| |
Main
Date: 05 Oct 2007 20:42:05
From:
Subject: CFRP drawbacks
|
Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
I am just steping into this field...
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 21:04:06
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be disposable.
> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still in use.
But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
stone houses over the last 1000 years?
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 14:53:54
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:04:06 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be disposable.
>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still in use.
>
>But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
>stone houses over the last 1000 years?
A lot less than would have been needed to heat drafty wooden houses,
that's for sure.
In winter, what you care about is the heat (in watts per square meter)
radiating off the outside walls, and/or being lost through drafts. That
number is much greater for wooden construction than for stone
construction, when you compare similar eras of building (ie, no cheating
by using modern, well-insulated wooden houses with plastic draft excluders
against old uninsulated brick houses).
Jasper
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:54:56
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Chalo Colina wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be disposable.
>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still in use.
>
> But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
> stone houses over the last 1000 years?
Probably about the same as the crappy wood frame houses I used to live
in as a child. The walls on those houses let the wind and numerous
insects through.
A modern concrete house with concrete/foam/concrete "sandwich"
construction will cost less to heat and cool than a stick-frame and wall
board box of the same size will. The concrete house will also be
practically impervious to fire, water damage, insect intrusion and
damage, will not need siding and roof replacement, and will have a
structure that will easily be as functionally as good as new several
hundred years later.
Of course, modern USian society prefers disposable items, and
CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 15:25:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
>>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be disposable.
>>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still in
>>> use.
>>
>> But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
>> stone houses over the last 1000 years?
>
> Probably about the same as the crappy wood frame houses I used to live
> in as a child. The walls on those houses let the wind and numerous
> insects through.
>
> A modern concrete house with concrete/foam/concrete "sandwich"
> construction will cost less to heat and cool than a stick-frame and wall
> board box of the same size will. The concrete house will also be
> practically impervious to fire, water damage, insect intrusion and
> damage, will not need siding and roof replacement, and will have a
> structure that will easily be as functionally as good as new several
> hundred years later.
>
> Of course, modern USian society prefers disposable items, and
> CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION!
>
here in the kommunist krepublic of kalifornistan, we like wood 'kos is
doesn't fall over in our earthquakes.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 17:41:32
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Chalo Colina wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>>>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
>>>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be
>>>> disposable.
>>>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still in
>>>> use.
>>>
>>> But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
>>> stone houses over the last 1000 years?
>>
>> Probably about the same as the crappy wood frame houses I used to live
>> in as a child. The walls on those houses let the wind and numerous
>> insects through.
>>
>> A modern concrete house with concrete/foam/concrete "sandwich"
>> construction will cost less to heat and cool than a stick-frame and
>> wall board box of the same size will. The concrete house will also be
>> practically impervious to fire, water damage, insect intrusion and
>> damage, will not need siding and roof replacement, and will have a
>> structure that will easily be as functionally as good as new several
>> hundred years later.
>>
>> Of course, modern USian society prefers disposable items, and
>> CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION!
>>
>
> here in the kommunist krepublic of kalifornistan, we like wood 'kos is
> doesn't fall over in our earthquakes.
That is why post-tensioning of concrete was invented. One can build a
house of pre-cast concrete panels that are post-tensioned and grouted
after assembly.
I believe CALTRANS is still using concrete in elevated highways and
bridges, no?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:05:41
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Chalo Colina wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>>>>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
>>>>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be
>>>>> disposable.
>>>>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still
>>>>> in use.
>>>>
>>>> But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
>>>> stone houses over the last 1000 years?
>>>
>>> Probably about the same as the crappy wood frame houses I used to
>>> live in as a child. The walls on those houses let the wind and
>>> numerous insects through.
>>>
>>> A modern concrete house with concrete/foam/concrete "sandwich"
>>> construction will cost less to heat and cool than a stick-frame and
>>> wall board box of the same size will. The concrete house will also be
>>> practically impervious to fire, water damage, insect intrusion and
>>> damage, will not need siding and roof replacement, and will have a
>>> structure that will easily be as functionally as good as new several
>>> hundred years later.
>>>
>>> Of course, modern USian society prefers disposable items, and
>>> CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION!
>>>
>>
>> here in the kommunist krepublic of kalifornistan, we like wood 'kos is
>> doesn't fall over in our earthquakes.
>
> That is why post-tensioning of concrete was invented. One can build a
> house of pre-cast concrete panels that are post-tensioned and grouted
> after assembly.
>
> I believe CALTRANS is still using concrete in elevated highways and
> bridges, no?
>
yes. they're so confident, they've spent tonsamoney cladding lots of it
in steel.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 18:16:33
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Chalo Colina wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>>>>>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
>>>>>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be
>>>>>> disposable.
>>>>>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still
>>>>>> in use.
>>>>>
>>>>> But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
>>>>> stone houses over the last 1000 years?
>>>>
>>>> Probably about the same as the crappy wood frame houses I used to
>>>> live in as a child. The walls on those houses let the wind and
>>>> numerous insects through.
>>>>
>>>> A modern concrete house with concrete/foam/concrete "sandwich"
>>>> construction will cost less to heat and cool than a stick-frame and
>>>> wall board box of the same size will. The concrete house will also
>>>> be practically impervious to fire, water damage, insect intrusion
>>>> and damage, will not need siding and roof replacement, and will have
>>>> a structure that will easily be as functionally as good as new
>>>> several hundred years later.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, modern USian society prefers disposable items, and
>>>> CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION!
>>>>
>>>
>>> here in the kommunist krepublic of kalifornistan, we like wood 'kos
>>> is doesn't fall over in our earthquakes.
>>
>> That is why post-tensioning of concrete was invented. One can build a
>> house of pre-cast concrete panels that are post-tensioned and grouted
>> after assembly.
>>
>> I believe CALTRANS is still using concrete in elevated highways and
>> bridges, no?
>>
> yes. they're so confident, they've spent tonsamoney cladding lots of it
> in steel.
Newer construction, or older columns that lacked spiral reinforcement?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 17:52:14
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Chalo Colina wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>>>>>>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost.
>>>>>>> Build a
>>>>>>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be
>>>>>>> disposable.
>>>>>>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still
>>>>>>> in use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
>>>>>> stone houses over the last 1000 years?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably about the same as the crappy wood frame houses I used to
>>>>> live in as a child. The walls on those houses let the wind and
>>>>> numerous insects through.
>>>>>
>>>>> A modern concrete house with concrete/foam/concrete "sandwich"
>>>>> construction will cost less to heat and cool than a stick-frame and
>>>>> wall board box of the same size will. The concrete house will also
>>>>> be practically impervious to fire, water damage, insect intrusion
>>>>> and damage, will not need siding and roof replacement, and will
>>>>> have a structure that will easily be as functionally as good as new
>>>>> several hundred years later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, modern USian society prefers disposable items, and
>>>>> CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> here in the kommunist krepublic of kalifornistan, we like wood 'kos
>>>> is doesn't fall over in our earthquakes.
>>>
>>> That is why post-tensioning of concrete was invented. One can build a
>>> house of pre-cast concrete panels that are post-tensioned and grouted
>>> after assembly.
>>>
>>> I believe CALTRANS is still using concrete in elevated highways and
>>> bridges, no?
>>>
>> yes. they're so confident, they've spent tonsamoney cladding lots of
>> it in steel.
>
> Newer construction, or older columns that lacked spiral reinforcement?
>
me guessing the steel content and configuration inside concrete that's
then clad in steel is like you guessing at the microstructure of a
material you've never examined under a microscope. all i can tell you
is that it was plain concrete, and it's since been clad in steel. and
that it hasn't been subject to a large quake since.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 20:16:40
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Chalo Colina wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>>>>>>>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost.
>>>>>>>> Build a
>>>>>>>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be
>>>>>>>> disposable.
>>>>>>>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings
>>>>>>>> still in use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
>>>>>>> stone houses over the last 1000 years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably about the same as the crappy wood frame houses I used to
>>>>>> live in as a child. The walls on those houses let the wind and
>>>>>> numerous insects through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A modern concrete house with concrete/foam/concrete "sandwich"
>>>>>> construction will cost less to heat and cool than a stick-frame
>>>>>> and wall board box of the same size will. The concrete house will
>>>>>> also be practically impervious to fire, water damage, insect
>>>>>> intrusion and damage, will not need siding and roof replacement,
>>>>>> and will have a structure that will easily be as functionally as
>>>>>> good as new several hundred years later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, modern USian society prefers disposable items, and
>>>>>> CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> here in the kommunist krepublic of kalifornistan, we like wood 'kos
>>>>> is doesn't fall over in our earthquakes.
>>>>
>>>> That is why post-tensioning of concrete was invented. One can build
>>>> a house of pre-cast concrete panels that are post-tensioned and
>>>> grouted after assembly.
>>>>
>>>> I believe CALTRANS is still using concrete in elevated highways and
>>>> bridges, no?
>>>>
>>> yes. they're so confident, they've spent tonsamoney cladding lots of
>>> it in steel.
>>
>> Newer construction, or older columns that lacked spiral reinforcement?
>>
> me guessing the steel content and configuration inside concrete that's
> then clad in steel is like you guessing at the microstructure of a
> material you've never examined under a microscope. all i can tell you
> is that it was plain concrete, and it's since been clad in steel. and
> that it hasn't been subject to a large quake since.
I doubt that CALTRANS ever built bridges and elevated roadways with
plain concrete columns. Most likely they had vertical bars near the
perimeter, with smaller diameter hoop bar ties. Newer columns would
have a continuous helical tie, for greater resistance to seismic loads.
Since a plain concrete cylinder loaded in compression from the ends
fails by tensile splitting, its strength can be greatly increased by
adding some confinement, such as a steel or composite "jacket" around
the perimeter (what "jim beam" is likely observing).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 22:55:29
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
> I doubt that CALTRANS ever built bridges and elevated roadways with plain
> concrete columns. Most likely they had vertical bars near the perimeter,
> with smaller diameter hoop bar ties. Newer columns would have a
> continuous helical tie, for greater resistance to seismic loads.
For those of us who aren't engineers, could you explain what "vertical bars"
and "hoop bar ties" are? Are we talking about the difference between just
pouring concrete into a column vs reinforcing with what is commonly called
"rebar?" Or something more sophisticated than that?
Thanks-
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:ferqlr$vvp$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Chalo Colina wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>>>>>>>>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost.
>>>>>>>>> Build a
>>>>>>>>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be
>>>>>>>>> disposable.
>>>>>>>>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still
>>>>>>>>> in use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But how many houses' worth of wood has been used to heat those cold
>>>>>>>> stone houses over the last 1000 years?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably about the same as the crappy wood frame houses I used to
>>>>>>> live in as a child. The walls on those houses let the wind and
>>>>>>> numerous insects through.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A modern concrete house with concrete/foam/concrete "sandwich"
>>>>>>> construction will cost less to heat and cool than a stick-frame and
>>>>>>> wall board box of the same size will. The concrete house will also
>>>>>>> be practically impervious to fire, water damage, insect intrusion
>>>>>>> and damage, will not need siding and roof replacement, and will have
>>>>>>> a structure that will easily be as functionally as good as new
>>>>>>> several hundred years later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, modern USian society prefers disposable items, and
>>>>>>> CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> here in the kommunist krepublic of kalifornistan, we like wood 'kos
>>>>>> is doesn't fall over in our earthquakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why post-tensioning of concrete was invented. One can build a
>>>>> house of pre-cast concrete panels that are post-tensioned and grouted
>>>>> after assembly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe CALTRANS is still using concrete in elevated highways and
>>>>> bridges, no?
>>>>>
>>>> yes. they're so confident, they've spent tonsamoney cladding lots of
>>>> it in steel.
>>>
>>> Newer construction, or older columns that lacked spiral reinforcement?
>>>
>> me guessing the steel content and configuration inside concrete that's
>> then clad in steel is like you guessing at the microstructure of a
>> material you've never examined under a microscope. all i can tell you is
>> that it was plain concrete, and it's since been clad in steel. and that
>> it hasn't been subject to a large quake since.
>
> I doubt that CALTRANS ever built bridges and elevated roadways with plain
> concrete columns. Most likely they had vertical bars near the perimeter,
> with smaller diameter hoop bar ties. Newer columns would have a
> continuous helical tie, for greater resistance to seismic loads.
>
> Since a plain concrete cylinder loaded in compression from the ends fails
> by tensile splitting, its strength can be greatly increased by adding some
> confinement, such as a steel or composite "jacket" around the perimeter
> (what "jim beam" is likely observing).
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 20:38:48
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> I doubt that CALTRANS ever built bridges and elevated roadways with plain
>> concrete columns. Most likely they had vertical bars near the perimeter,
>> with smaller diameter hoop bar ties. Newer columns would have a
>> continuous helical tie, for greater resistance to seismic loads.
>
> For those of us who aren't engineers, could you explain what "vertical bars"
> and "hoop bar ties" are? Are we talking about the difference between just
> pouring concrete into a column vs reinforcing with what is commonly called
> "rebar?" Or something more sophisticated than that?
Looking at the column in plan (top view), the main reinforcement
(typically #8 to #18 [1] deformed steel bars) are arranged in a circle
that is typically about 6 inches smaller in diameter than the column (to
allow for minimum concrete coverage of the reinforcing steel). These
bars serve primarily to carry tensile loads when the column is loaded in
bending or uplift, but also add to the compressive strength of the
column. In a "standard" column, there are circular ties of smaller bars
(typically spaced at 1 foot vertical intervals) that wrap around the
vertical bars. Example at
<http://www.metcad911.org/MDICE/Photo_Album/images/South_tower_002s.JPG >.
For greater integrity to resist seismic or blast loads, the hoop ties
are replaced by helical ties.
[1] The number of a rebar is nominally 1/8 inch, so a #3 rebar is
approximately 3/8 inch in diameter.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 22:32:26
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>>> I doubt that CALTRANS ever built bridges and elevated roadways with
>>> plain concrete columns. Most likely they had vertical bars near the
>>> perimeter, with smaller diameter hoop bar ties. Newer columns would
>>> have a continuous helical tie, for greater resistance to seismic loads.
>>
>> For those of us who aren't engineers, could you explain what "vertical
>> bars" and "hoop bar ties" are? Are we talking about the difference
>> between just pouring concrete into a column vs reinforcing with what is
>> commonly called "rebar?" Or something more sophisticated than that?
>
> Looking at the column in plan (top view), the main reinforcement
> (typically #8 to #18 [1] deformed steel bars) are arranged in a circle
> that is typically about 6 inches smaller in diameter than the column (to
> allow for minimum concrete coverage of the reinforcing steel). These bars
> serve primarily to carry tensile loads when the column is loaded in
> bending or uplift, but also add to the compressive strength of the column.
> In a "standard" column, there are circular ties of smaller bars (typically
> spaced at 1 foot vertical intervals) that wrap around the vertical bars.
> Example at
> <http://www.metcad911.org/MDICE/Photo_Album/images/South_tower_002s.JPG>.
>
> For greater integrity to resist seismic or blast loads, the hoop ties are
> replaced by helical ties.
>
> [1] The number of a rebar is nominally 1/8 inch, so a #3 rebar is
> approximately 3/8 inch in diameter.
Thanks. We're on the same page. I just didn't know the terminology.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:ff6df9$h65$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> I doubt that CALTRANS ever built bridges and elevated roadways with
>>> plain concrete columns. Most likely they had vertical bars near the
>>> perimeter, with smaller diameter hoop bar ties. Newer columns would
>>> have a continuous helical tie, for greater resistance to seismic loads.
>>
>> For those of us who aren't engineers, could you explain what "vertical
>> bars" and "hoop bar ties" are? Are we talking about the difference
>> between just pouring concrete into a column vs reinforcing with what is
>> commonly called "rebar?" Or something more sophisticated than that?
>
> Looking at the column in plan (top view), the main reinforcement
> (typically #8 to #18 [1] deformed steel bars) are arranged in a circle
> that is typically about 6 inches smaller in diameter than the column (to
> allow for minimum concrete coverage of the reinforcing steel). These bars
> serve primarily to carry tensile loads when the column is loaded in
> bending or uplift, but also add to the compressive strength of the column.
> In a "standard" column, there are circular ties of smaller bars (typically
> spaced at 1 foot vertical intervals) that wrap around the vertical bars.
> Example at
> <http://www.metcad911.org/MDICE/Photo_Album/images/South_tower_002s.JPG>.
>
> For greater integrity to resist seismic or blast loads, the hoop ties are
> replaced by helical ties.
>
> [1] The number of a rebar is nominally 1/8 inch, so a #3 rebar is
> approximately 3/8 inch in diameter.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:02:16
From: Marian
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 9, 2:10 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <2flf8sy4a6q9$.mlwhtui9m9gc$....@40tude.net>,
> Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:19:32 -0000, Chalo wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
> > > exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
> > > their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
> > > for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
> > > company a profit, are somehow not serious.
>
> > Apparently they're so serious about cycling that they're all scrambling to
> > get cars instead, and bikes are rapidly disappearing from cities.
>
> Are they really?
Yes.
Though I might add that since I've been here public transit has gotten
better (for certain values of better) and the bazillions of tiny
motorcycles that, as small engines, made hugemongously
disproportionate amounts of pollutions are being taken off the streets
(frex no new motorcycle license plates issued in Haikou City since
2004).
I can't get a bus nearly as often as I could get a breadbox van but
I'm pretty sure that the bigger newer vehicles are probably cleaner (I
know many of them run on natural gas) and because of their high
profile are more required to follow traffic laws while the breadboxes
would stop anywhere for anyone (which was quite convenient) and often
competed with other drivers on the same routes for who could get to
the passengers first (which could and did lead to occasionally running
down pedestrians). I've heard of deaths caused that way.
It's also really nice the way the buses have standardized posted
fares. Though I do sort of miss the way breadboxes gave change. They
could be quite snarky if you were, for example, to give a 100 rmb note
for a 2 rmb fare but you could always get change.
I have only been in country for a bit over 5 years and I have both
watched the numbers of people on bikes go down and watched the number
of cyclists go up. It wasn't all that long ago that there I remember
(regularly) losing my city bike in vast stretches of bicycle parking
where I had to wander up and down rows trying to find the right
patterned seat cover. Coming up on two years at this point since I've
had a bike I've been willing to park outside and while the 10,000rmb
titanium frame on my race bike might have something to do with that
it's also equal parts no longer having dedicated paid bike parking
with a security guard responsible for watching the bikes giving me a
ticket.
All that having been said, I've said before and I'll say again that
I'm so far as yet quite underwhelmed by what I've seen of Trek China.
This is probably influenced by choices made on the part of my local
bike shop but so far when it comes to price point versus quality the
Treks are uniformly more expensive than every other bike in their
category. I understand that there are some brands out there which my
LBS refuses to carry which are even worse in this regards but drooling
on the Discovery guys' bikes at this year's TdQL notwithstanding I'm
just not interested.
-M
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 02:04:37
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Peter Cole wrote:
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >
> > If outgassing and plastic degradation where an issue, despite the use of
> > adhesives and UV inhibitors used in applications that suffer use in
> > dramatically worse conditions than bicycles, then I'd start wearing a hard
> > hat all the time in case various things up in the sky start dismantling
> > themselves.
>
> I'd have to agree, at least with the currently used materials. Polyester
> and epoxy composites (fiberglass) have been around for a long enough
> time that degradation doesn't seem to be a problem. I have 2 40+ year
> old fiberglass boats.
I imagine that GFRP boats are not stressed as highly as CFRP bikes,
and that the resin matrix would have to deteriorate to a greater
degree before it became a problem. There are not a lot of 40+ year
old glued airplanes, bikes, etc., to use as a more relevant
comparison.
The only thing you can trust about resins is that eventually, whether
stressed or not, they will break down. For folks who want to ride a
bike for its first few pampered years, no problem. But the last who
knows how many years and owners of the prospective service life of
these bikes is truncated by the resin used to make them.
Chalo
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:34:06
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 7, 9:11 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> "Legacy" frame
>
> > materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
> > frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
> > worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.
>
> That's not what I said.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
I know, it's what I said. Imply is what I implied. Ya gotta admit
Mike, and rightly so cuz that's what you sell, but you 'imply' carbon
is the material of the future, just like aluminum and ti was viewed in
the past. It's just a different way of doin the same thing.
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1191767615.700134.163490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 6, 8:50 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
>
> >> Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had their
> >> lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?
>
> >> This is entirely about how the material is being used. If someone wanted
> >> to
> >> make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
> >> would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
> >> aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being
> >> knocked
> >> over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
> >> Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
> >> sort.
>
> >> But where would the market be for such a frame? Incredibly small, I'd
> >> think.
> >> You'd be building a frame both stronger and far more expensive than a
> >> market
> >> exists for. Better to use a cheaper material and settle for something
> >> that's
> >> strong enough for the task at hand.
>
> >> I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm
> >> unable
> >> to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon, titanium,
> >> steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths and
> >> know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses. But
> >> somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy"
> >> frame
> >> materials when trashing the new stuff.
>
> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> > "Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
> > or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
> > because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
> > doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
> > denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
> > selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
> > that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
> > what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
> > materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
> > frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
> > worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.
>
> >> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ZNednRJwI68dVpranZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> >> > jim beam wrote:
> >> >> _ wrote:
> >> >>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
> >> >>>>>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
> >> >>>>>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
> >> >>>>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
> >> >>>>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
> >> >>>>> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
> >> >>>>> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
> >> >>>> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel,
> >> >>>> but
> >> >>>> rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame
> >> >>>> from
> >> >>>> carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would
> >> >>>> likely
> >> >>>> be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these days.
>
> >> >>> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
> >> >>> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
> >> >>> difference
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have
> >> >>> lasted.
>
> >> >> the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were
> >> >> as
> >> >> over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
> >> >> wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and
> >> >> it
> >> >> wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.
>
> >> > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 10:58:47
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:11 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "Legacy" frame
>>
>>> materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
>>> frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame
>>> material worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well,
>>> clone-ish.
>>
>> That's not what I said.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> I know, it's what I said. Imply is what I implied. Ya gotta admit
> Mike, and rightly so cuz that's what you sell, but you 'imply' carbon
> is the material of the future, just like aluminum and ti was viewed in
> the past. It's just a different way of doin the same thing.
Umm, does thinking carbon is the "material of the future" mean it's the
"only frame material worth designing into a bicycle"?!?
MIKE IS NOT A CLONE! (Note, no 'W'.)
Bill "butting in" S.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 07:19:32
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
> > anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
> > founder can say asinine bullshit like the following:
>
> > "We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
> > will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."
>
> > Charming, eh?
>
> Sounds honest and sincere to me. (Assuming it's true, of course.) Aren't
> "evil corporate types" supposed to lie and obfuscate at every turn?
Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
company a profit, are somehow not serious.
The fact that a gigantic nation of accustomed and experienced cyclists
can't find much use for Trek's products at Trek's asking prices speaks
for itself, I think.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:49:15
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:19:32 -0000, Chalo wrote:
> Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
> exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
> their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
> for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
> company a profit, are somehow not serious.
Apparently they're so serious about cycling that they're all scrambling to
get cars instead, and bikes are rapidly disappearing from cities.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 06:10:41
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article
<2flf8sy4a6q9$.mlwhtui9m9gc$.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:19:32 -0000, Chalo wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
> > exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
> > their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
> > for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
> > company a profit, are somehow not serious.
>
> Apparently they're so serious about cycling that they're all scrambling to
> get cars instead, and bikes are rapidly disappearing from cities.
Are they really?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:10:41 GMT, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:
>In article
><2flf8sy4a6q9$.mlwhtui9m9gc$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:19:32 -0000, Chalo wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
>> > exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
>> > their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
>> > for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
>> > company a profit, are somehow not serious.
>>
>> Apparently they're so serious about cycling that they're all scrambling to
>> get cars instead, and bikes are rapidly disappearing from cities.
>
>Are they really?
Of course they are. Just like europeans in the 50s/60s and americans in
the interbellum and post-WWII. Cycling for transportation *was*, in fact,
common all around, even in the US, around 1900-1920. But as soon as
motorcars appear and then start becoming affordable (ie, starting with the
T-ford), the bike gets phased out.
Bikes were a good shortrange alternative to a horse, and much, much
cheaper, but as soon as *cars* became cheaper than horses (a while after
the T-ford started, in the US -- took a lot longer in Europe[1]) they took
over.
Jasper
[1] There aren't really any ultra-cheap car-shaped-objects like the Model
T in early european car history. It's all rich man's toys. The first
really successful ones are the 2CV and the VW Type 1 (aka the Bug or
Beetle), which is not coincidentally when cars start to take over from
bikes and motorbikes.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 20:40:50
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org >
wrote:
[---]
>[1] There aren't really any ultra-cheap car-shaped-objects like the Model
>T in early european car history. It's all rich man's toys. The first
>really successful ones are the 2CV and the VW Type 1 (aka the Bug or
>Beetle),
Don't forget the FIAT 500 and the Renault 4CV.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:44:06
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:40:50 +0200, Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr > wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
>wrote:
>
>[---]
>
>>[1] There aren't really any ultra-cheap car-shaped-objects like the Model
>>T in early european car history. It's all rich man's toys. The first
>>really successful ones are the 2CV and the VW Type 1 (aka the Bug or
>>Beetle),
>
>Don't forget the FIAT 500 and the Renault 4CV.
Neither of those were very widespread here in .nl, but yes, same sort of
category and the 500 probably widespread at the very least in Italy. The
4CV is less of a car-shaped-object and more of a car than the 2CV, though,
as far as I can gather from a quick wikipedia. More expensive and a bit
more power. And more expensive double-curved bodypanels, for that matter.
Quick horror story: according to wp the 4CV was replaced by the Renault 4.
When I was little we owned a 4, from new. And it was scrapped after just 4
or 5 years because there were holes in the floor, not to mention the
bodywork, and it failed the compulsory test. (*%^*& Renault.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 14:46:07
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> ...
> Quick horror story: according to wp the 4CV was replaced by the Renault 4.
> When I was little we owned a 4, from new. And it was scrapped after just 4
> or 5 years because there were holes in the floor, not to mention the
> bodywork, and it failed the compulsory test. (*%^*& Renault.
The Renault R5 (Le Car to USians) generally suffered from the same
terminal rust problem (to be fair, so did other cars, such as the first
generation Golf (Rabbit to USians). The latter Kenosha made Renaults
were slightly less rust prone, but mechanically unreliable (though not
as bad as a 1970's MG).
I have had the misfortune to own all of the above, which is why I now
own Honda Civics.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 14:40:45
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:46:07 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> ...
>> Quick horror story: according to wp the 4CV was replaced by the Renault 4.
>> When I was little we owned a 4, from new. And it was scrapped after just 4
>> or 5 years because there were holes in the floor, not to mention the
>> bodywork, and it failed the compulsory test. (*%^*& Renault.
>
>The Renault R5 (Le Car to USians) generally suffered from the same
>terminal rust problem (to be fair, so did other cars, such as the first
>generation Golf (Rabbit to USians). The latter Kenosha made Renaults
The Golf I barely rusts at all compared to that R4 we had.
Incidentally, my parents switched from the Renault to Fiats, which were a
little better on rust but not greatly better than, say, the Golf I you
mention. And now they're back to a used Renault (coming up on its 8th
birthday atm, I believe) and it has close to 0 rust. I did spot a few
square centimeters of rust on the front inner edges of the rear wheel
wells, but that's about it.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 13:50:56
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
<snip for clarity >
> which is why I now
> own Honda Civics.
>
wow, there's hope for you yet!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 15:14:33
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org >
wrote:
[snip]
>But as soon as
>motorcars appear and then start becoming affordable (ie, starting with the
>T-ford), the bike gets phased out.
[snip]
Dear Jasper,
Actually, the U.S. bike boom of the 1890's faded long before cars
became widely used. Mass public transportation is usually considered
the culprit, not the gradual appearance of tinynumbers of extremely
expensive and unreliable automobiles, which usually required a
mechanic to drive and maintain.
If you browse around old newspapers and magazines, you'll find regular
bicycle columns simply vanishing.
A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
magazine, which began as a bike magazine in the 1880's, shows how the
bike boom collapsed:
1897 20
1898 15
1899 14
1900 5
1901 3
1902 1
Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
disastrously.
"Colonel Albert Pope and his American Dream Machines" makes the point
on page 184 with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt as the first American
president to ride in a car, which looks exactly like an open landau*
that hasn't been hitched to a team, with the driver up behind the
passengers, who enjoy the forward view of a landau:
http://i20.tinypic.com/wjj2ph.jpg
That was in 1902, after the bike boom had already burst. Here's a
landau to show the similarity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabethboweslyonandkinggeorgeincanada.jpg
How far cars were from being popular enough to displace bicycles is
shown by the vehicle's silly appearance, the fact that it was used for
a presidential parade rather than normal transportation, and by the
quartet of Secret Service men still riding bicycles next to the
horseless carriage. (The two bikes on the left are clearly
Hartford-made Pope-Columbia chainless shaft-drive models.)
At that point, presidents and wealthy enthusiasts were willing to ride
in cars, but most people couldn't dream of such expensive
contraptions. Instead, they took trains and streetcars instead of
buying bicycles.
Karl Hodges wrote an interesting article with detailed graphs and data
"Did the Emergence of the Automobile End the Bicycle Boom?" for the
4th International Cycle History Conference, which shows that "Between
1895 and 1902, the bicycle industry ground to a halt, yet the growth
of the automobile industry in this same period is unremarkable."
"Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
collapsed:
"During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
To put that in table form per thousand population:
cars new bike
owned sales
----- -------
1897 20
1902 0.00067
1904 3
1905 1
Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after the bike boom
imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:18:41
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:14:33 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
>wrote:
>A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
>magazine, which began as a bike magazine in the 1880's, shows how the
>bike boom collapsed:
>
>1897 20
>1898 15
>1899 14
>1900 5
>1901 3
>1902 1
>
>Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
>early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
>disastrously.
That doesn't necessarily mean *bicycling* stopped, it just means that
there aren't as many new bikes sold.
>"Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
>automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
>harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
>collapsed:
>
>"During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
>automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
>auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
>thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
>every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
>f
>To put that in table form per thousand population:
>
> cars new bike
> owned sales
> ----- -------
>1897 20
>1902 0.00067
>1904 3
>1905 1
That is an *immense* relative growth in car ownership, though. 1 in 1000
is big enough that a prosperous street could easily expect to have one
car, on the average.
When was the chaindrive safety bicycle first made in the US? From that
point onward, you have an enormous boom because people don't have any, but
then you achieve market saturation and the amount of new bikes sold drops
through the bottom *even if* ridership remains high. A 1900 bike probably
lasted a decade or two with even just decent maintenance.
>Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after the bike boom
>imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
>to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
>1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
But did they need a 1909 bicycle, or were they making do just fine with a
1901 model?
