| |
Main
Date: 05 Jul 2007 10:08:06
From:
Subject: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike, or
had a crash.
The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
become apparent in the last week.
The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
caused the frame failure.
Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they felt
that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
close to the seat tube (carbon).
Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
persuade them to cover this under warranty?
Thx,
Atri
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 04:13:22
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
On Jul 9, 12:02 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman obnoxiously and
pointlessly wrote:
> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>
Who? Who? Who? Who? GMAFB, Jobst wannabe
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 06:18:15
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
Ozark Bicycle (who?) anonymously snipes:
> On Jul 9, 12:02 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman obnoxiously and
> pointlessly wrote:
>
>
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>
>
> Who? Who? Who? Who? GMAFB, Jobst wannabe
Don't feel left out. ;)
P.S. Are you this snarky to your customers?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 05:56:33
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
What type of material was the frame made of...?? Seems quite odd that
a dent could cause a crack. Unless he really forced the crank once the
chain was stuck. It would seem that a tubing such as 9000 series
aluminum such Columbus Starship tubing would be very brittle.
On Jul 8, 7:06 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote:
> On 2007-07-06, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > Troll Report wrote:
>
> >> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
> >> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bullshit that a
> >> lot of lemmings fell for.
> > "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
> > of any material. even steel.
>
> But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
> that of high-tech materials. And a steel chain is much harder than an
> aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur. A steel frame
> is much closer in hardness to a steel chain and will not be affected as
> much.
>
> --
>
> John (j...@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 05:45:26
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:
> What type of material was the frame made of...?? Seems quite odd that
> a dent could cause a crack. Unless he really forced the crank once the
> chain was stuck. It would seem that a tubing such as 9000 series
> aluminum such Columbus Starship tubing would be very brittle.
it's not a simple dent, its chain gouge. that is a sharp notch which is
excellent at initiating fatigue - exactly what happened here.
>
> On Jul 8, 7:06 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>> On 2007-07-06, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Troll Report wrote:
>>>> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
>>>> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bullshit that a
>>>> lot of lemmings fell for.
>>> "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
>>> of any material. even steel.
>> But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
>> that of high-tech materials. And a steel chain is much harder than an
>> aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur. A steel frame
>> is much closer in hardness to a steel chain and will not be affected as
>> much.
>>
>> --
>>
>> John (j...@os2.dhs.org)
>
>
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 02:59:17
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
jim beam wrote:
>
> tube, of whatever material, was seamless cylinder drawn from
> pierced slugs of solid metal. that is a long and expensive
> process, but yields the best mechanical properties. pipe otoh
> is simply flat sheet rolled and seam welded. it's way
> cheaper, but carried performance penalties.
The generalizations get fuzzy when you compare welded annealed and
drawn-over-mandrel tube to seamless tube that has variable local wall
thickness, as seamless tube often does. A modest advantage on
material properties can easily be erased by having uneven wall
thickness.
Lots of ornery metals like nickel superalloys can't be formed into
tubing at all unless they are rolled and welded from sheet. I
remember this being the case with the small run of bike tubesets made
from Carpenter Aermet 100, a ridiculously strong maraging steel.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 21:25:13
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> tube, of whatever material, was seamless cylinder drawn from
>> pierced slugs of solid metal. that is a long and expensive
>> process, but yields the best mechanical properties. pipe otoh
>> is simply flat sheet rolled and seam welded. it's way
>> cheaper, but carried performance penalties.
>
> The generalizations get fuzzy when you compare welded annealed and
> drawn-over-mandrel tube to seamless tube that has variable local wall
> thickness, as seamless tube often does. A modest advantage on
> material properties can easily be erased by having uneven wall
> thickness.
>
> Lots of ornery metals like nickel superalloys can't be formed into
> tubing at all unless they are rolled and welded from sheet. I
> remember this being the case with the small run of bike tubesets made
> from Carpenter Aermet 100, a ridiculously strong maraging steel.
>
> Chalo
>
but the bike tube made of aermet /is/ a seamless drawn tube from what i
recall. i understand that it's the very devil to draw in tubes much
over an inch in diameter, so bigger than that you may indeed need to go
with a seam, but preference for ultimate performance is always seamless.
always.
as to variable wall thickness, that depends on who's doing the drawing!
there's more than one way to skin that cat.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 09:08:41
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
>
> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
I've used plenty of seamless pipe for high pressure hydraulics. I
consider the difference to be purely semantic.
The way I make the semantic distinction between pipe and tubing, I
guess a "screwed and glued" frame would be made from pipe (because its
ends are threaded into joints) while a brazed frame would be made from
tubing. Copper household plumbing is tubing, iron or red brass
household plumbing is pipe. I think they're all seamed.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 16:02:52
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
Chalo wrote:
> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
>
> I've used plenty of seamless pipe for high pressure hydraulics. I
> consider the difference to be purely semantic.
it's a good deal more than semantic when it comes to mechanical properties.
>
> The way I make the semantic distinction between pipe and tubing, I
> guess a "screwed and glued" frame would be made from pipe (because its
> ends are threaded into joints) while a brazed frame would be made from
> tubing. Copper household plumbing is tubing, iron or red brass
> household plumbing is pipe. I think they're all seamed.
>
> Chalo
>
copper and brass are all seamless afaik. there are plated seamed
versions, but i've always known those as pipe.
you have a point regarding common usage - definite confusion.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 15:49:31
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
Chalo wrote:
> I've used plenty of seamless pipe for high pressure hydraulics. I
> consider the difference to be purely semantic.
>
> The way I make the semantic distinction between pipe and tubing, I
> guess a "screwed and glued" frame would be made from pipe (because its
> ends are threaded into joints) while a brazed frame would be made from
> tubing. Copper household plumbing is tubing, iron or red brass
> household plumbing is pipe. I think they're all seamed.
Now I'm curious - what's the definition if both can be seamed?
(I also considered 'pipe' to be a seamed tube but I'll listen)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 23:37:57
From: Ted Bennett
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
In article <1392jf836mvlkc4@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
> >> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
>
> Chalo wrote:
> > I've used plenty of seamless pipe for high pressure hydraulics. I
> > consider the difference to be purely semantic.
> >
> > The way I make the semantic distinction between pipe and tubing, I
> > guess a "screwed and glued" frame would be made from pipe (because its
> > ends are threaded into joints) while a brazed frame would be made from
> > tubing. Copper household plumbing is tubing, iron or red brass
> > household plumbing is pipe. I think they're all seamed.
>
> Now I'm curious - what's the definition if both can be seamed?
>
> (I also considered 'pipe' to be a seamed tube but I'll listen)
I'm curious about this distinction too. According to Wikipedia:
"The terms 'pipe' and 'tubing' are interchangeable. 'Pipe' is
generally specified by the internal diameter (ID) whereas 'tube' is
usually defined by the outside diameter (OD) but may be specified by any
combination of dimensions (OD, ID, wall thickness), depending upon which
are considered the most important to the designer. 'Tube' is often made
to custom sizes and may often have more specific sizes and tolerances
than pipe. The term 'tubing' is more widely used in the USA and 'pipe'
elsewhere in the world."
That would seem to agree with Chalo's assertion that the difference is a
matter of semantics.
jim beam wrote:
"copper and brass are all seamless afaik. there are plated seamed
versions, but i've always known those as pipe.
you have a point regarding common usage - definite confusion."
Absolutely correct. There are many systems for sizing and nomenclature.
It would seem useful to specify the ID and OD, the material and the
method of production as well as mechanical properties.
--
Ted Bennett
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 16:44:01
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
Ted Bennett wrote:
> In article <1392jf836mvlkc4@corp.supernews.com>,
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>>>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> I've used plenty of seamless pipe for high pressure hydraulics. I
>>> consider the difference to be purely semantic.
>>>
>>> The way I make the semantic distinction between pipe and tubing, I
>>> guess a "screwed and glued" frame would be made from pipe (because its
>>> ends are threaded into joints) while a brazed frame would be made from
>>> tubing. Copper household plumbing is tubing, iron or red brass
>>> household plumbing is pipe. I think they're all seamed.
>> Now I'm curious - what's the definition if both can be seamed?
>>
>> (I also considered 'pipe' to be a seamed tube but I'll listen)
>
>
> I'm curious about this distinction too. According to Wikipedia:
>
> "The terms 'pipe' and 'tubing' are interchangeable.
if a frame maker paid for tube and got pipe, they would have been ripped
off. the terms are /not/ interchangeable regardless of application.
