| |
Main
Date: 11 Aug 2007 20:54:44
From: Sushi Fish
Subject: why no more steel bikes?
|
steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
is minuscule?
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:03:59
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:36:33 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel
>>>>>> counterparts - primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today
>>>>>> possible to produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of
>>>>>> approximately 67 microns"
>>>>>
>>>>> what the fuck use is that if beverage vendors are still using the
>>>>> thick stuff? oh, but that's not convenient to your attempts to
>>>>> cover your mistake is it.
>>>>
>>>>
<snip >
>>> "go the the supermarket, buy some cans, and report back with your
>>> results. but i predict that you won't because the results won't suit
>>> you."
>>>
>>> want to prove me wrong?
>>
>> I already did, you're just not able to get it.
>
> no, you posted cites of a web site stating what is possible, not what is
> actually used. but why am i bothering to say this - you've shown yet
> again that you can't and won't accept the reality that is stacked on the
> shelves of your local supermarket. prick.
Your original statement was not that the aluminum cans found at the
supermarket are thinner than the steel cans found at the supermarket. What
you wrote was: "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel
counterparts - primarily because then /can/ be made that way."
The phrase "because they /can/ be made that way" led me to believe that
you were arguing that can manufacturers are fully exploiting the
possibilities of the materials. Thus Peter's response seemed directly on
point.
If you really meant to argue something different (and aren't just
conducting a rearguard action after meeting Peter's onslaught), then you
should have been more careful about how you worded your statement. Is it
really that hard for you to admit any error at all?
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 13:36:55
From: Smokey
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 14, 7:34 pm, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu > wrote:
> re:http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonRJB04cr.JPG
>
> Smokey wrote:
> > Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely gets
> > my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many teeth
> > are on it?
>
> I'd like to know too. It makes me feel less silly for having a 46&38
> rings on my roadie.
>
> \\paul
I know how you feel, Paul. My big ring is a 46, too.
Smokey
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 17:10:33
From: Smokey
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 14, 1:53 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:50:18 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:13:54 -0700, "* * Chas"
> ><verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Art Harris" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1187014990.233530.235640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>
> >>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> >>> Art Harris
>
> >>Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an experienced
> >>enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have been
> >>replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used another
> >>frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame that was
> >>likely to fail.
>
> >>Chas.
>
> >Dear Chas,
>
> >Well . . .
>
> >"Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm ahead of
> >the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two years
> >ago, and was splinted and brazed."
>
> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> >It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
>
> >I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
> >frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
>
> >http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
>
> >(fromhttp://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100)
>
> >When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
> >know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
> >replaced or is happy with the repair.
>
> >Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour descriptions
> >didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
>
> >" . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and down
> >tubes . . ."
>
> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> >In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took along
> >(Same story as before)."
>
> >For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame, welded at
> >what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle seat
> >posts split into an upside-down Y:
>
> >http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
>
> >Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension frame-loop on
> >the left.
>
> >It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly pretended
> >that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time blasting
> >up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has lasted.
>
> >Cheers,
>
> >Carl Fogel
>
> Aha!
>
> On 16 May 2005, Jobst wrote:
>
> "This bicycle is over 15 years old and has at least 10,000 miles per
> year on it."
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c548e4b6cd90e7...
>
> Some pictures from the post that started that thread:
>
> http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely gets
my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many teeth
are on it?
Smokey
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:34:49
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
re: http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonRJB04cr.JPG
Smokey wrote:
> Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely gets
> my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many teeth
> are on it?
I'd like to know too. It makes me feel less silly for having a 46&38
rings on my roadie.
\\paul
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 18:37:17
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:10:33 -0700, Smokey
<smokeystrodtman@hotmail.com > wrote:
>On Aug 14, 1:53 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:50:18 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:13:54 -0700, "* * Chas"
>> ><verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>"Art Harris" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1187014990.233530.235640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>>
>> >>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>
>> >>> Art Harris
>>
>> >>Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an experienced
>> >>enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have been
>> >>replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used another
>> >>frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame that was
>> >>likely to fail.
>>
>> >>Chas.
>>
>> >Dear Chas,
>>
>> >Well . . .
>>
>> >"Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm ahead of
>> >the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two years
>> >ago, and was splinted and brazed."
>>
>> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>
>> >It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
>>
>> >I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
>> >frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
>>
>> >http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
>>
>> >(fromhttp://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100)
>>
>> >When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
>> >know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
>> >replaced or is happy with the repair.
>>
>> >Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour descriptions
>> >didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
>>
>> >" . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and down
>> >tubes . . ."
>>
>> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>
>> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>
>> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>
>> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>
>> >In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took along
>> >(Same story as before)."
>>
>> >For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame, welded at
>> >what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle seat
>> >posts split into an upside-down Y:
>>
>> >http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
>>
>> >Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension frame-loop on
>> >the left.
>>
>> >It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly pretended
>> >that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time blasting
>> >up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has lasted.
>>
>> >Cheers,
>>
>> >Carl Fogel
>>
>> Aha!
>>
>> On 16 May 2005, Jobst wrote:
>>
>> "This bicycle is over 15 years old and has at least 10,000 miles per
>> year on it."
>>
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c548e4b6cd90e7...
>>
>> Some pictures from the post that started that thread:
>>
>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely gets
>my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many teeth
>are on it?
>
>Smokey
Dear Smokey,
Jobst is notorious masher and uses a 50/46 x 13/24 six-speed:
"I used Avocet Road 700x28 wire-bead, non-Kevlar tires on 36 hole
Mavic MA-2 rims with 1.8-1.6mm DT spokes; Campagnolo Record brakes
(Kool-Stop red pads), small flange hubs with a SunTour new winner pro
6-speed FW 13-15-17-19-21-24, Sun Tour Pro derailleur and downtube
shift levers, and Shimano Dura Ace 180mm cranks with 46-50 CW . . ."
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1997/Tour_of_the_Alps_97.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 21:18:49
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
>>>>> "Art Harris" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>>>>> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>>> "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>>>>> Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an experienced
>>>>> enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have been
>>>>> replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used another
>>>>> frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame that was
>>>>> likely to fail.
>>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> Well . . .
>>>> "Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm ahead of
>>>> the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two years
>>>> ago, and was splinted and brazed."
>>>> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>>> It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
>>>> I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
>>>> frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
>>>> http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
>>>> (fromhttp://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100)
>>>> When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
>>>> know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
>>>> replaced or is happy with the repair.
>>>> Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour descriptions
>>>> didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
>>>> " . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and down
>>>> tubes . . ."
>>>> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>>> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>>> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>>> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>>>> In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took along
>>>> (Same story as before)."
>>>> For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame, welded at
>>>> what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle seat
>>>> posts split into an upside-down Y:
>>>> http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
>>>> Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension frame-loop on
>>>> the left.
>>>> It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly pretended
>>>> that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time blasting
>>>> up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has lasted.
>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> Aha!
>>> On 16 May 2005, Jobst wrote:
>>> "This bicycle is over 15 years old and has at least 10,000 miles per
>>> year on it."
>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c548e4b6cd90e7...