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 03:02:40
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <6d30h3dulnk89oq0746uaisi39dcjfukug@4ax.com >,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:14:33 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
> >wrote:
>
> >A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
> >magazine, which began as a bike magazine in the 1880's, shows how the
> >bike boom collapsed:
> >
> >1897 20
> >1898 15
> >1899 14
> >1900 5
> >1901 3
> >1902 1
> >
> >Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
> >early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
> >disastrously.
>
> That doesn't necessarily mean *bicycling* stopped, it just means that
> there aren't as many new bikes sold.
>
> >"Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
> >automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
> >harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
> >collapsed:
> >
> >"During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
> >automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
> >auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
> >thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
> >every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
> >f
> >To put that in table form per thousand population:
> >
> > cars new bike
> > owned sales
> > ----- -------
> >1897 20
> >1902 0.00067
> >1904 3
> >1905 1
>
> That is an *immense* relative growth in car ownership, though. 1 in 1000
> is big enough that a prosperous street could easily expect to have one
> car, on the average.
>
> When was the chaindrive safety bicycle first made in the US? From that
> point onward, you have an enormous boom because people don't have any, but
> then you achieve market saturation and the amount of new bikes sold drops
> through the bottom *even if* ridership remains high. A 1900 bike probably
> lasted a decade or two with even just decent maintenance.
>
> >Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after the bike boom
> >imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
> >to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
> >1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
>
> But did they need a 1909 bicycle, or were they making do just fine with a
> 1901 model?
Now I remember what I wanted to know: does anyone have a concise chart
of mountain bike sales, from say, 1984-2000 or so?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 21:41:02
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:02:40 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>In article <6d30h3dulnk89oq0746uaisi39dcjfukug@4ax.com>,
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:14:33 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> >On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
>> >magazine, which began as a bike magazine in the 1880's, shows how the
>> >bike boom collapsed:
>> >
>> >1897 20
>> >1898 15
>> >1899 14
>> >1900 5
>> >1901 3
>> >1902 1
>> >
>> >Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
>> >early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
>> >disastrously.
>>
>> That doesn't necessarily mean *bicycling* stopped, it just means that
>> there aren't as many new bikes sold.
>>
>> >"Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
>> >automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
>> >harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
>> >collapsed:
>> >
>> >"During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
>> >automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
>> >auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
>> >thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
>> >every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
>> >f
>> >To put that in table form per thousand population:
>> >
>> > cars new bike
>> > owned sales
>> > ----- -------
>> >1897 20
>> >1902 0.00067
>> >1904 3
>> >1905 1
>>
>> That is an *immense* relative growth in car ownership, though. 1 in 1000
>> is big enough that a prosperous street could easily expect to have one
>> car, on the average.
>>
>> When was the chaindrive safety bicycle first made in the US? From that
>> point onward, you have an enormous boom because people don't have any, but
>> then you achieve market saturation and the amount of new bikes sold drops
>> through the bottom *even if* ridership remains high. A 1900 bike probably
>> lasted a decade or two with even just decent maintenance.
>>
>> >Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after the bike boom
>> >imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
>> >to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
>> >1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
>>
>> But did they need a 1909 bicycle, or were they making do just fine with a
>> 1901 model?
>
>Now I remember what I wanted to know: does anyone have a concise chart
>of mountain bike sales, from say, 1984-2000 or so?
Dear Ryan,
Darned elusive.
Here's a kinda-sorta stab at sales figures, with some references:
http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politics/articles/anstiss/chapter2.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 01:55:16
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <hkpng3l6c30g7p5i8ctb5guh84lj2fqkch@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >But as soon as
> >motorcars appear and then start becoming affordable (ie, starting with the
> >T-ford), the bike gets phased out.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Jasper,
>
> Actually, the U.S. bike boom of the 1890's faded long before cars
> became widely used. Mass public transportation is usually considered
> the culprit, not the gradual appearance of tinynumbers of extremely
> expensive and unreliable automobiles, which usually required a
> mechanic to drive and maintain.
>
> If you browse around old newspapers and magazines, you'll find regular
> bicycle columns simply vanishing.
>
> A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
> magazine, which began as a bike magazine in the 1880's, shows how the
> bike boom collapsed:
>
> 1897 20
> 1898 15
> 1899 14
> 1900 5
> 1901 3
> 1902 1
>
> Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
> early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
> disastrously.
>
> "Colonel Albert Pope and his American Dream Machines" makes the point
> on page 184 with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt as the first American
> president to ride in a car, which looks exactly like an open landau*
> that hasn't been hitched to a team, with the driver up behind the
> passengers, who enjoy the forward view of a landau:
>
> http://i20.tinypic.com/wjj2ph.jpg
>
> That was in 1902, after the bike boom had already burst. Here's a
> landau to show the similarity:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabethboweslyonandkinggeorgeincanada.jpg
>
> How far cars were from being popular enough to displace bicycles is
> shown by the vehicle's silly appearance, the fact that it was used for
> a presidential parade rather than normal transportation, and by the
> quartet of Secret Service men still riding bicycles next to the
> horseless carriage. (The two bikes on the left are clearly
> Hartford-made Pope-Columbia chainless shaft-drive models.)
>
> At that point, presidents and wealthy enthusiasts were willing to ride
> in cars, but most people couldn't dream of such expensive
> contraptions. Instead, they took trains and streetcars instead of
> buying bicycles.
>
> Karl Hodges wrote an interesting article with detailed graphs and data
> "Did the Emergence of the Automobile End the Bicycle Boom?" for the
> 4th International Cycle History Conference, which shows that "Between
> 1895 and 1902, the bicycle industry ground to a halt, yet the growth
> of the automobile industry in this same period is unremarkable."
>
> "Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
> automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
> harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
> collapsed:
>
> "During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
> automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
> auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
> thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
> every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
>
> To put that in table form per thousand population:
>
> cars new bike
> owned sales
> ----- -------
> 1897 20
> 1902 0.00067
> 1904 3
> 1905 1
>
> Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after the bike boom
> imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
> to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
> 1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Carl: I think the missing link here might be motorcycles.
This 1900-1930 period is pretty much the golden age for American
motorcycle makers. They blossomed with nearly the diversity of bicycle
companies a generation earlier.
What stopped most of them dead, in the end, were the triple whammies of
the Model T, the Depression, and the post-war recovery.
The "T" was the first car to give motorcycles some real price
competition. The Depression made sure that only the strongest retailers
survived to make it to World War II (Harley-Davidson, Indian, and maybe
some unknown-to-me niche brands that survived, but only Harley and
Indian mattered post-war), and the post-war everybody-gets-a-car boom
pretty much killed Indian dead, and left Harley as the last motorcycle
maker standing.
This simplifies greatly, and smaller motorcycle companies keep forming,
re-forming, and dissolving, but that is the way of all things. The
sordid tale of the Indian trademark after the 1950s was the subject of
books and court cases. The present trademark holder is promising
motorcycles for 2009 model year.
Curiously, the Wiki entry on Indian does not note the rather curious
spelling of the company's full name, as seen on this stock certificate:
http://www.scripophily.net/inmocoma.html
"Indian Motocycle [sic] Company"
Yes, that was right. Somewhere along the line recent reincarnations have
dispensed with this eccentricity.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 21:52:39
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:55:16 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>In article <hkpng3l6c30g7p5i8ctb5guh84lj2fqkch@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >But as soon as
>> >motorcars appear and then start becoming affordable (ie, starting with the
>> >T-ford), the bike gets phased out.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dear Jasper,
>>
>> Actually, the U.S. bike boom of the 1890's faded long before cars
>> became widely used. Mass public transportation is usually considered
>> the culprit, not the gradual appearance of tinynumbers of extremely
>> expensive and unreliable automobiles, which usually required a
>> mechanic to drive and maintain.
>>
>> If you browse around old newspapers and magazines, you'll find regular
>> bicycle columns simply vanishing.
>>
>> A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
>> magazine, which began as a bike magazine in the 1880's, shows how the
>> bike boom collapsed:
>>
>> 1897 20
>> 1898 15
>> 1899 14
>> 1900 5
>> 1901 3
>> 1902 1
>>
>> Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
>> early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
>> disastrously.
>>
>> "Colonel Albert Pope and his American Dream Machines" makes the point
>> on page 184 with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt as the first American
>> president to ride in a car, which looks exactly like an open landau*
>> that hasn't been hitched to a team, with the driver up behind the
>> passengers, who enjoy the forward view of a landau:
>>
>> http://i20.tinypic.com/wjj2ph.jpg
>>
>> That was in 1902, after the bike boom had already burst. Here's a
>> landau to show the similarity:
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabethboweslyonandkinggeorgeincanada.jpg
>>
>> How far cars were from being popular enough to displace bicycles is
>> shown by the vehicle's silly appearance, the fact that it was used for
>> a presidential parade rather than normal transportation, and by the
>> quartet of Secret Service men still riding bicycles next to the
>> horseless carriage. (The two bikes on the left are clearly
>> Hartford-made Pope-Columbia chainless shaft-drive models.)
>>
>> At that point, presidents and wealthy enthusiasts were willing to ride
>> in cars, but most people couldn't dream of such expensive
>> contraptions. Instead, they took trains and streetcars instead of
>> buying bicycles.
>>
>> Karl Hodges wrote an interesting article with detailed graphs and data
>> "Did the Emergence of the Automobile End the Bicycle Boom?" for the
>> 4th International Cycle History Conference, which shows that "Between
>> 1895 and 1902, the bicycle industry ground to a halt, yet the growth
>> of the automobile industry in this same period is unremarkable."
>>
>> "Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
>> automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
>> harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
>> collapsed:
>>
>> "During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
>> automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
>> auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
>> thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
>> every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
>>
>> To put that in table form per thousand population:
>>
>> cars new bike
>> owned sales
>> ----- -------
>> 1897 20
>> 1902 0.00067
>> 1904 3
>> 1905 1
>>
>> Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after the bike boom
>> imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
>> to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
>> 1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Carl: I think the missing link here might be motorcycles.
>
>This 1900-1930 period is pretty much the golden age for American
>motorcycle makers. They blossomed with nearly the diversity of bicycle
>companies a generation earlier.
>
>What stopped most of them dead, in the end, were the triple whammies of
>the Model T, the Depression, and the post-war recovery.
>
>The "T" was the first car to give motorcycles some real price
>competition. The Depression made sure that only the strongest retailers
>survived to make it to World War II (Harley-Davidson, Indian, and maybe
>some unknown-to-me niche brands that survived, but only Harley and
>Indian mattered post-war), and the post-war everybody-gets-a-car boom
>pretty much killed Indian dead, and left Harley as the last motorcycle
>maker standing.
>
>This simplifies greatly, and smaller motorcycle companies keep forming,
>re-forming, and dissolving, but that is the way of all things. The
>sordid tale of the Indian trademark after the 1950s was the subject of
>books and court cases. The present trademark holder is promising
>motorcycles for 2009 model year.
>
>Curiously, the Wiki entry on Indian does not note the rather curious
>spelling of the company's full name, as seen on this stock certificate:
>
>http://www.scripophily.net/inmocoma.html
>
>"Indian Motocycle [sic] Company"
>
>Yes, that was right. Somewhere along the line recent reincarnations have
>dispensed with this eccentricity.
Dear Ryan,
It's a nice idea to consider, but unfortunately it turns out that
motorcycles were no more responsible for the bike boom collapsing than
cars.
Again, "Between 1895 and 1902, the bicycle industry ground to a halt,
yet the growth of the automobile industry in this same period is
unremarkable."
In 1897, about 20 bicycles were sold for every 1,000 people in the
U.S. With a population of about 70 million, that's over a million
bicycles sold in one year--1,400,000 bicycles sold. After that, sales
dropped to 3 per 1,000 population by 1904, when the population was
getting close to 80 million, a horrifying collapse for the bike
industry, but still 240,000 bicycles sold.
Here are the sales figures for Harley-Davidson and Indian, early and
successful motorcycle manufacturers:
bicycles Harleys Indians
sold sold sold
1897 1,400,000
1898
1899
1900
1901 3 3 [home-made]
1902 143 [by 1902 bike boom has collapsed]
1903 150 376 [Harley-Davidson actually founded]
1904 240,000 596
In other words, motorcycles had about as much effect on the bike boom
collapse as recumbents are having on U.S. bicycle sales.
When the bike boom collapsed, people who had bikes kept riding old
ones instead of buying new ones, far more people used trollies and
trains (and horses and carriages), and most people just walked. Cars
and motorcycles were about as common as private planes are today.
Yearly bike sales had dropped over 80% by the time that Harley and
Indian--combined--were selling fewer than 1,000 motorcycles a year in
a country with about 80,000,000 people.
But in 1904, even after the bike boom collapse, about 240 bicycles
were sold for every motorcycle from Harley and Indian.
Harley sales figures:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XF7V9w8ByrcC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=%22motorcycle+sales%22+1901+1903&source=web&ots=B19LbVgNm7&sig=v85cRj1_vIJeeBRznWw9S2Eh7P4
Indian production figures about 3/4ths down the page:
http://www.indianmotorbikes.com/resources/serials.htm
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 02:28:47
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 24, 7:05 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>> expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
> >>> question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
> >>> better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
> >>> almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....
> >> butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
> >> around in without attracting attention.
>
> > An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
> > insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
> > etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage....
>
> The S-Class is also a heavy, dead car. I LIKE to be able to feel what
> the road surface is, shift by ear, etc. As for noise, having the windows
> open for a blast of fresh air negates the sound deadening advantage.
>
> Can you get cloth seats in a S-Class? I find leather to be a turn off
> compared to cloth for most items. Can you get the S-Class with a manual
> transmission? I have never owned a vehicle with an automatic, and would
> not like to start.
>
> I also would definitely NOT want to be driving the S-Class on my normal
> routes through the "hood". No need to attract the attention of gang bangers.
>
> Finally, driving a S-Class would make me a traitor to my class, which is
> a sin of the first magnitude.
The original premise was "what if an S-Class were the same
price as a Honda Civic." Which is absurd, of course, but if it
were true, lots of people would be driving an S-Class, and you
wouldn't stick out especially driving it through the hood. By the
way, you probably stick out driving through the hood no matter
what you drive. (So would I - it's just, don't let's kind ourselves
that driving clunkers is camouflage.) The more so on that
Zipper-faired recumbent.
The better original example would have been something like
"What if a car as efficient, well-made and reliable as a Honda Civic
cost almost the same as a Chevette or a K-Car, and thus was
affordable to any middle class person?" That question's been
answered by history.
BTW, I grew up in a steel town, and owning a fancy car was
aspirational, not class-traitorism. That perception seems to
be tilted by the chip on your shoulder. An import like the
S-Class might have been shunned, but because it was an
import, not because it was expensive. (A friend's dad had
a red BMW 2002 and it was regarded as his pet exotica,
which we were careful not to scratch or throw balls near.)
These days, I'm not sure anyone in that situation even shuns
imports, except in Michigan.
Ben
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 03:06:52
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Oct 24, 7:05 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>>>> expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
>>>>> question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
>>>>> better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
>>>>> almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....
>>>> butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
>>>> around in without attracting attention.
>>> An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
>>> insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
>>> etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage....
>> The S-Class is also a heavy, dead car. I LIKE to be able to feel what
>> the road surface is, shift by ear, etc. As for noise, having the windows
>> open for a blast of fresh air negates the sound deadening advantage.
>>
>> Can you get cloth seats in a S-Class? I find leather to be a turn off
>> compared to cloth for most items. Can you get the S-Class with a manual
>> transmission? I have never owned a vehicle with an automatic, and would
>> not like to start.
>>
>> I also would definitely NOT want to be driving the S-Class on my normal
>> routes through the "hood". No need to attract the attention of gang bangers.
>>
>> Finally, driving a S-Class would make me a traitor to my class, which is
>> a sin of the first magnitude.
>
> The original premise was "what if an S-Class were the same
> price as a Honda Civic." Which is absurd, of course, but if it
> were true, lots of people would be driving an S-Class, and you
> wouldn't stick out especially driving it through the hood. By the
> way, you probably stick out driving through the hood no matter
> what you drive. (So would I - it's just, don't let's kind ourselves
> that driving clunkers is camouflage.)
Small, gray, non-luxury sedans are as close as one gets to a "Somebody
else's problem field" vehicle. If I were driving an S-Class, people
would likely think I had an expensive watch, jewelry, lots of cash, etc.
on me.
> The more so on that
> Zipper-faired recumbent.
There is a guy who rides a Vision R-40 recumbent pulling a Burley Nomad
trailer that I see regularly in the "hood".
> The better original example would have been something like
> "What if a car as efficient, well-made and reliable as a Honda Civic
> cost almost the same as a Chevette or a K-Car, and thus was
> affordable to any middle class person?" That question's been
> answered by history.
>
> BTW, I grew up in a steel town, and owning a fancy car was
> aspirational, not class-traitorism. That perception seems to
> be tilted by the chip on your shoulder. An import like the
> S-Class might have been shunned, but because it was an
> import, not because it was expensive.
It is not the expense of the car, as much as the statement it makes;
"look at me, I can afford to blow lots of money on an overpriced car!"
>(A friend's dad had
> a red BMW 2002 and it was regarded as his pet exotica,
> which we were careful not to scratch or throw balls near.)
"Half a brick on top of a brick"?
Actually, in those days, I would not have minded owning a BMW, since it
was an oddity, not a yuppie status symbol.
> These days, I'm not sure anyone in that situation even shuns
> imports, except in Michigan.
Imports? Except for the low volume lines, practically everything with a
Japanese name plate sold in the US is made in the US or Canada, while
more and more "Big 3" vehicles are made in Mexico.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 07:54:20
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <4lgog3pt6k7lqhh4mo35ek9vtbc2nupu95@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:55:16 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <hkpng3l6c30g7p5i8ctb5guh84lj2fqkch@4ax.com>,
> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >But as soon as
> >> >motorcars appear and then start becoming affordable (ie, starting with
> >> >the
> >> >T-ford), the bike gets phased out.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Dear Jasper,
> >>
> >> Actually, the U.S. bike boom of the 1890's faded long before cars
> >> became widely used. Mass public transportation is usually considered
> >> the culprit, not the gradual appearance of tinynumbers of extremely
> >> expensive and unreliable automobiles, which usually required a
> >> mechanic to drive and maintain.
> >>
> >> If you browse around old newspapers and magazines, you'll find regular
> >> bicycle columns simply vanishing.
> >>
> >> A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
> >> magazine, which began as a bike magazine in the 1880's, shows how the
> >> bike boom collapsed:
> >>
> >> 1897 20
> >> 1898 15
> >> 1899 14
> >> 1900 5
> >> 1901 3
> >> 1902 1
> >>
> >> Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
> >> early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
> >> disastrously.
> >>
> >> "Colonel Albert Pope and his American Dream Machines" makes the point
> >> on page 184 with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt as the first American
> >> president to ride in a car, which looks exactly like an open landau*
> >> that hasn't been hitched to a team, with the driver up behind the
> >> passengers, who enjoy the forward view of a landau:
> >>
> >> http://i20.tinypic.com/wjj2ph.jpg
> >>
> >> That was in 1902, after the bike boom had already burst. Here's a
> >> landau to show the similarity:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabethboweslyonandkinggeorgeincanada.
> >> jpg
> >>
> >> How far cars were from being popular enough to displace bicycles is
> >> shown by the vehicle's silly appearance, the fact that it was used for
> >> a presidential parade rather than normal transportation, and by the
> >> quartet of Secret Service men still riding bicycles next to the
> >> horseless carriage. (The two bikes on the left are clearly
> >> Hartford-made Pope-Columbia chainless shaft-drive models.)
> >>
> >> At that point, presidents and wealthy enthusiasts were willing to ride
> >> in cars, but most people couldn't dream of such expensive
> >> contraptions. Instead, they took trains and streetcars instead of
> >> buying bicycles.
> >>
> >> Karl Hodges wrote an interesting article with detailed graphs and data
> >> "Did the Emergence of the Automobile End the Bicycle Boom?" for the
> >> 4th International Cycle History Conference, which shows that "Between
> >> 1895 and 1902, the bicycle industry ground to a halt, yet the growth
> >> of the automobile industry in this same period is unremarkable."
> >>
> >> "Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
> >> automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
> >> harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
> >> collapsed:
> >>
> >> "During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
> >> automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
> >> auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
> >> thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
> >> every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
> >>
> >> To put that in table form per thousand population:
> >>
> >> cars new bike
> >> owned sales
> >> ----- -------
> >> 1897 20
> >> 1902 0.00067
> >> 1904 3
> >> 1905 1
> >>
> >> Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after the bike boom
> >> imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
> >> to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
> >> 1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Carl Fogel
> >
> >Carl: I think the missing link here might be motorcycles.
> Dear Ryan,
>
> It's a nice idea to consider, but unfortunately it turns out that
> motorcycles were no more responsible for the bike boom collapsing than
> cars.
> Here are the sales figures for Harley-Davidson and Indian, early and
> successful motorcycle manufacturers:
>
> bicycles Harleys Indians
> sold sold sold
> 1897 1,400,000
> 1898
> 1899
> 1900
> 1901 3 3 [home-made]
> 1902 143 [by 1902 bike boom has collapsed]
> 1903 150 376 [Harley-Davidson actually founded]
> 1904 240,000 596
>
> In other words, motorcycles had about as much effect on the bike boom
> collapse as recumbents are having on U.S. bicycle sales.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Alas, another good theory shot down by actual data. Stupid data!
I think we are asymptotically approaching the truth. My suspicion is
that the first reason the bike boom stopped was because the bike buyers
all had bikes, and they don't need replacing that often.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 03:00:56
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:54:20 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>In article <4lgog3pt6k7lqhh4mo35ek9vtbc2nupu95@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:55:16 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <hkpng3l6c30g7p5i8ctb5guh84lj2fqkch@4ax.com>,
>> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> >But as soon as
>> >> >motorcars appear and then start becoming affordable (ie, starting with
>> >> >the
>> >> >T-ford), the bike gets phased out.
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Dear Jasper,
>> >>
>> >> Actually, the U.S. bike boom of the 1890's faded long before cars
>> >> became widely used. Mass public transportation is usually considered
>> >> the culprit, not the gradual appearance of tinynumbers of extremely
>> >> expensive and unreliable automobiles, which usually required a
>> >> mechanic to drive and maintain.
>> >>
>> >> If you browse around old newspapers and magazines, you'll find regular
>> >> bicycle columns simply vanishing.
>> >>
>> >> A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
>> >> magazine, which began as a bike magazine in the 1880's, shows how the
>> >> bike boom collapsed:
>> >>
>> >> 1897 20
>> >> 1898 15
>> >> 1899 14
>> >> 1900 5
>> >> 1901 3
>> >> 1902 1
>> >>
>> >> Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
>> >> early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
>> >> disastrously.
>> >>
>> >> "Colonel Albert Pope and his American Dream Machines" makes the point
>> >> on page 184 with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt as the first American
>> >> president to ride in a car, which looks exactly like an open landau*
>> >> that hasn't been hitched to a team, with the driver up behind the
>> >> passengers, who enjoy the forward view of a landau:
>> >>
>> >> http://i20.tinypic.com/wjj2ph.jpg
>> >>
>> >> That was in 1902, after the bike boom had already burst. Here's a
>> >> landau to show the similarity:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabethboweslyonandkinggeorgeincanada.
>> >> jpg
>> >>
>> >> How far cars were from being popular enough to displace bicycles is
>> >> shown by the vehicle's silly appearance, the fact that it was used for
>> >> a presidential parade rather than normal transportation, and by the
>> >> quartet of Secret Service men still riding bicycles next to the
>> >> horseless carriage. (The two bikes on the left are clearly
>> >> Hartford-made Pope-Columbia chainless shaft-drive models.)
>> >>
>> >> At that point, presidents and wealthy enthusiasts were willing to ride
>> >> in cars, but most people couldn't dream of such expensive
>> >> contraptions. Instead, they took trains and streetcars instead of
>> >> buying bicycles.
>> >>
>> >> Karl Hodges wrote an interesting article with detailed graphs and data
>> >> "Did the Emergence of the Automobile End the Bicycle Boom?" for the
>> >> 4th International Cycle History Conference, which shows that "Between
>> >> 1895 and 1902, the bicycle industry ground to a halt, yet the growth
>> >> of the automobile industry in this same period is unremarkable."
>> >>
>> >> "Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
>> >> automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
>> >> harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
>> >> collapsed:
>> >>
>> >> "During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
>> >> automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
>> >> auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
>> >> thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
>> >> every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
>> >>
>> >> To put that in table form per thousand population:
>> >>
>> >> cars new bike
>> >> owned sales
>> >> ----- -------
>> >> 1897 20
>> >> 1902 0.00067
>> >> 1904 3
>> >> 1905 1
>> >>
>> >> Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after the bike boom
>> >> imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
>> >> to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
>> >> 1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Carl Fogel
>> >
>> >Carl: I think the missing link here might be motorcycles.
>
>> Dear Ryan,
>>
>> It's a nice idea to consider, but unfortunately it turns out that
>> motorcycles were no more responsible for the bike boom collapsing than
>> cars.
>
>> Here are the sales figures for Harley-Davidson and Indian, early and
>> successful motorcycle manufacturers:
>>
>> bicycles Harleys Indians
>> sold sold sold
>> 1897 1,400,000
>> 1898
>> 1899
>> 1900
>> 1901 3 3 [home-made]
>> 1902 143 [by 1902 bike boom has collapsed]
>> 1903 150 376 [Harley-Davidson actually founded]
>> 1904 240,000 596
>>
>> In other words, motorcycles had about as much effect on the bike boom
>> collapse as recumbents are having on U.S. bicycle sales.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Alas, another good theory shot down by actual data. Stupid data!
>
>I think we are asymptotically approaching the truth. My suspicion is
>that the first reason the bike boom stopped was because the bike buyers
>all had bikes, and they don't need replacing that often.
Dear Ryan,
It's an idea worth considering.
Certainly there were more and more used bicycles in use, reducing new
sales.
But there's that pesky gigantic rise of the ridership on trains and
trollies--no mud, no sweat, no rolling down the wretched streets of
the day in ice, rain, and blazing sun, plenty of company, low fares
compared to bicycle prices, and so on.
As a sidelight, it's worth remembering how few people in 1900 had
actually learned to ride a bicycle as a child--the first safeties were
introduced in 1885 and wiped out the highwheelers by 1892.
So the bike boom collapsed just when we'd expect it to be reaching its
full strength with a whole generation rising up behind the early
adopters.
One reason that this didn't happen was that there weren't quite as
many riders as you'd expect. The 1.4 million new bikes sold in 1897
were enormously larger than auto and motorcycle sales for over a
decade to come, but they were still only 20 new bikes per 1,000
population--hardly anyone rode a bicycle, despite the fanatic clubs.
The reason was that bicycles were still darned expensive in 1900, with
$40 being easily more than a month's pay for most people.
Think of the dollar-a-day $360 Model T that was sold from 1908 to
1927, years beyond the bike boom. It started out at $850 and was a
huge bargain compared to $2,000 and $3,000 cars, dropping to $300 or
so only on the far side of the First World War in the 1920's, two
decades after the bike boom $40 bikes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_T
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 19:39:06
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 18, 2:48 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>> carlfo...@comcast.net akaCarlFogel wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
> >> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> However, the Swiss Army used to havebicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
> >>> had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
> >>> to purchase a Saris Bones.
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> If you can find the excellent but out of print "Bicyclesin War", nearly
> >> all nations, including USA, usedbicyclesmilitarily from the bicycle's
> >> inception through mechanized warfare in the 1940s. After that, only
> >> isolated cases remained. Notably, communist forces in Indochina used
> >>bicycleseffectively as we tried to interrupt mythical truck convoys.
> >> Other great stories abound. The Swiss, who still have a Roman style
> >> military service system, efficiently patrolled by bike until the program
> >> was discontinued recently.
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > Curse you, another $15 down the drain on out of print bicycle books!
> > And cursewww.bookfinder.comfor making it so easy!
> > And ditto for MartinCaidin, who wrote it, and whose books I like.
>
> You'll love the center all-too-brief photo section. Ain't the net grand?
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Andrew
I particularly liked this picture of bicycles being repaired under
artillery fire:
http://i21.tinypic.com/2dh5mh4.jpg
I always enjoy pictures of bicycles being turned upside-down for
easier repair. The explosion puts my goathead problem in its proper
trivial place.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 23:15:17
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:39:06 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>I always enjoy pictures of bicycles being turned upside-down for
>easier repair.
I'm not sure what people have against it, really. It's not absolutely
necessary, if you have a good hoist or stand, but it's one heck of a lot
quicker and more universally applicable, all you need is a fairly straight
and solid surface soft enough that it doesn't scratch the thing more than
you find acceptable.
My LBS does most of their work on upside down bikes, despite the pulleys
in the ceiling.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 18:47:54
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:39:06 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> I always enjoy pictures of bicycles being turned upside-down for
>> easier repair.
>
> I'm not sure what people have against it, really. It's not absolutely
> necessary, if you have a good hoist or stand, but it's one heck of a lot
> quicker and more universally applicable, all you need is a fairly straight
> and solid surface soft enough that it doesn't scratch the thing more than
> you find acceptable.
>
> My LBS does most of their work on upside down bikes, despite the pulleys
> in the ceiling.
I strongly suspect that "Dear Carl" turns his bicycle upside down just
so he can photograph it and then post the picture to annoy Jobst.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 22:16:20
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>>>>> carlfo...@comcast.net akaCarlFogel wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> However, the Swiss Army used to havebicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
>>>>> had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
>>>>> to purchase a Saris Bones.
>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> If you can find the excellent but out of print "Bicycles in War", nearly
>>>> all nations, including USA, used bicycles militarily from the bicycle's
>>>> inception through mechanized warfare in the 1940s. After that, only
>>>> isolated cases remained. Notably, communist forces in Indochina used
>>>> bicycles effectively as we tried to interrupt mythical truck convoys.
>>>> Other great stories abound. The Swiss, who still have a Roman style
>>>> military service system, efficiently patrolled by bike until the program
>>>> was discontinued recently.
>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> Curse you, another $15 down the drain on out of print bicycle books!
>>> And cursewww.bookfinder.comfor making it so easy!
>>> And ditto for MartinCaidin, who wrote it, and whose books I like.
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> You'll love the center all-too-brief photo section. Ain't the net grand?
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> I particularly liked this picture of bicycles being repaired under
> artillery fire:
> http://i21.tinypic.com/2dh5mh4.jpg
> I always enjoy pictures of bicycles being turned upside-down for
> easier repair. The explosion puts my goathead problem in its proper
> trivial place.
Any LBS wrench has stories as harrowing I'm sure.
Check out the Viet Cong use of Peugeots!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:39:03
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:00:56 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>Certainly there were more and more used bicycles in use, reducing new
>sales.