> 'Pipe' is
> generally specified by the internal diameter (ID) whereas 'tube' is
> usually defined by the outside diameter (OD) but may be specified by any
> combination of dimensions (OD, ID, wall thickness), depending upon which
> are considered the most important to the designer. 'Tube' is often made
> to custom sizes and may often have more specific sizes and tolerances
> than pipe. The term 'tubing' is more widely used in the USA and 'pipe'
> elsewhere in the world."
>
> That would seem to agree with Chalo's assertion that the difference is a
> matter of semantics.
>
> jim beam wrote:
> "copper and brass are all seamless afaik. there are plated seamed
> versions, but i've always known those as pipe.
>
> you have a point regarding common usage - definite confusion."
>
> Absolutely correct. There are many systems for sizing and nomenclature.
> It would seem useful to specify the ID and OD, the material and the
> method of production as well as mechanical properties.
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 21:13:55
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
On 2007-07-08, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>>>>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
> if a frame maker paid for tube and got pipe, they would have been ripped
> off. the terms are /not/ interchangeable regardless of application.
There are more than a few examples of decent quality steel frame tubing
made from seamed tubes, e.g. Reynolds 501, True Temper, Colombus Allele,
Ishiwata 028, etc. In these cases the seamed tube is usually drawn
over a series of mandrels after welding to obliterate the weld seam
and add butting, but it starts out as ordinary seamed tubing.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 21:19:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-07-08, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> On Jul 7, 8:05 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never
>>>>>> been any 531 pipe to my knowledge.
>
>> if a frame maker paid for tube and got pipe, they would have been ripped
>> off. the terms are /not/ interchangeable regardless of application.
>
> There are more than a few examples of decent quality steel frame tubing
> made from seamed tubes, e.g. Reynolds 501, True Temper, Colombus Allele,
> Ishiwata 028, etc. In these cases the seamed tube is usually drawn
> over a series of mandrels after welding to obliterate the weld seam
> and add butting, but it starts out as ordinary seamed tubing.
>
indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is not
as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one has
higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and fatigue.
another analogy is compressed gas cylinders. low pressure stuff like
butane can use a welded or even polymer cylinder. high pressure stuff
like oxygen is typically used in seamless.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 23:39:34
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> ...
> indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is not
> as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one has
> higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and fatigue....
Does Dura-Ace really provide greater strength and fatigue resistance (a
citation of test results would be useful here), or merely lighter weight
and better finish (particularly when compared to Ultegra and 105)?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 21:58:22
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>> ...
>> indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is not
>> as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one has
>> higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and fatigue....
>
> Does Dura-Ace really provide greater strength and fatigue resistance (a
> citation of test results would be useful here), or merely lighter weight
> and better finish (particularly when compared to Ultegra and 105)?
>
i've not seen formal comparisons published, but let's examine what we
know about dura-ace from public data:
1. dura-ace failures reported on r.b.t - i'm still on the fingers of one
hand. given the sheer volume of product and time in service, that's a
very important qualitative indicator.
2. it's cold forged - the ultimate for strength and fatigue resistance.
3. surface finish is superb - again, best fatigue performance.
every single design element of dura-ace is the best that it can be.
given that the other groupos are not cold forged and are clearly
distinguishable in terms of finish or deliberately reserve scope for
improvement, i'm very confident of that ranking.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 00:02:30
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>> ...
>>> indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is
>>> not as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one
>>> has higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and
>>> fatigue....
>>
>> Does Dura-Ace really provide greater strength and fatigue resistance
>> (a citation of test results would be useful here), or merely lighter
>> weight and better finish (particularly when compared to Ultegra and 105)?
>>
> i've not seen formal comparisons published, but let's examine what we
> know about dura-ace from public data:
>
> 1. dura-ace failures reported on r.b.t - i'm still on the fingers of one
> hand. given the sheer volume of product and time in service, that's a
> very important qualitative indicator.
How many failures of Ultegra and 105 have been reported? Surely, these
have sold in greater quantities than Dura-Ace?
> 2. it's cold forged - the ultimate for strength and fatigue resistance.
> 3. surface finish is superb - again, best fatigue performance.
>
> every single design element of dura-ace is the best that it can be.
> given that the other groupos are not cold forged and are clearly
> distinguishable in terms of finish or deliberately reserve scope for
> improvement, i'm very confident of that ranking.
However, Dura-Ace parts are lighter than Ultegra and 105, which will
compromise fatigue life.
So, is there any data beyond speculation?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 06:32:58
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:02:30 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>How many failures of Ultegra and 105 have been reported? Surely, these
>have sold in greater quantities than Dura-Ace?
I'm not so sure about that. With Ultegra it's quite possible that
once someone decides to spend the big $ on a bike they go all the way
and buy the Dura-Ace. I don't know, but would not be surprised if
Ultegra was outsold by Dura-Ace.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 06:04:25
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:02:30 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> How many failures of Ultegra and 105 have been reported? Surely, these
>> have sold in greater quantities than Dura-Ace?
>
> I'm not so sure about that. With Ultegra it's quite possible that
> once someone decides to spend the big $ on a bike they go all the way
> and buy the Dura-Ace. I don't know, but would not be surprised if
> Ultegra was outsold by Dura-Ace.
Maybe this depends on geography and preferred type of activity. When I
had the time to ride regularly with a (non-racing) club, and from what I
see on invitational rides in the Upper Midwest, steel and aluminium
frame bikes with Sora to Ultegra level components are the most common.
Maybe where jim beam lives (SF/Silly Cone Valley) people automatically
buy the most expensive components (Dura-Ace, Record and boutique).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 22:08:54
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> indeed, but it's still not as good as seamless tube. like sora is
>>>> not as good as dura-ace. arguably, they both work the same, but one
>>>> has higher ultimate limits in terms of strength, lightness and
>>>> fatigue....
>>>
>>> Does Dura-Ace really provide greater strength and fatigue resistance
>>> (a citation of test results would be useful here), or merely lighter
>>> weight and better finish (particularly when compared to Ultegra and
>>> 105)?
>>>
>> i've not seen formal comparisons published, but let's examine what we
>> know about dura-ace from public data:
>>
>> 1. dura-ace failures reported on r.b.t - i'm still on the fingers of
>> one hand. given the sheer volume of product and time in service,
>> that's a very important qualitative indicator.
>
> How many failures of Ultegra and 105 have been reported? Surely, these
> have sold in greater quantities than Dura-Ace?
in the u.s., that's debatable! and are they used for the same mileage?
serious cyclists that put in the big miles generally don't use low end
groupos.
>
>> 2. it's cold forged - the ultimate for strength and fatigue resistance.
>> 3. surface finish is superb - again, best fatigue performance.
>>
>> every single design element of dura-ace is the best that it can be.
>> given that the other groupos are not cold forged and are clearly
>> distinguishable in terms of finish or deliberately reserve scope for
>> improvement, i'm very confident of that ranking.
>
> However, Dura-Ace parts are lighter than Ultegra and 105, which will
> compromise fatigue life.
>
> So, is there any data beyond speculation?
>
fatigue is a matter of design, execution and materials. on all three
counts, the "speculation" accords with known factors that are /proven/
to mitigate fatigue. what's next - trying to prove that ignoring design
execution and materials /doesn't/ affect fatigue?
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 13:05:57
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
<atri.ind@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike, or
> had a crash.
>
> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
> become apparent in the last week.
>
> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
> caused the frame failure.
>
> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they felt
> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>
> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
>
> Thx,
>
> Atri
>
Anecdotal experience: I've been messing around with pro bikes for ~35
years. I don't ever recall seeing a cracked or broken chain stays on a
Reynolds 531 frame.
I've seen maybe a dozen broken chainstays on Italian built Columbus
frames, several in Super Vitus frames made in the 1970s by US builders and
a few in frames made from True Temper tubing.
I saw several frames with chainstays that broke right at the bottom
bracket but I attributed those to overheating during brazing and they
weren't necessarily pro bikes.
The right chainstay was the one that cracked or broke on all of the other
frames. The damage was usually 3" - 6" from the bottom bracket shell. I
looked for causes like chain damage but it wasn't apparent on most of
these bikes and the breaks or cracks usually didn't occur in the area of
the chainstay dented for chainring clearance.
