| |
Main
Date: 21 Feb 2007 13:53:55
From: dgk
Subject: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000 miles
on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
So I looked through past messages and there was apparantly a 150
message thread on this subject in 2004, but unfortunately Giganews
seems to have let them get away.
Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
keep them intact.
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 02:15:11
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
In article <1yyDh.1100644$1T2.879331@pd7urf2no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes:
> You just said that : ) You really are getting old.
I guess I'm suffering from OldstHeimer's Disease.
Anyways i recently retired my bike. Make that: re-tired
my bike. Fabric was starting to show through the
running surfaces of my old IRC Metro's, and flats were
becoming too recurrent. So I jaunted down to Our Community
Bikes and picked out a couple of Cheng Shin slicks off
the rack. Last time I did that it cost me $18 for a
pair. This time it was $30 + change! Oh, well. I've
got that familiar old hard ride back. I'm a Roughrider
again, and good for another 40K as long as I don't run
over any broken beer bottles in the street, or thumbtacks
or whatever. It helps to steer clear of construction
sites, because there'll be all kinds of invisible sharpies
near there, just waiting to gitchya.
I've also had to work around some sidewall, back-tire
generator probs (and solved them.) I guess that's a
topic for another thread. But I'll tell ya what --
beware of generators with soft rubber drivewheels.
The damn'd things wear out too fast. Any clockmaker
will tell you, when you've got friction between two
moving parts, you want a big difference in the hardnesses
of those moving parts, to avoid wear. Rubber drivewheels
against rubber tires just doesn't work.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 01:21:29
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
In article <4b11b4-ltj.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org >,
Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > writes:
> Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <mguua4-bs3.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
>> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> writes in part:
>>
>>
>>> Unless it's a stupid-light
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
>>
>> Developments about aerogels are becoming interesting.
>
> Shhhhhh! You'll give them ideas!
Nah, anything I've thunk of, has already been
thunk of before.
When I shed my youth, it was when I realised how
practically impossible it is to be original.
I guess that's partly why the Peter Pan story
(which is so often taken as a mere children's
divertimento) is basically a tragedy, both in the
Classic theatric sense, and as an ultimate Truth
of the human condition. We age and we lose insight,
vision, inspiration, and the willingness to waste
time by goofing around. We grow roots which restrain
us from flight, and we become too comfortable with
them. Then we turn into Jobst ;-)
Just kidding. I bet even Jobst isn't immune to the
occasional flight of fancy or reenactment of erstwhile
youthful exhuberance.
So when a viable bike frame is made out of aerogel,
it'll be by some kid (maybe a girl?) who doesn't
know any better.
I guess progeny is synergistic.
That's why more kids need to be involved in cycling --
so they can create lighter frames for us old farts,
as we get older and weaker.
Cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 09:33:49
From: nash
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
"Tom Keats" <tomkeats@bud.garden.local > wrote in message
news:pmbmre.muf.ln@bud.garden.local...
> In article <4b11b4-ltj.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> writes:
>> Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <mguua4-bs3.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
>>> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> writes in part:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Unless it's a stupid-light
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
>>>
>>> Developments about aerogels are becoming interesting.
>>
>> Shhhhhh! You'll give them ideas!
>
> Nah, anything I've thunk of, has already been
> thunk of before.
>
> When I shed my youth, it was when I realised how
> practically impossible it is to be original.
>
> I guess that's partly why the Peter Pan story
> (which is so often taken as a mere children's
> divertimento) is basically a tragedy, both in the
> Classic theatric sense, and as an ultimate Truth
> of the human condition. We age and we lose insight,
> vision, inspiration, and the willingness to waste
> time by goofing around. We grow roots which restrain
> us from flight, and we become too comfortable with
> them. Then we turn into Jobst ;-)
>
> Just kidding. I bet even Jobst isn't immune to the
> occasional flight of fancy or reenactment of erstwhile
> youthful exhuberance.