>>> Some pictures from the post that started that thread:
>>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html
> Smokey <smokeystrodtman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely gets
>> my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many teeth
>> are on it?
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> Jobst is notorious masher and uses a 50/46 x 13/24 six-speed:
> "I used Avocet Road 700x28 wire-bead, non-Kevlar tires on 36 hole
> Mavic MA-2 rims with 1.8-1.6mm DT spokes; Campagnolo Record brakes
> (Kool-Stop red pads), small flange hubs with a SunTour new winner pro
> 6-speed FW 13-15-17-19-21-24, Sun Tour Pro derailleur and downtube
> shift levers, and Shimano Dura Ace 180mm cranks with 46-50 CW . . ."
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1997/Tour_of_the_Alps_97.html
Jobst Brandt is presently using the Shimano HG Seven 13~26 cassette.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 20:21:50
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13c4oj7amj8se75@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>> "Art Harris" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
> >>>>>
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> >>>> "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an
experienced
> >>>>> enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have
been
> >>>>> replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used
another
> >>>>> frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame
that was
> >>>>> likely to fail.
>
> >>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>> Well . . .
> >>>> "Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm ahead
of
> >>>> the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two years
> >>>> ago, and was splinted and brazed."
> >>>>
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >>>> It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
> >>>> I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
> >>>> frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
> >>>> http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
> >>>> (fromhttp://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100)
> >>>> When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
> >>>> know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
> >>>> replaced or is happy with the repair.
> >>>> Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour
descriptions
> >>>> didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
> >>>> " . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and
down
> >>>> tubes . . ."
> >>>>
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >>>>
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >>>>
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >>>>
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >>>> In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took
along
> >>>> (Same story as before)."
> >>>> For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame, welded at
> >>>> what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle seat
> >>>> posts split into an upside-down Y:
> >>>> http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
> >>>> Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension frame-loop on
> >>>> the left.
> >>>> It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly
pretended
> >>>> that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time
blasting
> >>>> up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has
lasted.
>
> >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>> Aha!
> >>> On 16 May 2005, Jobst wrote:
> >>> "This bicycle is over 15 years old and has at least 10,000 miles per
> >>> year on it."
> >>>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c548e4b6cd90e7...
> >>> Some pictures from the post that started that thread:
> >>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html
>
> > Smokey <smokeystrodtman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely gets
> >> my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many
teeth
> >> are on it?
>
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> > Jobst is notorious masher and uses a 50/46 x 13/24 six-speed:
> > "I used Avocet Road 700x28 wire-bead, non-Kevlar tires on 36 hole
> > Mavic MA-2 rims with 1.8-1.6mm DT spokes; Campagnolo Record brakes
> > (Kool-Stop red pads), small flange hubs with a SunTour new winner pro
> > 6-speed FW 13-15-17-19-21-24, Sun Tour Pro derailleur and downtube
> > shift levers, and Shimano Dura Ace 180mm cranks with 46-50 CW . . ."
> >
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1997/Tour_of_the_Alps_97.html
>
> Jobst Brandt is presently using the Shimano HG Seven 13~26 cassette.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
We all get old sometime...... ;-)
I can't push my 49/45 13-26 halfstep gears in the hills any more.
Chas.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 21:10:43
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article
<-Z-dnbBmR4hsjljbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:13c4oj7amj8se75@corp.supernews.com...
> > >>>>> "Art Harris" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >>>>>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
> > >>>>>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >
> > >>>> "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an
> experienced
> > >>>>> enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have
> been
> > >>>>> replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used
> another
> > >>>>> frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame
> that was
> > >>>>> likely to fail.
> >
> > >>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > >>>> Well . . .
> > >>>> "Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm ahead
> of
> > >>>> the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two years
> > >>>> ago, and was splinted and brazed."
> > >>>>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> > >>>> It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
> > >>>> I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
> > >>>> frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
> > >>>> http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
> > >>>> (fromhttp://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100)
> > >>>> When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
> > >>>> know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
> > >>>> replaced or is happy with the repair.
> > >>>> Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour
> descriptions
> > >>>> didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
> > >>>> " . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and
> down
> > >>>> tubes . . ."
> > >>>>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> > >>>>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> > >>>>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> > >>>>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> > >>>> In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took
> along
> > >>>> (Same story as before)."
> > >>>> For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame, welded at
> > >>>> what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle seat
> > >>>> posts split into an upside-down Y:
> > >>>> http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
> > >>>> Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension frame-loop on
> > >>>> the left.
> > >>>> It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly
> pretended
> > >>>> that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time
> blasting
> > >>>> up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has
> lasted.
> >
> > >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > >>> Aha!
> > >>> On 16 May 2005, Jobst wrote:
> > >>> "This bicycle is over 15 years old and has at least 10,000 miles per
> > >>> year on it."
> > >>>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c548e4b6cd90e7...
> > >>> Some pictures from the post that started that thread:
> > >>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html
> >
> > > Smokey <smokeystrodtman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely gets
> > >> my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many
> teeth
> > >> are on it?
> >
> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> > > Jobst is notorious masher and uses a 50/46 x 13/24 six-speed:
> > > "I used Avocet Road 700x28 wire-bead, non-Kevlar tires on 36 hole
> > > Mavic MA-2 rims with 1.8-1.6mm DT spokes; Campagnolo Record brakes
> > > (Kool-Stop red pads), small flange hubs with a SunTour new winner pro
> > > 6-speed FW 13-15-17-19-21-24, Sun Tour Pro derailleur and downtube
> > > shift levers, and Shimano Dura Ace 180mm cranks with 46-50 CW . . ."
> > >
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1997/Tour_of_the_Alps_97.html
> >
> > Jobst Brandt is presently using the Shimano HG Seven 13~26 cassette.
>
> We all get old sometime...... ;-)
>
> I can't push my 49/45 13-26 halfstep gears in the hills any more.
I can manage most hills with the 48-38, 13-23.
When not, I drop into the 24 cog chain wheel.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:55:44
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Michael Press wrote:
> ...
> I can manage most hills with the 48-38, 13-23.
> When not, I drop into the 24 cog chain wheel.
>
butbutbut, only "Freds" have triple chain rings!!!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 17:23:49
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <46c75ece$0$27392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > ... I can manage most hills with the 48-38, 13-23. When not, I drop
> > into the 24 cog chain wheel.
> >
> butbutbut, only "Freds" have triple chain rings!!!
Including, as I recall, Miguel Indurain in some stage or another. Carl
Fogel can probably turn up the photo.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:55:26
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:23:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <46c75ece$0$27392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>> > ... I can manage most hills with the 48-38, 13-23. When not, I drop
>> > into the 24 cog chain wheel.
>> >
>> butbutbut, only "Freds" have triple chain rings!!!
>
>Including, as I recall, Miguel Indurain in some stage or another. Carl
>Fogel can probably turn up the photo.
Dear Tim,
Sorry, but I can't turn up a photo of what didn't happen:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2311147f7192375b
But other pros have used triples on mountain stages in various races.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:31:37
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <l3uec3l6utl144gqof8fqed1km4m4k39q5@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:23:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <46c75ece$0$27392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >> > ... I can manage most hills with the 48-38, 13-23. When not, I
> >> > drop into the 24 cog chain wheel.