Yesterday I was talking about this with a local frame builder who's done a
lot of repairs over the years. He said that he saw quite a few Reynolds
753 frames with cracked or broken chainstays but the only 531 frames with
chainstay problems he'd seen were at the dropouts. The original Reynolds
753 chainstays were made of very thin wall tubing - .5mm thick.
He mentioned that over the years Columbus increased the wall thickness of
their chainstays made of SL tubing which started out at .6mm. He also said
that he's had to replace chainstays made from Ishiwata and Tange tubing.
During the period that I'm talking about - 1970s to 1990s, most of the
Columbus, Ishiwata, Tange and True Temper tubing was made of 4130 chrome
molybdenum steel. Super Vitus was of a somewhat similar steel.
Reynolds 531 was made from a manganese molybdenum steel (manganese - not
to be confused with magnesium). Manganese adds toughness to steel. The
published strength of Reynolds 531 is usually lower than that of the
chrome moly steels. The total amount of alloying elements in these steels
is only around 5% by weight.
My guess is that the use of manganese instead of chrome as an alloying
agent slightly increases the toughness of 531 over 4130. Tougher steel is
less prone to cracking.
Just an observation and opinion. I own bikes made of Columbus, Reynolds,
Tange and Super Vitus so I have no axe to grind.
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 19:30:14
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
> <atri.ind@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
>> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike, or
>> had a crash.
>>
>> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
>> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
>> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
>> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
>> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
>> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
>> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
>> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
>> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
>> become apparent in the last week.
>>
>> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
>> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
>> caused the frame failure.
>>
>> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
>> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they felt
>> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
>> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>>
>> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
>> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
* * Chas wrote:
> Anecdotal experience: I've been messing around with pro bikes for ~35
> years. I don't ever recall seeing a cracked or broken chain stays on a
> Reynolds 531 frame.
> I've seen maybe a dozen broken chainstays on Italian built Columbus
> frames, several in Super Vitus frames made in the 1970s by US builders and
> a few in frames made from True Temper tubing.
> I saw several frames with chainstays that broke right at the bottom
> bracket but I attributed those to overheating during brazing and they
> weren't necessarily pro bikes.
> The right chainstay was the one that cracked or broke on all of the other
> frames. The damage was usually 3" - 6" from the bottom bracket shell. I
> looked for causes like chain damage but it wasn't apparent on most of
> these bikes and the breaks or cracks usually didn't occur in the area of
> the chainstay dented for chainring clearance.
>
> Yesterday I was talking about this with a local frame builder who's done a
> lot of repairs over the years. He said that he saw quite a few Reynolds
> 753 frames with cracked or broken chainstays but the only 531 frames with
> chainstay problems he'd seen were at the dropouts. The original Reynolds
> 753 chainstays were made of very thin wall tubing - .5mm thick.
> He mentioned that over the years Columbus increased the wall thickness of
> their chainstays made of SL tubing which started out at .6mm. He also said
> that he's had to replace chainstays made from Ishiwata and Tange tubing.
> During the period that I'm talking about - 1970s to 1990s, most of the
> Columbus, Ishiwata, Tange and True Temper tubing was made of 4130 chrome
> molybdenum steel. Super Vitus was of a somewhat similar steel.
> Reynolds 531 was made from a manganese molybdenum steel (manganese - not
> to be confused with magnesium). Manganese adds toughness to steel. The
> published strength of Reynolds 531 is usually lower than that of the
> chrome moly steels. The total amount of alloying elements in these steels
> is only around 5% by weight.
> My guess is that the use of manganese instead of chrome as an alloying
> agent slightly increases the toughness of 531 over 4130. Tougher steel is
> less prone to cracking.
> Just an observation and opinion. I own bikes made of Columbus, Reynolds,
> Tange and Super Vitus so I have no axe to grind.
I have replaced cracked 531 stays. My very first frame repair was on a
1968 Raleigh Pro* with a broken right stay. The high incidence of
cracked Columbus chainstays in the eighties followed the trend to
Columbus cast chainstay bridges. Those are small, thick and rigid,
frequently behind a chain crimp on the outside of the stay, brass brazed
and often hot.
Super Vitus is nearly the same material as 531 and those break too.
There's much more going on besides material and thickness. Construction
details (cast bridges, crimped sections) , sloppy process (high brazing
temperatures, misalignment, poor miters, outright brazing errors), rider
abuse (chain jam dings) all can contribute. I say 'contribute' because
all of those things are known but do not always fail.
I don't conclude that any of the major brands of tube is 'better' or
'worse' overall.
* Given the volume of Raleighs, that's not significant. They are no more
prone to cracks than any other brand.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 18:00:01
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:1390c12deh1dg13@corp.supernews.com...
> > <atri.ind@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
> >> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike,
or
> >> had a crash.
> >>
> >> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped
off,
> >> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a
dent
> >> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame
is
> >> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
> >> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
> >> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
> >> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
> >> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
> >> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
> >> become apparent in the last week.
> >>
> >> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
> >> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
> >> caused the frame failure.
> >>
> >> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
> >> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they
felt
> >> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
> >> close to the seat tube (carbon).
> >>
> >> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
> >> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
>
> * * Chas wrote:
> > Anecdotal experience: I've been messing around with pro bikes for ~35
> > years. I don't ever recall seeing a cracked or broken chain stays on a
> > Reynolds 531 frame.
> > I've seen maybe a dozen broken chainstays on Italian built Columbus
> > frames, several in Super Vitus frames made in the 1970s by US builders
and
> > a few in frames made from True Temper tubing.
> > I saw several frames with chainstays that broke right at the bottom
> > bracket but I attributed those to overheating during brazing and they
> > weren't necessarily pro bikes.
> > The right chainstay was the one that cracked or broke on all of the
other
> > frames. The damage was usually 3" - 6" from the bottom bracket shell.
I
> > looked for causes like chain damage but it wasn't apparent on most of
> > these bikes and the breaks or cracks usually didn't occur in the area
of
> > the chainstay dented for chainring clearance.
> >
> > Yesterday I was talking about this with a local frame builder who's
done a
> > lot of repairs over the years. He said that he saw quite a few
Reynolds
> > 753 frames with cracked or broken chainstays but the only 531 frames
with
> > chainstay problems he'd seen were at the dropouts. The original
Reynolds
> > 753 chainstays were made of very thin wall tubing - .5mm thick.
> > He mentioned that over the years Columbus increased the wall thickness
of
> > their chainstays made of SL tubing which started out at .6mm. He also
said
> > that he's had to replace chainstays made from Ishiwata and Tange
tubing.
> > During the period that I'm talking about - 1970s to 1990s, most of the
> > Columbus, Ishiwata, Tange and True Temper tubing was made of 4130
chrome
> > molybdenum steel. Super Vitus was of a somewhat similar steel.
> > Reynolds 531 was made from a manganese molybdenum steel (manganese -
not
> > to be confused with magnesium). Manganese adds toughness to steel. The
> > published strength of Reynolds 531 is usually lower than that of the
> > chrome moly steels. The total amount of alloying elements in these
steels
> > is only around 5% by weight.
> > My guess is that the use of manganese instead of chrome as an alloying
> > agent slightly increases the toughness of 531 over 4130. Tougher steel
is
> > less prone to cracking.
> > Just an observation and opinion. I own bikes made of Columbus,
Reynolds,
> > Tange and Super Vitus so I have no axe to grind.
>
> I have replaced cracked 531 stays. My very first frame repair was on a
> 1968 Raleigh Pro* with a broken right stay. The high incidence of
> cracked Columbus chainstays in the eighties followed the trend to
> Columbus cast chainstay bridges. Those are small, thick and rigid,
> frequently behind a chain crimp on the outside of the stay, brass brazed
> and often hot.
>
> Super Vitus is nearly the same material as 531 and those break too.
>
> There's much more going on besides material and thickness. Construction
> details (cast bridges, crimped sections) , sloppy process (high brazing
> temperatures, misalignment, poor miters, outright brazing errors), rider
> abuse (chain jam dings) all can contribute. I say 'contribute' because
> all of those things are known but do not always fail.
>
> I don't conclude that any of the major brands of tube is 'better' or
> 'worse' overall.
>
> * Given the volume of Raleighs, that's not significant. They are no more
> prone to cracks than any other brand.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Like I said, I never saw a cracked or broken 531 chainstay during the time
period I listed but I was looking for feedback from others and ideas about
the causes of the breaks so far back from the BB and area of chain suck.