>
>But there's that pesky gigantic rise of the ridership on trains and
>trollies--no mud, no sweat, no rolling down the wretched streets of
>the day in ice, rain, and blazing sun, plenty of company, low fares
>compared to bicycle prices, and so on.
I'm not sure that public transit -- even when it amounted to a damn in
america -- was a solid replacement for bicycles, though. On the other
hand, we're talking pre-burbclaves, so bicycles are primarily useful to
start with in cities, and american cities at this time are dense enough --
and the PT networks dense and good enough -- that most journeys could be
made on the PT network.
>One reason that this didn't happen was that there weren't quite as
>many riders as you'd expect. The 1.4 million new bikes sold in 1897
>were enormously larger than auto and motorcycle sales for over a
>decade to come, but they were still only 20 new bikes per 1,000
>population--hardly anyone rode a bicycle, despite the fanatic clubs.
How much of the population at the time was in cities? I suspect that
*nobody* in the middle of the country bought a bike, because the distances
and roads were simply too great and bad respectively for it to be useful
(and country folk were *poor* back then.. at least money-poor). I would
imagine that the US as a whole in 1900 -- especailly given that that
includes the Southern states -- still had a significantly <50%
urbanification rate, which affects the effective number significantly. if
you go with roughly double then 4 or 5 out of 100 people in the cities
bought a new bike in that single year. It's entirely possible for there to
be upwards of several bikes per 10 cityfolk by 1905. And that's counting
children and old folk and people who simply didn't want to go much of
anywhere or could ride PT because it went everywhere they wanted to go.
And of course bikes weren't user-specific, the rest of the family could
borrow it when the primary owner wasn't using it.
That actually adds up to a fair market penetration, if you think about it.
Just not that many new ones necessary.
>The reason was that bicycles were still darned expensive in 1900, with
>$40 being easily more than a month's pay for most people.
But they were exceedingly useful to certain jobs -- the postman, the
bakery delivery boy, etc.etc. Some jobs in .eu came with use of a company
bicycle, back then, and it was considered a good perk too. Anything that
needs deliverin' and is small and light enough to fit into a freight
bicycle (and that's a *lot*) is greatly cheaper on that bike than with a
horse, and faster than walking or with a cart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freight_bicycle
>Think of the dollar-a-day $360 Model T that was sold from 1908 to
>1927, years beyond the bike boom. It started out at $850 and was a
>huge bargain compared to $2,000 and $3,000 cars, dropping to $300 or
>so only on the far side of the First World War in the 1920's, two
>decades after the bike boom $40 bikes:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_T
But the model T is closer in usage to being comparable to a horse than to
a bike, and a horse back in those days was, IIRC from previous
discussions, >$500. Which is of course why stealin' a man's horse could
get you hung, back in them thar days, parenthetically.
But to get back to my original point a little: regardless of how
widespread bike usage was before, the availability of first cheap
motorcycles and then cheap cars pretty much completely finishes whatever
bike usage was there off, every single time. it happened in the US, it
happened in europe post-WWII, and it's happening in China today.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2007 05:25:06
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 18, 9:51 pm, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com > wrote:
> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org writes:
>
> > I concede that it is possible, but from my having been confronted with
> > the problem over years on a local dirt road, I have a hard enough time
> > discerning whether the rider was going uphill or downhill, the road
> > surface being such that a dodging course is taken in both directions
> > and following a separation of front and rear track is less than easy.
>
> Yes, that's my opinion. Possible, but difficult and not really
> practical. Things might be different with a softer surface that
> permitted clear tire tracks. Presumably English soil is damper...
In the story, it winds up being irrelevant since Holmes follows
the bicycle track both ways, first towards the school and then
away from it. It's just window dressing by Conan Doyle to
make Holmes seem more omniscient. The points about
there being two sets of tracks and matching the second set
to a patched Palmer-tyred bicycle later are more relevant
to the plot.
For someone who invented the master of logical detection,
Conan Doyle's logic doesn't always make sense. But he was
a virtuoso of atmosphere, and that's what counts in the
ink-stained-wretch trade.
Ben
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 21:51:44
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
> I assume you used excursions large enough to separate the front and
> rear tire tracks. As I said, that is unrealistic except for slow
> travel on a smooth street where choice of path is primarily for
> balance than a path around rough spots. I see that for given a front
> wheel excursion, the rear one will make a lesser excursion with a peak
> lagging by the wheelbase.
Correct on all counts.
> I'm not sure that Conan Doyle came up with that although it is
> possible, considering that he had technically inclined friends who
> could advise him on it. As You see, most people immediately think it
> is a simple case of the rear wheel crossing over the front track and
> showing which came first, thereby giving direction... which it
> doesn't.
>
> This concept assumes slow enough travel that there is a detectable
> waviness that could be attributed to front and rear track. One need
> not know which tire is more heavily loaded or the tread pattern for
> this assessment. Therefore, mentioning which tire was more heavily
> loaded is a red herring.
>
> I concede that it is possible, but from my having been confronted with
> the problem over years on a local dirt road, I have a hard enough time
> discerning whether the rider was going uphill or downhill, the road
> surface being such that a dodging course is taken in both directions
> and following a separation of front and rear track is less than easy.
Yes, that's my opinion. Possible, but difficult and not really
practical. Things might be different with a softer surface that
permitted clear tire tracks. Presumably English soil is damper...
--
Joe Riel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 18:38:01
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
> Joe Riel writes:
>> A practical way to deduce the direction with just a yardstick (which
>> is a good approximation of the wheel separation of a standard bike)
>> is to lie the stick so that one end is on the front wheel track, the
>> other end on the rear wheel track, then make the front edge of the
>> stick follow the front wheel track. If the other end follows the
>> rear track, you're moving the stick in the proper direction. I will
>> test this on my walk tonight (part of the walk is along a dirt path
>> with bike tracks).
>
> That assumes the rider is riding an exaggerated wavy course on a
> smoothly paved road, which isn't the norm, nor does it leave a visible
> track. Beyond that, I ride on roads with recently swept wide
> shoulders by street sweeping machines (the bike lane) because there
> are construction projects along the route. This leaves a dusty
> shoulder where every bicycle leaves a visible track. These are all
> single lines of slightly varying width as the riders make minor
> corrections. You cannot distinguish tires or tread profile... nor
> direction, although these folks probably follow right hand traffic.
I followed through with the test I previously described (above).
Alas, it didn't work. The dirt trail I walk on is multiuse and
consists of hard packed dirt, with a somewhat sandy surface.
The impressions of the bike tires are too faint to clearly distinguish,
except in patches.
After the walk I repeated the tests making tire tracks on the paved
road after wetting the tires in the gutter. It is easy to
distinguish the direction if the bike makes a wavy turn or two
by attempting to recreate the path with a second bike. A clever
person should be able to that visually, however, I found that
difficult; maybe with more practice.
--
Joe Riel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2007 03:49:56
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Joe Riel writes:
>>> A practical way to deduce the direction with just a yardstick
>>> (which is a good approximation of the wheel separation of a
>>> standard bike) is to lie the stick so that one end is on the front
>>> wheel track, the other end on the rear wheel track, then make the
>>> front edge of the stick follow the front wheel track. If the
>>> other end follows the rear track, you're moving the stick in the
>>> proper direction. I will test this on my walk tonight (part of
>>> the walk is along a dirt path with bike tracks).
>> That assumes the rider is riding an exaggerated wavy course on a
>> smoothly paved road, which isn't the norm, nor does it leave a
>> visible track. Beyond that, I ride on roads with recently swept
>> wide shoulders by street sweeping machines (the bike lane) because
>> there are construction projects along the route. This leaves a
>> dusty shoulder where every bicycle leaves a visible track. These
>> are all single lines of slightly varying width as the riders make
>> minor corrections. You cannot distinguish tires or tread
>> profile... nor direction, although these folks probably follow
>> right hand traffic.
> I followed through with the test I previously described (above).
> Alas, it didn't work. The dirt trail I walk on is multiuse and
> consists of hard packed dirt, with a somewhat sandy surface. The
> impressions of the bike tires are too faint to clearly distinguish,
> except in patches.
> After the walk I repeated the tests making tire tracks on the paved
> road after wetting the tires in the gutter. It is easy to
> distinguish the direction if the bike makes a wavy turn or two by
> attempting to recreate the path with a second bike. A clever person
> should be able to that visually, however, I found that difficult;
> maybe with more practice.
I assume you used excursions large enough to separate the front and
rear tire tracks. As I said, that is unrealistic except for slow
travel on a smooth street where choice of path is primarily for
balance than a path around rough spots. I see that for given a front
wheel excursion, the rear one will make a lesser excursion with a peak
lagging by the wheelbase.
I'm not sure that Conan Doyle came up with that although it is
possible, considering that he had technically inclined friends who
could advise him on it. As You see, most people immediately think it
is a simple case of the rear wheel crossing over the front track and
showing which came first, thereby giving direction... which it
doesn't.
This concept assumes slow enough travel that there is a detectable
waviness that could be attributed to front and rear track. One need
not know which tire is more heavily loaded or the tread pattern for
this assessment. Therefore, mentioning which tire was more heavily
loaded is a red herring.
I concede that it is possible, but from my having been confronted with
the problem over years on a local dirt road, I have a hard enough time
discerning whether the rider was going uphill or downhill, the road
surface being such that a dodging course is taken in both directions
and following a separation of front and rear track is less than easy.
Thanks for the explanation. I'll see if I can apply it next time I go
up that road.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 14:57:08
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
> Joe Riel writes:
>
>>> All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of
>>> a passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a
>>> dirt road.
>
>> It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
>> pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
>> depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is
>> the front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front wheel
>> track, the rear on the other track, and see if they continue to
>> match as you trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the
>> other direction.
>
>> I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It does
>> appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so I had
>> to work quickly. More testing later...
>
> You'll need to explain that in more detail. When I ride a curve, the
> front wheel always takes a greater radius than the rear. That the
> front wheel proceeded the rear wheel in time and space is also clear.
> What is unclear is how the direction of this tracking occurred. If
> you can point out the physical trace that reveals in which direction
> the two tracks were made, I could better understand it.
One way to imagine it is to assume that the front wheel follows a
perfect sinewave. The rear wheel will then (eventually) also follow a
sine wave (actually, not quite, but close enough) with the same
wavelength, but a smaller amplitude. If the wavelength is greater than
(about) the wheel separation, the sinewave generated by the rear wheel
should have a small lead with respect to the front wheel. So the
direction of the bike must be such that the phase of rear track leads
that of the front track. That is:
front track = A*sin(x/L)
rear track ~ B*sin(x/L+phi) with 0 <= phi <= Pi and B < A.
If you are looking at this backward (x - > -x) then the
phase difference would be negative (i.e. phase lag).
A practical way to deduce the direction with just a yardstick (which
is a good approximation of the wheel separation of a standard bike) is
to lie the stick so that one end is on the front wheel track, the
other end on the rear wheel track, then make the front edge of the
stick follow the front wheel track. If the other end follows the rear
track, you're moving the stick in the proper direction. I will test
this on my walk tonight (part of the walk is along a dirt path with
bike tracks).
--
Joe Riel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 23:42:11
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Joe Riel writes:
>>>> All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction
>>>> of a passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on
>>>> a dirt road.
>>> It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve
>>> of pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two
>>> curves depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out
>>> which is the front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given
>>> front wheel track, the rear on the other track, and see if they
>>> continue to match as you trace the front wheel track. Then try it
>>> going the other direction.
>>> I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It
>>> does appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here,
>>> so I had to work quickly. More testing later...
>> You'll need to explain that in more detail. When I ride a curve,
>> the front wheel always takes a greater radius than the rear. That
>> the front wheel proceeded the rear wheel in time and space is also
>> clear. What is unclear is how the direction of this tracking
>> occurred. If you can point out the physical trace that reveals in
>> which direction the two tracks were made, I could better understand
>> it.
> One way to imagine it is to assume that the front wheel follows a
> perfect sine wave. The rear wheel will then (eventually) also
> follow a sine wave (actually, not quite, but close enough) with the
> same wavelength, but a smaller amplitude. If the wavelength is
> greater than (about) the wheel separation, the sine wave generated
> by the rear wheel should have a small lead with respect to the front
> wheel. So the direction of the bike must be such that the phase of
> rear track leads that of the front track. That is:
> front track = A*sin(x/L)
> rear track ~ B*sin(x/L+phi) with 0 <= phi <= Pi and B < A.
> If you are looking at this backward (x -> -x) then the phase
> difference would be negative (i.e. phase lag).
> A practical way to deduce the direction with just a yardstick (which
> is a good approximation of the wheel separation of a standard bike)
> is to lie the stick so that one end is on the front wheel track, the
> other end on the rear wheel track, then make the front edge of the
> stick follow the front wheel track. If the other end follows the
> rear track, you're moving the stick in the proper direction. I will
> test this on my walk tonight (part of the walk is along a dirt path
> with bike tracks).
That assumes the rider is riding an exaggerated wavy course on a
smoothly paved road, which isn't the norm, nor does it leave a visible
track. Beyond that, I ride on roads with recently swept wide
shoulders by street sweeping machines (the bike lane) because there
are construction projects along the route. This leaves a dusty
shoulder where every bicycle leaves a visible track. These are all
single lines of slightly varying width as the riders make minor
corrections. You cannot distinguish tires or tread profile... nor
direction, although these folks probably follow right hand traffic.
The whole story is an extension of Doyle's character that claims to
see more than there is to see. Holmes should have known though not to
go to Hotel Zwirgi at the top of the Reichenbach Falls near Meiringen
where he and Dr. Moriarty had to plunge over the falls in order to
free Doyle from writing further adventures. The faithful demanded
that Holmes could not die that way and forced Doyle to write that
Holmes saved himself at the last moment by grabbing onto a branch.
http://switzerland.isyours.com/E/guide/berner_oberland/sherlockholmes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichenbach_Falls
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mayumi/watanabe/rtw/9/shstamd/shstamd.htm
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 13:32:10
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
> All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of a
> passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a dirt
> road.
It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is the
front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front wheel track,
the rear on the other track, and see if they continue to match as you
trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the other direction.
I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It
does appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so
I had to work quickly. More testing later...
--
Joe Riel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2007 05:33:51
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <874pgoyxit.fsf@san.rr.com >,
Joe Riel <joer@san.rr.com > wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
>
> > All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of a
> > passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a dirt
> > road.
>
> It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
> pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
> depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is the
> front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front wheel track,
> the rear on the other track, and see if they continue to match as you
> trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the other direction.
>
> I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It
> does appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so
> I had to work quickly. More testing later...
Check. The convolution of the two tracks is not
an even function.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 22:53:44
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Joe Riel wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
>
>> All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of a
>> passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a dirt
>> road.
>
> It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
> pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
> depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is the
> front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front wheel track,
> the rear on the other track, and see if they continue to match as you
> trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the other direction.
>
> I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It
> does appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so
> I had to work quickly. More testing later...
>
With dirt it is easy to see which track passes over which. I'm sure in
the sequel Holmes will encounter a trick rider who rides a fixie
backwards ;)
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 21:47:55
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Marten who? writes:
>>> All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction
>>> of a passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a
>>> dirt road.
>> It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
>> pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
>> depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is
>> the front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front
>> wheel track, the rear on the other track, and see if they continue
>> to match as you trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the
>> other direction.
>> I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It
>> does appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so
>> I had to work quickly. More testing later...
> With dirt it is easy to see which track passes over which. I'm sure
> in the sequel Holmes will encounter a trick rider who rides a fixie
> backward ;)
The rear tire always passes over the front track regardless of which
way the bicycle traveled.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 21:26:37
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Joe Riel writes:
>> All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of
>> a passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a
>> dirt road.
> It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
> pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
> depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is
> the front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front wheel
> track, the rear on the other track, and see if they continue to
> match as you trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the
> other direction.
> I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It does
> appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so I had
> to work quickly. More testing later...
You'll need to explain that in more detail. When I ride a curve, the
front wheel always takes a greater radius than the rear. That the
front wheel proceeded the rear wheel in time and space is also clear.
What is unclear is how the direction of this tracking occurred. If
you can point out the physical trace that reveals in which direction
the two tracks were made, I could better understand it.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2007 05:38:42
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <4717cf8d$0$14127$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Joe Riel writes:
>
> >> All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of
> >> a passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a
> >> dirt road.
>
> > It should certainly be possible. The rear track follows a curve of
> > pursuit of the front track. The relation between the two curves
> > depends on the direction. It's easy enough to figure out which is
> > the front wheel, start with the front wheel on the given front wheel
> > track, the rear on the other track, and see if they continue to
> > match as you trace the front wheel track. Then try it going the
> > other direction.
>
> > I just tried this using the water trails left by wet tires. It does
> > appear to work, however, it happens to be a sunny day here, so I had
> > to work quickly. More testing later...
>
> You'll need to explain that in more detail. When I ride a curve, the
> front wheel always takes a greater radius than the rear. That the
> front wheel proceeded the rear wheel in time and space is also clear.
> What is unclear is how the direction of this tracking occurred. If
> you can point out the physical trace that reveals in which direction
> the two tracks were made, I could better understand it.
The amount of curvature in the front wheel track
influences the amount of curvature in the rear wheel
track. Suppose the track runs North-South. Does the
amount of curvature in the front wheel correlate with the
curvature in the rear track to the North or to the South?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 03:01:32
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <hr30h35ehunbdjt09po53fn8ktpaf4lf0d@4ax.com >,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:00:56 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >Certainly there were more and more used bicycles in use, reducing new
> >sales.
> >
> >But there's that pesky gigantic rise of the ridership on trains and
> >trollies--no mud, no sweat, no rolling down the wretched streets of
> >the day in ice, rain, and blazing sun, plenty of company, low fares
> >compared to bicycle prices, and so on.
>
> I'm not sure that public transit -- even when it amounted to a damn in
> america -- was a solid replacement for bicycles, though. On the other
> hand, we're talking pre-burbclaves, so bicycles are primarily useful to
> start with in cities, and american cities at this time are dense enough --
> and the PT networks dense and good enough -- that most journeys could be
> made on the PT network.
Also, um, people couldn't afford cars. So it didn't really matter if the
public transit was "good enough." You either took the trolley, walked,
or you didn't go.
In a lot of cases, people didn't go.
> But to get back to my original point a little: regardless of how
> widespread bike usage was before, the availability of first cheap
> motorcycles and then cheap cars pretty much completely finishes whatever
> bike usage was there off, every single time. it happened in the US, it
> happened in europe post-WWII, and it's happening in China today.
>
> Jasper
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 14:37:20
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:01:32 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
>In article <hr30h35ehunbdjt09po53fn8ktpaf4lf0d@4ax.com>,
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:00:56 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> >Certainly there were more and more used bicycles in use, reducing new
>> >sales.
>> >
>> >But there's that pesky gigantic rise of the ridership on trains and
>> >trollies--no mud, no sweat, no rolling down the wretched streets of
>> >the day in ice, rain, and blazing sun, plenty of company, low fares
>> >compared to bicycle prices, and so on.
>>
>> I'm not sure that public transit -- even when it amounted to a damn in
>> america -- was a solid replacement for bicycles, though. On the other
>> hand, we're talking pre-burbclaves, so bicycles are primarily useful to
>> start with in cities, and american cities at this time are dense enough --
>> and the PT networks dense and good enough -- that most journeys could be
>> made on the PT network.
>
>Also, um, people couldn't afford cars. So it didn't really matter if the
>public transit was "good enough." You either took the trolley, walked,
>or you didn't go.
Or you took the BICYCLE. Which was what we were TALKING ABOUT. And which
is the *subject of the fricking newsgroup*. We were *not* comparing to
cars.
Fer crying out loud.
jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 20:51:11
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <kaa4h3tmvfmc768e1vh0pmkrr85rhp69mg@4ax.com >,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:01:32 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >In article <hr30h35ehunbdjt09po53fn8ktpaf4lf0d@4ax.com>,
> > Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:00:56 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Certainly there were more and more used bicycles in use, reducing new
> >> >sales.
> >> >
> >> >But there's that pesky gigantic rise of the ridership on trains and
> >> >trollies--no mud, no sweat, no rolling down the wretched streets of
> >> >the day in ice, rain, and blazing sun, plenty of company, low fares
> >> >compared to bicycle prices, and so on.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that public transit -- even when it amounted to a damn in
> >> america -- was a solid replacement for bicycles, though. On the other
> >> hand, we're talking pre-burbclaves, so bicycles are primarily useful to
> >> start with in cities, and american cities at this time are dense enough --
> >> and the PT networks dense and good enough -- that most journeys could be
> >> made on the PT network.
> >
> >Also, um, people couldn't afford cars. So it didn't really matter if the
> >public transit was "good enough." You either took the trolley, walked,
> >or you didn't go.
>
> Or you took the BICYCLE. Which was what we were TALKING ABOUT. And which
> is the *subject of the fricking newsgroup*. We were *not* comparing to
> cars.
We were referring to the many people at the turn of the century who had
not even a bicycle, and certainly not a car.
I perhaps distracted everyone by mentioning that these people didn't
have cars, but the point was that bicycle sales levelled off before the
point of effective market saturation. In other words, some people either
didn't want one (rare) or couldn't afford one (common). Their remaining
choices were as discussed above.
Can now afford several times as many bicycles as my grandfather could at
the same age,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 23:22:59
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:11 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
>In article <kaa4h3tmvfmc768e1vh0pmkrr85rhp69mg@4ax.com>,
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:01:32 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>> >In article <hr30h35ehunbdjt09po53fn8ktpaf4lf0d@4ax.com>,
>> > Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure that public transit -- even when it amounted to a damn in
>> >> america -- was a solid replacement for bicycles, though. On the other
>> >> hand, we're talking pre-burbclaves, so bicycles are primarily useful to
>> >> start with in cities, and american cities at this time are dense enough --
>> >> and the PT networks dense and good enough -- that most journeys could be
>> >> made on the PT network.
>> >
>> >Also, um, people couldn't afford cars. So it didn't really matter if the
>> >public transit was "good enough." You either took the trolley, walked,
>> >or you didn't go.
>>
>> Or you took the BICYCLE. Which was what we were TALKING ABOUT. And which
>> is the *subject of the fricking newsgroup*. We were *not* comparing to
>> cars.
>
>We were referring to the many people at the turn of the century who had
>not even a bicycle, and certainly not a car.
>
>I perhaps distracted everyone by mentioning that these people didn't
>have cars, but the point was that bicycle sales levelled off before the
>point of effective market saturation. In other words, some people either
You've in fact failed to show that this is the case.
>didn't want one (rare) or couldn't afford one (common). Their remaining
>choices were as discussed above.
The problem is, bicycle saturation is not a 1:1 ratio of bikes to
americans living in densely-populated areas, *let alone* to all americans.
Densely populated areas probably accounted for only a few dozen million
adult(ish) and not too old americans at the time in question, and they
sold a *lot* of bikes compared to *that* number. Especially considering
that, as I said, bikes were not personalised items of property, any more
than many cars are now.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 16:34:57
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:11 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>In article <kaa4h3tmvfmc768e1vh0pmkrr85rhp69mg@4ax.com>,
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:01:32 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>> >In article <hr30h35ehunbdjt09po53fn8ktpaf4lf0d@4ax.com>,
>> > Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:00:56 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Certainly there were more and more used bicycles in use, reducing new
>> >> >sales.
>> >> >
>> >> >But there's that pesky gigantic rise of the ridership on trains and
>> >> >trollies--no mud, no sweat, no rolling down the wretched streets of
>> >> >the day in ice, rain, and blazing sun, plenty of company, low fares
>> >> >compared to bicycle prices, and so on.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure that public transit -- even when it amounted to a damn in
>> >> america -- was a solid replacement for bicycles, though. On the other
>> >> hand, we're talking pre-burbclaves, so bicycles are primarily useful to
>> >> start with in cities, and american cities at this time are dense enough --
>> >> and the PT networks dense and good enough -- that most journeys could be
>> >> made on the PT network.
>> >
>> >Also, um, people couldn't afford cars. So it didn't really matter if the
>> >public transit was "good enough." You either took the trolley, walked,
>> >or you didn't go.
>>
>> Or you took the BICYCLE. Which was what we were TALKING ABOUT. And which
>> is the *subject of the fricking newsgroup*. We were *not* comparing to
>> cars.
>
>We were referring to the many people at the turn of the century who had
>not even a bicycle, and certainly not a car.
>
>I perhaps distracted everyone by mentioning that these people didn't
>have cars, but the point was that bicycle sales levelled off before the
>point of effective market saturation. In other words, some people either
>didn't want one (rare) or couldn't afford one (common). Their remaining
>choices were as discussed above.
>
>Can now afford several times as many bicycles as my grandfather could at
>the same age,
Dear Ryan,
You may be showing a little of the rabid bicycle bias of RBT when you
say that "some people didn't want one (rare)".
With peak sales of about 2 million for a few years (dropping 80%
before and after the brief boom), there were an awful lot of people in
a country of 70 million more than three out of four people couldn't
have owned a bicycle, given the sales figures.
In fact, outside the magazines of enthusiasts, bicycles were often
considered expensive, unreliable, unwieldy, newfangled, and dangerous
contraptions. That's why the bicycle articles in magazines flourished
for a few years and then vanished along with the bike boom.
The fad (sorry, but what else can we call it?) expanded to sales of 2
million bikes in its best year, and then collapsed. It turned out that
the people who did indeed want a bicycle badly enough to pay the high
price for owning one were nowhere near a majority of the U.S.
population.
And yes, bicycles were expensive before the bike boom collapsed. By
1899, large manufacturers like Gormully & Jeffrey were slashing prices
to $40 to fight sales figures that would drop below 20% of what they
were in 1897:
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_34/outXXXIV01/outXXXIV01ze.pdf
That $40 sounds absurdly cheap to us today, but inflation makes it
hard to understand how expensive $40 was. This inflation calculator,
for example, suggests that $40 in 1899 would be about $934 in 2006:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
But even that doesn't really capture how expensive bikes were. A
better way to understand how outlandishly expensive bicycles were back
then is to remember that even the cheapest models were later often
sold on monthly installment plans of a dollar a month. (Just the stamp
to mail the $1.00 payment would cost $0.41 today.)
For all but the wealthiest, cars were simply fantasies. Again, when
the bicycle boom was imploding in 1900, there were more ocean liners
in the harbors than there were automobiles in the entire U.S.
Some of our exaggerated notions of how prolific cars were come from
Hollywood. It's much easier, quicker, and cheaper to fill a
blocked-off street with a convenient collection of old cars than to
fill the street with old horse-drawn wagons and coaches. This equine
censorship extends far beyond 1900. For example, Hollywood "history"
gives little hint that Hitler's army in Europe and Russia depended
heavily on horses. The first soldiers that Audie Murphy killed in 1943
were Italian officers fleeing on horseback, and he tells of hundreds
of horses in a German convoy, all killed by artillery in France.
Here's New York, Easter morning 1900:
http://www.archives.gov/research/american-cities/images/american-cities-101.jpg
No automobiles, no bicycles. Most people walked, rode in horse-drawn
carriages, or took trains and trollies. Bicycles were mostly for
recreation.
When we see parades of bicycles in pictures from that year, it's hard
to remember that they were special parades, photographed for
enthusiasts.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 07:11:59
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <0b25h31ef8e5en4urirnregirpn01603sc@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:11 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <kaa4h3tmvfmc768e1vh0pmkrr85rhp69mg@4ax.com>,
> > Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:01:32 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >> >In article <hr30h35ehunbdjt09po53fn8ktpaf4lf0d@4ax.com>,
> >> > Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:00:56 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Certainly there were more and more used bicycles in use, reducing new
> >> >> >sales.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But there's that pesky gigantic rise of the ridership on trains and
> >> >> >trollies--no mud, no sweat, no rolling down the wretched streets of
> >> >> >the day in ice, rain, and blazing sun, plenty of company, low fares
> >> >> >compared to bicycle prices, and so on.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure that public transit -- even when it amounted to a damn in
> >> >> america -- was a solid replacement for bicycles, though. On the other
> >> >> hand, we're talking pre-burbclaves, so bicycles are primarily useful to
> >> >> start with in cities, and american cities at this time are dense enough
> >> >> --
> >> >> and the PT networks dense and good enough -- that most journeys could
> >> >> be
> >> >> made on the PT network.
> >> >
> >> >Also, um, people couldn't afford cars. So it didn't really matter if the
> >> >public transit was "good enough." You either took the trolley, walked,
> >> >or you didn't go.
> >>
> >> Or you took the BICYCLE. Which was what we were TALKING ABOUT. And which
> >> is the *subject of the fricking newsgroup*. We were *not* comparing to
> >> cars.
> >
> >We were referring to the many people at the turn of the century who had
> >not even a bicycle, and certainly not a car.
> >
> >I perhaps distracted everyone by mentioning that these people didn't
> >have cars, but the point was that bicycle sales levelled off before the
> >point of effective market saturation. In other words, some people either
> >didn't want one (rare) or couldn't afford one (common). Their remaining
> >choices were as discussed above.
> >
> >Can now afford several times as many bicycles as my grandfather could at
> >the same age,
>
> Dear Ryan,
>
> You may be showing a little of the rabid bicycle bias of RBT when you
> say that "some people didn't want one (rare)".
Heh. I suppose I could fall back on some economist's definition of
"didn't want one" based on the price being too high, but I'll gladly
concede...
> With peak sales of about 2 million for a few years (dropping 80%
> before and after the brief boom), there were an awful lot of people in
> a country of 70 million more than three out of four people couldn't
> have owned a bicycle, given the sales figures.
>
> In fact, outside the magazines of enthusiasts, bicycles were often
> considered expensive, unreliable, unwieldy, newfangled, and dangerous
> contraptions. That's why the bicycle articles in magazines flourished
> for a few years and then vanished along with the bike boom.
...that many didn't consider a bicycle practical transport. However...
> The fad (sorry, but what else can we call it?) expanded to sales of 2
> million bikes in its best year, and then collapsed. It turned out that
> the people who did indeed want a bicycle badly enough to pay the high
> price for owning one were nowhere near a majority of the U.S.
> population.
>
> And yes, bicycles were expensive before the bike boom collapsed. By
> 1899, large manufacturers like Gormully & Jeffrey were slashing prices
> to $40 to fight sales figures that would drop below 20% of what they
> were in 1897:
>
>
> http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_34/outXXXIV01/outXXXIV01ze.pd
> f
>
> That $40 sounds absurdly cheap to us today, but inflation makes it
> hard to understand how expensive $40 was. This inflation calculator,
> for example, suggests that $40 in 1899 would be about $934 in 2006:
>
> http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
>
> But even that doesn't really capture how expensive bikes were. A
> better way to understand how outlandishly expensive bicycles were back
> then is to remember that even the cheapest models were later often
> sold on monthly installment plans of a dollar a month. (Just the stamp
> to mail the $1.00 payment would cost $0.41 today.)