>
> So when a viable bike frame is made out of aerogel,
> it'll be by some kid (maybe a girl?) who doesn't
> know any better.
>
> I guess progeny is synergistic.
>
> That's why more kids need to be involved in cycling --
> so they can create lighter frames for us old farts,
> as we get older and weaker.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
You just said that : ) You really are getting old.
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 12:17:02
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
dgk wrote:
:: I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000
:: miles on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
:: maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
:: fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
:: many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
::
:: So I looked through past messages and there was apparantly a 150
:: message thread on this subject in 2004, but unfortunately Giganews
:: seems to have let them get away.
::
:: Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
:: time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I
:: wrap it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under
:: normal use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really
:: prefer to keep them intact.
See what reading can do to you?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 08:39:47
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:17:02 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
<rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
>dgk wrote:
>:: I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000
>:: miles on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
>:: maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
>:: fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
>:: many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
>::
>:: So I looked through past messages and there was apparantly a 150
>:: message thread on this subject in 2004, but unfortunately Giganews
>:: seems to have let them get away.
>::
>:: Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
>:: time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I
>:: wrap it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under
>:: normal use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really
>:: prefer to keep them intact.
>
>See what reading can do to you?
>
I knew it was a bad idea.
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 21:27:41
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
In article <qofva4-7r4.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org >,
Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > writes:
> dgk <NoWhere@mailsanonymous.com> wrote:
>> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>No. It's hogwash. Ride your bike. Unless it's a stupid-light
>>>aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
>>>
>>>As to breaking under normal use; all bikes are mortal. I'm on my
>>>fourth frame in five or six years of commuting. Only one of the dead
>>>frames was aluminum. It died via a space time intersection with an
>>>automobile. It contrast to the steel frames that cracked while JRA.
>>
>> It's about time, it's about space, it's about men in the strangest
>> place. That's how I remember the theme song. If you don't know what
>> I'm singing, see here - perhaps the worst sci-fi show ever:
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059997/.
>
> Actually, I've never even *heard* of it before.
I used to watch it. WTH, it had Imogene Coca in it.
I thought she looked pretty good with the long,
cavewoman hair. But her talents were better showcased
with Sid Caesar. It's About Time was a waste of
Imogene, but I guess she needed the money.
I was riding my immigrant Raleigh 3-speed back then.
I think the guy who portrayed The Doctor in Dr Who
was either Patrick Troughton or Jon Pertwee.
Meanwhile, kids who got those fancy-shmancy skateboards
were filling dentists' waiting rooms as their clay wheels
catastrophically disintegrated on contact with cracks in
the sidewalks. Those of us who built our own out of
steel-wheeled roller skates and scraps of lumber survived
less scathed.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 19:16:46
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
In article <mguua4-bs3.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org >,
Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > writes in part:
> Unless it's a stupid-light
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
Developments about aerogels are becoming interesting.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 09:43:32
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote:
> In article <mguua4-bs3.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> writes in part:
>
>
>> Unless it's a stupid-light
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
>
> Developments about aerogels are becoming interesting.
Shhhhhh! You'll give them ideas!
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"... all the good computer designs are bootlegged; the formally planned
products, if they are built at all, are dogs!"
-- David E. Lundstrom, "A Few Good Men From Univac", MIT Press, 1987
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 19:09:08
From:
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On Feb 21, 1:53 pm, dgk <d...@somewhere.com > wrote:
> I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000 miles
> on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
> maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
> fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
> many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
It's _very_ odd to state fatigue in terms of years, at least for a
bike. Time has essentially nothing to do with it. Number of stress
cycles and magnitude of stress are the controlling factors. Anyone
who puts it entirely in terms of time is doing something wrong.
>
> Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
> time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
> it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
> use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
> keep them intact.
I usually put, oh, 1500 to 2000 miles per year on my aluminum touring
bike (Cannondale). I've been doing that to this frame since 1986.