> >> >
> >> butbutbut, only "Freds" have triple chain rings!!!
> >
> >Including, as I recall, Miguel Indurain in some stage or another.
> >Carl Fogel can probably turn up the photo.
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> Sorry, but I can't turn up a photo of what didn't happen:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2311147f7192375
> b
>
> But other pros have used triples on mountain stages in various races.
That discussion was incorrect, given that one of the bike race magazines
of the era (VeloNews or Cycle Sport) published a photo of Mig in a race
with a triple on his bike. He wasn't using the granny in the photo, but
it was quite visible.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 20:17:19
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:31:37 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <l3uec3l6utl144gqof8fqed1km4m4k39q5@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:23:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <46c75ece$0$27392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
>> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Michael Press wrote:
>> >> > ... I can manage most hills with the 48-38, 13-23. When not, I
>> >> > drop into the 24 cog chain wheel.
>> >> >
>> >> butbutbut, only "Freds" have triple chain rings!!!
>> >
>> >Including, as I recall, Miguel Indurain in some stage or another.
>> >Carl Fogel can probably turn up the photo.
>>
>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> Sorry, but I can't turn up a photo of what didn't happen:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2311147f7192375
>> b
>>
>> But other pros have used triples on mountain stages in various races.
>
>That discussion was incorrect, given that one of the bike race magazines
>of the era (VeloNews or Cycle Sport) published a photo of Mig in a race
>with a triple on his bike. He wasn't using the granny in the photo, but
>it was quite visible.
Dear Tim,
Indurain may have used a triple in some other race, but that
discussion was about whether Indurain used a triple in the Tour de
France, which is what most readers would infer from "some stage or
other"--and apparently he didn't use a triple in the Tour.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 00:10:58
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <at9fc39v66gplu4trvpg176rc499kf405b@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:31:37 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <l3uec3l6utl144gqof8fqed1km4m4k39q5@4ax.com>,
> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:23:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
> >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <46c75ece$0$27392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> >> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >> >> > ... I can manage most hills with the 48-38, 13-23. When not,
> >> >> > I drop into the 24 cog chain wheel.
> >> >> >
> >> >> butbutbut, only "Freds" have triple chain rings!!!
> >> >
> >> >Including, as I recall, Miguel Indurain in some stage or another.
> >> > Carl Fogel can probably turn up the photo.
> >>
> >> Dear Tim,
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I can't turn up a photo of what didn't happen:
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2311147f7192
> >> 375 b
> >>
> >> But other pros have used triples on mountain stages in various
> >> races.
> >
> >That discussion was incorrect, given that one of the bike race
> >magazines of the era (VeloNews or Cycle Sport) published a photo of
> >Mig in a race with a triple on his bike. He wasn't using the granny
> >in the photo, but it was quite visible.
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> Indurain may have used a triple in some other race, but that
> discussion was about whether Indurain used a triple in the Tour de
> France, which is what most readers would infer from "some stage or
> other"--and apparently he didn't use a triple in the Tour.
Hmmm, I would not have inferred the Tour de France- there are, of
course, many other stage races. My recollection- which is admittedly
not particularly reliable any more- was that the photo in question
occurred during the Vuelta a Espana, possibly his last one.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 11:47:33
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <13c4oj7amj8se75@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> > Jobst is notorious masher and uses a 50/46 x 13/24 six-speed:
> > "I used Avocet Road 700x28 wire-bead, non-Kevlar tires on 36 hole
> > Mavic MA-2 rims with 1.8-1.6mm DT spokes; Campagnolo Record brakes
> > (Kool-Stop red pads), small flange hubs with a SunTour new winner pro
> > 6-speed FW 13-15-17-19-21-24, Sun Tour Pro derailleur and downtube
> > shift levers, and Shimano Dura Ace 180mm cranks with 46-50 CW . . ."
> > http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1997/Tour_of_the_Alps_97.html
>
> Jobst Brandt is presently using the Shimano HG Seven 13~26 cassette.
46 50
13 95.5 103.8
15 82.8 90.0
17 73.1 79.4
19 65.4 71.1
21 59.1 64.3
23 54.0 58.7
26 47.8 51.9
dB
47.8
51.9 0.36212
54.0 0.17033
58.7 0.36212
59.1 0.03296
64.3 0.36212
65.4 0.07254
71.1 0.36212
73.1 0.12093
79.4 0.36212
82.8 0.18145
90.0 0.36212
95.5 0.25936
103.8 0.36212
The second column is 10 * log_10(current gear/previous gear).
A five percent change is 0.212 dB.
The Rohloff 13.5 percent change is 0.550 dB.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 21:59:24
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Andrew Muzi wrote:
>
> Jobst Brandt is presently using the Shimano HG Seven 13~26 cassette.
Jobst must be an early riser if that is the case, since it is VERY EARLY
morning in the Alps right now. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 14:37:04
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 14, 11:00 am, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com > wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 6:48 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>> Peter Cole wrote:
> >>>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84....@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> >>>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<s...@reippuert.dk> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> >>>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> >>>>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
> >>>>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
> >>>>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
> >>>>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are
> >>>>>>>> pure BS.
> >>>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
> >>>>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
> >>>>>>> as a beercan.
> >>>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
> >>>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
> >>>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
> >>>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
> >>>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
> >>>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
> >>>>> primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that
> >>>>> way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
> >>>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
> >>>>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
> >>>>> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus
> >>>>> and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to
> >>>>> smash against the forehead...
> >>>> Actually, you're wrong.
> >>> ok, let's see.
> >>> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
> >>> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
> >>> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected by
> >>> that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil micrometer
> >>> #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
> >>> a: 0.09mm
> >>> b: 0.24mm
> >>> that's average, three measurements each.
> >>>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and aluminum
> >>>> have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that aluminum is 3x
> >>>> less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
> >> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>
> >> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>
> >> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
> >> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded metal
> >> container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of tinplate
> >> still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been reduced to 21.4 g.
> >> The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983 to 27.8 g in 2003.
> >> Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6 grammes (330 ml) and
> >> 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>
> >> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you then
> >> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>
> >> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
>
> > Ya know, jb's response here (above) is pretty much the same kind of
> > thing that Brandt posts regularly, just a little more plainly spoken
> > (i.e., the use if the word "bullshit"). When was the last time anyone
> > called Brandt an "abusive jerk"?
>
> All the time. Even Mr Fogel has called him on that.
The Smarm Master actually wrote "abusive jerk" ? Surrounded by "dear"
and "cheers"?
>
> > Or do different rules apply?
>
> Not at all. But I find JB's info much more accurate than jb's
That's an opinion you get to have.....
>so jb
> deserves more shit.
>
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 13:57:07
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Carl Fogel wrote:
.
>
> I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
> frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
>
> http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
I think he would have replaced that chainstay after the 1995 failure.
But more recently he's mentioned rear dropout failures (which is why
he swtitched from 6 speed freewheels to 7 speed cassettes). I think
the photo above shows a dropout replacement.
> When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
> know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
> replaced or is happy with the repair.
