> On Jul 11, 10:12 pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
> >>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
> >>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
> >>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>
> >>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Â*Composites do save
> >>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
> >>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
> >>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
> >>> a pound heavier.
>
> >>> bfd wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
> >>>>> "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
> >>>>> choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
> >>>>> (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
> >>>> i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
> >>>> Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
> >>>> Carbonframes). Â*Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
> >>>> custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
> >>>> any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> You don't even have to crash hard. Â*Hell, I broke the nicest riding
> >> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
> >> month old. Â*Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
> >> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Â*Anyway, I didn't see the
> >> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifting
> >> the rear wheel to clear the curb and flipped myself over the bars.
> >> Luckily, I landed in the grass. Â*My bike landed on it's side, with the
> >> rear derailleur striking the curb. Â*Cracked the seatstay about 3
> >> inches above the derailleur hanger, although the stay didn't hit the
> >> ground.
>
> >> Yeah... I'm bummed.
>
> eh? Â*no lifetime warranty??? Â*you have all the warranty and support you
> need for long enough to know whether it's going to fail. Â*[bathtub
> curve]. Â*all you have to do is ride the freakin' thing hard enough to
> test it.
>
> and any crash-damaged frame is still crash-damaged. Â*regardless of material.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

388

[jim beam]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> hizark21 wrote:
>>> This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
>>> frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
>>> program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
>>> frame that you have bad day and crash.
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> On Jul 11, 10:12 pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
>>>>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
>>>>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
>>>>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
>>>>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Composites do save
>>>>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
>>>>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
>>>>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
>>>>> a pound heavier.
>>>>> bfd wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
>>>>>>> "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
>>>>>>> choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
>>>>>>> (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
>>>>>> i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
>>>>>> Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
>>>>>> Carbonframes). Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
>>>>>> custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
>>>>>> any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> You don't even have to crash hard. Hell, I broke the nicest riding
>>>> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
>>>> month old. Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
>>>> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Anyway, I didn't see the
>>>> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifting
>>>> the rear wheel to clear the curb and flipped myself over the bars.
>>>> Luckily, I landed in the grass. My bike landed on it's side, with the
>>>> rear derailleur striking the curb. Cracked the seatstay about 3
>>>> inches above the derailleur hanger, although the stay didn't hit the
>>>> ground.
>>>> Yeah... I'm bummed.
>> eh? no lifetime warranty??? you have all the warranty and support you
>> need for long enough to know whether it's going to fail. [bathtub
>> curve]. all you have to do is ride the freakin' thing hard enough to
>> test it.
>>
>> and any crash-damaged frame is still crash-damaged. regardless of material.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In other words, crash damage is not covered by warranty. Warranties
> cover defects in workmanship or design and are not the same as a free
> replacement program. Cannondale does have a trade up program where
> they will accept any POS broken frame in trade (plus some cash -- I
> don't know how much) for a new frame -- so long as you are the
> original owner of the old frame.
>
> What is surprising about some very expensive frames is that the
> warranty is void if the frame is ever raced -- regardless of whether
> the ultimate failure of the frame is related to any racing
> catastrophe. So, if you buy a Colnago C50 (are we up to the C60
> yet?) and you race it, say goodbye to the warranty. At least that is
> how I recall the Colnago warranty.

same applies to cars and motorcycles.


>
> BTW, every time we have one of these CFRP threads, I am left wanting
> some statistical evidence of their longevity as compared to aluminum
> or MODERN steel (not SP/531 boat anchor material). We always end up
> with the usual claims that CFRP is either Satan incarnate or the
> second coming. -- Jay Beattie.

we have those "tour" fatigue tests. they're no less valid today than
they were then.

bottom line, as with anything else, if people want to bleat about
carbon, they should do so on the basis of some particular manufacturer
and their quality, or lack of. underinformed blanket condemnation crap
about "carbon is evil" is simply hysterical metaphorical dog-kicking -
misplaced anger and resentment from those that can't afford to ride it.

[BrandyCycles@gmail.com]

On Jul 13, 3:38 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

> SP/531 boat anchor material...

Boat anchor material? C'mon...that's being just a bit harsh don'tcha
think?. Lots of beautiful, serviceable bikes were made out of these
tubes. Heck, some of 'em were even raced to great success...

I like the modern steels and own an Ultra-Foco frame that has survived
3 crashes over the last 6 years. However, I too would like to see the
data to which you refer. Are these thin-walled modern steels like
Spirit, Life, etc. any more durable than quality aluminum or carbon
fibre?

[hizark21]

It's true most bicycle companies have a race clause. But in most cases
they don't actively enforce this policy. Now MTB bikes are a different
story. They will enforce the clause especially if you are doing a lot
of downhill racing. MTB racing puts bikes under maximum stress loads
so it's almost impossible to design a frame that can withstand
everything. Aluminum frames are especially susceptible to failure with
MTB.

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:18Â*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> > hizark21 wrote:
> > > This a important consideration for someone who is riding a composite
> > > frame with no lifetime warranty and or discounted frame replacement
> > > program. Throwing away $3000 or $6000 is simply ridiculous to spend on
> > > frame that you have bad day and crash.
> >
> > > Scott wrote:
> > >> On Jul 11, 10:12 pm, hizark21 <hizar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> Calfee is about the only carbon frame I would consider buying. Calfee
> > >>> is one of the few custom carbon frames with a lifetime warranty. A few
> > >>> years back Lance made a comment that did not need a custom frame. It's
> > >>> ironic, because Trek did produce some custom models just for Lance.
> >
> > >>> Personally I prefer steel for it's durability. Â*Composites do save
> > >>> weight, but they still have not solved the delamination problem. So
> > >>> basically this means that you can kiss $3000 away the first time you
> > >>> crash hard. I would much rather ride a frame that is more durable and
> > >>> a pound heavier.
> >
> > >>> bfd wrote:
> > >>>> On Jul 10, 11:37�am, BrandyCyc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> Fascinating how times have changed. �In the days of steel riders had
> > >>>>> "custom" frames made for them, sometimes by builders of their own
> > >>>>> choosing. �Now, we supposedly have all of these "stock" carbon frames
> > >>>>> (e.g., Cervelo, Trek) with which riders are perfectly content.- Hide quoted text -
> > >>>> No, its possible that a rider may be using a "custom" carbon frames,
> > >>>> i.e., custom geometry/sizing, as such frames have been used in the
> > >>>> Tour, as far back as 1990, when Greg Lemond rode a custom Calfee (then
> > >>>> Carbonframes). Â*Its my understanding that Colnagos can be ordered with
> > >>>> custom geometry/sizing too. Thou, I'm not sure about Time, Ridley or
> > >>>> any of the Chinese-made cookie cutter carbon frames.- Hide quoted text -
> > >>> - Show quoted text -
> > >> You don't even have to crash hard. Â*Hell, I broke the nicest riding
> > >> frame I've ever owned ( an S-Works Roubaix) when it wasn't even a
> > >> month old. Â*Very stupidly wasn't paying attention as I was hopping a
> > >> curb onto a grassy area, was barely rolling. Â*Anyway, I didn't see the
> > >> depression that my front wheel had dropped into just as I was lifti