That's odd about the Raleigh Pro chainstay breaking since they used round
chainstays without dimples. Those tubes were that same as Reynolds round
track fork "blades". The same tubes were also flattened into an oval shape
regular fork blades.The early Pros were made with fairly heavy gage
Reynolds 531 pipe. I've seen cracks and breaks in the main tubes on those
frames.
Chas.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 18:05:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
* * Chas wrote:
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:1390c12deh1dg13@corp.supernews.com...
>>> <atri.ind@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
>>>> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike,
> or
>>>> had a crash.
>>>>
>>>> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped
> off,
>>>> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a
> dent
>>>> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame
> is
>>>> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
>>>> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
>>>> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
>>>> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
>>>> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
>>>> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
>>>> become apparent in the last week.
>>>>
>>>> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
>>>> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
>>>> caused the frame failure.
>>>>
>>>> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
>>>> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they
> felt
>>>> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
>>>> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
>>>> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> Anecdotal experience: I've been messing around with pro bikes for ~35
>>> years. I don't ever recall seeing a cracked or broken chain stays on a
>>> Reynolds 531 frame.
>>> I've seen maybe a dozen broken chainstays on Italian built Columbus
>>> frames, several in Super Vitus frames made in the 1970s by US builders
> and
>>> a few in frames made from True Temper tubing.
>>> I saw several frames with chainstays that broke right at the bottom
>>> bracket but I attributed those to overheating during brazing and they
>>> weren't necessarily pro bikes.
>>> The right chainstay was the one that cracked or broke on all of the
> other
>>> frames. The damage was usually 3" - 6" from the bottom bracket shell.
> I
>>> looked for causes like chain damage but it wasn't apparent on most of
>>> these bikes and the breaks or cracks usually didn't occur in the area
> of
>>> the chainstay dented for chainring clearance.
>>>
>>> Yesterday I was talking about this with a local frame builder who's
> done a
>>> lot of repairs over the years. He said that he saw quite a few
> Reynolds
>>> 753 frames with cracked or broken chainstays but the only 531 frames
> with
>>> chainstay problems he'd seen were at the dropouts. The original
> Reynolds
>>> 753 chainstays were made of very thin wall tubing - .5mm thick.
>>> He mentioned that over the years Columbus increased the wall thickness
> of
>>> their chainstays made of SL tubing which started out at .6mm. He also
> said
>>> that he's had to replace chainstays made from Ishiwata and Tange
> tubing.
>>> During the period that I'm talking about - 1970s to 1990s, most of the
>>> Columbus, Ishiwata, Tange and True Temper tubing was made of 4130
> chrome
>>> molybdenum steel. Super Vitus was of a somewhat similar steel.
>>> Reynolds 531 was made from a manganese molybdenum steel (manganese -
> not
>>> to be confused with magnesium). Manganese adds toughness to steel. The
>>> published strength of Reynolds 531 is usually lower than that of the
>>> chrome moly steels. The total amount of alloying elements in these
> steels
>>> is only around 5% by weight.
>>> My guess is that the use of manganese instead of chrome as an alloying
>>> agent slightly increases the toughness of 531 over 4130. Tougher steel
> is
>>> less prone to cracking.
>>> Just an observation and opinion. I own bikes made of Columbus,
> Reynolds,
>>> Tange and Super Vitus so I have no axe to grind.
>> I have replaced cracked 531 stays. My very first frame repair was on a
>> 1968 Raleigh Pro* with a broken right stay. The high incidence of
>> cracked Columbus chainstays in the eighties followed the trend to
>> Columbus cast chainstay bridges. Those are small, thick and rigid,
>> frequently behind a chain crimp on the outside of the stay, brass brazed
>> and often hot.
>>
>> Super Vitus is nearly the same material as 531 and those break too.
>>
>> There's much more going on besides material and thickness. Construction
>> details (cast bridges, crimped sections) , sloppy process (high brazing
>> temperatures, misalignment, poor miters, outright brazing errors), rider
>> abuse (chain jam dings) all can contribute. I say 'contribute' because
>> all of those things are known but do not always fail.
>>
>> I don't conclude that any of the major brands of tube is 'better' or
>> 'worse' overall.
>>
>> * Given the volume of Raleighs, that's not significant. They are no more
>> prone to cracks than any other brand.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> www.yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> Like I said, I never saw a cracked or broken 531 chainstay during the time
> period I listed but I was looking for feedback from others and ideas about
> the causes of the breaks so far back from the BB and area of chain suck.
>
> That's odd about the Raleigh Pro chainstay breaking since they used round
> chainstays without dimples. Those tubes were that same as Reynolds round
> track fork "blades". The same tubes were also flattened into an oval shape
> regular fork blades.The early Pros were made with fairly heavy gage
> Reynolds 531 pipe.
"pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never been any
531 pipe to my knowledge.
> I've seen cracks and breaks in the main tubes on those
> frames.
>
> Chas.
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 03:02:55
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:hNidneOypNDMpQ3bnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> * * Chas wrote:
> > "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> > news:1390c12deh1dg13@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> <atri.ind@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
> >>>> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike,
> > or
> >>>> had a crash.
> >>>>
> >>>> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped
> > off,
> >>>> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a
> > dent
> >>>> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame
> > is
> >>>> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and
declared
> >>>> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
> >>>> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
> >>>> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and
they
> >>>> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent.
They
> >>>> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
> >>>> become apparent in the last week.
> >>>>
> >>>> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame
needs
> >>>> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
> >>>> caused the frame failure.
> >>>>
> >>>> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a
reasonable
> >>>> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they
> > felt
> >>>> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack
was
> >>>> close to the seat tube (carbon).
> >>>>
> >>>> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
> >>>> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
> >> * * Chas wrote:
> >>> Anecdotal experience: I've been messing around with pro bikes for
~35
> >>> years. I don't ever recall seeing a cracked or broken chain stays on
a
> >>> Reynolds 531 frame.
> >>> I've seen maybe a dozen broken chainstays on Italian built Columbus
> >>> frames, several in Super Vitus frames made in the 1970s by US
builders
> > and
> >>> a few in frames made from True Temper tubing.
> >>> I saw several frames with chainstays that broke right at the bottom
> >>> bracket but I attributed those to overheating during brazing and
they
> >>> weren't necessarily pro bikes.
> >>> The right chainstay was the one that cracked or broke on all of the
> > other
> >>> frames. The damage was usually 3" - 6" from the bottom bracket
shell.
> > I
> >>> looked for causes like chain damage but it wasn't apparent on most
of
> >>> these bikes and the breaks or cracks usually didn't occur in the
area
> > of
> >>> the chainstay dented for chainring clearance.
> >>>
> >>> Yesterday I was talking about this with a local frame builder who's
> > done a
> >>> lot of repairs over the years. He said that he saw quite a few
> > Reynolds
> >>> 753 frames with cracked or broken chainstays but the only 531 frames
> > with
> >>> chainstay problems he'd seen were at the dropouts. The original
> > Reynolds
> >>> 753 chainstays were made of very thin wall tubing - .5mm thick.
> >>> He mentioned that over the years Columbus increased the wall
thickness
> > of
> >>> their chainstays made of SL tubing which started out at .6mm. He
also
> > said
> >>> that he's had to replace chainstays made from Ishiwata and Tange
> > tubing.
> >>> During the period that I'm talking about - 1970s to 1990s, most of
the
> >>> Columbus, Ishiwata, Tange and True Temper tubing was made of 4130
> > chrome
> >>> molybdenum steel. Super Vitus was of a somewhat similar steel.
> >>> Reynolds 531 was made from a manganese molybdenum steel (manganese -
> > not
> >>> to be confused with magnesium). Manganese adds toughness to steel.
The
> >>> published strength of Reynolds 531 is usually lower than that of the
> >>> chrome moly steels. The total amount of alloying elements in these
> > steels
> >>> is only around 5% by weight.
> >>> My guess is that the use of manganese instead of chrome as an
alloying
> >>> agent slightly increases the toughness of 531 over 4130. Tougher
steel
> > is
> >>> less prone to cracking.
> >>> Just an observation and opinion. I own bikes made of Columbus,
> > Reynolds,
> >>> Tange and Super Vitus so I have no axe to grind.