>
Yes indeed.
Art Harris
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 06:05:11
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 14, 6:48 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>> In article <6o74p4-m84....@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> >>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<s...@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> >>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> >>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
> >>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
> >>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
> >>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are
> >>>>>> pure BS.
> >>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
> >>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
> >>>>> as a beercan.
>
> >>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>
> >>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>
> >>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
> >>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>
> >>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>
> >>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
> >>> primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that
> >>> way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>
> >>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
> >>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
> >>> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus
> >>> and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to
> >>> smash against the forehead...
>
> >> Actually, you're wrong.
>
> > ok, let's see.
>
> > candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
> > candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>
> > admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected by
> > that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil micrometer
> > #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>
> > a: 0.09mm
> > b: 0.24mm
>
> > that's average, three measurements each.
>
> >> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and aluminum
> >> have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that aluminum is 3x
> >> less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>
> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>
> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>
> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded metal
> container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of tinplate
> still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been reduced to 21.4 g.
> The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983 to 27.8 g in 2003.
> Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6 grammes (330 ml) and
> 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>
> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you then
> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>
> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
Ya know, jb's response here (above) is pretty much the same kind of
thing that Brandt posts regularly, just a little more plainly spoken
(i.e., the use if the word "bullshit"). When was the last time anyone
called Brandt an "abusive jerk"? Or do different rules apply?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 09:00:36
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Aug 14, 6:48 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84....@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<s...@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
>>>>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are
>>>>>>>> pure BS.
>>>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
>>>>>>> as a beercan.
>>>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
>>>>> primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that
>>>>> way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
>>>>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
>>>>> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus
>>>>> and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to
>>>>> smash against the forehead...
>>>> Actually, you're wrong.
>>> ok, let's see.
>>> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
>>> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>>> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected by
>>> that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil micrometer
>>> #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>>> a: 0.09mm
>>> b: 0.24mm
>>> that's average, three measurements each.
>>>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and aluminum
>>>> have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that aluminum is 3x
>>>> less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>>
>> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>>
>> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
>> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded metal
>> container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of tinplate
>> still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been reduced to 21.4 g.
>> The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983 to 27.8 g in 2003.
>> Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6 grammes (330 ml) and
>> 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>>
>> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you then
>> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>>
>> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
>
> Ya know, jb's response here (above) is pretty much the same kind of
> thing that Brandt posts regularly, just a little more plainly spoken
> (i.e., the use if the word "bullshit"). When was the last time anyone
> called Brandt an "abusive jerk"?
All the time. Even Mr Fogel has called him on that.
> Or do different rules apply?
Not at all. But I find JB's info much more accurate than jb's so jb
deserves more shit.
Greg
--
Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:10:41
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
G.T. wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 6:48 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84....@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>>>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<s...@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>>>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
>>>>>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are
>>>>>>>>> pure BS.
>>>>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>>>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
>>>>>>>> as a beercan.
>>>>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>>>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>>>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>>>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
>>>>>> primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that
>>>>>> way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>>>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
>>>>>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
>>>>>> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus
>>>>>> and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to
>>>>>> smash against the forehead...
>>>>> Actually, you're wrong.
>>>> ok, let's see.
>>>> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
>>>> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>>>> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected by
>>>> that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil micrometer
>>>> #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>>>> a: 0.09mm
>>>> b: 0.24mm
>>>> that's average, three measurements each.
>>>>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and aluminum
>>>>> have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that aluminum is 3x
>>>>> less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>>> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>>>
>>> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>>>
>>> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
>>> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded metal
>>> container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of tinplate
>>> still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been reduced to 21.4 g.
>>> The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983 to 27.8 g in 2003.
>>> Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6 grammes (330 ml) and
>>> 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>>>
>>> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you
>>> then
>>> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>>>
>>> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
>>
>> Ya know, jb's response here (above) is pretty much the same kind of
>> thing that Brandt posts regularly, just a little more plainly spoken
>> (i.e., the use if the word "bullshit"). When was the last time anyone
>> called Brandt an "abusive jerk"?
>
> All the time. Even Mr Fogel has called him on that.
>
>> Or do different rules apply?
>
> Not at all. But I find JB's info much more accurate than jb's so jb
> deserves more shit.
>
> Greg
>
you're the one posting forgeries!
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:23:18
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:kc6dnaPc2Z4v81_bnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> you're the one posting forgeries!
Fuck you. I have never forged a Usenet message in the 10 years I've been on
the newsgroups. Nor have I done a sock puppet, the worst I've done in 10
years is a little trolling, and what you responded to was not a troll.
Greg
--
Ticketmaster sucks, but everyone knows that:
http://ticketmastersucks.org
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:43:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
G.T. wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:kc6dnaPc2Z4v81_bnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> you're the one posting forgeries!
>
> Fuck you. I have never forged a Usenet message in the 10 years I've been on
> the newsgroups. Nor have I done a sock puppet, the worst I've done in 10
> years is a little trolling, and what you responded to was not a troll.
>
> Greg
wow, raw nerve?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:51:22
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:E-2dnb2Qd4Tj61_bnZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> G.T. wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:kc6dnaPc2Z4v81_bnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> you're the one posting forgeries!
>>
>> Fuck you. I have never forged a Usenet message in the 10 years I've been
>> on the newsgroups. Nor have I done a sock puppet, the worst I've done in
>> 10 years is a little trolling, and what you responded to was not a troll.
>>
>> Greg
>
> wow, raw nerve?
No, just don't like being accused of things I haven't done.
Greg
--
Ticketmaster sucks, but everyone knows that:
http://ticketmastersucks.org
"Ya gotta stop riding the brakes,
ya gotta stop robbing the cradle" - Chris D
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 21:16:54
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 11, 11:54 pm, Sushi Fish <yellowtail_2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
they ran out of steel
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 18:33:22
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 13, 5:46 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:17:19 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
> wrote:
> >What is it with right rear chain stays?
>
> >I've broken three of them - and I don't ride that much compared
> >to others in this NG.
>
> >Shouldn't they be a little beefier than the left - to accommodate
> >the pedaling load? Or is the load the same on both?
>
> Dear Pete,
>
> http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm
>
I skimmed that article, but I didn't see where they stated which pedal
was forward. Did I miss something?
Since (I assume) the stresses and deflections are instantaneous
values, I'd expect different results for right pedal forward, vs. left
pedal forward. And they wouldn't be symmetrical because of the effect
of chain loads on only one side.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 10:30:24
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 9:41 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
> Who that wears turbans is using IED's? (Possibly part of the low level
> conflict in Kashmir?)
The 'Taliban.'
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 21:01:57
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
<r15757@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1187026224.627559.300400@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 12, 9:41 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
>
> > Who that wears turbans is using IED's? (Possibly part of the low level
> > conflict in Kashmir?)
>
> The 'Taliban.'
>
Bicycling ran a series of articles by a guy who was riding around the
world. His worst experience was riding across Afghanistan.
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 00:14:37
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <3KSdnbshOZ5AtVzbnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> <r15757@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1187026224.627559.300400@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 12, 9:41 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Who that wears turbans is using IED's? (Possibly part of the low
> > > level conflict in Kashmir?)