...this certainly makes the strong case that bicycle ownership was
limited by its sheer unaffordability. Same as cars, though to a lesser
degree. But in either case, did bikes stop selling because everyone who
could afford one had one? I was under the impression that cycling lost
much of its daredevil reputation once the safety took over.
> For all but the wealthiest, cars were simply fantasies. Again, when
> the bicycle boom was imploding in 1900, there were more ocean liners
> in the harbors than there were automobiles in the entire U.S.
>
> Some of our exaggerated notions of how prolific cars were come from
> Hollywood. It's much easier, quicker, and cheaper to fill a
> blocked-off street with a convenient collection of old cars than to
> fill the street with old horse-drawn wagons and coaches. This equine
> censorship extends far beyond 1900. For example, Hollywood "history"
> gives little hint that Hitler's army in Europe and Russia depended
> heavily on horses. The first soldiers that Audie Murphy killed in 1943
> were Italian officers fleeing on horseback, and he tells of hundreds
> of horses in a German convoy, all killed by artillery in France.
I started researching horse usage in WW II. Instead, I ended up with
this:
http://www.45thdivision.org/Photo_Gallery/gallery_Hall.htm
> Here's New York, Easter morning 1900:
>
>
> http://www.archives.gov/research/american-cities/images/american-cities-101.jp
> g
>
> No automobiles, no bicycles. Most people walked, rode in horse-drawn
> carriages, or took trains and trollies. Bicycles were mostly for
> recreation.
>
> When we see parades of bicycles in pictures from that year, it's hard
> to remember that they were special parades, photographed for
> enthusiasts.
I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class.
Perhaps yes, but then, it's priced like it is because it really cost
that much.
As a confirmed bike-nut (and a third-generation bike commuter (a label
which I'm sure would impress my Dutch relatives only if their
grandparents couldn't afford bicycles)), I totally understand why cars
became more popular than bicycles with such rapidity: faster, more
comfortable, easily enclosed against the elements, and with greater
range. What's not to like?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 23:26:58
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:11:59 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
>(and a third-generation bike commuter (a label
>which I'm sure would impress my Dutch relatives only if their
>grandparents couldn't afford bicycles))
My grandparents were born in the late teens of the twentieth century, and
every single one of them bicycled, if not always as a commute. I'd guess
that my paternal grandfather did, my paternal grandmother didn't commute
(although she went grocery shopping which is perhaps the house-wife
equivalent which she did do on a bike), my maternal grandmother *still*
does her shopping on the bike (she doesn't use the car much anymore, but
the bike, no problem), and my maternal grandfather.. well, he got a car in
the late 50s early 60s or thereabouts, and I suspect he pretty much
stopped riding a bicycle at that time. My parents still do commute by
bicycle.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> ...
> I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
> the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
> expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
> question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
> better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
> almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....
butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
around in without attracting attention.
In some markets, prestige is more important, and a lower price would be
a detriment? Even wonder why high-end Japanese sport cars have not sold
as well as their more expensive (and less reliable) European
equivalents? (Hint: its the same reason some prefer Mavic rims to Sun
and Alex rims.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!.)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 23:51:32
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
>> the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
>> expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
>> question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
>> better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
>> almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....
>
>butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
>around in without attracting attention.
An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage.
>In some markets, prestige is more important, and a lower price would be
>a detriment? Even wonder why high-end Japanese sport cars have not sold
>as well as their more expensive (and less reliable) European
>equivalents?
The Mazda MX-5 sells like *hotcakes*. I don't actually know of any other
Japanese sportscar that could be considered the "equivalent", in terms of
design and performance, of even mid-end Ferraris & Porsches, or the more
obscure Lambo/Maserati/Bugatti/Bentley sorts of things. They just don't
really build supercars. Argentinians do, and the Pagani Zonda is not
exactly rare to see on (super)car-oriented TV shows.
Americans sometimes have a go at making a supercar (like the recent GT40),
but they tend to stuff it up. They share the common failing of the
American muscle-car (which is a different genre, really) of not going
round corners well at all, and for that matter being less reliable than
even a Ferrari.
When I think of a Japanese performance motor, I think of things like a
Civic Type R or other cars that have been riced up, either before or after
leaving the factory. Those ain't sportscars.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 20:45:02
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article
<66mvh3pv89vim4pplnemaj4pmkn1nhjhkd@4ax.com >,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote:
> Americans sometimes have a go at making a supercar (like the recent GT40),
> but they tend to stuff it up. They share the common failing of the
> American muscle-car (which is a different genre, really) of not going
> round corners well at all,
I have not driven many different cars lately. My impression
accords with JB's assertion. All cars these days get around
corners real well. My 1999 Honda Accord four door does very
well indeed. Corvette owners have told me that they are good
on corners too.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 21:05:28
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
>>> the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
>>> expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
>>> question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
>>> better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
>>> almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....
>> butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
>> around in without attracting attention.
>
> An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
> insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
> etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage....
The S-Class is also a heavy, dead car. I LIKE to be able to feel what
the road surface is, shift by ear, etc. As for noise, having the windows
open for a blast of fresh air negates the sound deadening advantage.
Can you get cloth seats in a S-Class? I find leather to be a turn off
compared to cloth for most items. Can you get the S-Class with a manual
transmission? I have never owned a vehicle with an automatic, and would
not like to start.
I also would definitely NOT want to be driving the S-Class on my normal
routes through the "hood". No need to attract the attention of gang bangers.
Finally, driving a S-Class would make me a traitor to my class, which is
a sin of the first magnitude.
--
Tom "Mutt Person" Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 21:10:47
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Finally, driving a S-Class would make me a traitor to my class, which is
> a sin of the first magnitude.
'beverage spewed on keyboard' award for the day!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 01:30:22
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <66mvh3pv89vim4pplnemaj4pmkn1nhjhkd@4ax.com >,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
> >> the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
> >> expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
> >> question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
> >> better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
> >> almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class....
> >
> >butbutbut, I would rather drive a Honda Civic. Much easier to race
> >around in without attracting attention.
>
> An S-class is seriously more comfortable, though. It's better sound
> insulated, and the seats are better, it has aircon and heated seats,
> etc.etc. It also performs better on all fronts 'cept mileage.
>
> >In some markets, prestige is more important, and a lower price would be
> >a detriment? Even wonder why high-end Japanese sport cars have not sold
> >as well as their more expensive (and less reliable) European
> >equivalents?
>
> The Mazda MX-5 sells like *hotcakes*. I don't actually know of any other
> Japanese sportscar that could be considered the "equivalent", in terms of
> design and performance, of even mid-end Ferraris & Porsches, or the more
> obscure Lambo/Maserati/Bugatti/Bentley sorts of things. They just don't
> really build supercars. Argentinians do, and the Pagani Zonda is not
> exactly rare to see on (super)car-oriented TV shows.
The sales volumes of supercars are minuscule. Even among makers like
Ferrari and Porsche, they sell many more of their entry-level cars
(non-turbo 911, Boxster, the still-pricey F430 Ferraris...) than they do
of the top-end versions (FXX, Enzo, Carrera GT...). Arguably, a few
Japanese cars have hit supercar status, or at least supercar-equivalent
performance when they were at their peak (maybe NSX, probably Skyline
GT-R, the stillborn Yamaha OX99-11).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Supercars
> Americans sometimes have a go at making a supercar (like the recent GT40),
> but they tend to stuff it up. They share the common failing of the
> American muscle-car (which is a different genre, really) of not going
> round corners well at all, and for that matter being less reliable than
> even a Ferrari.
The Z06-spec Corvettes are astounding value. Unless Ferrari has done
something while I wasn't looking, the maintenance costs over a
reasonable timeframe for the Corvette will be way less than the Ferrari,
and the Corvette is at least the equal of any Ferrari anywhere near its
price (probably only the Enzo-class red-painted horse cars would beat it
outright). The amusing spec on the Z06 is that it is the cheapest 500-hp
car in the world, and it is the only one to get more than 22.5 mpg on
the EPA combined cycle, making it exempt from Gas Guzzler taxes in the
US. Which is pretty funny.
Also, Chevrolet rear-engine drivetrains are pretty much boringly
reliable. Change the oil, and you're golden.
> When I think of a Japanese performance motor, I think of things like a
> Civic Type R or other cars that have been riced up, either before or after
> leaving the factory. Those ain't sportscars.
Nissan 350Z and Skyline. Mazda RX-8 and MX-5. Toyota MR-S and Supra,
when they still made them. Subaru WRX and WRX STi. Honda NSX and S2000.
Mitsubishi Eclipse, Spyder, and Evolution. et cetera.
The heritage of Japanese sporting machinery is deep and wide, going back
at least as far as 60s stuff like the Toyota 2000GT and the Datsun
Fairlady/1600. Notably, every car I have mentioned above is either
rear-wheel drive or all-wheel drive except the Eclipse/Spyder, which
have had AWD options in the past. None of these cars except maybe the
Eclipse/Spyder, and mabye the MR-S or WRX are particularly of the
"ricer" nature that you're thinking of (FWD compacts that have more
sound system than motor).
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 12:18:16
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:11:59 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
[snip]
>...this certainly makes the strong case that bicycle ownership was
>limited by its sheer unaffordability. Same as cars, though to a lesser
>degree. But in either case, did bikes stop selling because everyone who
>could afford one had one? I was under the impression that cycling lost
>much of its daredevil reputation once the safety took over.
>
>> For all but the wealthiest, cars were simply fantasies. Again, when
>> the bicycle boom was imploding in 1900, there were more ocean liners
>> in the harbors than there were automobiles in the entire U.S.
>>
>> Some of our exaggerated notions of how prolific cars were come from
>> Hollywood. It's much easier, quicker, and cheaper to fill a
>> blocked-off street with a convenient collection of old cars than to
>> fill the street with old horse-drawn wagons and coaches. This equine
>> censorship extends far beyond 1900. For example, Hollywood "history"
>> gives little hint that Hitler's army in Europe and Russia depended
>> heavily on horses. The first soldiers that Audie Murphy killed in 1943
>> were Italian officers fleeing on horseback, and he tells of hundreds
>> of horses in a German convoy, all killed by artillery in France.
>
>I started researching horse usage in WW II. Instead, I ended up with
>this:
>
>http://www.45thdivision.org/Photo_Gallery/gallery_Hall.htm
[snip]
>I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
>the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
>expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
>question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
>better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
>almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class.
>
>Perhaps yes, but then, it's priced like it is because it really cost
>that much.
>
>As a confirmed bike-nut (and a third-generation bike commuter (a label
>which I'm sure would impress my Dutch relatives only if their
>grandparents couldn't afford bicycles)), I totally understand why cars
>became more popular than bicycles with such rapidity: faster, more
>comfortable, easily enclosed against the elements, and with greater
>range. What's not to like?
Dear Ryan,
The U.S. bicycle boom around 1900 exhibits most of the characteristics
of a fad--sorry, but it's hard to get around that. Wildly increasing
sales peaked and then dropped like a rock in a few years, along with
magazine and newspaper coverage.
The same fad explanation applies to the later U.S. bike boom a few
decades ago.
(I'm not saying that "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of
Crowds" has all the answers, but it applies a lot more than we bike
nuts would like to believe.)
Partly bicycles were expensive, partly everyone in the relatively
small group that wanted a bicycle had gotten one. We U.S. bike nuts
today can't understand why other people aren't enthusiasts. They can't
understand why any grown-up would throw a thousand bucks (or our time)
away on a kid's toy.
As for riding Hitler's horse, it's a fun page, and the pictures show
that the U.S. was the first truly mechanized army. Everyone else still
had more horses than we realize. And tradition hung on pretty hard:
"West Point during World War II, by Tom Wicker."
"'When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7,1941,' Wicker
writes, 'the United States Military Academy was much like the Army of
which it was a proud part--outmoded and inadequate. The fancily
uniformed Corps of Cadets still trained on horseback three times a
week and had to learn how to load a 75 millimeter howitzer pack on
mules. Riding breeches still were a part of the required dress, not
to be discontinued until November 1942.'"
"But already big, and lasting, changes were in the works, and that is
the story Wicker tells. Motorized vehicles were substituted for
horses. 'Horsemanship' however was not altogether eliminated until
1947, when the last horses were 'withdrawn from the post.'"
http://www.kkpnyc.com/westpoint/westpoint_book_chapter.html
As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
:-)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 23:30:10
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:18:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>As for riding Hitler's horse, it's a fun page, and the pictures show
>that the U.S. was the first truly mechanized army. Everyone else still
>had more horses than we realize. And tradition hung on pretty hard:
Not even just everyone *else*. IIRC from somewhere or other, Hitler in
1940 still had more horses than mechanised transport in the Wehrmacht, and
I suspect the same applied, really, even to the US.
NL had actually phased out most of the horses and replaced them with
bicycles, though. We owned one tank in '40 and it was great war era,
pretty much surplus scrap.
Holding out for 5 days was really quite an accomplishment, even if it does
get you the surrendermonkey label when people aren't busy slinging it at
the french.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 21:00:17
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
> ...
> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
However, the Swiss Army used to have bicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
to purchase a Saris Bones.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 23:43:01
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:00:17 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
>> ...
>> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
>
>However, the Swiss Army used to have bicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
>had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
>to purchase a Saris Bones.
Unfortunately, the Swiss Bicycle Infantry Regiment was phased out in '01.
I'm glad I bothered to check before claiming they still had one though :)
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 11:13:08
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
> carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
>> ...
>> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
Tom Sherman wrote:
> However, the Swiss Army used to have bicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
> had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
> to purchase a Saris Bones.
If you can find the excellent but out of print "Bicycles in War", nearly
all nations, including USA, used bicycles militarily from the bicycle's
inception through mechanized warfare in the 1940s. After that, only
isolated cases remained. Notably, communist forces in Indochina used
bicycles effectively as we tried to interrupt mythical truck convoys.
Other great stories abound. The Swiss, who still have a Roman style
military service system, efficiently patrolled by bike until the program
was discontinued recently.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 14:08:42
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:13:08 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>> carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
>>> ...
>>> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
>
>Tom Sherman wrote:
>> However, the Swiss Army used to have bicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
>> had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
>> to purchase a Saris Bones.
>
>If you can find the excellent but out of print "Bicycles in War", nearly
>all nations, including USA, used bicycles militarily from the bicycle's
>inception through mechanized warfare in the 1940s. After that, only
>isolated cases remained. Notably, communist forces in Indochina used
>bicycles effectively as we tried to interrupt mythical truck convoys.
>Other great stories abound. The Swiss, who still have a Roman style
>military service system, efficiently patrolled by bike until the program
>was discontinued recently.
Dear Andrew,
Curse you, another $15 down the drain on out of print bicycle books!
And curse www.bookfinder.com for making it so easy!
And ditto for Martin Caidin, who wrote it, and whose books I like.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 15:48:06
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>>> carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> However, the Swiss Army used to have bicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
>>> had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
>>> to purchase a Saris Bones.
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> If you can find the excellent but out of print "Bicycles in War", nearly
>> all nations, including USA, used bicycles militarily from the bicycle's
>> inception through mechanized warfare in the 1940s. After that, only
>> isolated cases remained. Notably, communist forces in Indochina used
>> bicycles effectively as we tried to interrupt mythical truck convoys.
>> Other great stories abound. The Swiss, who still have a Roman style
>> military service system, efficiently patrolled by bike until the program
>> was discontinued recently.
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> Curse you, another $15 down the drain on out of print bicycle books!
> And curse www.bookfinder.com for making it so easy!
> And ditto for Martin Caidin, who wrote it, and whose books I like.
You'll love the center all-too-brief photo section. Ain't the net grand?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 21:15:30
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:18:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:11:59 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>...this certainly makes the strong case that bicycle ownership was
>>limited by its sheer unaffordability. Same as cars, though to a lesser
>>degree. But in either case, did bikes stop selling because everyone who
>>could afford one had one? I was under the impression that cycling lost
>>much of its daredevil reputation once the safety took over.
>>
>>> For all but the wealthiest, cars were simply fantasies. Again, when
>>> the bicycle boom was imploding in 1900, there were more ocean liners
>>> in the harbors than there were automobiles in the entire U.S.
>>>
>>> Some of our exaggerated notions of how prolific cars were come from
>>> Hollywood. It's much easier, quicker, and cheaper to fill a
>>> blocked-off street with a convenient collection of old cars than to
>>> fill the street with old horse-drawn wagons and coaches. This equine
>>> censorship extends far beyond 1900. For example, Hollywood "history"
>>> gives little hint that Hitler's army in Europe and Russia depended
>>> heavily on horses. The first soldiers that Audie Murphy killed in 1943
>>> were Italian officers fleeing on horseback, and he tells of hundreds
>>> of horses in a German convoy, all killed by artillery in France.
>>
>>I started researching horse usage in WW II. Instead, I ended up with
>>this:
>>
>>http://www.45thdivision.org/Photo_Gallery/gallery_Hall.htm
>
>[snip]
>
>>I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
>>the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
>>expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
>>question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
>>better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
>>almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class.
>>
>>Perhaps yes, but then, it's priced like it is because it really cost
>>that much.
>>
>>As a confirmed bike-nut (and a third-generation bike commuter (a label
>>which I'm sure would impress my Dutch relatives only if their
>>grandparents couldn't afford bicycles)), I totally understand why cars
>>became more popular than bicycles with such rapidity: faster, more
>>comfortable, easily enclosed against the elements, and with greater
>>range. What's not to like?
>
>Dear Ryan,
>
>The U.S. bicycle boom around 1900 exhibits most of the characteristics
>of a fad--sorry, but it's hard to get around that. Wildly increasing
>sales peaked and then dropped like a rock in a few years, along with
>magazine and newspaper coverage.
>
>The same fad explanation applies to the later U.S. bike boom a few
>decades ago.
>
>(I'm not saying that "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of
>Crowds" has all the answers, but it applies a lot more than we bike
>nuts would like to believe.)
>
>Partly bicycles were expensive, partly everyone in the relatively
>small group that wanted a bicycle had gotten one. We U.S. bike nuts
>today can't understand why other people aren't enthusiasts. They can't
>understand why any grown-up would throw a thousand bucks (or our time)
>away on a kid's toy.
>
>As for riding Hitler's horse, it's a fun page, and the pictures show
>that the U.S. was the first truly mechanized army. Everyone else still
>had more horses than we realize. And tradition hung on pretty hard:
>
>"West Point during World War II, by Tom Wicker."
>
>"'When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7,1941,' Wicker
>writes, 'the United States Military Academy was much like the Army of
>which it was a proud part--outmoded and inadequate. The fancily
>uniformed Corps of Cadets still trained on horseback three times a
>week and had to learn how to load a 75 millimeter howitzer pack on
>mules. Riding breeches still were a part of the required dress, not
>to be discontinued until November 1942.'"
>
>"But already big, and lasting, changes were in the works, and that is
>the story Wicker tells. Motorized vehicles were substituted for
>horses. 'Horsemanship' however was not altogether eliminated until
>1947, when the last horses were 'withdrawn from the post.'"
>
>http://www.kkpnyc.com/westpoint/westpoint_book_chapter.html
>
>As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
>
> :-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
From the free NYT archive for February 7, 1897, at the high point of
bicycle sales:
"Six or seven years ago it was believed that the bicycle had reached
the height of its popularity, and the numerous places where they were
in use at the rate of one to every hundred inhabitants was pointed to
as proof of the correctness of the assumption [], but the number has
steadly increased since that time , and to-day it would be difficult
to find a town where the proportion is not greater than this, and in
many cities it is claimed that there is one wheel to every ten
inhabitants."
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E00E3D81F31E132A25754C0A9649C94669ED7CF
So the claim was that one person out of ten could bicycle in 1897. The
other nine walked, rode the trolley, took a train, rode a horse, or
sat in a coach behind a horse. The rate was unlikely to have risen,
since the bike boom collapsed over the next few years, with yearly
sales dropping over 80% from around 2 million bike in a country that
reached 80 million.
Another way to look at the bike boom is to see how it was shown in
literature.
For example, Conan Doyle wrote the bulk of the Sherlock Holmes stories
during the rise of the safety bicycle and the bike boom and collapse,
from 1887 to 1904. (There was more of Holmes, but only after a
decade-long hiatus.)
But Holmes never rides a bicycle anywhere. He takes hansom cabs or
trains and orders "four-wheelers" when it's too far to walk. Holmes
probably couldn't ride a bicycle any more than Watson could solve a
mystery. Doyle wasn't aware of hordes of Englishmen bicycling because
his keen powers of observation revealed that there weren't any hordes,
just a group of enthusiasts who wildly overestimated how appealing
bicycles are.
The only bicycles that I recall in the Holmes canon are the famous
ones in the "The Adventure of the Priory School", about which Holmes
makes all sorts of outlandish deductions--he can identify forty-two
kinds of bicycle tires from their tracks*, can spot the mark left by a
patch on a tire track, and can easily tell that the rider is standing
to sprint and weaving. Holmes knows that the "hind" wheel bears more
weight and therefore makes a deeper impression and claims to be able
to tell which way the tracks were heading, and so on.
Most of this bicycle expertise is implausible nonsense, of course,
like so much of Holmes's observation and deduction, flowing from
Doyle's pen rather than any local bike shop.
And Holmes obviously screws up the main point of the bicycle case.
As Frank Krygowski explains in his monograph "Thick-Headed Holmes and
the Dangerous Bicycle: A Plea for Mandatory Helmet Laws in
Literature," there's an obvious deduction to be drawn from the
following passage, and it ain't murder:
"Our search was not a very long one. The tracks of the tyre began to
curve fantastically upon the wet and shining path. Suddenly, as I
looked ahead, the gleam of metal caught my eye from amid the thick
gorse bushes. Out of them we dragged a bicycle, Palmer-tyred, one
pedal bent, and the whole front of it horribly smeared and slobbered
with blood. On the other side of the bushes a shoe was projecting. We
ran round, and there lay the unfortunate rider. He was a tall man,
full bearded, with spectacles, one glass of which had been knocked
out. The cause of his death was a frightful blow upon the head, which
had crushed in part of his skull."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Priory_School
Like the dog that did not bark in the night, the word "helmet" does
not appear in the story about bicycles.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
* And Jobst wonders why bicycle manufacturers insist on tread
patterns! If they were all smooth, how could Holmes tell them apart?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 13:22:51
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>> [snip]
>>> ...this certainly makes the strong case that bicycle ownership was
>>> limited by its sheer unaffordability. Same as cars, though to a lesser
>>> degree. But in either case, did bikes stop selling because everyone who
>>> could afford one had one? I was under the impression that cycling lost
>>> much of its daredevil reputation once the safety took over.
>>>
>>>> For all but the wealthiest, cars were simply fantasies. Again, when
>>>> the bicycle boom was imploding in 1900, there were more ocean liners
>>>> in the harbors than there were automobiles in the entire U.S.
-snip-
>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>>> I started researching horse usage in WW II. Instead, I ended up with
>>> this:
>>> http://www.45thdivision.org/Photo_Gallery/gallery_Hall.htm
>> [snip]
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> From the free NYT archive for February 7, 1897, at the high point of
> bicycle sales:
>
> "Six or seven years ago it was believed that the bicycle had reached
> the height of its popularity, and the numerous places where they were
> in use at the rate of one to every hundred inhabitants was pointed to
> as proof of the correctness of the assumption [], but the number has
> steadly increased since that time , and to-day it would be difficult
> to find a town where the proportion is not greater than this, and in
> many cities it is claimed that there is one wheel to every ten
> inhabitants."
> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E00E3D81F31E132A25754C0A9649C94669ED7CF
>
> So the claim was that one person out of ten could bicycle in 1897. The
> other nine walked, rode the trolley, took a train, rode a horse, or
-snip-
> For example, Conan Doyle wrote the bulk of the Sherlock Holmes stories
> during the rise of the safety bicycle and the bike boom and collapse,
> from 1887 to 1904. (There was more of Holmes, but only after a
> decade-long hiatus.)
>
> But Holmes never rides a bicycle anywhere. He takes hansom cabs or
> trains and orders "four-wheelers" when it's too far to walk. Holmes
> probably couldn't ride a bicycle any more than Watson could solve a
> mystery. Doyle wasn't aware of hordes of Englishmen bicycling because
> his keen powers of observation revealed that there weren't any hordes,
> just a group of enthusiasts who wildly overestimated how appealing
> bicycles are.
>
> The only bicycles that I recall in the Holmes canon are the famous
> ones in the "The Adventure of the Priory School", about which Holmes
> makes all sorts of outlandish deductions--he can identify forty-two
> kinds of bicycle tires from their tracks*, can spot the mark left by a
> patch on a tire track, and can easily tell that the rider is standing
> to sprint and weaving. Holmes knows that the "hind" wheel bears more
> weight and therefore makes a deeper impression and claims to be able
> to tell which way the tracks were heading, and so on.
>
> Most of this bicycle expertise is implausible nonsense, of course,
> like so much of Holmes's observation and deduction, flowing from
> Doyle's pen rather than any local bike shop.
>
> And Holmes obviously screws up the main point of the bicycle case.
>
> As Frank Krygowski explains in his monograph "Thick-Headed Holmes and
> the Dangerous Bicycle: A Plea for Mandatory Helmet Laws in
> Literature," there's an obvious deduction to be drawn from the
> following passage, and it ain't murder:
>
> "Our search was not a very long one. The tracks of the tyre began to
> curve fantastically upon the wet and shining path. Suddenly, as I
> looked ahead, the gleam of metal caught my eye from amid the thick
> gorse bushes. Out of them we dragged a bicycle, Palmer-tyred, one
> pedal bent, and the whole front of it horribly smeared and slobbered
> with blood. On the other side of the bushes a shoe was projecting. We
> ran round, and there lay the unfortunate rider. He was a tall man,
> full bearded, with spectacles, one glass of which had been knocked
> out. The cause of his death was a frightful blow upon the head, which
> had crushed in part of his skull."
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Priory_School
>
> Like the dog that did not bark in the night, the word "helmet" does
> not appear in the story about bicycles.
> * And Jobst wonders why bicycle manufacturers insist on tread
> patterns! If they were all smooth, how could Holmes tell them apart?
IIRC, the last time the Holmes' deduction of a bike's direction of
travel across the moor was discussed, we decided that Conan-Doyle
assumed a front and rear tire tread were different and distinctive.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 18:46:29
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Andrew Muzi writes:
>>>> ...this certainly makes the strong case that bicycle ownership
>>>> was limited by its sheer unaffordability. Same as cars, though
>>>> to a lesser degree. But in either case, did bikes stop selling
>>>> because everyone who could afford one had one? I was under the
>>>> impression that cycling lost much of its daredevil reputation
>>>> once the safety took over.
>>>>> For all but the wealthiest, cars were simply fantasies. Again,
>>>>> when the bicycle boom was imploding in 1900, there were more
>>>>> ocean liners in the harbors than there were automobiles in the
>>>>> entire U.S.
>>>> I started researching horse usage in WW II. Instead, I ended up
>>>> with this:
http://www.45thdivision.org/Photo_Gallery/gallery_Hall.htm
>> From the free NYT archive for February 7, 1897, at the high point
>> of bicycle sales:
>> "Six or seven years ago it was believed that the bicycle had
>> reached the height of its popularity, and the numerous places where
>> they were in use at the rate of one to every hundred inhabitants
>> was pointed to as proof of the correctness of the assumption [],
>> but the number has steadily increased since that time , and to-day
>> it would be difficult to find a town where the proportion is not
>> greater than this, and in many cities it is claimed that there is
>> one wheel to every ten inhabitants."
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E00E3D81F31E132A25754C0A9649C94669ED7CF
>> So the claim was that one person out of ten could bicycle in 1897.
>> The other nine walked, rode the trolley, took a train, rode a
>> horse, or
>> For example, Conan Doyle wrote the bulk of the Sherlock Holmes
>> stories during the rise of the safety bicycle and the bike boom and
>> collapse, from 1887 to 1904. (There was more of Holmes, but only
>> after a decade-long hiatus.)
>> But Holmes never rides a bicycle anywhere. He takes hansom cabs or
>> trains and orders "four-wheelers" when it's too far to walk.
>> Holmes probably couldn't ride a bicycle any more than Watson could
>> solve a mystery. Doyle wasn't aware of hordes of Englishmen
>> bicycling because his keen powers of observation revealed that
>> there weren't any hordes, just a group of enthusiasts who wildly
>> overestimated how appealing bicycles are.
>> The only bicycles that I recall in the Holmes canon are the famous
>> ones in the "The Adventure of the Priory School", about which
>> Holmes makes all sorts of outlandish deductions--he can identify
>> forty-two kinds of bicycle tires from their tracks*, can spot the
>> mark left by a patch on a tire track, and can easily tell that the
>> rider is standing to sprint and weaving. Holmes knows that the
>> "hind" wheel bears more weight and therefore makes a deeper
>> impression and claims to be able to tell which way the tracks were
>> heading, and so on.
>> Most of this bicycle expertise is implausible nonsense, of course,
>> like so much of Holmes's observation and deduction, flowing from
>> Doyle's pen rather than any local bike shop.
>> And Holmes obviously screws up the main point of the bicycle case.
>> As Frank Krygowski explains in his monograph "Thick-Headed Holmes
>> and the Dangerous Bicycle: A Plea for Mandatory Helmet Laws in
>> Literature," there's an obvious deduction to be drawn from the
>> following passage, and it ain't murder:
>> "Our search was not a very long one. The tracks of the tyre began
>> to curve fantastically upon the wet and shining path. Suddenly, as
>> I looked ahead, the gleam of metal caught my eye from amid the
>> thick gorse bushes. Out of them we dragged a bicycle,
>> Palmer-tyred, one pedal bent, and the whole front of it horribly
>> smeared and slobbered with blood. On the other side of the bushes
>> a shoe was projecting. We ran round, and there lay the unfortunate
>> rider. He was a tall man, full bearded, with spectacles, one glass
>> of which had been knocked out. The cause of his death was a
>> frightful blow upon the head, which had crushed in part of his
>> skull."
>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Priory_School
>> Like the dog that did not bark in the night, the word "helmet" does
>> not appear in the story about bicycles.
>> * And Jobst wonders why bicycle manufacturers insist on tread
>> patterns! If they were all smooth, how could Holmes tell them
>> apart?
> IIRC, the last time the Holmes' deduction of a bike's direction of
> travel across the moor was discussed, we decided that Conan-Doyle
> assumed a front and rear tire tread were different and distinctive.
With a high wheeler, that is more questionable than with today's
conventional bicycles.
Direction of travel is undetectable, even if the front and rear tread
is different unless the rear wheel was slipping. Rear wheel tracks
ride over front wheel tracks in either direction and look the same in
both events. Only on steeper grades can one tell that the rider was
coasting downhill if the tracks are straight or riding uphill if the
tracks weave a bit.