> >> I have replaced cracked 531 stays. My very first frame repair was on
a
> >> 1968 Raleigh Pro* with a broken right stay. The high incidence of
> >> cracked Columbus chainstays in the eighties followed the trend to
> >> Columbus cast chainstay bridges. Those are small, thick and rigid,
> >> frequently behind a chain crimp on the outside of the stay, brass
brazed
> >> and often hot.
> >>
> >> Super Vitus is nearly the same material as 531 and those break too.
> >>
> >> There's much more going on besides material and thickness.
Construction
> >> details (cast bridges, crimped sections) , sloppy process (high
brazing
> >> temperatures, misalignment, poor miters, outright brazing errors),
rider
> >> abuse (chain jam dings) all can contribute. I say 'contribute'
because
> >> all of those things are known but do not always fail.
> >>
> >> I don't conclude that any of the major brands of tube is 'better' or
> >> 'worse' overall.
> >>
> >> * Given the volume of Raleighs, that's not significant. They are no
more
> >> prone to cracks than any other brand.
> >> --
> >> Andrew Muzi
> >> www.yellowjersey.org
> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> >
> > Like I said, I never saw a cracked or broken 531 chainstay during the
time
> > period I listed but I was looking for feedback from others and ideas
about
> > the causes of the breaks so far back from the BB and area of chain
suck.
> >
> > That's odd about the Raleigh Pro chainstay breaking since they used
round
> > chainstays without dimples. Those tubes were that same as Reynolds
round
> > track fork "blades". The same tubes were also flattened into an oval
shape
> > regular fork blades.The early Pros were made with fairly heavy gage
> > Reynolds 531 pipe.
>
> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never been any
> 531 pipe to my knowledge.
Where the f$%% are you coming from?
The term "pipe" has nothing to do with the manufacturing processes used in
the production tubular metal products. You've stepped over your 1st year
engineeering student level of knowledge and experience!
Pipe can be cast, seam welded and/or DOM (drawn over mandrel) - the
generic term "pipe" refers to a hollow cylindrical metal product with a
certain minimum unspecified wall thickness.
There are several different methods for producing pipe and tubing using
the seamed and welded process:
1. Roll forming - folding a sheet of metal into a tubular shape and
welding the joint via induction welding, submerged arc welding or other
joining methods. This leaves a non-homogeneous area at the joint and a
ridge at the weld site inside the tube/pipe. Roll formed DOM tubing is
supposed to have a uniform metallurgical structure at the joint but True
Temper tubing made using this process contradicts this claim.
Peugeot used forks made of sheet metal rolled and brazed into shape on
their U-08, PR-10 and other models during the US Bike Boom in the 1970s.
These forks where not really made of tubing. When bent, these forks would
split at the seam.
The other day someone showed me a down tube cut from an older Pogliaghi
frame that had a perfect seamed weld down the middle of the ID of the
tube. The frame was supposed to be made of Reynolds or Columbus tubing.
Durifort, Vitus 172 and some True temper bicycle tubing used this welded
seam process.
Here's some sites showing the manufacturing processes for seamed tubing.
http://www.unicorn-automation.co.uk/article3.htm
http://www.markintubing.com/manufacturing.html
Clicking on "Slitting" and "Tube Mills" brings up Quicktime presentations
on the subject.
2. Rolling a sheet of metal into a tubular shape with multiple overlaps
around a mandrel - the heat and pressure used in the process "welds" the
layers into a somewhat homogeneous state. This is frequently refereed to
as "seamless" tubing.
DOM or Drawn Over Mandrel produces the best quality pipe and tubing. DOM
tubing and pipe can be made from solid homogenous slugs, seam welded or
lapped material.
A slug of metal is pierced or drilled in the center so that a mandrel can
be inserted. The OD and ID size is mechanically established by rolling,
drawing or extruding the metal slug with the mandrel inside.
Here's a site that shows the DOM process.
http://www.steeluniversity.org/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=199&pageid=2081272066
Reynolds used their 531 steel for many different applications - 531 stands
for the ratio of alloys in the steel - don't ask, it doesn't make since to
me. It's been around since before WWI. It was developed for use in WWI
aircraft frames for more strength and fatigue resistance over standard
carbon steels.
At the time the Brits had dificulty getting chrome at an economical price
but had ample access to supplies of manganese so they developed a steel
alloy using this element. The percentage of alloys in 531 and 4130 (chrome
moly steel) is only around 5% by weight.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 15:19:55
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
* * Chas wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:hNidneOypNDMpQ3bnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>>> news:1390c12deh1dg13@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> <atri.ind@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
>>>>>> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike,
>>> or
>>>>>> had a crash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped
>>> off,
>>>>>> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a
>>> dent
>>>>>> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame
>>> is
>>>>>> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and
> declared
>>>>>> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
>>>>>> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
>>>>>> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and
> they
>>>>>> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent.
> They
>>>>>> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
>>>>>> become apparent in the last week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame
> needs
>>>>>> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
>>>>>> caused the frame failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a
> reasonable
>>>>>> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they
>>> felt
>>>>>> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack
> was
>>>>>> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
>>>>>> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
>>>> * * Chas wrote:
>>>>> Anecdotal experience: I've been messing around with pro bikes for
> ~35
>>>>> years. I don't ever recall seeing a cracked or broken chain stays on
> a
>>>>> Reynolds 531 frame.
>>>>> I've seen maybe a dozen broken chainstays on Italian built Columbus
>>>>> frames, several in Super Vitus frames made in the 1970s by US
> builders
>>> and
>>>>> a few in frames made from True Temper tubing.
>>>>> I saw several frames with chainstays that broke right at the bottom
>>>>> bracket but I attributed those to overheating during brazing and
> they
>>>>> weren't necessarily pro bikes.
>>>>> The right chainstay was the one that cracked or broke on all of the
>>> other
>>>>> frames. The damage was usually 3" - 6" from the bottom bracket
> shell.
>>> I
>>>>> looked for causes like chain damage but it wasn't apparent on most
> of
>>>>> these bikes and the breaks or cracks usually didn't occur in the
> area
>>> of
>>>>> the chainstay dented for chainring clearance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday I was talking about this with a local frame builder who's
>>> done a
>>>>> lot of repairs over the years. He said that he saw quite a few
>>> Reynolds
>>>>> 753 frames with cracked or broken chainstays but the only 531 frames
>>> with
>>>>> chainstay problems he'd seen were at the dropouts. The original
>>> Reynolds
>>>>> 753 chainstays were made of very thin wall tubing - .5mm thick.
>>>>> He mentioned that over the years Columbus increased the wall
> thickness
>>> of
>>>>> their chainstays made of SL tubing which started out at .6mm. He
> also
>>> said
>>>>> that he's had to replace chainstays made from Ishiwata and Tange
>>> tubing.
>>>>> During the period that I'm talking about - 1970s to 1990s, most of
> the
>>>>> Columbus, Ishiwata, Tange and True Temper tubing was made of 4130
>>> chrome
>>>>> molybdenum steel. Super Vitus was of a somewhat similar steel.
>>>>> Reynolds 531 was made from a manganese molybdenum steel (manganese -
>>> not
>>>>> to be confused with magnesium). Manganese adds toughness to steel.
> The
>>>>> published strength of Reynolds 531 is usually lower than that of the
>>>>> chrome moly steels. The total amount of alloying elements in these
>>> steels
>>>>> is only around 5% by weight.
>>>>> My guess is that the use of manganese instead of chrome as an
> alloying
>>>>> agent slightly increases the toughness of 531 over 4130. Tougher
> steel
>>> is
>>>>> less prone to cracking.
>>>>> Just an observation and opinion. I own bikes made of Columbus,
>>> Reynolds,
>>>>> Tange and Super Vitus so I have no axe to grind.
>>>> I have replaced cracked 531 stays. My very first frame repair was on
> a
>>>> 1968 Raleigh Pro* with a broken right stay. The high incidence of
>>>> cracked Columbus chainstays in the eighties followed the trend to
>>>> Columbus cast chainstay bridges. Those are small, thick and rigid,
>>>> frequently behind a chain crimp on the outside of the stay, brass
> brazed
>>>> and often hot.
>>>>
>>>> Super Vitus is nearly the same material as 531 and those break too.
>>>>
>>>> There's much more going on besides material and thickness.
> Construction
>>>> details (cast bridges, crimped sections) , sloppy process (high
> brazing
>>>> temperatures, misalignment, poor miters, outright brazing errors),
> rider
>>>> abuse (chain jam dings) all can contribute. I say 'contribute'
> because
>>>> all of those things are known but do not always fail.