> >
> > The 'Taliban.'
> >
>
> Bicycling ran a series of articles by a guy who was riding around the
> world. His worst experience was riding across Afghanistan.
Have a read through Thomas Stevens's "Around the World on a Wheel" from
1887 or whenever it was. That part of the world was very difficult then
for the Western tourist. OTOH Dervla Murphy had an extremely positive
experience cycling across the Middle East alone in the 60s. I think
that much depends on random chance (when you go, what's going on in the
political climate etc) and how you approach people.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 20:05:48
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-587B44.00143714082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <3KSdnbshOZ5AtVzbnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> > <r15757@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1187026224.627559.300400@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Aug 12, 9:41 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who that wears turbans is using IED's? (Possibly part of the low
> > > > level conflict in Kashmir?)
> > >
> > > The 'Taliban.'
> > >
> >
> > Bicycling ran a series of articles by a guy who was riding around the
> > world. His worst experience was riding across Afghanistan.
>
> Have a read through Thomas Stevens's "Around the World on a Wheel" from
> 1887 or whenever it was. That part of the world was very difficult then
> for the Western tourist. OTOH Dervla Murphy had an extremely positive
> experience cycling across the Middle East alone in the 60s. I think
> that much depends on random chance (when you go, what's going on in the
> political climate etc) and how you approach people.
The Afghanistan region has never been conquered for a reason. Even
Alexander the Great learned that the hard way.
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 08:38:48
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Russell Seaton wrote:
> > > > > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> > > > > able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> > > > > who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> > > > > welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> > > > This is an often cited wife's tale.
>
> > Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>
> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> > Art Harris
>
> I would guess
> Mr. Brandt's frame dates from the 1970s. When thicker walled tubing
> was used in the chainstays than today.
>
Probably something like Columbus SP. Certainly not the Schwinn Varsity
tubing to which you alluded.
> He was in the Swiss Alps, not in the middle of a desolate desert.
>
Not a desert, but a very small town in a pretty remote area in the
Alps.
If I were in a similar situation, I'd rather have a steel frame than
anything else. In another trip report, Jobst describes bending a bent
fork back into shape after hitting a car. Try that with aluminum or
carbon.
> Even though "pickles and sauerkraut" was literally flying around our
> ears in the construction scene, he turned on his heavy industrial
> equipment MIG welder, that was able to eat a whole frame tube in a
> single blast of an unskilled hand, and welded with reassuring short
> bursts. I recognized immediately that he understood the frailty of
> thin walled bicycle tubing and its incompatibility with this welding
> machine. He was a real craftsman and in about 10 minutes I put my bike
> together, paid SFr15, thanked him and was on my way. I think he knew
> that I understood the significance of his abilities and accommodation
Art Harris
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 08:02:32
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 13, 9:23 am, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> > > > able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> > > > who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> > > > welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> > > This is an often cited wife's tale.
>
> > Exactly, a "tale" being used by Riv to flog their frames. No tale is
> > too
> > tall in hobbitville.
>
> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> Art Harris
Below is the relevant part from Mr. Brandt's 1995 trip. I would guess
Mr. Brandt's frame dates from the 1970s. When thicker walled tubing
was used in the chainstays than today. Even though his bike is likely
a "racing" model, it probably still uses thicker tubing than current
steel touring bikes. And Mr. Brandt clearly states in his article the
incompatibility of thin walled bicycle frame tubing and the equipment
being used by the welder. And he attributes great skill to the
welder. Mr. Brandt was lucky in this instance. He could have been
just as lucky to come across a person/shop with a TIG welder capable
of welding aluminum tubing. Or it is very likely he could have easily
found transportation to another larger town with shops capable to weld
thin walled steel or aluminum. He was in the Swiss Alps, not in the
middle of a desolate desert. Personally I would not jeopardize the
remainder of the trip by taking a chance that the frame was ruined by
the improper equipment. Better to spend a day or two getting the job
done right in a nearby city with proper equipment. It would take more
money and time to get to the big city, but if you still have two weeks
of bicycling vacation planned and there is no emergency, why take the
chance.
The Oberalp pass has a long broad summit that it shares with the FO
railway inside an avalanche shed along the Summit lake. There were a
group of motorcyclists pushing off the summit just as I started down,
so I joined them only to notice after a few turns that my back wheel
wasn't tracking well around the curves. As I looked down I saw that my
back tire was not soft but that the wheel was steering in the curve as
I applied the rear brake. Then I saw that the right chainstay had
separated about 30mm ahead of the dropout. This faulty tube had broken
at midspan about two years ago, and was splinted and brazed.
I rode on to Sedrun, where I got a good lunch at the grocery store
before looking around for a "welder" because it was noon, just before
the stores close till 2:30PM or 14:30 as it is called everywhere but
in the USA. Just down the street, in this small mountain town, I found
a gas station-auto-repair-blacksmith-MTB sales shop. The owner would
be back from lunch in an hour because he was in the process of
replacing the underground fuel tanks, and this fortunately required
his presence. I lay down in the meadow and slept for about an hour
before, promptly at 13:30, the man returned and everything was abuzz.
He said he wasn't equipped for brazing, but that he could weld it with
his big MIG welder. After looking at my bicycle he said "but not
today". Sensing his problem I became "super mechanic" and yanked my
touring bag off, removed the rear derailleur and chain, and without
the rear wheel, held the stripped rear triangle in his face and said I
didn't care how it looked but it had to hold. "This is not a beauty
contest!". Now he and I were speaking the same language.
Even though "pickles and sauerkraut" was literally flying around our
ears in the construction scene, he turned on his heavy industrial
equipment MIG welder, that was able to eat a whole frame tube in a
single blast of an unskilled hand, and welded with reassuring short
bursts. I recognized immediately that he understood the frailty of
thin walled bicycle tubing and its incompatibility with this welding
machine. He was a real craftsman and in about 10 minutes I put my bike
together, paid SFr15, thanked him and was on my way. I think he knew
that I understood the significance of his abilities and accommodation.
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 07:23:10
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> > > able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> > > who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> > > welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> > This is an often cited wife's tale.
>
> Exactly, a "tale" being used by Riv to flog their frames. No tale is
> too
> tall in hobbitville.
>
Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
Art Harris
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 21:13:54
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Art Harris" <n2ah@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1187014990.233530.235640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to
be
> > > > able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of
Rivendell)
> > > > who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> > > > welded by a guy in a turban.
> >
> > > This is an often cited wife's tale.
> >
> > Exactly, a "tale" being used by Riv to flog their frames. No tale is
> > too
> > tall in hobbitville.
> >
>
> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>
>
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
>
> Art Harris
>
Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an experienced
enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have been
replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used another
frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame that was
likely to fail.
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 23:50:18
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:13:54 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
>"Art Harris" <n2ah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1187014990.233530.235640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>>
>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
>>
>> Art Harris
>
>Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an experienced
>enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have been
>replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used another
>frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame that was
>likely to fail.
>
>Chas.
Dear Chas,
Well . . .
"Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm ahead of
the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two years
ago, and was splinted and brazed."