Braking skids of the rear wheel look different from traction slip
where the appearance of debris from slips can reveal direction of
travel on steeper dirt roads .
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 23:56:09
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On 17 Oct 2007 18:46:29 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>Andrew Muzi writes:
[snip]
>>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Priory_School
[snip]
>> IIRC, the last time the Holmes' deduction of a bike's direction of
>> travel across the moor was discussed, we decided that Conan-Doyle
>> assumed a front and rear tire tread were different and distinctive.
>
>With a high wheeler, that is more questionable than with today's
>conventional bicycles.
[snip]
Dear Jobst,
Lest there be any confusion, the bicycles in "The Adventure of the
Priory School" are modern small-wheeled safety bicycles, not
high-wheeler penny-farthings.
***
A highwheeler puts most of its weight on the huge front wheel, but
Holmes claims that he can read the tracks clearly:
"No, no, my dear Watson. The more deeply sunk impression is, of
course, the hind wheel, upon which the weight rests."
So this one is a safety bicycle, with our modern rear-wheel weight
bias, not a high-wheeler.
If you use the vertical lines in the background to draw a line down
from where the rider will be seated, this picture shows the huge
forward weight bias that made high-wheelers so prone to face-plants:
http://i2.tinypic.com/4tz3tp0.jpg
This picture shows the same forward weight bias:
http://i18.tinypic.com/4lf9qiv.jpg
***
Holmes also claims to be able to distinguish the two bicycles by their
tread marks, one being equipped with Dunlop tires, the other with
Palmer tires:
"'I am familiar with forty-two different impressions left by tyres.
This, as you perceive, is a Dunlop, with a patch upon the outer cover.
Heidegger's tyres were Palmer's, leaving longitudinal stripes.'"
Dunlop tires were, of course, inflatable--Dunlop invented the
inflatable tire and put it on his son's safety bicycle. Only
inflatable tires are patched.
The Palmer tires were ribbed lengthwise, with tread patterns being
another mark of an inflatable tire.
In contrast, high wheelers used smooth solid rubber tires that varied
only in width and color (red was supposedly the best kind of tire
rubber).
The smooth solid tires had no tread pattern, any more than wagon
wheels did. Basically, if you worried about traction, you wouldn't be
riding up high on what's basically a giant unicycle with a trailing
training wheel. If you slip or skid on a safety bike, you have some
hopes of recovering by planting a foot. If you slip or skid on a
high-wheeler, you crash.
Indeed, if the bikes had been high-wheelers, Holmes would have spotted
not the mark left by a patch on a safety bike's inflatable tire, but
the mark left by the joint the ends of the solid tire were joined.
For details of mounting a solid rubber tire with a wire core:
http://www.bikeroute.com/HiWheelers/HowMountTire.php
You cut a length of tire, wrap it around the rim, push the rubber back
with a clever tool to expose the wire ends, hook or braze the ends
together, release the tool, and let the rubber ends expand back to
form a tight joint.
Or Holmes might have spotted the marks where the rubber tire was
simply wired onto the rim in a crude fashion on some high-wheelers,
much like the marks of snow chains:
http://www.tampere.fi/kuvat/5mv0TWCr7/velomania_isop_det.jpg
***
Dates strongly suggest that no high-wheelers appear in the story.
Holmes says that the Duke has been "Lord Lieutenant of Hallamshire
since 1900."
The story was published in 1904.
But high-wheelers were practically extinct by 1890, wiped out by
safety bicycles just five years after the Starley Rover appeared. My
lists of high-wheeler pictures shows nothing dated after 1889--they
were no longer being manufactured.
Just how quickly high-wheelers vanished is shown by Sharp's 1896
"Bicycles and Tricycles." The cover illustration of the Dover reprint
is misleading because it shows a high-wheeler from the text, but
high-wheelers appear on only 5 pages of the 536-page book.
In other words, by 1896 high-wheelers were barely worth mentioning in
an enormously detailed book about bicycles that must have taken quite
a while to write.
(Incidentally, you can see the bias-belt construction of a "Palmer"
tire in chapter 29 of Sharp's book--it's a tubular tire.)
Two people might still have been riding obsolete high-wheelers in
1904, but it's unlikely.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 17:35:56
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Carl Fogel writes:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Priory_School
>>> IIRC, the last time the Holmes' deduction of a bike's direction of
>>> travel across the moor was discussed, we decided that Conan-Doyle
>>> assumed a front and rear tire tread were different and distinctive.
>> With a high wheeler, that is more questionable than with today's
>> conventional bicycles.
I mentioned that because such a bicycle was shown in one of the
responses.
> Lest there be any confusion, the bicycles in "The Adventure of the
> Priory School" are modern small-wheeled safety bicycles, not
> high-wheeler penny-farthings.
> ***
> A high wheeler puts most of its weight on the huge front wheel, but
> Holmes claims that he can read the tracks clearly:
> "No, no, my dear Watson. The more deeply sunk impression is, of
> course, the hind wheel, upon which the weight rests."
So? He is still off base. How does he know which direction the track
he observes was made? As I said, on dirt roads I can only tell when
there is a gradient and downhill tracks are straighter than uphill
tracks.
> So this one is a safety bicycle, with our modern rear-wheel weight
> bias, not a high-wheeler.
The weight on the wheels has no bearing on the problem. The rear wheel
rolls over the track of the front wheel in either direction.
> If you use the vertical lines in the background to draw a line down
> from where the rider will be seated, this picture shows the huge
> forward weight bias that made high-wheelers so prone to face-plants:
http://i2.tinypic.com/4tz3tp0.jpg
> This picture shows the same forward weight bias:
http://i18.tinypic.com/4lf9qiv.jpg
> Holmes also claims to be able to distinguish the two bicycles by
> their tread marks, one being equipped with Dunlop tires, the other
> with Palmer tires:
> "'I am familiar with forty-two different impressions left by tyres.
> This, as you perceive, is a Dunlop, with a patch upon the outer
> cover. Heidegger's tyres were Palmer's, leaving longitudinal
> stripes.'"
I'm nor certain but early bicycle tires were mostly smooth. I get the
feeling that Doyle armchair invented much of his "logic" and over did
it in the bicycle realm.
> Dunlop tires were, of course, inflatable--Dunlop invented the
> inflatable tire and put it on his son's safety bicycle. Only
> inflatable tires are patched.
> The Palmer tires were ribbed lengthwise, with tread patterns being
> another mark of an inflatable tire.
I would like to see some dates when mini auto tread patterns first
appeared on bicycle tires. Many tubulars that I rode still had smooth
tread before mini diamond dimples and mini ribbed tread came along.
> In contrast, high wheelers used smooth solid rubber tires that
> varied only in width and color (red was supposedly the best kind of
> tire rubber).
> The smooth solid tires had no tread pattern, any more than wagon
> wheels did. Basically, if you worried about traction, you wouldn't
> be riding up high on what's basically a giant unicycle with a
> trailing training wheel. If you slip or skid on a safety bike, you
> have some hopes of recovering by planting a foot. If you slip or
> skid on a high-wheeler, you crash.
> Indeed, if the bikes had been high-wheelers, Holmes would have
> spotted not the mark left by a patch on a safety bike's inflatable
> tire, but the mark left by the joint the ends of the solid tire were
> joined.
Not so. The seam of a well mounted solid tire is not discernible and
I assume, in the days of such wheels, there were plenty of experts in
that task.
> For details of mounting a solid rubber tire with a wire core:
> http://www.bikeroute.com/HiWheelers/HowMountTire.php
> You cut a length of tire, wrap it around the rim, push the rubber
> back with a clever tool to expose the wire ends, hook or braze the
> ends together, release the tool, and let the rubber ends expand back
> to form a tight joint.
I have a high wheeler rider in my neighborhood who can tell you all
about it. His tires are red and fit soundly without perceptible seam.
> Or Holmes might have spotted the marks where the rubber tire was
> simply wired onto the rim in a crude fashion on some high-wheelers,
> much like the marks of snow chains:
http://www.tampere.fi/kuvat/5mv0TWCr7/velomania_isop_det.jpg
> Dates strongly suggest that no high-wheelers appear in the story.
> Holmes says that the Duke has been "Lord Lieutenant of Hallamshire
> since 1900."
> The story was published in 1904.
> But high-wheelers were practically extinct by 1890, wiped out by
> safety bicycles just five years after the Starley Rover appeared.
> My lists of high-wheeler pictures shows nothing dated after
> 1889--they were no longer being manufactured.
> Just how quickly high-wheelers vanished is shown by Sharp's 1896
> "Bicycles and Tricycles." The cover illustration of the Dover
> reprint is misleading because it shows a high-wheeler from the text,
> but high-wheelers appear on only 5 pages of the 536-page book.
> In other words, by 1896 high-wheelers were barely worth mentioning in
> an enormously detailed book about bicycles that must have taken quite
> a while to write.
> (Incidentally, you can see the bias-belt construction of a "Palmer"
> tire in chapter 29 of Sharp's book--it's a tubular tire.)
> Two people might still have been riding obsolete high-wheelers in
> 1904, but it's unlikely.
All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of a
passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a dirt
road.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 14:12:01
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On 18 Oct 2007 17:35:56 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
[snip]
>All this has no bearing on Doyle's suggestion that the direction of a
>passing bicycle can be assessed from the track it leaves on a dirt
>road.
>
>Jobst Brandt
Dear Jobst,
Whoosh!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 08:46:38
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2007 18:46:29 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>> Andrew Muzi writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Priory_School
>
> [snip]
>
>>> IIRC, the last time the Holmes' deduction of a bike's direction of
>>> travel across the moor was discussed, we decided that Conan-Doyle
>>> assumed a front and rear tire tread were different and distinctive.
>> With a high wheeler, that is more questionable than with today's
>> conventional bicycles.
>
> [snip]
The original illustrations are a dead giveaway too! ;)
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 18:45:35
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > writes:
>>>> ...this certainly makes the strong case that bicycle ownership
>>>> was limited by its sheer unaffordability. Same as cars, though
>>>> to a lesser degree. But in either case, did bikes stop selling
>>>> because everyone who could afford one had one? I was under the
>>>> impression that cycling lost much of its daredevil reputation
>>>> once the safety took over.
>>>>> For all but the wealthiest, cars were simply fantasies. Again,
>>>>> when the bicycle boom was imploding in 1900, there were more
>>>>> ocean liners in the harbors than there were automobiles in the
>>>>> entire U.S.
>>>> I started researching horse usage in WW II. Instead, I ended up
>>>> with this:
http://www.45thdivision.org/Photo_Gallery/gallery_Hall.htm
>> From the free NYT archive for February 7, 1897, at the high point
>> of bicycle sales:
>> "Six or seven years ago it was believed that the bicycle had
>> reached the height of its popularity, and the numerous places where
>> they were in use at the rate of one to every hundred inhabitants
>> was pointed to as proof of the correctness of the assumption [],
>> but the number has steadily increased since that time , and to-day
>> it would be difficult to find a town where the proportion is not
>> greater than this, and in many cities it is claimed that there is
>> one wheel to every ten inhabitants."
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E00E3D81F31E132A25754C0A9649C94669ED7CF
>> So the claim was that one person out of ten could bicycle in 1897.
>> The other nine walked, rode the trolley, took a train, rode a
>> horse, or
>> For example, Conan Doyle wrote the bulk of the Sherlock Holmes
>> stories during the rise of the safety bicycle and the bike boom and
>> collapse, from 1887 to 1904. (There was more of Holmes, but only
>> after a decade-long hiatus.)
>> But Holmes never rides a bicycle anywhere. He takes hansom cabs or
>> trains and orders "four-wheelers" when it's too far to walk.
>> Holmes probably couldn't ride a bicycle any more than Watson could
>> solve a mystery. Doyle wasn't aware of hordes of Englishmen
>> bicycling because his keen powers of observation revealed that
>> there weren't any hordes, just a group of enthusiasts who wildly
>> overestimated how appealing bicycles are.
>> The only bicycles that I recall in the Holmes canon are the famous
>> ones in the "The Adventure of the Priory School", about which
>> Holmes makes all sorts of outlandish deductions--he can identify
>> forty-two kinds of bicycle tires from their tracks*, can spot the
>> mark left by a patch on a tire track, and can easily tell that the
>> rider is standing to sprint and weaving. Holmes knows that the
>> "hind" wheel bears more weight and therefore makes a deeper
>> impression and claims to be able to tell which way the tracks were
>> heading, and so on.
>> Most of this bicycle expertise is implausible nonsense, of course,
>> like so much of Holmes's observation and deduction, flowing from
>> Doyle's pen rather than any local bike shop.
>> And Holmes obviously screws up the main point of the bicycle case.
>> As Frank Krygowski explains in his monograph "Thick-Headed Holmes
>> and the Dangerous Bicycle: A Plea for Mandatory Helmet Laws in
>> Literature," there's an obvious deduction to be drawn from the
>> following passage, and it ain't murder:
>> "Our search was not a very long one. The tracks of the tyre began
>> to curve fantastically upon the wet and shining path. Suddenly, as
>> I looked ahead, the gleam of metal caught my eye from amid the
>> thick gorse bushes. Out of them we dragged a bicycle,
>> Palmer-tyred, one pedal bent, and the whole front of it horribly
>> smeared and slobbered with blood. On the other side of the bushes
>> a shoe was projecting. We ran round, and there lay the unfortunate
>> rider. He was a tall man, full bearded, with spectacles, one glass
>> of which had been knocked out. The cause of his death was a
>> frightful blow upon the head, which had crushed in part of his
>> skull."
>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Priory_School
>> Like the dog that did not bark in the night, the word "helmet" does
>> not appear in the story about bicycles.
>> * And Jobst wonders why bicycle manufacturers insist on tread
>> patterns! If they were all smooth, how could Holmes tell them
>> apart?
> IIRC, the last time the Holmes' deduction of a bike's direction of
> travel across the moor was discussed, we decided that Conan-Doyle
> assumed a front and rear tire tread were different and distinctive.
With a high wheeler, that is more questionable than with today's
conventional bicycles.
Direction of travel is undetectable, even if the front and rear tread
is different unless the rear wheel was slipping. Rear wheel tracks
ride over front wheel tracks in either direction and look the same in
both events. Only on steeper grades can one tell that the rider was
coasting downhill if the tracks are straight or riding uphill if the
tracks weave a bit.
Braking skids of the rear wheel look different from traction slip
where the appearance of debris from slips can reveal direction of
travel on steeper dirt roads .
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 23:48:30
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:15:30 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:18:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:11:59 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>...this certainly makes the strong case that bicycle ownership was
>>>limited by its sheer unaffordability. Same as cars, though to a lesser
>>>degree. But in either case, did bikes stop selling because everyone who
>>>could afford one had one? I was under the impression that cycling lost
>>>much of its daredevil reputation once the safety took over.
>>>
>>>> For all but the wealthiest, cars were simply fantasies. Again, when
>>>> the bicycle boom was imploding in 1900, there were more ocean liners
>>>> in the harbors than there were automobiles in the entire U.S.
>>>>
>>>> Some of our exaggerated notions of how prolific cars were come from
>>>> Hollywood. It's much easier, quicker, and cheaper to fill a
>>>> blocked-off street with a convenient collection of old cars than to
>>>> fill the street with old horse-drawn wagons and coaches. This equine
>>>> censorship extends far beyond 1900. For example, Hollywood "history"
>>>> gives little hint that Hitler's army in Europe and Russia depended
>>>> heavily on horses. The first soldiers that Audie Murphy killed in 1943
>>>> were Italian officers fleeing on horseback, and he tells of hundreds
>>>> of horses in a German convoy, all killed by artillery in France.
>>>
>>>I started researching horse usage in WW II. Instead, I ended up with
>>>this:
>>>
>>>http://www.45thdivision.org/Photo_Gallery/gallery_Hall.htm
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I'm not going to pretend I want to pursue this deeply enough to get to
>>>the bottom of the question of whether bicycles were too expensive to
>>>expand to a wider audience or not. I do stubbornly suspect that the
>>>question is a bit like asking whether the Mercedes S-Class would sell
>>>better if it was the same price as a Honda Civic, and thus affordable to
>>>almost any person likely to consider themselves middle class.
>>>
>>>Perhaps yes, but then, it's priced like it is because it really cost
>>>that much.
>>>
>>>As a confirmed bike-nut (and a third-generation bike commuter (a label
>>>which I'm sure would impress my Dutch relatives only if their
>>>grandparents couldn't afford bicycles)), I totally understand why cars
>>>became more popular than bicycles with such rapidity: faster, more
>>>comfortable, easily enclosed against the elements, and with greater
>>>range. What's not to like?
>>
>>Dear Ryan,
>>
>>The U.S. bicycle boom around 1900 exhibits most of the characteristics
>>of a fad--sorry, but it's hard to get around that. Wildly increasing
>>sales peaked and then dropped like a rock in a few years, along with
>>magazine and newspaper coverage.
>>
>>The same fad explanation applies to the later U.S. bike boom a few
>>decades ago.
>>
>>(I'm not saying that "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of
>>Crowds" has all the answers, but it applies a lot more than we bike
>>nuts would like to believe.)
>>
>>Partly bicycles were expensive, partly everyone in the relatively
>>small group that wanted a bicycle had gotten one. We U.S. bike nuts
>>today can't understand why other people aren't enthusiasts. They can't
>>understand why any grown-up would throw a thousand bucks (or our time)
>>away on a kid's toy.
>>
>>As for riding Hitler's horse, it's a fun page, and the pictures show
>>that the U.S. was the first truly mechanized army. Everyone else still
>>had more horses than we realize. And tradition hung on pretty hard:
>>
>>"West Point during World War II, by Tom Wicker."
>>
>>"'When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7,1941,' Wicker
>>writes, 'the United States Military Academy was much like the Army of
>>which it was a proud part--outmoded and inadequate. The fancily
>>uniformed Corps of Cadets still trained on horseback three times a
>>week and had to learn how to load a 75 millimeter howitzer pack on
>>mules. Riding breeches still were a part of the required dress, not
>>to be discontinued until November 1942.'"
>>
>>"But already big, and lasting, changes were in the works, and that is
>>the story Wicker tells. Motorized vehicles were substituted for
>>horses. 'Horsemanship' however was not altogether eliminated until
>>1947, when the last horses were 'withdrawn from the post.'"
>>
>>http://www.kkpnyc.com/westpoint/westpoint_book_chapter.html
>>
>>As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>From the free NYT archive for February 7, 1897, at the high point of
>bicycle sales:
>
>"Six or seven years ago it was believed that the bicycle had reached
>the height of its popularity, and the numerous places where they were
>in use at the rate of one to every hundred inhabitants was pointed to
>as proof of the correctness of the assumption [], but the number has
>steadly increased since that time , and to-day it would be difficult
>to find a town where the proportion is not greater than this, and in
>many cities it is claimed that there is one wheel to every ten
>inhabitants."
>
>
>http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E00E3D81F31E132A25754C0A9649C94669ED7CF
>
>So the claim was that one person out of ten could bicycle in 1897. The
>other nine walked, rode the trolley, took a train, rode a horse, or
>sat in a coach behind a horse. The rate was unlikely to have risen,
>since the bike boom collapsed over the next few years, with yearly
>sales dropping over 80% from around 2 million bike in a country that
>reached 80 million.
>
>Another way to look at the bike boom is to see how it was shown in
>literature.
>
>For example, Conan Doyle wrote the bulk of the Sherlock Holmes stories
>during the rise of the safety bicycle and the bike boom and collapse,
>from 1887 to 1904. (There was more of Holmes, but only after a
>decade-long hiatus.)
>
>But Holmes never rides a bicycle anywhere. He takes hansom cabs or
>trains and orders "four-wheelers" when it's too far to walk. Holmes
>probably couldn't ride a bicycle any more than Watson could solve a
>mystery. Doyle wasn't aware of hordes of Englishmen bicycling because
>his keen powers of observation revealed that there weren't any hordes,
>just a group of enthusiasts who wildly overestimated how appealing
>bicycles are.
>
>The only bicycles that I recall in the Holmes canon are the famous
>ones in the "The Adventure of the Priory School", about which Holmes
>makes all sorts of outlandish deductions--he can identify forty-two
>kinds of bicycle tires from their tracks*, can spot the mark left by a
>patch on a tire track, and can easily tell that the rider is standing
>to sprint and weaving. Holmes knows that the "hind" wheel bears more
>weight and therefore makes a deeper impression and claims to be able
>to tell which way the tracks were heading, and so on.
>
>Most of this bicycle expertise is implausible nonsense, of course,
>like so much of Holmes's observation and deduction, flowing from
>Doyle's pen rather than any local bike shop.
>
>And Holmes obviously screws up the main point of the bicycle case.
>
>As Frank Krygowski explains in his monograph "Thick-Headed Holmes and
>the Dangerous Bicycle: A Plea for Mandatory Helmet Laws in
>Literature," there's an obvious deduction to be drawn from the
>following passage, and it ain't murder:
>
>"Our search was not a very long one. The tracks of the tyre began to
>curve fantastically upon the wet and shining path. Suddenly, as I
>looked ahead, the gleam of metal caught my eye from amid the thick
>gorse bushes. Out of them we dragged a bicycle, Palmer-tyred, one
>pedal bent, and the whole front of it horribly smeared and slobbered
>with blood. On the other side of the bushes a shoe was projecting. We
>ran round, and there lay the unfortunate rider. He was a tall man,
>full bearded, with spectacles, one glass of which had been knocked
>out. The cause of his death was a frightful blow upon the head, which
>had crushed in part of his skull."
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Priory_School
>
>Like the dog that did not bark in the night, the word "helmet" does
>not appear in the story about bicycles.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
>
>* And Jobst wonders why bicycle manufacturers insist on tread
>patterns! If they were all smooth, how could Holmes tell them apart?
This January 1901 article from the free NYT archive gives a good idea
of the collapse of the bike boom when compared to reality. It's pretty
much a reporter putting the best face on price-slashing, dropped
sponsorships, and the racing line dying:
"A significant feature in the present bicycle show at the Madison
Square Garden [basically Interbike 1901] is the small space occupied
by the racing whee. This is in marked contrast to the shows three
years ago and more, when the racer attracted a large part of the
bicycle interest. Almost every big firm then was employing
professional riders to use their machines and establish new records.
Scores of these worn and battered wheels were exhibited as trophies of
the track. Now scarcely one is to be seen. With the exception of the
one ridden by Floyd A. McFarland, when he won the recent six-day
bicycle race wtih Elkes, and the wheel upon which Charles M. Murphy
made his mile record of 57 4-5 seconds, scarcely a professional racer
is to be seen."
"Nearly every big concern, however, shows a racing machine, but
without exception they all admit that there is very little demand for
them."
"'The easy days of the professional cyclist are gone,' said one
salesman. 'Why, a professional can't hardly get a wheel now unless he
pays his money down like any other ordinary individual.'"
"The tendency of the year is runnig for strongly in favor of
comfortable, all-around roadsters. With their cushion frames, smaller
tubing, less clumsy tires, coaster brakes, and other modern appliances
for ease and lightness, the roadster of to-day is a model of neatenss
and durability, beside which the standard price one-hundred-dollar
wheel of three years ago [1898, near the height of the boom] appears
heavy and uncouth. The best racing machines may be purchased from $50
to $75, while well-made roadsters run from $25 to $50. One firm is
showing an excellent racer for $40, while its highest-priced chain
roadster is $35. The chainless [shaft-drive] wheels are higher, from
$60 to $75."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=940CE3DC1330E132A25754C1A9679C946097D6CF
The article goes on with quotes about how the bikes are not being
cheapened but are actually improved and talks about the booming new
motorcycle market.
It's a good example of an ostensibly objective news article slanting
things furiously.
Prices had fallen from $100 to $25-$35, but that was still very
expensive, and the cheapest $25 bikes were about like the cheapest
bikes today--not what you really want.
With almost no demand, racing bikes were sitting unsold, and the
healthy professional racing circuit was collapsing, so the
manufacturers stopped sponsoring riders. When riders won't buy the new
model that Joe GoFast wins on, the fad is fading.
Prices were being slashed. The new bikes were indeed better, but the
customers just didn't care because they weren't buying bicycles.
As for the marvelous new motorcycle market "boom" . . . Well, it would
be three years--1901, 1902, 1903--before Harley-Davidson and Indian
sold a grand total of 6 motorcycles.
By then, the NYT had practically abandoned the regular bicycle
articles that filled its pages during the boom. "Outing" magazine,
which had been founded as a bike magazine (complete with poetry and
sheet music about cycling), did the same, dropping even its reduced
bicycle page.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 17:00:42
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:10:41 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
>> Apparently they're so serious about cycling that they're all scrambling to
>> get cars instead, and bikes are rapidly disappearing from cities.
>
> Are they really?
Yep. My parents have been there twice in the last few, and they say
the decline is dramatic. If I were looking to profitably sell bikes in
China now, I'd be targeting the same nouveau riche who are getting cars.
I think using a bike as a virtuous transportation choice is a strictly
Western phenomenon :-)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 20:54:09
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:00:42 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au >
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:10:41 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
>
>>> Apparently they're so serious about cycling that they're all scrambling to
>>> get cars instead, and bikes are rapidly disappearing from cities.
>>
>> Are they really?
>
>Yep. My parents have been there twice in the last few, and they say
>the decline is dramatic.
It is. When I first visited Peking in 1993, you could drive across it
in little more than half an hour. These days, depending on the
traffic jams, it could take three to four times that long.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 09:19:18
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <545v7l1pxhey.toa2wc9cg4o9$.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> I think using a bike as a virtuous transportation choice is a
> strictly Western phenomenon :-)
Well, yes- currently at least. 30 years from now that may be a
different story. In most parts of the world where there's a lot of
cycling, bikes are just normal transportation. Inhabitants of the US,
Canda and western Europe are among the few people in the world who have
significant amounts of leisure time and disposable income.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 06:53:56
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>> > Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
>> > exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
>> > their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
>> > for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
>> > company a profit, are somehow not serious.
>>
>> Apparently they're so serious about cycling that they're all scrambling
>> to
>> get cars instead, and bikes are rapidly disappearing from cities.
>
> Are they really?
Unfortunately, in some areas, they are in fact squeezing bikes out in favor
of cars.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/08/cars-conquering-the-bicycle-kingdom/
Strange, but true.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 00:47:47
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Chalo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>
>>> No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
>>> anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
>>> founder can say asinine bullshit like the following:
>>
>>> "We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
>>> will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."
>>
>>> Charming, eh?
>>
>> Sounds honest and sincere to me. (Assuming it's true, of course.)
>> Aren't "evil corporate types" supposed to lie and obfuscate at every
>> turn?
>
> Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
> exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
> their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
> for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
> company a profit, are somehow not serious.
>
> The fact that a gigantic nation of accustomed and experienced cyclists
> can't find much use for Trek's products at Trek's asking prices speaks
> for itself, I think.
Well, this is the first time I've read or considered that quote, so perhaps
you're right. Just seems to me that he was giving an honest assessment of a
MARKET, rather than commentary on WORTHINESS.
If Trek used their manufacturing clout to flood China with really cheap
BSOs, what would you say then? Are they providing a service (cheap bikes
for the needy masses) or just manipulating and dominating a marketplace?
Perhaps they can't win with you.
Just a thought.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 06:10:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <4709e0aa$0$20584$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >> Chalo wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
> >>> anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
> >>> founder can say asinine bullshit like the following:
> >>
> >>> "We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
> >>> will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."
> >>
> >>> Charming, eh?
> >>
> >> Sounds honest and sincere to me. (Assuming it's true, of course.)
> >> Aren't "evil corporate types" supposed to lie and obfuscate at every
> >> turn?
> >
> > Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
> > exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
> > their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
> > for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
> > company a profit, are somehow not serious.
> >
> > The fact that a gigantic nation of accustomed and experienced cyclists
> > can't find much use for Trek's products at Trek's asking prices speaks
> > for itself, I think.
>
> Well, this is the first time I've read or considered that quote, so perhaps
> you're right. Just seems to me that he was giving an honest assessment of a
> MARKET, rather than commentary on WORTHINESS.
>
> If Trek used their manufacturing clout to flood China with really cheap
> BSOs, what would you say then? Are they providing a service (cheap bikes
> for the needy masses) or just manipulating and dominating a marketplace?
>
> Perhaps they can't win with you.
China has always been able to flood itself with
working bicycles. They have produced enough
to fill the city streets with a endless stream.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 23:39:55
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <4709e0aa$0$20584$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
>>>>> anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman
>>>>> and founder can say asinine bullshit like the following:
>>>>
>>>>> "We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the
>>>>> Chinese will have the time and the money to take up cycling
>>>>> seriously."
>>>>
>>>>> Charming, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Sounds honest and sincere to me. (Assuming it's true, of course.)
>>>> Aren't "evil corporate types" supposed to lie and obfuscate at
>>>> every turn?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I
>>> took exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious"
>>> about their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater
>>> numbers and for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to
>>> make that company a profit, are somehow not serious.
>>>
>>> The fact that a gigantic nation of accustomed and experienced
>>> cyclists can't find much use for Trek's products at Trek's asking
>>> prices speaks for itself, I think.
>>
>> Well, this is the first time I've read or considered that quote, so
>> perhaps you're right. Just seems to me that he was giving an honest
>> assessment of a MARKET, rather than commentary on WORTHINESS.
>>
>> If Trek used their manufacturing clout to flood China with really
>> cheap BSOs, what would you say then? Are they providing a service
>> (cheap bikes for the needy masses) or just manipulating and
>> dominating a marketplace?
>>
>> Perhaps they can't win with you.
>
> China has always been able to flood itself with
> working bicycles. They have produced enough
> to fill the city streets with a endless stream.
.../an/ endless stream.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:39:01
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > A Muzi wrote:
> >>
> >> "publicly owned"?? Dick Burke sold Trek?
>
> > Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.
>
> Successful = Cancerous? She's not in office YET, you know! LOL
No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
founder can say asinine bullshit like the following:
"We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."
Charming, eh?
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 23:10:26
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 10, 12:54 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <4lgog3pt6k7lqhh4mo35ek9vtbc2nup...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:55:16 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <hkpng3l6c30g7p5i8ctb5guh84lj2fq...@4ax.com>,
> > > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> [snip]
>
> > >> >But as soon as
> > >> >motorcars appear and then start becoming affordable (ie, starting with
> > >> >the
> > >> >T-ford), thebikegets phased out.
>
> > >> [snip]
>
> > >> Dear Jasper,
>
> > >> Actually, the U.S.bikeboomof the 1890's faded long before cars
> > >> became widely used. Mass public transportation is usually considered
> > >> the culprit, not the gradual appearance of tinynumbers of extremely
> > >> expensive and unreliable automobiles, which usually required a
> > >> mechanic to drive and maintain.
>
> > >> If you browse around old newspapers and magazines, you'll find regular
> > >> bicycle columns simply vanishing.