>>>>
>>>> I don't conclude that any of the major brands of tube is 'better' or
>>>> 'worse' overall.
>>>>
>>>> * Given the volume of Raleighs, that's not significant. They are no
> more
>>>> prone to cracks than any other brand.
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> www.yellowjersey.org
>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>> Like I said, I never saw a cracked or broken 531 chainstay during the
> time
>>> period I listed but I was looking for feedback from others and ideas
> about
>>> the causes of the breaks so far back from the BB and area of chain
> suck.
>>> That's odd about the Raleigh Pro chainstay breaking since they used
> round
>>> chainstays without dimples. Those tubes were that same as Reynolds
> round
>>> track fork "blades". The same tubes were also flattened into an oval
> shape
>>> regular fork blades.The early Pros were made with fairly heavy gage
>>> Reynolds 531 pipe.
>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless. there's never been any
>> 531 pipe to my knowledge.
>
> Where the f$%% are you coming from?
>
> The term "pipe" has nothing to do with the manufacturing processes used in
> the production tubular metal products. You've stepped over your 1st year
> engineeering student level of knowledge and experience!
>
> Pipe can be cast, seam welded and/or DOM (drawn over mandrel) - the
> generic term "pipe" refers to a hollow cylindrical metal product with a
> certain minimum unspecified wall thickness.
>
> There are several different methods for producing pipe and tubing using
> the seamed and welded process:
>
> 1. Roll forming - folding a sheet of metal into a tubular shape and
> welding the joint via induction welding, submerged arc welding or other
> joining methods. This leaves a non-homogeneous area at the joint and a
> ridge at the weld site inside the tube/pipe. Roll formed DOM tubing is
> supposed to have a uniform metallurgical structure at the joint but True
> Temper tubing made using this process contradicts this claim.
>
> Peugeot used forks made of sheet metal rolled and brazed into shape on
> their U-08, PR-10 and other models during the US Bike Boom in the 1970s.
> These forks where not really made of tubing. When bent, these forks would
> split at the seam.
>
> The other day someone showed me a down tube cut from an older Pogliaghi
> frame that had a perfect seamed weld down the middle of the ID of the
> tube. The frame was supposed to be made of Reynolds or Columbus tubing.
> Durifort, Vitus 172 and some True temper bicycle tubing used this welded
> seam process.
>
> Here's some sites showing the manufacturing processes for seamed tubing.
>
> http://www.unicorn-automation.co.uk/article3.htm
>
> http://www.markintubing.com/manufacturing.html
>
> Clicking on "Slitting" and "Tube Mills" brings up Quicktime presentations
> on the subject.
>
> 2. Rolling a sheet of metal into a tubular shape with multiple overlaps
> around a mandrel - the heat and pressure used in the process "welds" the
> layers into a somewhat homogeneous state. This is frequently refereed to
> as "seamless" tubing.
>
> DOM or Drawn Over Mandrel produces the best quality pipe and tubing. DOM
> tubing and pipe can be made from solid homogenous slugs, seam welded or
> lapped material.
>
> A slug of metal is pierced or drilled in the center so that a mandrel can
> be inserted. The OD and ID size is mechanically established by rolling,
> drawing or extruding the metal slug with the mandrel inside.
>
> Here's a site that shows the DOM process.
>
> http://www.steeluniversity.org/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=199&pageid=2081272066
>
> Reynolds used their 531 steel for many different applications - 531 stands
> for the ratio of alloys in the steel - don't ask, it doesn't make since to
> me. It's been around since before WWI. It was developed for use in WWI
> aircraft frames for more strength and fatigue resistance over standard
> carbon steels.
>
> At the time the Brits had dificulty getting chrome at an economical price
> but had ample access to supplies of manganese so they developed a steel
> alloy using this element. The percentage of alloys in 531 and 4130 (chrome
> moly steel) is only around 5% by weight.
>
> Chas.
>
>
let me attempt to help your edumacation. i happen to have had the
privilege of working in a tube factory. this included both "tube" and
"pipe". tube, of whatever material, was seamless cylinder drawn from
pierced slugs of solid metal. that is a long and expensive process, but
yields the best mechanical properties. pipe otoh is simply flat sheet
rolled and seam welded. it's way cheaper, but carried performance
penalties.
now, /you/ can call this stuff whatever you like - presumably you're a
plumber and aren't too worried about physical performance - but if
you're an engineer with design criteria can can only be fulfilled by
tube, you're not going to use pipe. and if you are price engineering,
you're going to use pipe, not tube.
have a nice day.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 15:56:26
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
* * Chas wrote:
-snip tube? pipe?-
> Here's a site that shows the DOM process.
> http://www.steeluniversity.org/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=199&pageid=2081272066
> Reynolds used their 531 steel for many different applications - 531 stands
> for the ratio of alloys in the steel - don't ask, it doesn't make since to
> me. It's been around since before WWI. It was developed for use in WWI
> aircraft frames for more strength and fatigue resistance over standard
> carbon steels.
-snip-
IIRC Reynolds did have several great products before the introduction of
531 around 1932. The "pre-WWI" butted seamless material you're thinking
of is, I believe, "Reynolds A" which was produced through about 1970 or so.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 12:26:27
From: _
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 03:02:55 -0700, * * Chas wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:hNidneOypNDMpQ3bnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless.
>
> Where the f$%% are you coming from?
>
Hey this is jim beam, the guy who is so knowlegable about bicycles that he
knows that crank cotters are tightened with the nut.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 09:28:09
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
"_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com > wrote in message
news:j6m91mly8k7y.19nuikyj16z3f$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 03:02:55 -0700, * * Chas wrote:
>
> > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> > news:hNidneOypNDMpQ3bnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> >>
> >> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless.
>
> >
> > Where the f$%% are you coming from?
> >
>
> Hey this is jim beam, the guy who is so knowlegable about bicycles that
he
> knows that crank cotters are tightened with the nut.
Too much wine with dinner last night.... My humor gland was seriously
dysfunctional. My apologies to all or at least most.
No riding for me today ;-(
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 12:34:31
From:
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:28:09 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
>
>"_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote in message
>news:j6m91mly8k7y.19nuikyj16z3f$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 03:02:55 -0700, * * Chas wrote:
>>
>> > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> > news:hNidneOypNDMpQ3bnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> >>
>> >> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless.
>>
>> >
>> > Where the f$%% are you coming from?
>> >
>>
>> Hey this is jim beam, the guy who is so knowlegable about bicycles that
>he
>> knows that crank cotters are tightened with the nut.
>
>Too much wine with dinner last night.... My humor gland was seriously
>dysfunctional. My apologies to all or at least most.
>
>No riding for me today ;-(
>
>Chas.
Dear Chas,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 12:57:00
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:ogb293pkrbhinbr9rv8c14jdlggvt469t2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:28:09 -0700, "* * Chas"
> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote in message
> >news:j6m91mly8k7y.19nuikyj16z3f$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 03:02:55 -0700, * * Chas wrote:
> >>
> >> > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:hNidneOypNDMpQ3bnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "pipe" means it's seamed, "tube" is seamless.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where the f$%% are you coming from?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hey this is jim beam, the guy who is so knowlegable about bicycles
that
> >he
> >> knows that crank cotters are tightened with the nut.
> >
> >Too much wine with dinner last night.... My humor gland was seriously
> >dysfunctional. My apologies to all or at least most.
> >
> >No riding for me today ;-(
> >
> >Chas.
>
> Dear Chas,
>
>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
We or wee or oui....
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 16:25:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - differences in tubing brands
|
* * Chas wrote:
> <atri.ind@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
>> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike, or
>> had a crash.
>>
>> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
>> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
>> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
>> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
>> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
>> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
>> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
>> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
>> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
>> become apparent in the last week.
>>
>> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
>> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
>> caused the frame failure.
>>
>> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
>> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they felt
>> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
>> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>>
>> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
>> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> Atri
>>
>
> Anecdotal experience: I've been messing around with pro bikes for ~35
> years. I don't ever recall seeing a cracked or broken chain stays on a
> Reynolds 531 frame.
>
> I've seen maybe a dozen broken chainstays on Italian built Columbus
> frames, several in Super Vitus frames made in the 1970s by US builders and
> a few in frames made from True Temper tubing.
>
> I saw several frames with chainstays that broke right at the bottom
> bracket but I attributed those to overheating during brazing and they
> weren't necessarily pro bikes.
