| |
Main
Date: 02 Aug 2007 12:42:50
From: tonyfranciozi
Subject: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
thanks
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 21:33:08
From: Zog The Undeniable
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
tonyfranciozi wrote:
> I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
> different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
> sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
> can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
> original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
> assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
>
> thanks
>
Normally aluminium, because steel can't be extruded into a box section.
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:39:11
From: Forbes B-Black
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Aug 2, 12:42 pm, tonyfranciozi <TonyFranci...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
> different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
> sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
> can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
> original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
> assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
>
> thanks
Definitely go with the aluminum! You will be able to build a wheel
that is at least comparably strong when new, but will last much longer
because aluminum won't rust or have chrome peel off it. Also,
aluminum wheels are much easier to fix if they come out of true. And,
of course, they are MUCH lighter.
Where did you find the 28" aluminum rims?
Yours,
Forbes B-Black
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 04:51:50
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
In article
<1186169951.300985.199780@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com >
,
Forbes B-Black <diarmaede@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:42 pm, tonyfranciozi <TonyFranci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
> > different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
> > sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
> > can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
> > original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
> > assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
> >
> > thanks
>
> Definitely go with the aluminum! You will be able to build a wheel
> that is at least comparably strong when new, but will last much longer
> because aluminum won't rust or have chrome peel off it. Also,
> aluminum wheels are much easier to fix if they come out of true. And,
> of course, they are MUCH lighter.
I do not know about the other stuff, but Al rims brake better.
> Where did you find the 28" aluminum rims?
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 00:12:16
From: sergio
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Aug 3, 5:01 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> If I were Bicycle Emperor, my first act would be to ban all non-ISO
> system tire/rim sizing labels.
Over here we would say:
'Santo subito!'
Sergio
Pisa
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 03:39:25
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Aug 2, 11:03 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Joel Mayes wrote:
> > ...
> > When I have a customer who wants a tyre, just standard size mate, I have
> > great fun telling them there at least seven 26" tyre sizes and that 27"
> > is actually larger then 28"
>
> I have the opposite experience. I go into a LBS and say I need both an
> ISO 305-mm and an ISO 406-mm tube, and get blank looks from the clerk.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
searching for off road trekking frames, I found a trend away from
aluminum to steel.
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 03:37:50
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
off course,
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 02:49:30
From: landotter
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Aug 2, 6:39 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:41:11 -0000, landotter <landot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >28" is what I'd consider roadster size, and what the vast majority of
> >the bikes in the world use. It's 635mm. 27" bikes are 630mm. However
> >I'm aware that Swedes and fellow European have been calling 622mm
> >"28" for years, which is unfortunate.
>
> Not to be confused with 29".
Damn thee!
I hate that term. I bet it was coined by marketers, as "Nine'er"
sounds less dykey than "Eight'er".
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:09:01
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
landotter who? wrote:
> On Aug 2, 6:39 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:41:11 -0000, landotter <landot...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 28" is what I'd consider roadster size, and what the vast majority of
>>> the bikes in the world use. It's 635mm. 27" bikes are 630mm. However
>>> I'm aware that Swedes and fellow European have been calling 622mm
>>> "28" for years, which is unfortunate.
>> Not to be confused with 29".
>
> Damn thee!
>
> I hate that term. I bet it was coined by marketers, as "Nine'er"
> sounds less dykey than "Eight'er".
Then there is the Trek "69er" - no joke! [1]
<http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html >
[1] At least on my part - looking at the bike, one wonders what exactly
the cheeseheads in Waterloo are drinking.
--
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: 03 Aug 2007 09:40:34
From: Joel Mayes
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On 2007-08-03, Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> landotter who? wrote:
>
> Then there is the Trek "69er" - no joke! [1]
><http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html>
>
> [1] At least on my part - looking at the bike, one wonders what exactly
> the cheeseheads in Waterloo are drinking.
Second ugliest bike I've seen all day!
I love the colour options ``Matte Root Beer''
I guess iit should sell better then last years ``Seat Of The Pants''
coloured model.
Cheers
Joel
--
Human Powered Cycles
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:41:11
From: landotter
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Aug 2, 5:29 pm, Joel Mayes <j.ma...@invalid.invalid > wrote:
> On 2007-08-02, Nate Knutson <biken...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 12:47 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 2, 2:42 pm, tonyfranciozi <TonyFranci...@gmail.com> wrote:> I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
> >> > different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
> >> > sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
> >> > can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
> >> > original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
> >> > assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
>
> >> Aluminum is far far better--but I didn't think they made roadster rims
> >> in aluminum. Sure they're not mis-labeled 622mm rims??
>
> > If they are 622, which they probably are, then they wouldn't actually
> > be mislabelled per se, because ' 28" ' is also sometimes used as a
> > nominal label for 622.http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html#fraction
> > . Sucks, huh?