>
> > >> A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
> > >> magazine, which began as abikemagazine in the 1880's, shows how the
> > >>bikeboomcollapsed:
>
> > >> 1897 20
> > >> 1898 15
> > >> 1899 14
> > >> 1900 5
> > >> 1901 3
> > >> 1902 1
>
> > >> Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
> > >> early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
> > >> disastrously.
>
> > >> "Colonel Albert Pope and his American Dream Machines" makes the point
> > >> on page 184 with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt as the first American
> > >> president to ride in a car, which looks exactly like an open landau*
> > >> that hasn't been hitched to a team, with the driver up behind the
> > >> passengers, who enjoy the forward view of a landau:
>
> > >> http://i20.tinypic.com/wjj2ph.jpg
>
> > >> That was in 1902, after thebikeboomhad already burst. Here's a
> > >> landau to show the similarity:
>
> > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabethboweslyonandkinggeorgeinc....
> > >> jpg
>
> > >> How far cars were from being popular enough to displace bicycles is
> > >> shown by the vehicle's silly appearance, the fact that it was used for
> > >> a presidential parade rather than normal transportation, and by the
> > >> quartet of Secret Service men still riding bicycles next to the
> > >> horseless carriage. (The two bikes on the left are clearly
> > >> Hartford-made Pope-Columbia chainless shaft-drive models.)
>
> > >> At that point, presidents and wealthy enthusiasts were willing to ride
> > >> in cars, but most people couldn't dream of such expensive
> > >> contraptions. Instead, they took trains and streetcars instead of
> > >> buying bicycles.
>
> > >> Karl Hodges wrote an interesting article with detailed graphs and data
> > >> "Did the Emergence of the Automobile End the BicycleBoom?" for the
> > >> 4th International Cycle History Conference, which shows that "Between
> > >> 1895 and 1902, the bicycle industry ground to a halt, yet the growth
> > >> of the automobile industry in this same period is unremarkable."
>
> > >> "Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
> > >> automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
> > >> harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
> > >> collapsed:
>
> > >> "During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
> > >> automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
> > >> auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
> > >> thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
> > >> every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."
>
> > >> To put that in table form per thousand population:
>
> > >> cars newbike
> > >> owned sales
> > >> ----- -------
> > >> 1897 20
> > >> 1902 0.00067
> > >> 1904 3
> > >> 1905 1
>
> > >> Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after thebikeboom
> > >> imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
> > >> to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
> > >> 1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.
>
> > >> Cheers,
>
> > >>CarlFogel
>
> > >Carl: I think the missing link here might be motorcycles.
> > Dear Ryan,
>
> > It's a nice idea to consider, but unfortunately it turns out that
> > motorcycles were no more responsible for thebikeboomcollapsing than
> > cars.
> > Here are the sales figures for Harley-Davidson and Indian, early and
> > successful motorcycle manufacturers:
>
> > bicycles Harleys Indians
> > sold sold sold
> > 1897 1,400,000
> > 1898
> > 1899
> > 1900
> > 1901 3 3 [home-made]
> > 1902 143 [by 1902bikeboomhas collapsed]
> > 1903 150 376 [Harley-Davidson actually founded]
> > 1904 240,000 596
>
> > In other words, motorcycles had about as much effect on thebikeboom
> > collapse as recumbents are having on U.S. bicycle sales.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> >CarlFogel
>
> Alas, another good theory shot down by actual data. Stupid data!
>
> I think we are asymptotically approaching the truth. My suspicion is
> that the first reason thebikeboomstopped was because thebikebuyers
> all had bikes, and they don't need replacing that often.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos-
Dear Ryan,
While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
it into a graph:
http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg
Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
1899.
The details of the revised estimate indicate that the market was
flooded or the fad simply faded after about 4 million bicycles had
been manufactured, roughly one bike per ten people at the time.
"In Both Britain and the U.S., the bicycle booms ended and sales
plummeted after just a few years. This resulted in numerous
bankruptcies of bicycle companies and much lower bicycle prices."
"The end of the bicycle boom is incorrectly blame don the automobile,
but there were not enough cars at that time to have a significant
effect. A more likely reason was the dynamic growth of early mass
transit systems, such as electric streetcars and electric inter-urban
railways, which provided an attractive alternative to bicycle travel--
especially in poor weather. By 1902, there were 22,000 miles of street
railways in the U.S., nearlly all electrified. These trolleys were
carrying 5 billion passengers a year."
--"Dancing Chain," p.40
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 10:41:31
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
-snip much-
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
> year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
> it into a graph:
>
> http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg
>
> Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
> cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
> bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
> 1899.
-snip-
I wonder if the curves fit Hula Hoop or White GoGo Boots or Pet Rock sales?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 13:52:51
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:41:31 -0600, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>-snip much-
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
>> year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
>> it into a graph:
>>
>> http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg
>>
>> Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
>> cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
>> bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
>> 1899.
>-snip-
>
>I wonder if the curves fit Hula Hoop or White GoGo Boots or Pet Rock sales?
Dear Andrew,
Well, yes, to a first approximation.
Practically nothing for quite a while (50 bikes per year in 1878), a
steep rise, and then a steep fall back to low level (low, but still
above the original rate).
Meanwhile, the population of potential customers was steadily
increasing.
Just as most U.S. bikes are sold today for recreation, so were most
bikes sold for pleasure rides back then, not for commuting. In
contrast, hardly anyone paid to ride the trolleys for the fun of it.
The rise and fall of the bicycling articles in "Outing" magazine
reflect the fad aspect of the early bicycle. The magazine was
originally a purely bicycling rag that changed its name, expanded to
other outdoor activities, and dropped bicycling almost completely by
1901.
In the early "Outing" magazine, the ideal article was fiction about
two-wheeled romance or an account of pedaling across Canada, with a
carefully rhymed ode to chains and sprockets at the end, with columns
full of helpful tips about bicycling.
The ideal article eventually became a cheerful piece on how to shoot
birds or otters with either a shotgun or a bow-and-arrow from your
canoe or sailboat while wearing ice or roller skates, with handy tips
on how to retrieve the carcasses by snagging them with your handy
fly-rod.
The same thing can be seen in the NYT archives. There's a flood of
regular articles with endless details about bicycling up to about
1900, and then everyone got bored with bikes and moved on to other
stuff.
The London Times archives are a terrible disappointment. There's
hardly anything about bicycles at all, compared to the NYT, and the
reporting is astonishingly bad.
It's hard to even find articles on the annual bicycle shows in the
London Times. Here's the LT on the 1897 Stanley Show:
http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/974/274/14113070w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS135192948&dyn=4!xrn_17_0_CS135192948&hst_1?sw_aep=free4_tda
Poor reporting, hardly any details, never any pictures or drawings,
few articles.
In contrast, the NYT was running the "Gossip of the Cyclers" (a
roughly monthly full-page article, often with drawings) and lots and
lots of other bicycle pieces. This installment mentions the British
Stanley show:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF
A day or two of browsing convinced me that the London times didn't
cover bicycles any better than the Pueblo Star Journal & Sunday
Chieftain. You can go here and use the secret password "trial" to see
if I missed something:
http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/free4_tda
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2007 06:10:02
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <jgurj3dg25lbifvjh9ndnftoi4fpj73b69@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:41:31 -0600, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>
> >-snip much-
> >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >> While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
> >> year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
> >> it into a graph:
> >>
> >> http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg
> >>
> >> Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
> >> cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
> >> bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
> >> 1899.
> >-snip-
> >
> >I wonder if the curves fit Hula Hoop or White GoGo Boots or Pet Rock sales?
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Well, yes, to a first approximation.
>
> Practically nothing for quite a while (50 bikes per year in 1878), a
> steep rise, and then a steep fall back to low level (low, but still
> above the original rate).
>
> Meanwhile, the population of potential customers was steadily
> increasing.
>
> Just as most U.S. bikes are sold today for recreation, so were most
> bikes sold for pleasure rides back then, not for commuting. In
> contrast, hardly anyone paid to ride the trolleys for the fun of it.
>
> The rise and fall of the bicycling articles in "Outing" magazine
> reflect the fad aspect of the early bicycle. The magazine was
> originally a purely bicycling rag that changed its name, expanded to
> other outdoor activities, and dropped bicycling almost completely by
> 1901.
>
> In the early "Outing" magazine, the ideal article was fiction about
> two-wheeled romance or an account of pedaling across Canada, with a
> carefully rhymed ode to chains and sprockets at the end, with columns
> full of helpful tips about bicycling.
>
> The ideal article eventually became a cheerful piece on how to shoot
> birds or otters with either a shotgun or a bow-and-arrow from your
> canoe or sailboat while wearing ice or roller skates, with handy tips
> on how to retrieve the carcasses by snagging them with your handy
> fly-rod.
>
> The same thing can be seen in the NYT archives. There's a flood of
> regular articles with endless details about bicycling up to about
> 1900, and then everyone got bored with bikes and moved on to other
> stuff.
>
> The London Times archives are a terrible disappointment. There's
> hardly anything about bicycles at all, compared to the NYT, and the
> reporting is astonishingly bad.
>
> It's hard to even find articles on the annual bicycle shows in the
> London Times. Here's the LT on the 1897 Stanley Show:
>
>
> http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/974/274/14113070w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS135192948&dyn=4!xrn_17_0_CS135192948&hst_1?sw_aep=free4_tda
>
> Poor reporting, hardly any details, never any pictures or drawings,
> few articles.
Stanley Show, 1897:
"If the show this year has any 'features' that claim special attention,
these must be sought in the latest makes of chainless bicycles and the
most improved examples of aluminum machines."
Interbike, 2007:
Chainless bicycle:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/index.php?i
d=/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike0718/JD_vegasbits002
A most improved example of aluminum machines:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/index.php?i
d=/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike072/Jamis_Supernova_full_v
iew
> In contrast, the NYT was running the "Gossip of the Cyclers" (a
> roughly monthly full-page article, often with drawings) and lots and
> lots of other bicycle pieces. This installment mentions the British
> Stanley show:
>
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF
>
> A day or two of browsing convinced me that the London times didn't
> cover bicycles any better than the Pueblo Star Journal & Sunday
> Chieftain. You can go here and use the secret password "trial" to see
> if I missed something:
>
> http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/free4_tda
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2007 00:30:42
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:10:02 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
>In article <jgurj3dg25lbifvjh9ndnftoi4fpj73b69@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:41:31 -0600, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >-snip much-
>> >carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
>> >> year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
>> >> it into a graph:
>> >>
>> >> http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg
>> >>
>> >> Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
>> >> cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
>> >> bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
>> >> 1899.
>> >-snip-
>> >
>> >I wonder if the curves fit Hula Hoop or White GoGo Boots or Pet Rock sales?
>>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> Well, yes, to a first approximation.
>>
>> Practically nothing for quite a while (50 bikes per year in 1878), a
>> steep rise, and then a steep fall back to low level (low, but still
>> above the original rate).
>>
>> Meanwhile, the population of potential customers was steadily
>> increasing.
>>
>> Just as most U.S. bikes are sold today for recreation, so were most
>> bikes sold for pleasure rides back then, not for commuting. In
>> contrast, hardly anyone paid to ride the trolleys for the fun of it.
>>
>> The rise and fall of the bicycling articles in "Outing" magazine
>> reflect the fad aspect of the early bicycle. The magazine was
>> originally a purely bicycling rag that changed its name, expanded to
>> other outdoor activities, and dropped bicycling almost completely by
>> 1901.
>>
>> In the early "Outing" magazine, the ideal article was fiction about
>> two-wheeled romance or an account of pedaling across Canada, with a
>> carefully rhymed ode to chains and sprockets at the end, with columns
>> full of helpful tips about bicycling.
>>
>> The ideal article eventually became a cheerful piece on how to shoot
>> birds or otters with either a shotgun or a bow-and-arrow from your
>> canoe or sailboat while wearing ice or roller skates, with handy tips
>> on how to retrieve the carcasses by snagging them with your handy
>> fly-rod.
>>
>> The same thing can be seen in the NYT archives. There's a flood of
>> regular articles with endless details about bicycling up to about
>> 1900, and then everyone got bored with bikes and moved on to other
>> stuff.
>>
>> The London Times archives are a terrible disappointment. There's
>> hardly anything about bicycles at all, compared to the NYT, and the
>> reporting is astonishingly bad.
>>
>> It's hard to even find articles on the annual bicycle shows in the
>> London Times. Here's the LT on the 1897 Stanley Show:
>>
>>
>> http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/974/274/14113070w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS135192948&dyn=4!xrn_17_0_CS135192948&hst_1?sw_aep=free4_tda
>>
>> Poor reporting, hardly any details, never any pictures or drawings,
>> few articles.
>
>Stanley Show, 1897:
>
>"If the show this year has any 'features' that claim special attention,
>these must be sought in the latest makes of chainless bicycles and the
>most improved examples of aluminum machines."
>
>Interbike, 2007:
>
>Chainless bicycle:
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/index.php?i
>d=/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike0718/JD_vegasbits002
>
>A most improved example of aluminum machines:
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/index.php?i
>d=/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike072/Jamis_Supernova_full_v
>iew
>
>> In contrast, the NYT was running the "Gossip of the Cyclers" (a
>> roughly monthly full-page article, often with drawings) and lots and
>> lots of other bicycle pieces. This installment mentions the British
>> Stanley show:
>>
>>
>> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF
>>
>> A day or two of browsing convinced me that the London times didn't
>> cover bicycles any better than the Pueblo Star Journal & Sunday
>> Chieftain. You can go here and use the secret password "trial" to see
>> if I missed something:
>>
>> http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/free4_tda
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
Dear Ryan,
If you're into aluminium (-nium produces more hits than -num) and old
bicycles . . .
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=bicycles+aluminium&d=&o=&v=&c=&n=10&dp=0&daterange=period&srcht=a&year1=1851&mon1=09&day1=18&year2=1910&mon2=12&day2=31&srchst=p&sort=oldest
And see the whole chapter on aluminum beginning on page 180 of
"Cycling Art, Energy and Locomotion":
http://books.google.com/books?id=rZQ1AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bicycle+%22aluminum+bronze%22+subject:%22Cycling%22+date:1878-1910&as_brr=1&ei=C5g-R76CH4bktAPp1eTkBg#PPA180,M1
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 07:21:19
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article
<f9bc2e6d-58a6-45d2-ade7-1b199638de7c@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Oct 10, 12:54 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > In article <4lgog3pt6k7lqhh4mo35ek9vtbc2nup...@4ax.com>,
[data snipped]
> > > In other words, motorcycles had about as much effect on thebikeboom
> > > collapse as recumbents are having on U.S. bicycle sales.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> >
> > >CarlFogel
> >
> > Alas, another good theory shot down by actual data. Stupid data!
> >
> > I think we are asymptotically approaching the truth. My suspicion is
> > that the first reason thebikeboomstopped was because thebikebuyers
> > all had bikes, and they don't need replacing that often.
> Dear Ryan,
>
> While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
> year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
> it into a graph:
>
> http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg
I notice that in the post-boom era, production settles down around the
400,000/a mark, still a respectable quantity in a nation of 40 million
people.
> Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
> cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
> bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
> 1899.
>
> The details of the revised estimate indicate that the market was
> flooded or the fad simply faded after about 4 million bicycles had
> been manufactured, roughly one bike per ten people at the time.
>
> "In Both Britain and the U.S., the bicycle booms ended and sales
> plummeted after just a few years. This resulted in numerous
> bankruptcies of bicycle companies and much lower bicycle prices."
>
> "The end of the bicycle boom is incorrectly blame don the automobile,
> but there were not enough cars at that time to have a significant
> effect. A more likely reason was the dynamic growth of early mass
> transit systems, such as electric streetcars and electric inter-urban
> railways, which provided an attractive alternative to bicycle travel--
> especially in poor weather. By 1902, there were 22,000 miles of street
> railways in the U.S., nearlly all electrified. These trolleys were
> carrying 5 billion passengers a year."
>
> --"Dancing Chain," p.40
Interesting. Thanks for charting that out.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 23:40:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Chalo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "publicly owned"?? Dick Burke sold Trek?
>>
>>> Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.
>>
>> Successful = Cancerous? She's not in office YET, you know! LOL
>
> No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
> anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
> founder can say asinine bullshit like the following:
>
> "We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
> will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."
>
> Charming, eh?
Sounds honest and sincere to me. (Assuming it's true, of course.) Aren't
"evil corporate types" supposed to lie and obfuscate at every turn?
I'll look for your reply to Mike's questions, including: "What, exactly, is
the evidence that Trek moved from being a 'sane and outwardly ethical
company' (or evidence that it ever was that in the first place) to a
'grotesque marketing-driven mutant?'"
Seems to me that they've helped fuel (not "Fuel") the cycling boom in the
last 7-8 years, at great expense and risk. The fact that it paid off should
be applauded and admired, not jeered and derided.
Bill "Unless you hate capitalism, that is. Oh, wait" S.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:18:27
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
A Muzi wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
> > from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
> > Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>
> "publicly owned"?? Dick Burke sold Trek?
Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:24:34
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Chalo wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>
>>> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting
>>> fools from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit
>>> like the one Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>>
>> "publicly owned"?? Dick Burke sold Trek?
>
> Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.
Successful = Cancerous? She's not in office YET, you know! LOL
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:26:04
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting
>>>> fools from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit
>>>> like the one Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>>> "publicly owned"?? Dick Burke sold Trek?
>> Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.
>
> Successful = Cancerous? She's not in office YET, you know! LOL
Channeling Mark Hickey?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:40:39
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting
>>>>> fools from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit
>>>>> like the one Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>>>> "publicly owned"?? Dick Burke sold Trek?
>>> Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.
>>
>> Successful = Cancerous? She's not in office YET, you know! LOL
>
> Channeling Mark Hickey?
No, just listening to SOME of what she says. (As much as I can stand.)
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:15:28
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
jim beam wrote:
>
> epoxys are used extensively
> in engineering - bridges, a/c componentry and architecture for example.
Yes, I understand that the failure of the epoxy coating on steel rods
was what caused pieces to fall out of the ceiling of that freeway
tunnel in Boston.
The examples I know of for epoxy used in civil engineering projects
are anti-corrosion coatings on structural elements-- not as the
structural elements themselves.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:29:48
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Chalo Colina wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> epoxys are used extensively
>> in engineering - bridges, a/c componentry and architecture for example.
>
> Yes, I understand that the failure of the epoxy coating on steel rods
> was what caused pieces to fall out of the ceiling of that freeway
> tunnel in Boston.
>
> The examples I know of for epoxy used in civil engineering projects
> are anti-corrosion coatings on structural elements-- not as the
> structural elements themselves.
And the evidence for the effectiveness of epoxy coating in preventing
corrosion is not all favorable.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:43:13
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> epoxys are used extensively
>> in engineering - bridges, a/c componentry and architecture for example.
>
> Yes, I understand that the failure of the epoxy coating on steel rods
> was what caused pieces to fall out of the ceiling of that freeway
> tunnel in Boston.
wasn't there just a steel bridge collapse out minnesota way? no epoxies
there. if big dig components failed, it means there was a project
problem. it doesn't mean there's a fundamental problem with an epoxy
system itself.
>
> The examples I know of for epoxy used in civil engineering projects
> are anti-corrosion coatings on structural elements-- not as the
> structural elements themselves.
>
> Chalo
>
not for structural elements of buildings, that's right. but when you
have a building clad in granite [for example] that cladding is mounted
using brackets that are epoxied onto the rear of each panel.
[structural applications are just a matter of time.] epoxies are also
used extensively in bridge retrofits - simply glue in reinforcement.
and modern composite planes couldn't fly at all if it weren't for
reliable epoxies.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:48:17
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:NcKdncjvVuTuXpTanZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> wasn't there just a steel bridge collapse out minnesota way? no epoxies
> there. if big dig components failed, it means there was a project
> problem. it doesn't mean there's a fundamental problem with an epoxy
> system itself.
This is one of the most ignorant statements there is. Can't fucking believe
a sentient being can say this.
> not for structural elements of buildings, that's right. but when you have
> a building clad in granite [for example] that cladding is mounted using
> brackets that are epoxied onto the rear of each panel. [structural
> applications are just a matter of time.] epoxies are also used
> extensively in bridge retrofits - simply glue in reinforcement. and modern
> composite planes couldn't fly at all if it weren't for reliable epoxies.
Again, this is one of the most ignorant statements there is. Can't fucking
believe a sentient being can say this. Wikipedia info, is it beamboy? Or
maybe slashdot.com?
Idiot.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 04:54:26
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >>
> >> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
> >> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
> >> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>
> #1: Trek is not a publicly-owned company. It never has been.
I believe you, but that's very strange to me. It is owned by private
equity perhaps? Whatever it is, it's not the same sane and outwardly
ethical company that was making lugged steel bikes in Wisconsin not so
very long ago. It has undergone the same sort of transformation that
changed Cannondale from a profitable, modest, and innovative American
manufacturer into a grotesque marketing-driven mutant, and that _was_
the result of taking the company public.
> #2: Hysol EA9430 is not going to be found in any of the objects mentioned,
> nor does it share many properties with the adhesives used, other than being
> in the same generic category of "glue."
None of the links you supplied elaborate on the lifespan of that epoxy
or its age-related property changes. Based on the information
available, the safe bet is that it becomes weak and brittle with age
just like every other epoxy (or for that matter, almost every other
plastic) most of us have seen. If you have information to the
contrary, I'd like to see that. But the datasheets you supplied,
unsurprisingly, don't mention the effects of aging on the material.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:36:20
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
>>>> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
>>>> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> #1: Trek is not a publicly-owned company. It never has been.
Chalo wrote:
> I believe you, but that's very strange to me. It is owned by private
> equity perhaps? Whatever it is, it's not the same sane and outwardly
> ethical company that was making lugged steel bikes in Wisconsin not so
> very long ago. It has undergone the same sort of transformation that
> changed Cannondale from a profitable, modest, and innovative American
> manufacturer into a grotesque marketing-driven mutant, and that _was_
> the result of taking the company public.
-snip vicissitudes of age re:epoxy -
Staring insolvency in the eye, especially when management are pricipals,
makes for great change. Trek is consistently profitable now.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 04:30:51
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
> Staring insolvency in the eye, especially when management are pricipals,
> makes for great change. Trek is consistently profitable now.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
So you've heard Dick Burke's "dark days" speech as well! I dunno... we sold
quite a few Trek 613s and 614s during the year or two when we didn't know
the company was on the ropes.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13gkqhvr4gsm9b3@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
>>>>> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
>>>>> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> #1: Trek is not a publicly-owned company. It never has been.
>
> Chalo wrote:
>> I believe you, but that's very strange to me. It is owned by private
>> equity perhaps? Whatever it is, it's not the same sane and outwardly
>> ethical company that was making lugged steel bikes in Wisconsin not so
>> very long ago. It has undergone the same sort of transformation that
>> changed Cannondale from a profitable, modest, and innovative American
>> manufacturer into a grotesque marketing-driven mutant, and that _was_
>> the result of taking the company public.
> -snip vicissitudes of age re:epoxy -
>
> Staring insolvency in the eye, especially when management are pricipals,
> makes for great change. Trek is consistently profitable now.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:52:37
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>> >> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
>> >> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
>> >> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>>
>> #1: Trek is not a publicly-owned company. It never has been.
>
> I believe you, but that's very strange to me. It is owned by private
> equity perhaps? Whatever it is, it's not the same sane and outwardly
> ethical company that was making lugged steel bikes in Wisconsin not so
> very long ago. It has undergone the same sort of transformation that
> changed Cannondale from a profitable, modest, and innovative American
> manufacturer into a grotesque marketing-driven mutant, and that _was_
> the result of taking the company public.
That's one of the more-puzzling statements I've come across in a long time.
What, exactly, is the evidence that Trek moved from being a "sane and
outwardly ethical company" (or evidence that it ever was that in the first
place) to a "grotesque marketing-driven mutant?"
In any event, Trek is most assuredly in the hands of the Burke family and
the company's employees. There are no public shares to be had, at any price.
There never were. Way, way, WAY back in the day, Trek was actually a small
division of Roth Distributing, a privately-held Midwest appliance
distribution firm (controlled by the Burke family). Eventually the tail
began wagging the dog, and appliance distribution became a redundant (and
thus not profitable) part of our economy.
Interesting that you should bring up Cannondale, a company whose product was
so unreliable, and ethics so situational, that we dropped the line some
years ago. That was under the old regime. Things are so much better now that
I would not be so concerned about the quality of their product or the ethics
of how they deal with their dealers anymore. The company is far more
responsible these days, and wouldn't allow silly forays into 4-wheel
off-road vehicles or motorcycles, as they did when they were privately held
and ego-driven.
>> #2: Hysol EA9430 is not going to be found in any of the objects
>> mentioned,
>> nor does it share many properties with the adhesives used, other than
>> being
>> in the same generic category of "glue."
>
> None of the links you supplied elaborate on the lifespan of that epoxy
> or its age-related property changes. Based on the information
> available, the safe bet is that it becomes weak and brittle with age
> just like every other epoxy (or for that matter, almost every other
> plastic) most of us have seen. If you have information to the
> contrary, I'd like to see that. But the datasheets you supplied,
> unsurprisingly, don't mention the effects of aging on the material.
I agree that there's not much there concerning lifespan of the adhesive,
other than a fair amount of detailed study showing what's been done to prove
its worthiness for aircraft. By inference one can assume they don't see that
as an issue, since it's not brought up, but hard data would be nice. The
particular adhesive (hysol 9430) *is* referenced as the material to be used
in applications where vibration is very high. It seems unlikely that
something used in rotors on hydrofoils, where failure could be deadly,
hasn't past rather rigorous tests. Keep in mind that at least two of the
references I listed were 3rd party analysis of how to safely build an
aircraft using carbon fiber materials and adhesives, *not* ads from Hysol
(actually a division of Loctite these days).
As I said, this stuff is not your normal adhesive. We've been playing with
it for years (since 1992, possibly prior), and it simply works. It's a
mil-spec adhesive, certified for use in all manner of critical applications.
It's also far more expensive than garden-variety adhesives, and because it
sets up fairly quickly, not the most-convenient to use either. In small
quantities, it comes in a bi-pak, a plastic package with a pin separating
the two different materials. You remove the pin and then mix it in the
package before cutting a hole and pouring it out. The only way I've seen it
fail is from peeling, which happens when someone gets overzealous cleaning
the excess (with a cloth soaked in a particular solvent), or, as I mentioned
in a prior post, from a squeegee effect that happens when the clearances
between the mating surfaces are so tight that nearly all of the adhesive
gets squeezed out.
Hysol has been used by Trek in frames since 1985 (in aluminum frames) and,
to date, failure due to age (brittleness or crystallization or whatever)
isn't something we've seen. And you'll note in the references given that one
of the strong points of Hysol 9430 is its flexibility in use.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:18:19
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> ...
> I agree that there's not much there concerning lifespan of the adhesive,
> other than a fair amount of detailed study showing what's been done to prove
> its worthiness for aircraft. By inference one can assume they don't see that
> as an issue, since it's not brought up, but hard data would be nice. The
> particular adhesive (hysol 9430) *is* referenced as the material to be used
> in applications where vibration is very high. It seems unlikely that
> something used in rotors on hydrofoils, where failure could be deadly,
> hasn't past rather rigorous tests. Keep in mind that at least two of the
> references I listed were 3rd party analysis of how to safely build an
> aircraft using carbon fiber materials and adhesives, *not* ads from Hysol
> (actually a division of Loctite these days)....
Keep in mind that most of these aircraft parts have a design lifespan,
after which they are discarded, regardless of what inspection would show
their condition to be. Do we want to be making expensive, disposable
bicycles?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 13:45:11
From: _
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:18:19 -0500, Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> ...
>> I agree that there's not much there concerning lifespan of the adhesive,
>> other than a fair amount of detailed study showing what's been done to prove
>> its worthiness for aircraft. By inference one can assume they don't see that
>> as an issue, since it's not brought up, but hard data would be nice. The
>> particular adhesive (hysol 9430) *is* referenced as the material to be used
>> in applications where vibration is very high. It seems unlikely that
>> something used in rotors on hydrofoils, where failure could be deadly,
>> hasn't past rather rigorous tests. Keep in mind that at least two of the
>> references I listed were 3rd party analysis of how to safely build an
>> aircraft using carbon fiber materials and adhesives, *not* ads from Hysol
>> (actually a division of Loctite these days)....
>
> Keep in mind that most of these aircraft parts have a design lifespan,
> after which they are discarded, regardless of what inspection would show
> their condition to be. Do we want to be making expensive, disposable
> bicycles?
>
The manufacturers already do - and are making them.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:37:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> ...
>> I agree that there's not much there concerning lifespan of the
>> adhesive, other than a fair amount of detailed study showing what's
>> been done to prove its worthiness for aircraft. By inference one can
>> assume they don't see that as an issue, since it's not brought up, but
>> hard data would be nice. The particular adhesive (hysol 9430) *is*
>> referenced as the material to be used in applications where vibration
>> is very high. It seems unlikely that something used in rotors on
>> hydrofoils, where failure could be deadly, hasn't past rather rigorous
>> tests. Keep in mind that at least two of the references I listed were
>> 3rd party analysis of how to safely build an aircraft using carbon
>> fiber materials and adhesives, *not* ads from Hysol (actually a
>> division of Loctite these days)....
>
> Keep in mind that most of these aircraft parts have a design lifespan,
> after which they are discarded, regardless of what inspection would show
> their condition to be. Do we want to be making expensive, disposable
> bicycles?
>
sure, why not? we make expensive disposable cars are considerably more
expense. we make expensive disposable houses at much more expense again.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 14:27:25
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I agree that there's not much there concerning lifespan of the
>>> adhesive, other than a fair amount of detailed study showing what's
>>> been done to prove its worthiness for aircraft. By inference one can
>>> assume they don't see that as an issue, since it's not brought up,
>>> but hard data would be nice. The particular adhesive (hysol 9430)
>>> *is* referenced as the material to be used in applications where
>>> vibration is very high. It seems unlikely that something used in
>>> rotors on hydrofoils, where failure could be deadly, hasn't past
>>> rather rigorous tests. Keep in mind that at least two of the
>>> references I listed were 3rd party analysis of how to safely build an
>>> aircraft using carbon fiber materials and adhesives, *not* ads from
>>> Hysol (actually a division of Loctite these days)....
>>
>> Keep in mind that most of these aircraft parts have a design lifespan,
>> after which they are discarded, regardless of what inspection would
>> show their condition to be. Do we want to be making expensive,
>> disposable bicycles?
>>
> sure, why not? we make expensive disposable cars are considerably more
> expense. we make expensive disposable houses at much more expense again.
Well, at least with automobiles, the technology has greatly improved
everything to the point that very few would want to use most older
automobiles on a regular basis. On the other hand, the upright diamond
frame bicycle has changed very little in more than half a century.
As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be disposable.