>
> The right chainstay was the one that cracked or broke on all of the other
> frames. The damage was usually 3" - 6" from the bottom bracket shell. I
> looked for causes like chain damage but it wasn't apparent on most of
> these bikes and the breaks or cracks usually didn't occur in the area of
> the chainstay dented for chainring clearance.
>
> Yesterday I was talking about this with a local frame builder who's done a
> lot of repairs over the years. He said that he saw quite a few Reynolds
> 753 frames with cracked or broken chainstays but the only 531 frames with
> chainstay problems he'd seen were at the dropouts. The original Reynolds
> 753 chainstays were made of very thin wall tubing - .5mm thick.
>
> He mentioned that over the years Columbus increased the wall thickness of
> their chainstays made of SL tubing which started out at .6mm. He also said
> that he's had to replace chainstays made from Ishiwata and Tange tubing.
>
> During the period that I'm talking about - 1970s to 1990s, most of the
> Columbus, Ishiwata, Tange and True Temper tubing was made of 4130 chrome
> molybdenum steel. Super Vitus was of a somewhat similar steel.
>
> Reynolds 531 was made from a manganese molybdenum steel (manganese - not
> to be confused with magnesium). Manganese adds toughness to steel. The
> published strength of Reynolds 531 is usually lower than that of the
> chrome moly steels. The total amount of alloying elements in these steels
> is only around 5% by weight.
>
> My guess is that the use of manganese instead of chrome as an alloying
> agent slightly increases the toughness of 531 over 4130. Tougher steel is
> less prone to cracking.
>
> Just an observation and opinion. I own bikes made of Columbus, Reynolds,
> Tange and Super Vitus so I have no axe to grind.
>
> Chas.
>
>
>
but crack toughness does not necessarily equate with fatigue resistance
- what we're looking at here. i don't know enough about alloy variances
with 531 or any of the others cited to say for sure, but thicker tube
and lower alloy content definitely give greater scope for a material to
operate within an endurance limit.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 09:43:17
From: philcycles
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
Well, since the frame is damaged now you've got little to loose so
here goes. First drill a very small hole-like a #50 drill-at each end
of the crack. That will stop it growing. Next, find a frame builder or
very good welder fill the crack with brass. Wrap a very wet rag around
the seat tube to prevent heat from getting to the carbon. It might
work and a wet rag is very effective to keep adjacent tubes cool. If
it were mine I'd try it. You really have little to loose.
Phil Brown
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:58:28
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
philcycles wrote:
> Well, since the frame is damaged now you've got little to loose so
> here goes. First drill a very small hole-like a #50 drill-at each end
> of the crack. That will stop it growing. Next, find a frame builder or
> very good welder fill the crack with brass. Wrap a very wet rag around
> the seat tube to prevent heat from getting to the carbon. It might
> work and a wet rag is very effective to keep adjacent tubes cool. If
> it were mine I'd try it. You really have little to loose.
> Phil Brown
>
A crack is a poor joint in brass. You'd want a reinforcement sleeve as
well. If the inside of the tube isn't a mess TIG welding might be a
better bet.
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 23:06:47
From: Troll Report
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:08:06 -0700, atri.ind@gmail.com wrote:
> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
> steel
Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bullshit that a
lot of lemmings fell for.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 06:48:47
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
Troll Report wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:08:06 -0700, atri.ind@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
>> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
>> steel
>
> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bullshit that a
> lot of lemmings fell for.
"snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
of any material. even steel.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 21:06:03
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
On 2007-07-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Troll Report wrote:
>>
>> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
>> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bullshit that a
>> lot of lemmings fell for.
> "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
> of any material. even steel.
But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
that of high-tech materials. And a steel chain is much harder than an
aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur. A steel frame
is much closer in hardness to a steel chain and will not be affected as
much.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 21:35:06
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-07-06, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Troll Report wrote:
>>> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
>>> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bullshit that a
>>> lot of lemmings fell for.
>
>> "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
>> of any material. even steel.
>
> But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
> that of high-tech materials.
1. some steels are as spectacular in failure as they are unforgiving.
2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and is
better researched and understood than any other structural material on
earth doesn't make it otherwise.
> And a steel chain is much harder than an
> aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur. A steel frame
> is much closer in hardness to a steel chain and will not be affected as
> much.
you have a point, but it really depends. i'm uncomfortable with such a
broad brush statement.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 23:43:33
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> ...
> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and is
> better researched and understood than any other structural material on
> earth doesn't make it otherwise....
Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood, stone
and brick?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 22:00:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>> ...
>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and is
>> better researched and understood than any other structural material on
>> earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>
> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood, stone
> and brick?
>
ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that wood
stone and brick were not researched until about the same time as steel,
and in many respects are much less well understood.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 00:05:15
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and is
>>> better researched and understood than any other structural material
>>> on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>
>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood, stone
>> and brick?
>>
> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that wood
> stone and brick were not researched until about the same time as steel,
> and in many respects are much less well understood.
Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal with,
since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 22:14:51
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and
>>>> is better researched and understood than any other structural
>>>> material on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>>
>>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood,
>>> stone and brick?
>>>
>> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that wood
>> stone and brick were not researched until about the same time as
>> steel, and in many respects are much less well understood.
>
> Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal with,
> since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
>
from a materials viewpoint, that's way too vague. you need much bigger
safety margins for inconsistent materials like, wood, stone and brick.
the point is, you can't say for sure how strong a brick is or piece of
timber, or a piece of stone. all you can do is assign probabilities and
margins - you're lucky to get one digit on the front of the zeros. with
steel, you can button that thing down to two or even three digits - it's
the most "known", and more importantly, /predictable/ material there is.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 00:20:47
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
"jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and
>>>>> is better researched and understood than any other structural
>>>>> material on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>>>
>>>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood,
>>>> stone and brick?
>>>>
>>> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that
>>> wood stone and brick were not researched until about the same time as
>>> steel, and in many respects are much less well understood.
>>
>> Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal with,
>> since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
>>
> from a materials viewpoint, that's way too vague. you need much bigger
> safety margins for inconsistent materials like, wood, stone and brick.
> the point is, you can't say for sure how strong a brick is or piece of
> timber, or a piece of stone. all you can do is assign probabilities and
> margins - you're lucky to get one digit on the front of the zeros. with
> steel, you can button that thing down to two or even three digits - it's
> the most "known", and more importantly, /predictable/ material there is.
Still, the types and dimensions of the materials are known, which
simplifies the problem greatly.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 05:43:44
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer and
>>>>>> is better researched and understood than any other structural
>>>>>> material on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>>>>
>>>>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood,
>>>>> stone and brick?
>>>>>
>>>> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that
>>>> wood stone and brick were not researched until about the same time
>>>> as steel, and in many respects are much less well understood.
>>>
>>> Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal
>>> with, since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
>>>
>> from a materials viewpoint, that's way too vague. you need much
>> bigger safety margins for inconsistent materials like, wood, stone and
>> brick. the point is, you can't say for sure how strong a brick is or
>> piece of timber, or a piece of stone. all you can do is assign
>> probabilities and margins - you're lucky to get one digit on the front
>> of the zeros. with steel, you can button that thing down to two or
>> even three digits - it's the most "known", and more importantly,
>> /predictable/ material there is.
>
> Still, the types and dimensions of the materials are known, which
> simplifies the problem greatly.
>
dimensions???
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 19:43:06
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
"jim beam" ? wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" (who?) anonymously wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> 2. steel is /very/ high tech. because it's been in use longer
>>>>>>> and is better researched and understood than any other structural
>>>>>>> material on earth doesn't make it otherwise....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steel has been in use as a structural material longer than wood,
>>>>>> stone and brick?
>>>>>>
>>>>> ok, structural metal. i could be a pedant however and argue that
>>>>> wood stone and brick were not researched until about the same time
>>>>> as steel, and in many respects are much less well understood.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, all manufactured materials are relatively easy to deal
>>>> with, since their properties are relatively consistent and known.
>>>>
>>> from a materials viewpoint, that's way too vague. you need much
>>> bigger safety margins for inconsistent materials like, wood, stone
>>> and brick. the point is, you can't say for sure how strong a brick is
>>> or piece of timber, or a piece of stone. all you can do is assign
>>> probabilities and margins - you're lucky to get one digit on the
>>> front of the zeros. with steel, you can button that thing down to
>>> two or even three digits - it's the most "known", and more
>>> importantly, /predictable/ material there is.