If you're smaller than Schwarzenegger and riding a bike with tube wall
thickness greater than aluminum foil, I doubt you'll have anything to
worry about. And if it does crack, it's not going to explode. It'll
likely creak worse and worse, then eventully feel noodly. You'll
notice. And Trek will probably still be in business, to fix the
matter.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 20:06:33
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On 2007-02-21, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote:
> I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000 miles
> on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
> maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
> fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
> many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
>
> So I looked through past messages and there was apparantly a 150
> message thread on this subject in 2004, but unfortunately Giganews
> seems to have let them get away.
>
> Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
> time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
> it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
> use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
> keep them intact.
Most Aluminum bikes are over-engineered to avoid this. When we designed
the original Trek bonded-tube Al bike, we did extensive fatigue testing
to show it was at least as durable as a typical steel frame.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 08:11:19
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:06:33 -0600, John Thompson
<john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote:
>On 2007-02-21, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>> I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000 miles
>> on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
>> maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
>> fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
>> many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
>>
>> So I looked through past messages and there was apparantly a 150
>> message thread on this subject in 2004, but unfortunately Giganews
>> seems to have let them get away.
>>
>> Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
>> time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
>> it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
>> use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
>> keep them intact.
>
>Most Aluminum bikes are over-engineered to avoid this. When we designed
>the original Trek bonded-tube Al bike, we did extensive fatigue testing
>to show it was at least as durable as a typical steel frame.
Ok, I'm reassured. I really didn't think that Trek (or anyone else)
would sell a bike that would self-destruct in a few years. It was just
so weird reading that line and thinking - hmm, I've had the bike for
four years or so...
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 11:01:30
From: John Everett
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:11:19 -0500, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:06:33 -0600, John Thompson
>>
>>Most Aluminum bikes are over-engineered to avoid this. When we designed
>>the original Trek bonded-tube Al bike, we did extensive fatigue testing
>>to show it was at least as durable as a typical steel frame.
>
>Ok, I'm reassured. I really didn't think that Trek (or anyone else)
>would sell a bike that would self-destruct in a few years. It was just
>so weird reading that line and thinking - hmm, I've had the bike for
>four years or so...
To back up what John said here's one example. My Trek 1400 (circa
1988) is still going strong as my beater. It's one of the bonded
aluminum frames. It also has been riding around for the last six or
seven years with a 130mm rear wheel. It's never been "cold-set", I
just spread the stays and snap in the wheel.
--
jeverett3<AT >sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 18:33:53
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
dgk wrote:
>
> Dane Buson wrote:
> >
> >As to breaking under normal use; all bikes are mortal. I'm on my
> >fourth frame in five or six years of commuting.
>
> Wow, you really went through four frames in six years. I guess I'm
> doing ok then.
Dane's a good sized bloke, formerly even bigger-- and he rides a /
lot/. In truly horrible conditions sometimes.
Hi Dane! I've moved back to Austin where it was 80 degrees and sunny
today. But keep up the good work! ;^)
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 09:42:49
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> dgk wrote:
>> Dane Buson wrote:
>> >
>> >As to breaking under normal use; all bikes are mortal. I'm on my
>> >fourth frame in five or six years of commuting.
>>
>> Wow, you really went through four frames in six years. I guess I'm
>> doing ok then.
>
> Dane's a good sized bloke, formerly even bigger-- and he rides a /
> lot/. In truly horrible conditions sometimes.
Well, I did skip a couple days when we were covered with ice. But I'm
thinking about picking up some studded tires for that sort of thing.
:-)
> Hi Dane! I've moved back to Austin where it was 80 degrees and sunny
> today. But keep up the good work! ;^)
Oh, it wasn't too bad yesterday. Sunny and almost 50, and a hell of a
tailwind on the way home from work. Zipping across the 90 bridge at 30
instead of ~20 mph was awfully nice.
But, admittedly this has not been a kind winter to cyclists. I thought
I would drown a few times cycling home from work. A bit like cycling in
a waterfall.
I was disappointed to miss "The great bike move", but I had something
going on I couldn't skip at the time IIRC.