>
> When I have a customer who wants a tyre, just standard size mate, I have
> great fun telling them there at least seven 26" tyre sizes and that 27"
> is actually larger then 28"
28" is what I'd consider roadster size, and what the vast majority of
the bikes in the world use. It's 635mm. 27" bikes are 630mm. However
I'm aware that Swedes and fellow European have been calling 622mm
"28" for years, which is unfortunate.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 23:39:53
From: still me
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:41:11 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
>28" is what I'd consider roadster size, and what the vast majority of
>the bikes in the world use. It's 635mm. 27" bikes are 630mm. However
>I'm aware that Swedes and fellow European have been calling 622mm
>"28" for years, which is unfortunate.
Not to be confused with 29".
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 13:02:46
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Aug 2, 12:47 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2:42 pm, tonyfranciozi <TonyFranci...@gmail.com> wrote:> I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
> > different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
> > sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
> > can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
> > original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
> > assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
>
> Aluminum is far far better--but I didn't think they made roadster rims
> in aluminum. Sure they're not mis-labeled 622mm rims??
If they are 622, which they probably are, then they wouldn't actually
be mislabelled per se, because ' 28" ' is also sometimes used as a
nominal label for 622. http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html#fraction
. Sucks, huh?
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:01:59
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
Nate Knutson wrote:
>
> If they are 622, which they probably are, then they wouldn't actually
> be mislabelled per se, because ' 28" ' is also sometimes used as a
> nominal label for 622. http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html#fraction
> . Sucks, huh?
I have seen a certain Benelux bicycle manufacturer list the tire size on
their ISO 622-mm wheel bicycles as 28".
If I were Bicycle Emperor, my first act would be to ban all non-ISO
system tire/rim sizing labels.
--
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: 02 Aug 2007 22:29:28
From: Joel Mayes
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On 2007-08-02, Nate Knutson <bikenate@riseup.net > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:47 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2:42 pm, tonyfranciozi <TonyFranci...@gmail.com> wrote:> I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
>> > different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
>> > sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
>> > can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
>> > original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
>> > assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
>>
>> Aluminum is far far better--but I didn't think they made roadster rims
>> in aluminum. Sure they're not mis-labeled 622mm rims??
>
> If they are 622, which they probably are, then they wouldn't actually
> be mislabelled per se, because ' 28" ' is also sometimes used as a
> nominal label for 622. http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html#fraction
> . Sucks, huh?
When I have a customer who wants a tyre, just standard size mate, I have
great fun telling them there at least seven 26" tyre sizes and that 27"
is actually larger then 28"
Cheers
Joel
--
Human Powered Cycles
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:03:41
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
Joel Mayes wrote:
> ...
> When I have a customer who wants a tyre, just standard size mate, I have
> great fun telling them there at least seven 26" tyre sizes and that 27"
> is actually larger then 28"
I have the opposite experience. I go into a LBS and say I need both an
ISO 305-mm and an ISO 406-mm tube, and get blank looks from the clerk.
--
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: 02 Aug 2007 23:31:02
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
> Joel Mayes wrote:
>> ...
>> When I have a customer who wants a tyre, just standard size mate, I have
>> great fun telling them there at least seven 26" tyre sizes and that 27"
>> is actually larger then 28"
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> I have the opposite experience. I go into a LBS and say I need both an
> ISO 305-mm and an ISO 406-mm tube, and get blank looks from the clerk.
Today a perplexed customer, looking at a few dozen tube styles, told
Stacey, "At WalMart they just have Road, Mountain and Twenty-Inch".
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 12:51:36
From: tonyfranciozi
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Aug 2, 3:47 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2:42 pm, tonyfranciozi <TonyFranci...@gmail.com> wrote:> I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
> > different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
> > sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
> > can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
> > original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
> > assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
>
> Aluminum is far far better--but I didn't think they made roadster rims
> in aluminum. Sure they're not mis-labeled 622mm rims?? The DL-1 rod
> brakes are very cool--but pretty ineffective, so if an alloy rim
> exists, it would be silly not to use it.
believe it or not the rims are in fact 28", i'm trying to secure a
rod actuated drum brake for the rear making the use of rod brakes in
the front less of an issue.
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:47:12
From: landotter
Subject: Re: which is stronger, 28" steel or aluminum?
|
On Aug 2, 2:42 pm, tonyfranciozi <TonyFranci...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I'm working on rebuilding the wheels on a raleigh DL-1 and have two
> different choices for rims. The original 28" steel rims with rounded
> sides for rod brakes, or a pair of new 28" weinmann aluminum rims that
> can take either rod or caliper brakes. I plan on sticking with the
> original rod brakes. My question here is which rims are stronger, I'm
> assuming steel but i'd like to hear other opinions.
>
Aluminum is far far better--but I didn't think they made roadster rims
in aluminum. Sure they're not mis-labeled 622mm rims?? The DL-1 rod
brakes are very cool--but pretty ineffective, so if an alloy rim
exists, it would be silly not to use it.
|
|