>>
>> Still, the types and dimensions of the materials are known, which
>> simplifies the problem greatly.
>>
> dimensions???
Hey, I deal with engineering problems where not only are the
characteristics of the materials defined with a high degree of
uncertainty, but also with great uncertainty as to the boundary between
materials (damn geological processes).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 13:04:01
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:06:03 -0500, John Thompson wrote:
> But steel's failure mode is generally more gradual and forgiving than
> that of high-tech materials. And a steel chain is much harder than an
> aluminum or CF frame, thus allowing more damage to occur.
So the problem is actually the lack of carbon chains.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 23:45:52
From: Troll Report
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:48:47 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> Troll Report wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:08:06 -0700, atri.ind@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
>>> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
>>> steel
>>
>> Just live and learn. You were fell for the same "Hey I know it's Carbon
>> Fiber, but it's durable! It has steel chainstays!" snakeoil bullshit that a
>> lot of lemmings fell for.
>
> "snakeoil" is irrelevant. chain gouge is chain gouge. ruins any frame
> of any material. even steel.
So it's snakeoil. I'm saying the OP is a dumbass for purchasing a half
carbon/half steel frame, as there's no purpose to such a mongrel frame
other then to give an illusion that it's more durable than a full carbon
frame.
Mr Beam, just because you seem to me to be a full-on fucking retard,
doesn't mean you are one. But in the future, when you follow up to one of
MY messages, try to prove my first impression of you wrong.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 17:06:32
From:
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
> the chain slipped off,
> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay
Oooo, wake-up call.
About three weeks ago I did just this to my '98 Master Xtra Light.
I've been keeping an eye on it and nothing has developed, but I wonder
if it would be prudent to have the dip filled with brazing to lessen/
stop any flexing of the depressed area. This is a completely fabulous
frame and I couldn't replace it (well, not the paint job anyway), but
I weight 150 lbs and can't be stressing the stay that much, so perhaps
I worry too much. Any comments from others?
Sorry about your LeMond.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 17:02:18
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
On Jul 5, 10:08 am, atri....@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike, or
> had a crash.
>
> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
> become apparent in the last week.
>
> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
> caused the frame failure.
>
> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they felt
> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>
> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
>
> Thx,
>
> Atri
I also don't think it's reasonable to try and get it warrantied. But
the possibility of repairing it might be worth a little more
investigation, presuming you'd be willing to spend at least a couple
hundred on it (I don't know how much it would cost if it is possible,
but certainly at least this much). For most folks in shops and the
industry at large, repairing anything with carbon involved isn't
something they're really gonna think about, and that's more or less as
it should be. But there are framebuilders who might have something
intelligent to say about, say, the prospect of seperating the seat
tube and rebonding it, or safely minimizing the heat that gets to the
carbon part while the crack is stop-drilled and brazed, or something.
The prospects are probably dim, but you might give it a shot. At the
very least you might take some pictures and post them along with an
inquiry about the possibility for repair on the framebuilders list at
phred.org .
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 17:58:37
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
In article <1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
atri.ind@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike,
> or had a crash.
>
> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped
> off, and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused
> a dent about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the
> frame is steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and
> declared safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and
> nothing further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the
> bike in again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain,
> and they noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old
> dent. They say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems
> to have become apparent in the last week.
>
> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
> caused the frame failure.
>
> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they
> felt that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack
> was close to the seat tube (carbon).
>
> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
Your frame was damaged in use which led to its failure. Warranties
cover manufacturing/materials defects which this is not. Trek has no
obligation to cover this under warranty. Some bike companies will cut
you a deal on frame replacement prices in situations like this; I don't
know if Trek is one of them.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 18:34:35
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:08:06 -0700, atri.ind@gmail.com wrote:
>2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
>and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
>about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
>steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
>safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
>further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
>again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
>noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
>say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
>become apparent in the last week.
>
>The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
>to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
>caused the frame failure.
>
>Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
>conclusion?
Yes.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 21:12:15
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
Dans le message de
news:1183655286.121764.161420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
atri.ind@gmail.com <atri.ind@gmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike, or
> had a crash.
>
> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
> become apparent in the last week.
>
> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
> caused the frame failure.
>
> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they felt
> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>
> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
>
> Thx,
>
> Atri
You broke it - it's yours. The company doesn't warrant your proper
operating skills, so end of claim. For detailed end-runs and
end-run-blocks, google this group or RBR for Justin and Bianchi. He
recently returned here, BTW. Justin knows the score.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 01:11:43
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
> You broke it - it's yours. The company doesn't warrant your proper
> operating skills, so end of claim. For detailed end-runs and
> end-run-blocks, google this group or RBR for Justin and Bianchi. He
> recently returned here, BTW. Justin knows the score.
------------
aaaaaahhhh bianchi.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 10:26:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
atri.ind@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike, or
> had a crash.
>
> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
> safe to use.
what they should have done is alert you to the likely outcome, fatigue
cracking initiated by the damage, and had you check for cracking after
every ride. the fact they didn't doesn't inspire confidence. it was
"safe to use" short term, not as an ongoing
gonna-last-forever-it's-no-problem kind of thing.
> Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
> become apparent in the last week.
possible, but that would be a /very/ high crack growth rate. more
likely they didn't check properly before.
>
> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
> caused the frame failure.
>
> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they felt
> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>
> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
it's unfortunate, but the crack results from damage sustained after
manufacture. it's not the manufacturer's fault therefore they are under
no more obligation to replace under warranty than a tire manufacturer is
to replace a tire when you get a puncture.
as to repair, heat will ruin the carbon, so no luck there.
i think you're out of luck. otoh, you've learned about initiation of
fatigue and that it's essential to keep a close eye on this stuff
/yourself/. never trust a bike shop employee to be sufficiently
observant. always check your own bike. preferably before and after -
so be sure. and fit a chain catcher.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 13:54:36
From: Phil
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
> i think you're out of luck. otoh, you've learned about initiation of
> fatigue and that it's essential to keep a close eye on this stuff
> /yourself/. never trust a bike shop employee to be sufficiently
> observant. always check your own bike. preferably before and after -
> so be sure. and fit a chain catcher.
Hehe... It's almost like every bike rider should be an NDT expert, too. ;)
--
Phil
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 11:00:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
Phil wrote:
>> i think you're out of luck. otoh, you've learned about initiation of
>> fatigue and that it's essential to keep a close eye on this stuff
>> /yourself/. never trust a bike shop employee to be sufficiently
>> observant. always check your own bike. preferably before and after -
>> so be sure. and fit a chain catcher.
>
> Hehe... It's almost like every bike rider should be an NDT expert, too. ;)
>
to do a visual and install a chain catcher?
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 10:18:31
From:
Subject: Re: Frame cracked - should the warranty cover this?
|
On Jul 5, 1:08 pm, atri....@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a crack in the chain stay of my LeMond Buenos Aires (2004).
> This bike has about 8000 miles on it. I have never raced this bike, or
> had a crash.
>
> The history is that 2 years (and 6K miles) ago, the chain slipped off,
> and got jammed between the frame and the chain ring, and caused a dent
> about 1mm deep vertically on the chain stay (this part of the frame is
> steel). The frame was examined by the LBS at that time, and declared
> safe to use. Last week, I had a tuneup on the bike, and nothing
> further was noticed, but a couple of days ago, I took the bike in
> again to have a chain ring replaced due to a slipping chain, and they
> noticed a 1cm fracture extending from the area of the old dent. They
> say they noticed nothing last week, and this crack seems to have
> become apparent in the last week.
>
> The LBS sent pictures of the crack to Trek, who said the frame needs
> to be replaced, but it will not be under warranty since the dent
> caused the frame failure.
>
> Given the two year gap beetween the two events, is this a reasonable
> conclusion? Is this kind of fracture repairable? At the LBS, they felt
> that the heat from welding could cause a problem since the crack was
> close to the seat tube (carbon).
>
> Any suggestions on how either the LBS, or I, could call Trek and
> persuade them to cover this under warranty?
>
> Thx,
>
> Atri
as the crack appears to originate from the original damage caused by
the chain I would say they are correct in their assesment; 6k is not a
lot of riding, the time is irrelevant as the crack would not develop
if the bike just sits there unused.. See if they would be willing to
give you a deal on a replacement frame as a customer loyalty reward or
whatever.
|
|