It's good to hear you're enjoying Austin.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"The bigger they are, the harder they hit."
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 14:43:02
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote:
>
> Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
> time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
> it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
> use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
> keep them intact.
No. It's hogwash. Ride your bike. Unless it's a stupid-light
aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
As to breaking under normal use; all bikes are mortal. I'm on my
fourth frame in five or six years of commuting. Only one of the dead
frames was aluminum. It died via a space time intersection with an
automobile. It contrast to the steel frames that cracked while JRA.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Drop your trousers here for best results."
-In a Bangkok dry cleaner's
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 00:28:45
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:mguua4-bs3.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> It contrast to the steel frames that cracked while JRA.
You can see what happened to my friend's (steel) frame:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20084214@N00/sets/72157594554779111/
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:53:59
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On 2007-02-26, Claire Petersky <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
> news:mguua4-bs3.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>
>> It contrast to the steel frames that cracked while JRA.
>
> You can see what happened to my friend's (steel) frame:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/20084214@N00/sets/72157594554779111/
Speaking as a framebuilder and former warranty inspector for Trek, this
doesn't look like a "just riding along" type of failure. The crumpled
tubes indicate a frontal impact of some sort. Any frame is subject to
failure in that type of situation.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 00:43:24
From: Aeek
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:28:45 GMT, "Claire Petersky"
<cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
>news:mguua4-bs3.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>
>> It contrast to the steel frames that cracked while JRA.
>
>You can see what happened to my friend's (steel) frame:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/20084214@N00/sets/72157594554779111/
I did similar, no brakes, still turning when I hit the curb at about
40kmh (25mph).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33362829@N00
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 19:26:43
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:43:02 -0800, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu >
wrote:
>dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
>> time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
>> it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
>> use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
>> keep them intact.
>
>No. It's hogwash. Ride your bike. Unless it's a stupid-light
>aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
>
>As to breaking under normal use; all bikes are mortal. I'm on my
>fourth frame in five or six years of commuting. Only one of the dead
>frames was aluminum. It died via a space time intersection with an
>automobile. It contrast to the steel frames that cracked while JRA.
It's about time, it's about space, it's about men in the strangest
place. That's how I remember the theme song. If you don't know what
I'm singing, see here - perhaps the worst sci-fi show ever:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059997/.
Wow, you really went through four frames in six years. I guess I'm
doing ok then.
Maybe in the spring I'll buy a new bike, perhaps the Trek 7300 and
keep the 7100 as the winter bike.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 19:37:30
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
dgk <NoWhere@mailsanonymous.com > wrote:
> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>
>>No. It's hogwash. Ride your bike. Unless it's a stupid-light
>>aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
>>
>>As to breaking under normal use; all bikes are mortal. I'm on my
>>fourth frame in five or six years of commuting. Only one of the dead
>>frames was aluminum. It died via a space time intersection with an
>>automobile. It contrast to the steel frames that cracked while JRA.
>
> It's about time, it's about space, it's about men in the strangest
> place. That's how I remember the theme song. If you don't know what
> I'm singing, see here - perhaps the worst sci-fi show ever:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059997/.
Actually, I've never even *heard* of it before.
> Wow, you really went through four frames in six years. I guess I'm
> doing ok then.
Well, I'm *on* my fourth frame. I've only broken three frames since I
started. One of the steel frames was a whippy little old French bike,
so it's not really a surprise it died I suppose.
> Maybe in the spring I'll buy a new bike, perhaps the Trek 7300 and
> keep the 7100 as the winter bike.
I won't say one can't have too many bikes. But do try and keep the
number to a reasonable amount. People tend to talk when you have more
bikes than changes of underwear.
Speaking of a winter bike, I really do need to get working on a sunny
day bike.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Sharp as a sack full of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 08:07:10
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:37:30 -0800, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu >
wrote:
>dgk <NoWhere@mailsanonymous.com> wrote:
>> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>No. It's hogwash. Ride your bike. Unless it's a stupid-light
>>>aluminum frame (which I very much doubt it is), you'll be fine.