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
(from http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100 )
When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
replaced or is happy with the repair.
Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour descriptions
didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
" . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and down
tubes . . ."
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1997/Tour_of_the_Alps_97.html
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1996/Tour_of_the_Alps_96.html
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/Tour_of_the_Alps_95.html
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1994/Tour_of_the_Alps_94.html
In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took along
(Same story as before)."
For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame, welded at
what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle seat
posts split into an upside-down Y:
http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension frame-loop on
the left.
It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly pretended
that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time blasting
up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has lasted.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 12:53:55
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:50:18 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:13:54 -0700, "* * Chas"
><verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
>>"Art Harris" <n2ah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1187014990.233530.235640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>>>
>>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
>>>
>>> Art Harris
>>
>>Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an experienced
>>enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have been
>>replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used another
>>frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame that was
>>likely to fail.
>>
>>Chas.
>
>Dear Chas,
>
>Well . . .
>
>"Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm ahead of
>the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two years
>ago, and was splinted and brazed."
>
>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
>
>It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
>
>I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
>frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
>
>http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
>
>(from http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100 )
>
>When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
>know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
>replaced or is happy with the repair.
>
>Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour descriptions
>didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
>
>" . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and down
>tubes . . ."
>
>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1997/Tour_of_the_Alps_97.html
>
>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1996/Tour_of_the_Alps_96.html
>
>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/Tour_of_the_Alps_95.html
>
>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1994/Tour_of_the_Alps_94.html
>
>In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took along
>(Same story as before)."
>
>For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame, welded at
>what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle seat
>posts split into an upside-down Y:
>
>http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
>
>Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension frame-loop on
>the left.
>
>It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly pretended
>that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time blasting
>up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has lasted.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Aha!
On 16 May 2005, Jobst wrote:
"This bicycle is over 15 years old and has at least 10,000 miles per
year on it."
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c548e4b6cd90e7dc?hl=en&
Some pictures from the post that started that thread:
http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 16:17:19
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Per Art Harris:
>Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>
>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
What is it with right rear chain stays?
I've broken three of them - and I don't ride that much compared
to others in this NG.
Shouldn't they be a little beefier than the left - to accommodate
the pedaling load? Or is the load the same on both?
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 15:06:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article
<10f1c3d98k3i6uobrgs2hdg8ru2rcet3dc@4ax.com >,
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote:
> Per Art Harris:
> >Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
> >
> >http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
>
> What is it with right rear chain stays?
>
> I've broken three of them - and I don't ride that much compared
> to others in this NG.
>
> Shouldn't they be a little beefier than the left - to accommodate
> the pedaling load? Or is the load the same on both?
The drive side chainstay is subject to a greater
bending moment than the non-drive side. The wheel is
free to rotate, relieving the nds chain stay of most of
the stress from the taut chain.
Another likely problem is that the drive side chainstay
catches corrosive stuff that falls off of the chain.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 15:46:05
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:17:19 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid >
wrote:
>Per Art Harris:
>>Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>>
>>http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/1995/3.html
>
>What is it with right rear chain stays?
>
>I've broken three of them - and I don't ride that much compared
>to others in this NG.
>
>Shouldn't they be a little beefier than the left - to accommodate
>the pedaling load? Or is the load the same on both?
Dear Pete,
http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 19:16:38
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Per carlfogel@comcast.net:
>Dear Pete,
>
>http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm
"The apparent wide range of percentages here stems from the
different loads encountered on the left and right sides. Perhaps
asymmetrical chainstays should be used."
So, I guess my intuition was right: more stress on the drive
side.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 18:03:27
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:16:38 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid >
wrote:
>Per carlfogel@comcast.net:
>>Dear Pete,
>>
>>http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm
>
>
>"The apparent wide range of percentages here stems from the
>different loads encountered on the left and right sides. Perhaps
>asymmetrical chainstays should be used."
>
>So, I guess my intuition was right: more stress on the drive
>side.
Dear Pete,
Another method of balancing frame stress, fore and aft:
http://www.geocities.com/rcgilmore3/OldRWS.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 17:21:17
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:16:38 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid >
wrote:
>Per carlfogel@comcast.net:
>>Dear Pete,
>>
>>http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm
>
>
>"The apparent wide range of percentages here stems from the
>different loads encountered on the left and right sides. Perhaps
>asymmetrical chainstays should be used."
>
>So, I guess my intuition was right: more stress on the drive
>side.
Dear Pete,
Of course, a well-designed bicycle can avoid such deadly frame-stress
asymmetries:
http://i9.tinypic.com/4taqys4.jpg
As soon as the Latimer is equipped with suitable electronic shifting,
it's sure to dominate the market.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 13:43:41
From: still me
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:21:17 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>Dear Pete,
>
>Of course, a well-designed bicycle can avoid such deadly frame-stress
>asymmetries:
>
>http://i9.tinypic.com/4taqys4.jpg
>
>As soon as the Latimer is equipped with suitable electronic shifting,
>it's sure to dominate the market.
>
The derailleur version will be harder to sync than the carburetors on
a '72 MG.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 21:03:13
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Per carlfogel@comcast.net:
>Of course, a well-designed bicycle can avoid such deadly frame-stress
>asymmetries:
>
>http://i9.tinypic.com/4taqys4.jpg
>
>As soon as the Latimer is equipped with suitable electronic shifting,
>it's sure to dominate the market.
Some of my "friends" at work might say that it looks like a
physical implementation of some of the code I write.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 07:21:41
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 13, 7:09 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1187012023.217250.317...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "russellseat...@yahoo.com" <russellseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 3:35 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to
> > > be able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of
> > > Rivendell) who said that for loaded touring, you want something
> > > that can be welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> > This is an often cited wife's tale.
>
> IIRC it's also a misquote. My recollection is that Grant PetersEn was
> talking about using steel rather than aluminum pannier racks and being
> able to get that brazed or welded up anywhere in the world, as compared
> to having to find someone with a TIG welder that knows how to do
> aluminum.
You're right about the quote. But the point stands about cold setting.
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 06:39:44
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 13, 8:33 am, "russellseat...@yahoo.com"
<russellseat...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 3:35 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> > able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> > who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> > welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> This is an often cited wife's tale.
Exactly, a "tale" being used by Riv to flog their frames. No tale is
too
tall in hobbitville.
> Maybe back in the days of touring
> bikes having steel tubing like Schwinn Varsitys it applied. But today
> steel touring bikes are made of very lightweight, thin walled tubing,
> relative to decades past. Below is a page from the Bruce Gordon
> website. His bikes only use 1.0/0.7/1.0 tubing. Less than 1/32".
> Unless you have welding equipment designed for thin gauge welding, and
> the skill to not burn through the steel, you will not be able to weld
> it. The type of welder, person and equipment, you will find in the
> middle of nowhere when your frame breaks will be someone who only
> welds farming implements with an ARC stick welder. The appropriate
> knowledge and equipment for welding farm equipment. In the US on a
> tour you will find many farms with ARC stick welders and farmers who
> learned to weld by practicing on a thick piece of steel. Are you
> going to trust your $500-2500 thin walled touring frame to someone
> like that? Or are you going to do the intelligent thing and arrange
> transportation to the nearest large city that has a machine shop with
> the right equipment and personnel to weld thin walled steel tubing, or
> aluminum tubing. And then continue your tour with a working bike
> instead of one that was burnt up by the local farmer welder.