In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still in use.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 14:51:14
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:27:25 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Well, at least with automobiles, the technology has greatly improved
>everything to the point that very few would want to use most older
>automobiles on a regular basis. On the other hand, the upright diamond
>frame bicycle has changed very little in more than half a century.
>
>As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
>house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be disposable.
>In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still in use.
Although it's not *typical*. 1000 year old masonry/stone buildings are by
definition the upper-upper-upper class buildings of their day, since
nothing else *was* in fact built in stone (it being expensive), and the
ones that are still in use today are either that way because they remained
the seat of power for long enough to survive to monument-protection-laws,
and/or have has *extensive* structural work, let alone internal work, done
on them.
And even so the majority of stone buildings built in the 10th and eleventh
centuries -- which is basically churches and castles, pretty close to --
have not survived.
The inner city centre here is a mixture of 14th through 20th century
buildings, with only a few of the older examples and most being
17th/18th/19th. The cellars are medieval a lot more often than the
superstructure.
Another problem is simple growth -- Utrecht stayed fairly static in size
from the 10th through late 19th centuries, so up til then a fair
proportion of buildings was old build, but afterwards whole new
neighbourhoods were being built outside the city walls. Right now probably
only a tenth of the city is old builds, that is
pre-outside-the-walls-expansion.
Still, the majority of new houses are being built these days with inner
structural elements of concrete panels (prefab or cast on site, no clue)
and an outer skin around the insulation cavity made of brick, for looks.
It's only something like 10 or 20, maybe up to 30% cheaper to build a new
home with a wooden frame and siding around the outside, and it will have
much larger ongoing costs over the ensuing decades, let alone centuries.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 09:58:35
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:27:25 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, at least with automobiles, the technology has greatly improved
>> everything to the point that very few would want to use most older
>> automobiles on a regular basis. On the other hand, the upright diamond
>> frame bicycle has changed very little in more than half a century.
>>
>> As for disposable houses, that is due to the foolish decision of
>> purchasing for initial lowest cost, not lowest lifetime cost. Build a
>> house out of concrete and proper masonry, and it will not be disposable.
>> In Europe, there are 1000+ year old stone masonry buildings still in use.
>
> Although it's not *typical*. 1000 year old masonry/stone buildings are by
> definition the upper-upper-upper class buildings of their day, since
> nothing else *was* in fact built in stone (it being expensive), and the
> ones that are still in use today are either that way because they remained
> the seat of power for long enough to survive to monument-protection-laws,
> and/or have has *extensive* structural work, let alone internal work, done
> on them.
>
> And even so the majority of stone buildings built in the 10th and eleventh
> centuries -- which is basically churches and castles, pretty close to --
> have not survived.
>
> The inner city centre here is a mixture of 14th through 20th century
> buildings, with only a few of the older examples and most being
> 17th/18th/19th. The cellars are medieval a lot more often than the
> superstructure.
>
> Another problem is simple growth -- Utrecht stayed fairly static in size
> from the 10th through late 19th centuries, so up til then a fair
> proportion of buildings was old build, but afterwards whole new
> neighbourhoods were being built outside the city walls. Right now probably
> only a tenth of the city is old builds, that is
> pre-outside-the-walls-expansion.
>
> Still, the majority of new houses are being built these days with inner
> structural elements of concrete panels (prefab or cast on site, no clue)
> and an outer skin around the insulation cavity made of brick, for looks.
> It's only something like 10 or 20, maybe up to 30% cheaper to build a new
> home with a wooden frame and siding around the outside, and it will have
> much larger ongoing costs over the ensuing decades, let alone centuries.
Here in the You Ess of Aye, the goal is to get as big as box as possible
for the price. Based on the apartments I have lived in of similar
construction, I would expect most of these new houses to need major work
within 20 years. Crappy roofing, siding, windows, plumbing fixtures,
cabinetry, etc. is the norm. If these houses were bicycle components,
they would be well below Shimano Tourney standard.
Sometimes you do get what you pay for.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 00:03:14
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:58:35 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Here in the You Ess of Aye, the goal is to get as big as box as possible
>for the price. Based on the apartments I have lived in of similar
>construction, I would expect most of these new houses to need major work
>within 20 years. Crappy roofing, siding, windows, plumbing fixtures,
>cabinetry, etc. is the norm. If these houses were bicycle components,
>they would be well below Shimano Tourney standard.
The funny thing is, you can get things up to Deore standard for maybe 10
or 20% more (given that a major, major portion is in labour, especially
finishing, which you can not skimp all that much on, not like materials),
and probably up to Goddamn Good XT standard for maybe 50% more. That money
would more than pay for itself over even the 30y running time of the
average mortgage, and probably would pay for itself as well if you were
selling it after the new building smell came off.
This is, of course, speaking from the perspective of someone living in a
place where labour is huuuuugely expensive, land is huuuuugely expensive,
and building costs, meh, who gives a crap. On the BBC they occasionally
had an item in the property-auction TV program which either was, or would
be used as, a simple building lot. They usually came out with 2, 300 grand
worth of land and 2, 300 grand worth of building costs and would
sell/value the house they built with another 2/300 grand profit, the
classic 33/33/33 split.
Only sometimes it'd be more than that on the land which would mostly come
out of the profit. Keep in mind those are UKP grands, which convert to
about 2 kilobucks each, so we're talking roughly half a million bucks each
of land, building, and profit.
On the other hand american-style houses, ie timberframe, used to be hard
to even get a mortgage on, and even now they sell for significantly less
than real brick walls. After a fire, after all, the only thing that's left
standing is the brick walls -- that's a safe minimum level of trust to put
in a property as a bank. With timberframe, you won't even have that left.
Jasper
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 04:28:57
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>> I agree that there's not much there concerning lifespan of the adhesive,
>> other than a fair amount of detailed study showing what's been done to
>> prove its worthiness for aircraft. By inference one can assume they don't
>> see that as an issue, since it's not brought up, but hard data would be
>> nice. The particular adhesive (hysol 9430) *is* referenced as the
>> material to be used in applications where vibration is very high. It
>> seems unlikely that something used in rotors on hydrofoils, where failure
>> could be deadly, hasn't past rather rigorous tests. Keep in mind that at
>> least two of the references I listed were 3rd party analysis of how to
>> safely build an aircraft using carbon fiber materials and adhesives,
>> *not* ads from Hysol (actually a division of Loctite these days)....
>
> Keep in mind that most of these aircraft parts have a design lifespan,
> after which they are discarded, regardless of what inspection would show
> their condition to be. Do we want to be making expensive, disposable
> bicycles?
Certainly not! But that "design lifespan" of an aircraft is pretty darned
impressive, at least since the infamous Lockheed Elektra crashes back in the
day. I'd be quite happy to own a bike that would suffer through as many
hours of use as a typical airframe before needing to be replaced.
So I guess I answered incorrectly. An expensive bicycle *is* disposable.
It's just hopefully not going to reach the limits of its lifespan during a
typical rider's life. Maybe not even that of his or her kids.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com > wrote in message
news:470acaeb$0$26499$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> ...
>> I agree that there's not much there concerning lifespan of the adhesive,
>> other than a fair amount of detailed study showing what's been done to
>> prove its worthiness for aircraft. By inference one can assume they don't
>> see that as an issue, since it's not brought up, but hard data would be
>> nice. The particular adhesive (hysol 9430) *is* referenced as the
>> material to be used in applications where vibration is very high. It
>> seems unlikely that something used in rotors on hydrofoils, where failure
>> could be deadly, hasn't past rather rigorous tests. Keep in mind that at
>> least two of the references I listed were 3rd party analysis of how to
>> safely build an aircraft using carbon fiber materials and adhesives,
>> *not* ads from Hysol (actually a division of Loctite these days)....
>
> Keep in mind that most of these aircraft parts have a design lifespan,
> after which they are discarded, regardless of what inspection would show
> their condition to be. Do we want to be making expensive, disposable
> bicycles?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 19:39:25
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 7, 9:35 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.- > wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>
> news:XP-dnQSDUdL2DJranZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> > isalenm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
> >> I am just steping into this field...
>
> > cT = 0.97
>
> beamboy IQ = <90
I wonder when "Jambo" graduates middle school?
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 18:24:05
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 7, 7:35 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > If someone wanted to
> > make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
> > would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
> > aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being knocked
> > over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
> > Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
> > sort.
>
> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
> car.
>
> I bought a house that was half full of plain old household junk dating
> back as far as the early '50s, and much of the '60s, '70s, and '80s
> plastic stuff was brittle beyond usefulness.
>
> The problem with making a durable object out of fiber and glue is that
> half of it is just glue. It won't last because it can't last. That's
> great for the manufacturers who can still expect to be in business
> twenty years down the line, but it's bad for pretty much everybody
> else.
>
> Some of us rarely buy new bikes, because we simply don't have to.
> Others like myself can find things in the used market (like 68cm
> frames) that manufacturers no longer see fit to offer. Others ride
> old used bikes because it's the best they can afford. Then there's
> the fact that thousands and thousands of bikes leave the country every
> year for other places partly because they are still useful even though
> nobody here wants them anymore. Make them out of plastic, and all
> that goes away; they're just so much plastic trash to pile into
> landfills with bags, blister packs, broken appliances and everything
> else. Even those bikes that were ridden twenty miles before being
> garaged untouched for thirty years are now trash.
>
> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>
> Chalo
Very well said!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 20:23:51
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
>> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
>> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
>> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
>> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
>> car.
>> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
>> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
>> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>>
>> Chalo
>
> Very well said!
Except that it is not factualy correct.
#1: Trek is not a publicly-owned company. It never has been.
#2: Hysol EA9430 is not going to be found in any of the objects mentioned,
nor does it share many properties with the adhesives used, other than being
in the same generic category of "glue."
If you want to learn more about Hysol EA9430-
http://tds.loctite.com/tds5/docs/HYSA9430-EN.PDF
http://www.oriontechnologies.net/Documents/bonding.pdf
http://65.98.28.10/structurals/assets/downloads/LoctiteStructuralAdhesives.pdf
http://www.lanl.gov/projects/ei/pdf_files/howardLA-14319-T.pdf
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1191806645.422396.309330@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 7, 7:35 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>> > If someone wanted to
>> > make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way
>> > that
>> > would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
>> > aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being
>> > knocked
>> > over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a
>> > James
>> > Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of
>> > some
>> > sort.
>>
>> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
>> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
>> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
>> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
>> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
>> car.
>>
>> I bought a house that was half full of plain old household junk dating
>> back as far as the early '50s, and much of the '60s, '70s, and '80s
>> plastic stuff was brittle beyond usefulness.
>>
>> The problem with making a durable object out of fiber and glue is that
>> half of it is just glue. It won't last because it can't last. That's
>> great for the manufacturers who can still expect to be in business
>> twenty years down the line, but it's bad for pretty much everybody
>> else.
>>
>> Some of us rarely buy new bikes, because we simply don't have to.
>> Others like myself can find things in the used market (like 68cm
>> frames) that manufacturers no longer see fit to offer. Others ride
>> old used bikes because it's the best they can afford. Then there's
>> the fact that thousands and thousands of bikes leave the country every
>> year for other places partly because they are still useful even though
>> nobody here wants them anymore. Make them out of plastic, and all
>> that goes away; they're just so much plastic trash to pile into
>> landfills with bags, blister packs, broken appliances and everything
>> else. Even those bikes that were ridden twenty miles before being
>> garaged untouched for thirty years are now trash.
>>
>> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
>> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
>> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>>
>> Chalo
>
> Very well said!
>
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 23:51:54
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:cphOi.2227$sm6.1697@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
>>> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
>>> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
>>> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
>>> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
>>> car.
>
>>> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
>>> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
>>> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>>
>> Very well said!
>
> Except that it is not factualy correct.
>
> #1: Trek is not a publicly-owned company. It never has been.
Fair enough.
> #2: Hysol EA9430 is not going to be found in any of the objects mentioned,
> nor does it share many properties with the adhesives used, other than
> being in the same generic category of "glue."
>
> If you want to learn more about Hysol EA9430-
> http://tds.loctite.com/tds5/docs/HYSA9430-EN.PDF
> http://www.oriontechnologies.net/Documents/bonding.pdf
> http://65.98.28.10/structurals/assets/downloads/LoctiteStructuralAdhesives.pdf
> http://www.lanl.gov/projects/ei/pdf_files/howardLA-14319-T.pdf
Good details for Hysol, but none of those describe what the life is of the
adhesive. No accelerated usage tests were outlined, either.
Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:56:46
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Jambo wrote:
<snip brown-nosing crap >
> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking moron.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:41:08
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:8qWdnRjplc8TJZTanZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
> <snip brown-nosing crap>
>> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
>
> that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking moron.
Really? Show your references, idiot. Show us that composite adhesives last
as long as metal.
Go on, take your time.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:49:45
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Jambo wrote:
> <snip brown-nosing crap>
>> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
>
> that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking moron.
I think we need a much more precise definition of "last" here.
As an example, there are some agents that will attack most metals, but
not epoxy and carbon fiber, while others that are harmless to metal will
degrade epoxy.
Fatigue is a whole different matter, and the details of construction
will likely be more important than the properties of the bulk material.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 19:32:11
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:49:45 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@invaalid.com > wrote:
>"jim beam" wrote:
>> Jambo wrote:
>> <snip brown-nosing crap>
>>> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
>>
>> that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking moron.
>
>I think we need a much more precise definition of "last" here.
>
>As an example, there are some agents that will attack most metals, but
>not epoxy and carbon fiber, while others that are harmless to metal will
>degrade epoxy.
>
>Fatigue is a whole different matter, and the details of construction
>will likely be more important than the properties of the bulk material.
I'd be a lot more worried about impacts -- not just crashes, but also
people parking their bike against yours and nudging their handlebars
against parts of your bike. That is, after all, simply part of life. It
may not be a concern for the racing/training life of the bike but you're
never retiring it to a town runabout.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 20:58:11
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:49:45 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com> wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>> <snip brown-nosing crap>
>>>> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
>>> that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking moron.
>> I think we need a much more precise definition of "last" here.
>>
>> As an example, there are some agents that will attack most metals, but
>> not epoxy and carbon fiber, while others that are harmless to metal will
>> degrade epoxy.
>>
>> Fatigue is a whole different matter, and the details of construction
>> will likely be more important than the properties of the bulk material.
>
> I'd be a lot more worried about impacts -- not just crashes, but also
> people parking their bike against yours and nudging their handlebars
> against parts of your bike. That is, after all, simply part of life. It
> may not be a concern for the racing/training life of the bike but you're
> never retiring it to a town runabout.
>
> Jasper
do you also worry about metal fatigue?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:42:47
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:dc6dnQ19qahO0JHanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> do you also worry about metal fatigue?
Yeah, and that's the same as impact damage for CF.
Fucking idiot.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:45:51
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:11 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net >
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:49:45 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>> <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com> wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> <snip brown-nosing crap>
>>>>> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
>>>> that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking moron.
>>> I think we need a much more precise definition of "last" here.
>>>
>>> As an example, there are some agents that will attack most metals, but
>>> not epoxy and carbon fiber, while others that are harmless to metal will
>>> degrade epoxy.
>>>
>>> Fatigue is a whole different matter, and the details of construction
>>> will likely be more important than the properties of the bulk material.
>>
>> I'd be a lot more worried about impacts -- not just crashes, but also
>> people parking their bike against yours and nudging their handlebars
>> against parts of your bike. That is, after all, simply part of life. It
>> may not be a concern for the racing/training life of the bike but you're
>> never retiring it to a town runabout.
>do you also worry about metal fatigue?
Metal fatigue does not appear to be an issue with steel bikes, and
probably nmot with aluminum bike parts, whereas CF crash problems are
*demonstrably* problematic. How often do you see a picture turn up here of
a metal bar that broke catastrophically while riding without a serious
crash involved?
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 19:15:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:11 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:49:45 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>> <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com> wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>> <snip brown-nosing crap>
>>>>>> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
>>>>> that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking moron.
>>>> I think we need a much more precise definition of "last" here.
>>>>
>>>> As an example, there are some agents that will attack most metals, but
>>>> not epoxy and carbon fiber, while others that are harmless to metal will
>>>> degrade epoxy.
>>>>
>>>> Fatigue is a whole different matter, and the details of construction
>>>> will likely be more important than the properties of the bulk material.
>>> I'd be a lot more worried about impacts -- not just crashes, but also
>>> people parking their bike against yours and nudging their handlebars
>>> against parts of your bike. That is, after all, simply part of life. It
>>> may not be a concern for the racing/training life of the bike but you're
>>> never retiring it to a town runabout.
>
>> do you also worry about metal fatigue?
>
> Metal fatigue does not appear to be an issue with steel bikes,
really?
http://www.damonrinard.com/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm
100% of the steel frames failed, [as did 100% of the ti].
> and
> probably nmot with aluminum bike parts, whereas CF crash problems are
> *demonstrably* problematic.
no. see above.
> How often do you see a picture turn up here of
> a metal bar that broke catastrophically while riding without a serious
> crash involved?
>
how often do you see any cfrp failure not reported in hysterical terms,
with incomplete history, and drawing bizarre conclusions about the
material that are not consistent with the facts?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:45:42
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:jNudnUjRRKiyt43anZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> really?
> http://www.damonrinard.com/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm
>
> 100% of the steel frames failed, [as did 100% of the ti].
Great. Don't forget this: "The fact that aluminum and carbon frames in this
test lasted longer than the steel frames is not in our estimate a question
of the material, but the design effort. Not the material, but its skillful
use gives the result."
Idiot.
>> and
>> probably nmot with aluminum bike parts, whereas CF crash problems are
>> *demonstrably* problematic.
>
> no. see above.
Yeah, see above, idiot.
>> How often do you see a picture turn up here of
>> a metal bar that broke catastrophically while riding without a serious
>> crash involved?
>>
>
> how often do you see any cfrp failure not reported in hysterical terms,
> with incomplete history, and drawing bizarre conclusions about the
> material that are not consistent with the facts?
Hey idiot, just look at mtbr.com and the photos there.
Lying fucktard.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:35:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Jambo wrote:
>> <snip brown-nosing crap>
>>> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
>>
>> that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking moron.
>
> I think we need a much more precise definition of "last" here.
>
> As an example, there are some agents that will attack most metals, but
> not epoxy and carbon fiber, while others that are harmless to metal will
> degrade epoxy.
>
> Fatigue is a whole different matter, and the details of construction
> will likely be more important than the properties of the bulk material.
>
indeed.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:42:11
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:bMadneiON-yFmJbanZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>> <snip brown-nosing crap>
>>>> Composite adhesives do not last as long as metal does.
>>>
>>> that is such a crock of ignorant shit, it beggars belief. fucking
>>> moron.
>>
>> I think we need a much more precise definition of "last" here.
>>
>> As an example, there are some agents that will attack most metals, but
>> not epoxy and carbon fiber, while others that are harmless to metal will
>> degrade epoxy.
>>
>> Fatigue is a whole different matter, and the details of construction will
>> likely be more important than the properties of the bulk material.
>>
>
> indeed.
Eh, idiot. Show us that composite adhesives last as long as metals.
Last as in maintains its primary characteristics.
Idiot.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 00:41:14
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> If someone wanted to
> make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
> would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
> aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being knocked
> over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
> Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
> sort.
The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
car.
I bought a house that was half full of plain old household junk dating
back as far as the early '50s, and much of the '60s, '70s, and '80s
plastic stuff was brittle beyond usefulness.
The problem with making a durable object out of fiber and glue is that
half of it is just glue. It won't last because it can't last. That's
great for the manufacturers who can still expect to be in business
twenty years down the line, but it's bad for pretty much everybody
else.
Some of us rarely buy new bikes, because we simply don't have to.
Others like myself can find things in the used market (like 68cm
frames) that manufacturers no longer see fit to offer. Others ride
old used bikes because it's the best they can afford. Then there's
the fact that thousands and thousands of bikes leave the country every
year for other places partly because they are still useful even though
nobody here wants them anymore. Make them out of plastic, and all
that goes away; they're just so much plastic trash to pile into
landfills with bags, blister packs, broken appliances and everything
else. Even those bikes that were ridden twenty miles before being
garaged untouched for thirty years are now trash.
But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:00:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Chalo wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> If someone wanted to
>> make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
>> would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
>> aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being knocked
>> over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
>> Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
>> sort.
>
> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
> car.
>
> I bought a house that was half full of plain old household junk dating
> back as far as the early '50s, and much of the '60s, '70s, and '80s
> plastic stuff was brittle beyond usefulness.
>
> The problem with making a durable object out of fiber and glue is that
> half of it is just glue. It won't last because it can't last. That's
> great for the manufacturers who can still expect to be in business
> twenty years down the line, but it's bad for pretty much everybody
> else.
>
> Some of us rarely buy new bikes, because we simply don't have to.
> Others like myself can find things in the used market (like 68cm
> frames) that manufacturers no longer see fit to offer. Others ride
> old used bikes because it's the best they can afford. Then there's
> the fact that thousands and thousands of bikes leave the country every
> year for other places partly because they are still useful even though
> nobody here wants them anymore. Make them out of plastic, and all
> that goes away; they're just so much plastic trash to pile into
> landfills with bags, blister packs, broken appliances and everything
> else. Even those bikes that were ridden twenty miles before being
> garaged untouched for thirty years are now trash.
>
> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
>
> Chalo
>
sorry dude, basing engineering criticisms on your unfortunate
experiences of art class just don't hold. epoxys are used extensively
in engineering - bridges, a/c componentry and architecture for example.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:46:41
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:8qWdnRvplc_9JJTanZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> sorry dude, basing engineering criticisms on your unfortunate experiences
> of art class just don't hold. epoxys are used extensively in
> engineering - bridges, a/c componentry and architecture for example.
Sorry dude, you "metarials skool" don't cut it. Where's a bridge with epoxy
as structural material?
Idiot.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:50:45
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> If someone wanted to
>> make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
>> would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
>> aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being knocked
>> over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
>> Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
>> sort.
Chalo wrote:
> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
> car.
>
> I bought a house that was half full of plain old household junk dating
> back as far as the early '50s, and much of the '60s, '70s, and '80s
> plastic stuff was brittle beyond usefulness.
>
> The problem with making a durable object out of fiber and glue is that
> half of it is just glue. It won't last because it can't last. That's
> great for the manufacturers who can still expect to be in business
> twenty years down the line, but it's bad for pretty much everybody
> else.
>
> Some of us rarely buy new bikes, because we simply don't have to.
> Others like myself can find things in the used market (like 68cm
> frames) that manufacturers no longer see fit to offer. Others ride
> old used bikes because it's the best they can afford. Then there's
> the fact that thousands and thousands of bikes leave the country every
> year for other places partly because they are still useful even though
> nobody here wants them anymore. Make them out of plastic, and all
> that goes away; they're just so much plastic trash to pile into
> landfills with bags, blister packs, broken appliances and everything
> else. Even those bikes that were ridden twenty miles before being
> garaged untouched for thirty years are now trash.
>
> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
"publicly owned"?? Dick Burke sold Trek?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 00:35:18
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> If someone wanted to
> make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
> would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
> aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being knocked
> over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
> Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
> sort.
The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
car.
I bought a house that was half full of plain old household junk dating
back as far as the early '50s, and much of the '60s, '70s, and '80s
plastic stuff was brittle beyond usefulness.
The problem with making a durable object out of fiber and glue is that
half of it is just glue. It won't last because it can't last. That's
great for the manufacturers who can still expect to be in business
twenty years down the line, but it's bad for pretty much everybody
else.
Some of us rarely buy new bikes, because we simply don't have to.
Others like myself can find things in the used market (like 68cm
frames) that manufacturers no longer see fit to offer. Others ride
old used bikes because it's the best they can afford. Then there's
the fact that thousands and thousands of bikes leave the country every
year for other places partly because they are still useful even though
nobody here wants them anymore. Make them out of plastic, and all
that goes away; they're just so much plastic trash to pile into
landfills with bags, blister packs, broken appliances and everything
else. Even those bikes that were ridden twenty miles before being
garaged untouched for thirty years are now trash.
But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:42:14
From:
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <1191803718.907792.236260@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com >,
chalo.colina@gmail.com says...
> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
> car.
My fiberglass boat has been out in the sun pretty much continuously
since it was made in 1973. The gel coat is oxidized a bit, except where
the cormorants got sick last year -- turns out cormorant vomit does a
great job of cleaning the oxidation off of gel coat, who knew? But
structurally, it's fine. And it's hardly the newest fiberglass boat on
the beach.
On the other hand, I've had fiberglass work I did myself fall apart in
less than ten years.
I suspect there's a huge variation in the quality of epoxy resins on the
market, and in the quality of their use.
I don't know if any epoxy will outlast a good steel frame, but I'm sure
there are epoxies that will last 40+ years of outdoor exposure, because
I've seen them.
--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html >
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:46:59
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
josh@phred.org wrote:
> In article <1191803718.907792.236260@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> chalo.colina@gmail.com says...
>
>> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
>> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
>> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
>> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
>> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
>> car.
>
> My fiberglass boat has been out in the sun pretty much continuously
> since it was made in 1973. The gel coat is oxidized a bit, except where
> the cormorants got sick last year -- turns out cormorant vomit does a
> great job of cleaning the oxidation off of gel coat, who knew? But
> structurally, it's fine. And it's hardly the newest fiberglass boat on
> the beach.
>
> On the other hand, I've had fiberglass work I did myself fall apart in
> less than ten years.
>
> I suspect there's a huge variation in the quality of epoxy resins on the
> market, and in the quality of their use.
>
> I don't know if any epoxy will outlast a good steel frame, but I'm sure
> there are epoxies that will last 40+ years of outdoor exposure, because
> I've seen them.
>
Preventing epoxy degradation from UV is pretty easy via coatings.
Moisture absorption seem much more problematic. I don't know if this
will play as big a role in bikes as boats. Another big variable is
hardener/epoxy ratio. Use of thermosetting prepregs should mitigate that
in bikes.
A lot of the degradation from common plastics is from outgassing of
"plasticizers", compounds added to reduce brittleness. I'm not sure that
this is typical of epoxies. An article that discusses some of these issues:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392003000300017
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 14:05:14
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:35:18 -0000, Chalo wrote:
> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
> car.
LOL. Because the hardware store epoxies you mixed and used by hand
in uncontrolled conditions 20 years ago have failed, and a variety of
unrelated cheap consumer plastics eventually do the same, modern CF bikes
(and other commercial epoxy constructions, like boats) will fall apart.
Right :-)
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:56:49
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>> The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
>> support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
>> pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
>> assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
>> original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
>> car.
>
> LOL. Because the hardware store epoxies you mixed and used by hand
> in uncontrolled conditions 20 years ago have failed, and a variety of
> unrelated cheap consumer plastics eventually do the same, modern CF bikes
> (and other commercial epoxy constructions, like boats) will fall apart.
> Right :-)
Well, um, yeah! I mean, who wouldn't make that extrapolation, based upon
those Crazy Glue commercials of yesteryear, when they'd show one drop of the
stuff being able to lift a pickup truck... meanwhile, your experiences at
home were that you couldn't even get a broken coffee cup repaired. What, you
think that doing everything the way you're supposed to should actually make
a difference???
(On the other hand, Crazy Glue/Cyonacrolyte or whatever it's called
certainly has revolutionized model building. It sure is a whole lot better
than that glue that some people used to sniff, although I found the best use
for it was as a fuse... really cool the way you could draw a bead with it,
light it, and watch it slowly burn up to whatever it was you were trying to
ignite... almost burned down my tree fort once!)
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:47:07
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:56:49 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Well, um, yeah! I mean, who wouldn't make that extrapolation, based upon
> those Crazy Glue commercials of yesteryear, when they'd show one drop of the
> stuff being able to lift a pickup truck... meanwhile, your experiences at
> home were that you couldn't even get a broken coffee cup repaired.
It's always been incredibly good at glueing skin to almost anything,
though :-)
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 23:40:23
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
A Muzi wrote:
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> A teenager will do. Into whatever else you have in your garage, you
> >> know, like shovels, lawnmowers, other bikes.
> >
> > BICYCLES BELONG IN THE HOUSE, NOT THE GARAGE!!!
>
> On this we can agree.
I've been trying to preach to the heathens at the Yahoo power-assist
group that they should keep their bikes inside and not out in the
rain. Opinions vary, sure, but c'mon!
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 07:40:06
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 6, 9:17 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> > All your comments make sense, of course, but I still am unable to make the
> > leap to shorter bike life and planned obsolescence. I guess time will
> > tell how long these frames will last.
>
> It is unquestionably true that the marketplace no longer demands the
> lifespan out of a modern lightweight frame that they once did. It doesn't
> matter what the material is; if the demand is to be as light as possible,
> you *will* be sacrificing lifespan and durability. It cannot be any other
> way. If we demand 2lb carbon frames, 3.25lb steel frames, 3lb ti and 2.5lb
> aluminum frames, there is no possible way they'd be as strong as frames just
> 25% heavier. Frames of those weights are built at the edge of what can be
> reliably built and ridden.
I disagree. A 3 pound ti frame and a 3.25 steel frame, just like the
ones we sell(Waterford and Moots), will not have a short lifespan. A 2
pound ti frame(like the Litespeed Ghasallo) will have reliability
problems but 3 and 3.25 for ti and steel is common. 2 pound carbon
frames can and do have reliability problems.
But ya know, in the modern bike shop, all that can be measured is
weight. Too bad because in the bike/rider equation, many more things
than weight are important but the sales person can only heft the bike
and say, 'see how light it is?"...
>
> In most cases, these new lightweight frames are stronger, when not exposed
> to some of the harsher realities of life, than their considerably-heavier
> counterparts of years past. And they are in fact remarkably light. But as
> you put materials where the structure needs them and remove it from those
> areas where you *hope* it doesn't... which is pretty much how we've come to
> lighter weight frames... the result can only be obvious. And further,
> advanced engineering means that somebody is aware of typical rider
> capabilities and, instead of designing for the worst-case scenario, which
> might yield a bike that would last 3x forever under a typical rider, we now
> have the means to build something that will predictable last a "reasonable"
> lifespan, which will be adequate for 97% but not the remaining 3% who will
> eventually exceed its design limits.
>
> And again, that's not a material-specific phenomenon, although carbon fiber
> *is* responsible, I feel, for causing this trend to accelerate with
> more-traditional materials, as they try to compete with carbon (by building
> lighter frames).
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "catzz66" <catz...@threeletterservice.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5mq6prFephc4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:56:07 -0500, catzz66
> >> <catz...@threeletterservice.com> wrote:
>
> >>>carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >>>>For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
> >>>>bike life and planned obsolescence.
>
> >>>Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks, would
> >>>you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as anything else in
> >>>regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
>
> >> Dear C,
>
> >> First, most bikes in regular daily use by ordinary riders collect
> >> plenty of dings, dents, nicks, and damage without "bad wrecks"--just
> >> the chains and padlocks favored by such riders can easily damage
> >> carbon fiber bikes.