>>>
>>>As to breaking under normal use; all bikes are mortal. I'm on my
>>>fourth frame in five or six years of commuting. Only one of the dead
>>>frames was aluminum. It died via a space time intersection with an
>>>automobile. It contrast to the steel frames that cracked while JRA.
>>
>> It's about time, it's about space, it's about men in the strangest
>> place. That's how I remember the theme song. If you don't know what
>> I'm singing, see here - perhaps the worst sci-fi show ever:
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059997/.
>
>Actually, I've never even *heard* of it before.
>
>> Wow, you really went through four frames in six years. I guess I'm
>> doing ok then.
>
>Well, I'm *on* my fourth frame. I've only broken three frames since I
>started. One of the steel frames was a whippy little old French bike,
>so it's not really a surprise it died I suppose.
>
>> Maybe in the spring I'll buy a new bike, perhaps the Trek 7300 and
>> keep the 7100 as the winter bike.
>
>I won't say one can't have too many bikes. But do try and keep the
>number to a reasonable amount. People tend to talk when you have more
>bikes than changes of underwear.
>
Too late, I already have too many bikes in the garage.
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 14:41:26
From: pdamm
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
On Feb 22, 4:53 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com > wrote:
> I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000 miles
> on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
> maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
> fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
> many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
>
> So I looked through past messages and there was apparantly a 150
> message thread on this subject in 2004, but unfortunately Giganews
> seems to have let them get away.
>
> Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
> time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
> it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
> use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
> keep them intact.
My old Giant hybrid's Aluminium frame cracked after 8 years and 22,000
km. It was creaking for a wile before it cracked and I couldn't find
the source of the creak. When it finally went the crack came out near
the bottom bracket. I was able to ride the bike home but the peddles
felt very wobbly.
Giant did offer a 25 year warrantee on the frame but in the time that
had passed they have changed models so much that they couldn't replace
the frame with anything remotely compatible. Initially they refused
to warrantee the frame but after several unpleasant phone calls and a
nasty letter they realised they still had an obligation to warrantee
the frame and since they couldn't provide a replacement frame they
replaced it with a brand new current model bike that was as close as
possible to the bike that broke. The whole process took several
months but a good outcome in the end.
Peter Damm
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 17:26:09
From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote in message
news:os4pt299plhin00eff1nvuitpf7r9tn3ns@4ax.com...
>I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000 miles
> on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
> maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
> fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
> many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
>
> So I looked through past messages and there was apparantly a 150
> message thread on this subject in 2004, but unfortunately Giganews
> seems to have let them get away.
>
> Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
> time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
> it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
> use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
> keep them intact.
I don't think so. It will take a catastrophic force to cause catastrophic
failure, usually at the bottom tube where it meets the headtube. Also,
doesn't Trek have a lifetime warranty on the frames?
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 20:32:53
From: fluffy bunny
Subject: Re: Uh oh, Aluminum frame fatigue question
|
In article <os4pt299plhin00eff1nvuitpf7r9tn3ns@4ax.com >,
dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote:
> I have the low end Trek hybrid 7100 and have put at least 12,000 miles
> on it over the last few years. I was reading through a bicycle
> maintenance book the other day and it mentioned that Aluminum will
> fatigue after 3-5 years. It seems odd since that doesn't mention how
> many miles, but still it was sort of discomforting.
>
> So I looked through past messages and there was apparantly a 150
> message thread on this subject in 2004, but unfortunately Giganews
> seems to have let them get away.
>
> Is there a reasonable chance that my bike might collapse under me any
> time soon? I would like to avoid that. I'm not talking about if I wrap
> it around a lamppost or bus, just whether it will break under normal
> use. I have these expensive teeth you see and would really prefer to
> keep them intact.
think of as a potential gold or platinum upgrade path.
.max
|
|