>
> http://www.bgcycles.com/faq.html#chart2
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 06:33:43
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 3:35 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> welded by a guy in a turban.
This is an often cited wife's tale. Maybe back in the days of touring
bikes having steel tubing like Schwinn Varsitys it applied. But today
steel touring bikes are made of very lightweight, thin walled tubing,
relative to decades past. Below is a page from the Bruce Gordon
website. His bikes only use 1.0/0.7/1.0 tubing. Less than 1/32".
Unless you have welding equipment designed for thin gauge welding, and
the skill to not burn through the steel, you will not be able to weld
it. The type of welder, person and equipment, you will find in the
middle of nowhere when your frame breaks will be someone who only
welds farming implements with an ARC stick welder. The appropriate
knowledge and equipment for welding farm equipment. In the US on a
tour you will find many farms with ARC stick welders and farmers who
learned to weld by practicing on a thick piece of steel. Are you
going to trust your $500-2500 thin walled touring frame to someone
like that? Or are you going to do the intelligent thing and arrange
transportation to the nearest large city that has a machine shop with
the right equipment and personnel to weld thin walled steel tubing, or
aluminum tubing. And then continue your tour with a working bike
instead of one that was burnt up by the local farmer welder.
http://www.bgcycles.com/faq.html#chart2
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 09:09:39
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <1187012023.217250.317330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
"russellseaton1@yahoo.com" <russellseaton1@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 3:35 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to
> > be able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of
> > Rivendell) who said that for loaded touring, you want something
> > that can be welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> This is an often cited wife's tale.
IIRC it's also a misquote. My recollection is that Grant PetersEn was
talking about using steel rather than aluminum pannier racks and being
able to get that brazed or welded up anywhere in the world, as compared
to having to find someone with a TIG welder that knows how to do
aluminum.
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 06:09:22
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 13, 7:05 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 8:10 pm, Smokey <smokeystrodt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 8:05 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 12, 7:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > > > > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > > > > is minuscule?
>
> > > > Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
> > > > low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
> > > > something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
> > > > you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
> > > > To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
> > > > techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
> > > > builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
> > > > there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
> > > > down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
> > > > that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
> > > > right.
>
> > > > Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
> > > > pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
> > > > would think more than "miniscule."
>
> > > Perhaps because, if both are built up with the same components, the
> > > weight difference between the bicycles will be (OMG!) "a....pound".
> > > So, for example, an 18lb bike v. a 19lb bike. BFD.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Good point. My Lemond is a steel frame and I don't notice any weight
> > problem at all. The rider, on the other hand..........
>
> > Smokey
>
> Reality, what a concept. But it is very consumer-ish to throw money
> after a problem to be solved. "Hard to get up hill", wait, I have it,
> buy a .,lighter bike!!", Instead of riding more and losing 1 or 2 SBWs.
> (1)
>
> (1) SBW-Standard Bike Weight=20 pounds
Always amusing to overhear someone carrying 1-2 SBWs around waxing
enthusiastic about saving 40 grams with a couple of CFRP bottle cages!
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 12:08:36
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 11:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <6o74p4-m84....@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> > Morten Reippuert Knudsen<s...@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
> >> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> >>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> >>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
> >>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
> >>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
> >>> go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure
> >>> BS.
> >> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
> >> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
> >> as a beercan.
>
> > What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>
> Real beer does NOT come in cans.
>
> > Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>
> > Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel beverage
> > can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>
> Give the drunk crushing aluminium cans on his head a steel can, an he
> will knock himself out.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
http://www.mickeys.com/homepage.php
Only drink beer that comes in green bottles.....
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:53:32
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1187006916.399301.262510@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 12, 11:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > In article <6o74p4-m84....@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> > > Morten Reippuert Knudsen<s...@reippuert.dk> wrote:
> >
> > >> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> > >>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> > >>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
> > >>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
> > >>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
will
> > >>> go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure
> > >>> BS.
> > >> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
> > >> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
> > >> as a beercan.
> >
> > > What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
> >
> > Real beer does NOT come in cans.
> >
> > > Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
> >
> > > Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
beverage
> > > can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
> >
> > Give the drunk crushing aluminium cans on his head a steel can, an he
> > will knock himself out.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> > "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"
> >
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> http://www.mickeys.com/homepage.php
>
> Only drink beer that comes in green bottles.....
>
What's wrong with you boy? You don't like Colarada Kool-Aide? Kuerze?
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 13:24:33
From: still me
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:08:36 -0000, "Qui si parla
Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>Only drink beer that comes in green bottles.....
Haffenraffers?
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 14:55:52
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article
<7sm0c31j8bagjfq72ib9jpjue4ci8j5tb0@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:08:36 -0000, "Qui si parla
> Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >Only drink beer that comes in green bottles.....
>
> Haffenraffers?
Old Waschensachs.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:57:20
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-933A1F.14555213082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article
> <7sm0c31j8bagjfq72ib9jpjue4ci8j5tb0@4ax.com>,
> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:08:36 -0000, "Qui si parla
> > Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Only drink beer that comes in green bottles.....
> >
> > Haffenraffers?
>
> Old Waschensachs.
>
> --
> Michael Press
Griesedieck (pronounced greasy dick)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griesedieck_Brothers_beer
I'll have a Leinie's thank you. Leinenkugel
Chas.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 21:18:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article
<_s-dnRRtZYvJt1jbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-933A1F.14555213082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> > In article
> > <7sm0c31j8bagjfq72ib9jpjue4ci8j5tb0@4ax.com>,
> > still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:08:36 -0000, "Qui si parla
> > > Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Only drink beer that comes in green bottles.....
> > >
> > > Haffenraffers?
> >
> > Old Waschensachs.
>
> Griesedieck (pronounced greasy dick)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griesedieck_Brothers_beer
>
> I'll have a Leinie's thank you. Leinenkugel
Is everyone studiously ignoring that OW is joke German?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 19:14:27
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-9E203C.14181518082007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <_s-dnRRtZYvJt1jbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:rubrum-933A1F.14555213082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> > > In article
> > > <7sm0c31j8bagjfq72ib9jpjue4ci8j5tb0@4ax.com>,
> > > still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:08:36 -0000, "Qui si parla
> > > > Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Only drink beer that comes in green bottles.....
> > > >
> > > > Haffenraffers?
> > >
> > > Old Waschensachs.
> >
> > Griesedieck (pronounced greasy dick)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griesedieck_Brothers_beer
> >
> > I'll have a Leinie's thank you. Leinenkugel
>
> Is everyone studiously ignoring that OW is joke German?
>
Nine, nine!
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 12:05:04
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 8:10 pm, Smokey <smokeystrodt...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 8:05 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 7:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > > > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > > > is minuscule?
>
> > > Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
> > > low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
> > > something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
> > > you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
> > > To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
> > > techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
> > > builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
> > > there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
> > > down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
> > > that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
> > > right.