>
> >> (You don't see too many carbon-fiber chains or padlocks.)
>
> >> Second, I suspect that many carbon-fiber road frames are bought
> >> because riders think that the frames will be lighter, stronger,
> >> faster, and able to leap--
>
> >> Er, they buy carbon-fiber frames for the same reason this year that
> >> they will be buying a replacement next year, even if the old bike
> >> works fine: they want something new, something different, something
> >> ever-so-slightly technically better, and they're willing to pay for
> >> it.
>
> >> To those riders, carbon fiber offers a practical advantage because it
> >> can be made to look new and exciting at every Interbike much more
> >> easily that older frame materials.
>
> >> But for "regular daily use" by "an ordinary city rider", it's hard to
> >> think of a non-psychological advantage to a carbon-fiber frame. It
> >> costs more, it's more easily damaged, and no "ordinary city rider"
> >> would notice the difference in weight or strength.
>
> > All your comments make sense, of course, but I still am unable to make the
> > leap to shorter bike life and planned obsolescence. I guess time will
> > tell how long these frames will last.
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 07:33:35
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 6, 8:50 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
>
> Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had their
> lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?
>
> This is entirely about how the material is being used. If someone wanted to
> make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
> would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
> aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being knocked
> over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
> Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
> sort.
>
> But where would the market be for such a frame? Incredibly small, I'd think.
> You'd be building a frame both stronger and far more expensive than a market
> exists for. Better to use a cheaper material and settle for something that's
> strong enough for the task at hand.
>
> I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm unable
> to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon, titanium,
> steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths and
> know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses. But
> somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy" frame
> materials when trashing the new stuff.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.
>
> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ZNednRJwI68dVpranZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > jim beam wrote:
> >> _ wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
> >>>>>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
> >>>>>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
> >>>>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
> >>>>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
> >>>>> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
> >>>>> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
> >>>> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel, but
> >>>> rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame from
> >>>> carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would likely
> >>>> be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these days.
>
> >>> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
> >>> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the difference
> >>> to
> >>> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.
>
> >> the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were as
> >> over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
> >> wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and it
> >> wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.
>
> > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 15:11:17
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"Legacy" frame
> materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
> frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
> worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.
That's not what I said.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1191767615.700134.163490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 6, 8:50 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
>>
>> Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had their
>> lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?
>>
>> This is entirely about how the material is being used. If someone wanted
>> to
>> make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
>> would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
>> aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being
>> knocked
>> over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
>> Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
>> sort.
>>
>> But where would the market be for such a frame? Incredibly small, I'd
>> think.
>> You'd be building a frame both stronger and far more expensive than a
>> market
>> exists for. Better to use a cheaper material and settle for something
>> that's
>> strong enough for the task at hand.
>>
>> I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm
>> unable
>> to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon, titanium,
>> steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths and
>> know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses. But
>> somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy"
>> frame
>> materials when trashing the new stuff.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
> or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
> because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
> doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
> denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
> selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
> that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
> what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
> materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
> frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
> worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.
>
>>
>> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ZNednRJwI68dVpranZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> > jim beam wrote:
>> >> _ wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
>> >>>>>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
>> >>>>>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
>> >>>>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
>> >>>>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
>> >>>>> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
>> >>>>> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
>> >>>> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel,
>> >>>> but
>> >>>> rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame
>> >>>> from
>> >>>> carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would
>> >>>> likely
>> >>>> be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these days.
>>
>> >>> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
>> >>> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
>> >>> difference
>> >>> to
>> >>> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have
>> >>> lasted.
>>
>> >> the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were
>> >> as
>> >> over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
>> >> wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and
>> >> it
>> >> wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.
>>
>> > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 10:10:25
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <1191767615.700134.163490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:50 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
> >
> > Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had their
> > lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?
Aluminum yes, steel not usually and titanium I don't know. But I've
seen lots of dented steel frames in use for years afterwards with no
failures.
> > I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm unable
> > to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon, titanium,
> > steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths and
> > know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses. But
> > somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy" frame
> > materials when trashing the new stuff.
>
> "Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
> or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
> because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
> doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
> denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
> selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
> that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
> what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
> materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
> frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
> worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.
Thing is, for 99% of cyclists it makes not one whit of difference in
terms of perceptible ride quality or performance if the frame weighs 3.5
pounds or 2.5 pounds. The difference it makes is in talking points and
self-aggrandizement.
About 10-12 years ago, on a club training ride, one of the masters
racers showed up with a then top-of-the-line and state of the art Look
CF frame, a KG-whatever. The racer in question worked for the MN
Department of Agriculture as an inspector and was (in)famous for doing
lunch hour intervals and 100 mile training rides daily, pretty much
dominating his category. My friend Mark was curious and chatted with
the guy about his bike, commenting that it was the first Look frame he'd
seen being ridden by a non-professional. The guy turns and thunders at
Mark "whaddya mean a non-professional!?!?!?!?" Mark was a bit taken
aback and later- on his lugged steel Rodriguez- dropped the offensive
masters racer good and proper up the biggest hill on the ride.
It cracks me up that some people get all twisted up about folks wearing
pro team jerseys when they haven't "earned them" by being good enough to
be pros, but not about people riding "pro level" bike when they are 55
years old and 30 pounds overweight and can't even average 18 mph on
rolling terrain...
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:36:07
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article
<timmcn-C4E348.10102507102007@news.iphouse.com >,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1191767615.700134.163490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 8:50 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
> > >
> > > Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had their
> > > lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?
>
> Aluminum yes, steel not usually and titanium I don't know. But I've
> seen lots of dented steel frames in use for years afterwards with no
> failures.
>
> > > I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm unable
> > > to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon, titanium,
> > > steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths and
> > > know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses. But
> > > somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy" frame
> > > materials when trashing the new stuff.
> >
> > "Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
> > or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
> > because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
> > doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
> > denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
> > selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
> > that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
> > what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
> > materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
> > frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
> > worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.
>
> Thing is, for 99% of cyclists it makes not one whit of difference in
> terms of perceptible ride quality or performance if the frame weighs 3.5
> pounds or 2.5 pounds. The difference it makes is in talking points and
> self-aggrandizement.
>
> About 10-12 years ago, on a club training ride, one of the masters
> racers showed up with a then top-of-the-line and state of the art Look
> CF frame, a KG-whatever. The racer in question worked for the MN
> Department of Agriculture as an inspector and was (in)famous for doing
> lunch hour intervals and 100 mile training rides daily, pretty much
> dominating his category. My friend Mark was curious and chatted with
> the guy about his bike, commenting that it was the first Look frame he'd
> seen being ridden by a non-professional. The guy turns and thunders at
> Mark "whaddya mean a non-professional!?!?!?!?" Mark was a bit taken
> aback and later- on his lugged steel Rodriguez- dropped the offensive
> masters racer good and proper up the biggest hill on the ride.
>
> It cracks me up that some people get all twisted up about folks wearing
> pro team jerseys when they haven't "earned them" by being good enough to
> be pros, but not about people riding "pro level" bike when they are 55
> years old and 30 pounds overweight and can't even average 18 mph on
> rolling terrain...
Oh, I would not mind running one of those professional frames
on descents. Optimized frame, wheels, and tires can turn
granny into a madman on the go-down parts. And even on the
flats most people can learn to propel themselves fast enough
to benefit from a sharp handling bicycle.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:44:46
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:36:07 -0700, Michael Press wrote:
> Oh, I would not mind running one of those professional frames
> on descents. Optimized frame, wheels, and tires can turn
> granny into a madman on the go-down parts.
They're nothing compared to a big gut on someone who gets strong
dragging it up hills, though. There's a big guy I ride with who blows even
A-graders off his wheel when he hammers downhill.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 10:04:03
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article
<qmndr6qw4gy3$.i4g2akpkcqwe$.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:36:07 -0700, Michael Press wrote:
>
> > Oh, I would not mind running one of those professional frames
> > on descents. Optimized frame, wheels, and tires can turn
> > granny into a madman on the go-down parts.
>
> They're nothing compared to a big gut on someone who gets strong
> dragging it up hills, though. There's a big guy I ride with who blows even
> A-graders off his wheel when he hammers downhill.
What? No hard curves? Or is he also an expert in the turns?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 07:43:32
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:04:03 -0700, Michael Press wrote:
> What? No hard curves? Or is he also an expert in the turns?
They don't slow him down, if that's any indication :-)
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 12:25:39
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
>> > Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had
>> > their
>> > lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?
>
> Aluminum yes, steel not usually and titanium I don't know. But I've
> seen lots of dented steel frames in use for years afterwards with no
> failures.
The most-common failure mode for steel was the buckled downtube. If steel
frames were still made of .9/.6mm tubing, that's probably still what you'd
see, instead of the cracks near welds, bottle fittings and downtube shifter
bosses. As for "dents", 3.5lb steel frames tend to get "crunched" rather
than merely dented.
But we need to get back to something "real" here, which is that we're
comparing very light frames of each material, *not* very light carbon frames
against 5lb steel frames.
> Thing is, for 99% of cyclists it makes not one whit of difference in
> terms of perceptible ride quality or performance if the frame weighs 3.5
> pounds or 2.5 pounds. The difference it makes is in talking points and
> self-aggrandizement.
I think weight, by itself, is focused on too much simply because it's one of
the few easily-quantifiable parameters that everyone can agree upon. What
people cannot agree upon is the idea that different materials impart a very
different ride quality, most of it, I believe, tied not to vibration damping
per se, but audible cues. Different materials *sound* different, and that,
for many, is a key component of their perception of ride quality. Beyond
that, I will argue that carbon does a great job at eliminating road buzz,
and others will argue that it's irrelevant because there's far more
compliance in the tires than the sum of everything else on the bike. Maybe
it really does all come down to audible differences, which are often felt as
much as heard.
> It cracks me up that some people get all twisted up about folks wearing
> pro team jerseys when they haven't "earned them" by being good enough to
> be pros, but not about people riding "pro level" bike when they are 55
> years old and 30 pounds overweight and can't even average 18 mph on
> rolling terrain...
Funny the things we get worked up about. The pro jesey thing probably
affects a very small number of us (those of us who, in a past life, raced
ourselves, and if we were even marginally competitive, you simply did not,
ever, wear a jersey that you weren't "worthy" of wearing. But for the most
part, while we wouldn't consider wearing, say, a Molteni jersey... we didn't
have much issue with anyone who did, providing they weren't pretending too
hard to be Eddy Merckx.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-C4E348.10102507102007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <1191767615.700134.163490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 6, 8:50 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > > And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.
>> >
>> > Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had
>> > their
>> > lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?
>
> Aluminum yes, steel not usually and titanium I don't know. But I've
> seen lots of dented steel frames in use for years afterwards with no
> failures.
>
>> > I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm
>> > unable
>> > to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon,
>> > titanium,
>> > steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths
>> > and
>> > know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses.
>> > But
>> > somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy"
>> > frame
>> > materials when trashing the new stuff.
>>
>> "Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
>> or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
>> because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
>> doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
>> denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
>> selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
>> that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
>> what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
>> materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
>> frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
>> worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.
>
> Thing is, for 99% of cyclists it makes not one whit of difference in
> terms of perceptible ride quality or performance if the frame weighs 3.5
> pounds or 2.5 pounds. The difference it makes is in talking points and
> self-aggrandizement.
>
> About 10-12 years ago, on a club training ride, one of the masters
> racers showed up with a then top-of-the-line and state of the art Look
> CF frame, a KG-whatever. The racer in question worked for the MN
> Department of Agriculture as an inspector and was (in)famous for doing
> lunch hour intervals and 100 mile training rides daily, pretty much
> dominating his category. My friend Mark was curious and chatted with
> the guy about his bike, commenting that it was the first Look frame he'd
> seen being ridden by a non-professional. The guy turns and thunders at
> Mark "whaddya mean a non-professional!?!?!?!?" Mark was a bit taken
> aback and later- on his lugged steel Rodriguez- dropped the offensive
> masters racer good and proper up the biggest hill on the ride.
>
> It cracks me up that some people get all twisted up about folks wearing
> pro team jerseys when they haven't "earned them" by being good enough to
> be pros, but not about people riding "pro level" bike when they are 55
> years old and 30 pounds overweight and can't even average 18 mph on
> rolling terrain...
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:32:21
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> About 10-12 years ago, on a club training ride, one of the masters
> racers showed up with a then top-of-the-line and state of the art Look
> CF frame, a KG-whatever. The racer in question worked for the MN
> Department of Agriculture as an inspector and was (in)famous for doing
> lunch hour intervals and 100 mile training rides daily, pretty much
> dominating his category....
I must disagree with Tim's choice of words. If this guy rode that much,
he did not "work" for the MN Department of Agriculture, but was
"employed" by the MN Department of Agriculture. The two are not the same.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 04:57:15
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 6, 9:10 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> Shimano recently stated that some 17 million Americans have stopped
> cycling in the past 10 years, apparently citing that bikes have become
> too high-tech for most customers to be comfortable with. At my friend
> Jim's bike shop, the majority of customers come in with the worthy steed
> they have been riding for many years. When I look at the bikes I see
> people riding around, I see more bikes that are 25-30+ years old than
> bikes that are 5 years old (except off-road).
This is internally inconsistent. I mean not what
you're saying, but the statement attributed to Shimano
and its interpretation. If most cyclists are hanging
on to their bike for years, how could it be that a
large number of cyclists are hanging it up because
modern bikes are too complicated? The majority don't
have a modern bike and aren't in the market for one.
I have no data, but it seems to be like the mode
of the cyclist distribution is riding a roughly
6-8 speed mountain bike (about 5-20 years old) or an
older 5-7 speed road bike (10-30 years old), or a
department store bike. I may be biased by living
near a large university on one of its commute routes
and seeing what the undergrads ride.
I've seen this statement about 17 million people
stopping cycling a few times recently, and it just
doesn't sound reasonable. I'm not even sure how
you'd measure it. Sometimes people take up a hobby,
then stop it, and so on, but that's not the same as
a long-term decline in the cycling population. If
it's coming from Shimano as a statement about how
modern bikes are too high-tech, it's probably
marketing speak for selling twist shifters, gearhubs,
auto-shifting bikes, or some such. Technology like
that (even gearhubs) are not going to get more people
on bikes. Better roads and so on and so forth ...
but you probably heard that from Frank Krygowski
many times, so I'll shut up now.
CFRP and its pros and cons are semi-irrelevant to
the "average" cyclist. The average cyclist - not the
average RBT reader - may or may not know how to fix a
flat, and brings it into the shop to have it done.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 10:35:20
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
In article <1191733035.239786.21860@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:10 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > Shimano recently stated that some 17 million Americans have stopped
> > cycling in the past 10 years, apparently citing that bikes have
> > become too high-tech for most customers to be comfortable with. At
> > my friend Jim's bike shop, the majority of customers come in with
> > the worthy steed they have been riding for many years. When I look
> > at the bikes I see people riding around, I see more bikes that are
> > 25-30+ years old than bikes that are 5 years old (except off-road).
>
> This is internally inconsistent. I mean not what you're saying, but
> the statement attributed to Shimano and its interpretation. If most
> cyclists are hanging on to their bike for years, how could it be that
> a large number of cyclists are hanging it up because modern bikes are
> too complicated? The majority don't have a modern bike and aren't in
> the market for one.
Don't confuse my observations of what bikes I see people riding locally
and what Shimano has reported as the results of their survey. What
you're seeing as "internally inconsistent" is a conflation of my
observations locally and Shimano's reported report (which I have not
been able read myself, only references made to it).
> I have no data, but it seems to be like the mode of the cyclist
> distribution is riding a roughly 6-8 speed mountain bike (about 5-20
> years old) or an older 5-7 speed road bike (10-30 years old), or a
> department store bike. I may be biased by living near a large
> university on one of its commute routes and seeing what the
> undergrads ride.
I see a mix of college students (I live within two miles of a Big Ten
university and five private colleges), urban hipsters and middle aged
bike commuters. Since I stopped racing at the end of 2000, I see few
racers since I don't go on group training rides.
> I've seen this statement about 17 million people stopping cycling a
> few times recently, and it just doesn't sound reasonable. I'm not
> even sure how you'd measure it. Sometimes people take up a hobby,
> then stop it, and so on, but that's not the same as a long-term
> decline in the cycling population. If it's coming from Shimano as a
> statement about how modern bikes are too high-tech, it's probably
> marketing speak for selling twist shifters, gearhubs, auto-shifting
> bikes, or some such. Technology like that (even gearhubs) are not
> going to get more people on bikes. Better roads and so on and so
> forth ... but you probably heard that from Frank Krygowski many
> times, so I'll shut up now.
Not having been able to read the source material attributed to Shimano,
I dunno how they measured it. The references I have seen refer to it as
a survey, but how that survey was conducted is unknown to me. What I
have read indicates that the survey reported that 17 million Americans
stopped riding in the past decade, and that the reason those people
cited was that bikes and bike shops have too much emphasis on high tech.
My long term opinion is that the perfect bike for about 75% of the
population is patterned on the old "English" three speed. Upright
position, simple shifting, fenders, chain guard, dead reliable and
inexpensive. The silly gearing spacing would need to be tweaked to be
more useful and the bike could easily be made to weigh under 25 pounds
and cost well under $500. Sell a million of 'em.
> CFRP and its pros and cons are semi-irrelevant to the "average"
> cyclist.
True.
My anecdotal observations of my friend Jim's bike shop are that riders
come on and rejoice to find simple bikes with very little tech speak
about them. He sells steel framed bikes, no CF/Ti/few Al, is not a
franchised dealer for any major brand, and basically sells the stuff he
uses. There are no mountain bikes, nothing with suspension at all, not
even bikes with Ergo or STI. He's got bikes with fenders, often with
internal gear hubs, fat tires (including selling lots of 650B), solid
racks, etc. He sells ANT bikes, various Rivendell lines, Surly,
Kogswell, some Breezers; Nitto bars and stems and racks, Berthoud and
Banjo Brothers and Ortleib bags, Brooks saddles, etc.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:39:19
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
On Oct 6, 12:53 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> > _ wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >>>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
> >>>>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
> >>>>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
> >>>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
> >>>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
> >>>> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
> >>>> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
> >>> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel, but
> >>> rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame
> >>> from carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would
> >>> likely be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these
> >>> days.
>
> >> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
> >> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
> >> difference to
> >> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.
>
> > the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were as
> > over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
> > wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and
> > it wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.
>
> And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
..and it all starts again.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:44:32
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:53 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> _ wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
>>>>>>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
>>>>>>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
>>>>>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
>>>>>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
>>>>>> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
>>>>>> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
>>>>> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel, but
>>>>> rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame
>>>>> from carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would
>>>>> likely be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these
>>>>> days.
>>>> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
>>>> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
>>>> difference to
>>>> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.
>>> the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were as
>>> over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
>>> wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and
>>> it wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.
>> And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ..and it all starts again.
>
of course - he's not interested in information, just contest. facts
simply get in the way so must be ignored to continue the game.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 08:52:37
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
isalenmara@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
It encourages the use of acronyms.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:23:34
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
isalenmara@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
> I am just steping into this field...
Taste varies, but pretty much all modern materials may be used to good
effect, depending on your requirements. I could quickly name shabby
examples of lousy application/execution in each material as well.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:45:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
isalenmara@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
> I am just steping into this field...
>
cT = 0.97
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:35:00
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:XP-dnQSDUdL2DJranZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> isalenmara@gmail.com wrote:
>> Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
>> I am just steping into this field...
>>
>
> cT = 0.97
beamboy IQ = <90
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 08:27:11
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
isalenmara@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
> I am just steping into this field...
>
I think the primary disadvantage of CFRP is that the manufacturing
process is very difficult (currently) to automate, and this has quality
control implications. For the most part this translates into extra
expense, both in fabrication and inspection/test.
The other main disadvantage is that since CFRP doesn't dent like metal,
it's very difficult to know whether impact damage has occurred.
Finally, if care is not taken at clamp points, it's easy to damage the
parts, weakening them in a non-obvious way.
In a crash, CFRP has less capacity to absorb energy since it tends to
fracture rather than deform. Opinions vary on how important this is in
real-world situations.
I think the smart way to approach CFRP purchases is on a
component-by-component basis, weighing the pro's and con's in each area.
My take is that if you really want the weight reduction and can live
with possible durability consequences (and have the bucks) CFRP frames
are OK. CFRP forks can save a lot of weight, and are probably not too
likely to get accidentally damaged (unlike a frame top tube perhaps),
crash characteristics are debatable. CFRP seatposts and bars seem not
worth the bother -- marginal weight savings, clamping/scoring
vulnerabilities, possibility of sudden brittle fracture. That goes for
most of the other smaller components, too (brake levers, stems, cranks).
CFRP rims, and now spokes, are two other areas. I haven't given too much
thought to them, but they seem a bit dubious. Given CFRP's ability to
optimize strength in a specific direction, it seems possible to make
these components with advantageous qualities, but given a wheel's
susceptibility to impact damage it might not be worth it.
Other weaknesses of CFRP are thermal, UV and solvent exposure, but these
are not likely an issue with bikes.
I have no doubt that, in the not too distant future, CFRP materials, and
especially manufacturing process enhancements, will eliminate most of
the current shortcomings, and bicycles will become virtually 100% CFRP,
highly integrated structures, ditto for virtually all vehicles. It ought
to happen, but then plastic was supposed to replace leather in shoes 40
years ago.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:44:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> isalenmara@gmail.com wrote:
>> Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
>> I am just steping into this field...
>>
>
> I think the primary disadvantage of CFRP is that the manufacturing
> process is very difficult (currently) to automate,
eh? look seem to be able to automate tube and lug production. the
asians use manual labor because their cost of labor is almost zero. but
you're not typically one to let detail get in the way of whatever you
want to say.
> and this has quality
> control implications.
yeah. metals otoh just produce themselves, no q.c. issues whatsoever.
> For the most part this translates into extra
> expense, both in fabrication and inspection/test.
see above.
>
> The other main disadvantage is that since CFRP doesn't dent like metal,
> it's very difficult to know whether impact damage has occurred.
just like metal. x-rayed your frame for cracks lately? as for the
great undefined peter cole ethereal "impact", do you mean "impact" like
30mm d.u. armor piercing? or "impact" like a snot ball?
>
> Finally, if care is not taken at clamp points, it's easy to damage the
> parts, weakening them in a non-obvious way.
just like thin wall metal tube.
>
> In a crash, CFRP has less capacity to absorb energy since it tends to
> fracture rather than deform. Opinions vary on how important this is in
> real-world situations.
"opinions vary"??? you mean the variance among those that know what
they're talking about and those that don't? thats really going to be an
important factor in design and application!!!
<snip remaining crap >
bottom line, cfrp has been used in aerospace for decades, with great
success. and denial makes for endless r.b.t time wasting.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:34:38
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:XP-dnQWDUdLWDJranZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> bottom line, cfrp has been used in aerospace for decades, with great
> success. and denial makes for endless r.b.t time wasting.
Yeah, after all, you did relate that story about classified data on cfrp
helo rotors way before they existed, because you had CIA black ops
experience, right? In your "metarials lecture over 30 years ago", right?
DLFF.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 13:43:15
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> isalenmara@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Anybody could tell me what is the main drawback of CFRP?
>>> I am just steping into this field...
>>>
>>
>> I think the primary disadvantage of CFRP is that the manufacturing
>> process is very difficult (currently) to automate,
>
> eh? look seem to be able to automate tube and lug production.
Cites?
> the
> asians use manual labor because their cost of labor is almost zero.
Where does most CFRP come from?
> but
> you're not typically one to let detail get in the way of whatever you
> want to say.
Whatever.
>
>> and this has quality
>> control implications.
>
> yeah. metals otoh just produce themselves, no q.c. issues whatsoever.
Full robotic frame cut/miter, hydroform, weld. Much more repeatable.
Metal tube production -- highly automated -- ditto.
>> The other main disadvantage is that since CFRP doesn't dent like metal,
>> it's very difficult to know whether impact damage has occurred.
>
> just like metal. x-rayed your frame for cracks lately? as for the
> great undefined peter cole ethereal "impact", do you mean "impact" like
> 30mm d.u. armor piercing? or "impact" like a snot ball?
I mean impact like bar ends into top tube, or bike falling over against
a curb, or closing garage door on it. The usual stuff that happens to
a bike.
>> Finally, if care is not taken at clamp points, it's easy to damage the
>> parts, weakening them in a non-obvious way.
>
> just like thin wall metal tube.
Sure, just like it, that's why you need a torque wrench.
>> In a crash, CFRP has less capacity to absorb energy since it tends to
>> fracture rather than deform. Opinions vary on how important this is in
>> real-world situations.
>
> "opinions vary"??? you mean the variance among those that know what
> they're talking about and those that don't? thats really going to be an
> important factor in design and application!!!
Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.
I didn't think so.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:49:50
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Peter Cole wrote:
<snip crap >
> Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.
you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
failure. you therefore want to push deformation out along the
stress/strain graph as far as you can. that's what cfrp does. and with
better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that purports to
be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability to grasp
basic fundamentals.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:51:33
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:5_mdnbUAVfoiV5ranZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Peter Cole wrote:
> <snip crap>
>
>> Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.
>
> you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
> failure.
What bullshit. Get that from your "metarials skool"? Tell us, beamboy:
what about elastic deformation? Bridges do this all the time, so do
buildings, and every other structure in existence. So buildings swaying in
the wind is failure - shit, abandon your houses, everyone, chicken little
beamboy says they're failing...
Retard.
> you therefore want to push deformation out along the stress/strain graph
> as far as you can. that's what cfrp does.
So "deformation = plastic deformation=destruction". Another brilliant
re-definition of scientific terms from beamboy, the fraudulent retard.
> and with better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that
> purports to be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability to
> grasp basic fundamentals.
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
DLFF.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 22:02:46
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:5_mdnbUAVfoiV5ranZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>> <snip crap>
>>
>>> Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.
>> you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
>> failure.
>
> What bullshit. Get that from your "metarials skool"? Tell us, beamboy:
> what about elastic deformation? Bridges do this all the time, so do
> buildings, and every other structure in existence. So buildings swaying in
> the wind is failure - shit, abandon your houses, everyone, chicken little
> beamboy says they're failing...
you moron. read what i clarified.
>
> Retard.
>
>> you therefore want to push deformation out along the stress/strain graph
>> as far as you can. that's what cfrp does.
>
> So "deformation = plastic deformation=destruction". Another brilliant
> re-definition of scientific terms from beamboy, the fraudulent retard.
see above. moron.
>
>> and with better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that
>> purports to be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability to
>> grasp basic fundamentals.
>
> Yadda, yadda, yadda...
>
> DLFF.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:49:22
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:8qWdnRrplc9rJJTanZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:5_mdnbUAVfoiV5ranZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> <snip crap>
>>>
>>>> Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.
>>> you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
>>> failure.
>>
>> What bullshit. Get that from your "metarials skool"? Tell us, beamboy:
>> what about elastic deformation? Bridges do this all the time, so do
>> buildings, and every other structure in existence. So buildings swaying
>> in the wind is failure - shit, abandon your houses, everyone, chicken
>> little beamboy says they're failing...
>
> you moron. read what i clarified.
Yeah, still reads the same bullshit, idiot boy.
>>
>>> you therefore want to push deformation out along the stress/strain graph
>>> as far as you can. that's what cfrp does.
>>
>> So "deformation = plastic deformation=destruction". Another brilliant
>> re-definition of scientific terms from beamboy, the fraudulent retard.
>
> see above. moron.
>
Still says the same bullshit, idiot boy.
>>> and with better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that
>>> purports to be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability
>>> to grasp basic fundamentals.
>>
>> Yadda, yadda, yadda...
>>
>> DLFF.
Idiot.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:33:16
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:5_mdnbUAVfoiV5ranZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> <snip crap>
>>>
>>>> Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.
>>> you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
>>> failure.
>>
>> What bullshit. Get that from your "metarials skool"? Tell us,
>> beamboy: what about elastic deformation? Bridges do this all the
>> time, so do buildings, and every other structure in existence. So
>> buildings swaying in the wind is failure - shit, abandon your houses,
>> everyone, chicken little beamboy says they're failing...
>
> you moron. read what i clarified.
>
>
>>
>> Retard.
>>
>>> you therefore want to push deformation out along the stress/strain
>>> graph as far as you can. that's what cfrp does.
>>
>> So "deformation = plastic deformation=destruction". Another brilliant
>> re-definition of scientific terms from beamboy, the fraudulent retard.
>
> see above. moron.
>
>
>
>>
>>> and with better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that
>>> purports to be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary
>>> inability to grasp basic fundamentals.
>>
>> Yadda, yadda, yadda...
>>
>> DLFF.
>>
Hypothesis: Based on writing style, "jim beam" and "Jambo" are the same
person.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:50:06
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com > wrote in message
news:470ace6c$0$26391$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Hypothesis: Based on writing style, "jim beam" and "Jambo" are the same
> person.
You think this is a "Fight Club" scenario? You'd be mistaken.....
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 17:42:21
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
"jim beam" aka evan williams wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> <snip crap>
>
>> Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.
>
> you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
> failure. you therefore want to push deformation out along the
> stress/strain graph as far as you can. that's what cfrp does. and with
> better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that purports to
> be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability to grasp
> basic fundamentals.
Really? In design of non-critical buildings for earthquake loading, the
goal is to allow the occupants to safely exit the building. Quite severe
and easily noticeable (e.g. concrete spalled off columns and beams and
the underlying reinforcing steel twisted) deformation is acceptable, as
long as collapse does not occur. A material that failed in a brittle
manner would not be acceptable (which is why ACI 318 requires concrete
structural member to fail by the reinforcing steel yielding in tension
and not the concrete failing in compression).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:02:26
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" aka evan williams wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>> <snip crap>
>>
>>> Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.
>>
>> you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
>> failure. you therefore want to push deformation out along the
>> stress/strain graph as far as you can. that's what cfrp does. and
>> with better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that
>> purports to be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability
>> to grasp basic fundamentals.
>
> Really? In design of non-critical buildings for earthquake loading, the
> goal is to allow the occupants to safely exit the building. Quite severe
> and easily noticeable (e.g. concrete spalled off columns and beams and
> the underlying reinforcing steel twisted) deformation is acceptable, as
> long as collapse does not occur. A material that failed in a brittle
> manner would not be acceptable (which is why ACI 318 requires concrete
> structural member to fail by the reinforcing steel yielding in tension
> and not the concrete failing in compression).
>
yes, with the key being that it doesn't collapse. but the building is
not re-occupiable - in that respect it's failed. cfrp typically fails
in much the same way - it doesn't shatter like glass.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:56:50
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CFRP drawbacks
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> <snip crap>
>
>> Just show me the deformed CFRP &
|
|