>
> > > Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
> > > pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
> > > would think more than "miniscule."
>
> > Perhaps because, if both are built up with the same components, the
> > weight difference between the bicycles will be (OMG!) "a....pound".
> > So, for example, an 18lb bike v. a 19lb bike. BFD.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Good point. My Lemond is a steel frame and I don't notice any weight
> problem at all. The rider, on the other hand..........
>
> Smokey
Reality, what a concept. But it is very consumer-ish to throw money
after a problem to be solved. "Hard to get up hill", wait, I have it,
buy a .,lighter bike!!", Instead of riding more and losing 1 or 2 SBWs.
(1)
(1) SBW-Standard Bike Weight=20 pounds
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 17:57:38
From: Tim McTeague
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message
>
> Reality, what a concept. But it is very consumer-ish to throw money
> after a problem to be solved. "Hard to get up hill", wait, I have it,
> buy a .,lighter bike!!", Instead of riding more and losing 1 or 2 SBWs.
> (1)
>
> (1) SBW-Standard Bike Weight=20 pounds
Too true. A relative came to dinner the other night and I asked him how he
liked his new carbon bike. He was riding a 2nd hand Litespeed entry level
bike, forget the model but the one with a bead blasted finish. He really
was getting into riding and mentioned last summer he wanted a carbon bike
and I asked why. His Litespeed was a pretty good bike and perhaps some
newer wheels would be better bang for the buck. Anyway, he bought the
carbon whatever from a local Performance store. He seemed reluctant to tell
me how he liked it but I pushed. Well, seems he does not really like it at
all as it did not make him go any faster! I always tell people that light
stuff is fun and feels nice while riding but rarely helps you get up a hill
any faster. Perhaps the first couple of rides you actually push harder
without actually knowing it but in the end it is far better to drop a few
pounds off your own frame if greater speed is desired.
Tim McTeague
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 12:47:27
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article
<UoWdncFC6qe-Tl3bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Tim McTeague" <mcteague@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in
> message
> >
> > Reality, what a concept. But it is very consumer-ish to throw money
> > after a problem to be solved. "Hard to get up hill", wait, I have it,
> > buy a .,lighter bike!!", Instead of riding more and losing 1 or 2 SBWs.
> > (1)
> >
> > (1) SBW-Standard Bike Weight=20 pounds
>
> Too true. A relative came to dinner the other night and I asked him how he
> liked his new carbon bike. He was riding a 2nd hand Litespeed entry level
> bike, forget the model but the one with a bead blasted finish. He really
> was getting into riding and mentioned last summer he wanted a carbon bike
> and I asked why. His Litespeed was a pretty good bike and perhaps some
> newer wheels would be better bang for the buck. Anyway, he bought the
> carbon whatever from a local Performance store. He seemed reluctant to tell
> me how he liked it but I pushed. Well, seems he does not really like it at
> all as it did not make him go any faster! I always tell people that light
> stuff is fun and feels nice while riding but rarely helps you get up a hill
> any faster.
It can get you down the hill faster.
> Perhaps the first couple of rides you actually push harder
> without actually knowing it but in the end it is far better to drop a few
> pounds off your own frame if greater speed is desired.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 12:02:23
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 6:41 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> > Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> > builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> > Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others cannot
> > keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any other
> > material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will go so
> > far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS. Big
> > makers like trekspecializedgiantcannondale see steel as more expensive
> > and harder to make into a bike frame so they gravitate toward the 2
> > materials that can be made inexpensively these days in China and
> > Tiawan, carbon and aluminum.
>
> We *could* be a little bit more accurate. Of the umpteen different models of
> Trek-branded carbon fiber bikes, only *one* is built overseas. All others
> are built in Waterloo, WI. And they are much more expensive, in terms of
> both materials and fabrication, than a high-end steel frame would be.
But Trek isn't the only mass produced carbon frame.
Specializedgiantcannondale and now even Colnago and Pinarello and
Ridley make carbon frames 'overseas'(not Europe). When ya see a
Specialized with ultegra for $1800, something is really inexpensive.
Or a full carbon bike with Record for $1999.
>
> Your point on aluminum is definitely true. China and Taiwan have learned how
> to fabricate very cheap, very durable frames out of aluminum, using
> processes that depend far less on the skill of the individual doing the
> welding than is the case with steel.
>
> And your point about frames getting soft is true as well. It was said about
> steel frames when steel frames were all you could get, and then migrated to
> aluminum, carbon & ti. I think what happens is that, after a while, people
> get, in a way, too familiar with both the things they like and dislike in
> something. Sometimes those things aren't even real, but they convince
> themselves they are. And the longer they own something, the more they find
> such things to quibble about. Bicycle frames change very little over time
> (unless you've crunched one).
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 09:31:19
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
>> > Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>> > builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>> > Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others cannot
>> > keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any other
>> > material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will go so
>> > far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS. Big
>> > makers like trekspecializedgiantcannondale see steel as more expensive
>> > and harder to make into a bike frame so they gravitate toward the 2
>> > materials that can be made inexpensively these days in China and
>> > Tiawan, carbon and aluminum.
>>
>> We *could* be a little bit more accurate. Of the umpteen different models
>> of
>> Trek-branded carbon fiber bikes, only *one* is built overseas. All others
>> are built in Waterloo, WI. And they are much more expensive, in terms of
>> both materials and fabrication, than a high-end steel frame would be.
>
> But Trek isn't the only mass produced carbon frame.
> Specializedgiantcannondale and now even Colnago and Pinarello and
> Ridley make carbon frames 'overseas'(not Europe). When ya see a
> Specialized with ultegra for $1800, something is really inexpensive.
> Or a full carbon bike with Record for $1999.
No doubt. I just don't want to see Trek lumped in there as well because if
that's the perception, it *will* become reality. There's no point to
spending more $$$ to build a better frame (and build it here) if the
perception is that they're all made overseas and all made the same. Trek
fights this battle both externally and internally.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1187006543.900718.171740@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 12, 6:41 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>> > builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>> > Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others cannot
>> > keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any other
>> > material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will go so
>> > far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS. Big
>> > makers like trekspecializedgiantcannondale see steel as more expensive
>> > and harder to make into a bike frame so they gravitate toward the 2
>> > materials that can be made inexpensively these days in China and
>> > Tiawan, carbon and aluminum.
>>
>> We *could* be a little bit more accurate. Of the umpteen different models
>> of
>> Trek-branded carbon fiber bikes, only *one* is built overseas. All others
>> are built in Waterloo, WI. And they are much more expensive, in terms of
>> both materials and fabrication, than a high-end steel frame would be.
>
> But Trek isn't the only mass produced carbon frame.
> Specializedgiantcannondale and now even Colnago and Pinarello and
> Ridley make carbon frames 'overseas'(not Europe). When ya see a
> Specialized with ultegra for $1800, something is really inexpensive.
> Or a full carbon bike with Record for $1999.
>>
>> Your point on aluminum is definitely true. China and Taiwan have learned
>> how
>> to fabricate very cheap, very durable frames out of aluminum, using
>> processes that depend far less on the skill of the individual doing the
>> welding than is the case with steel.
>>
>> And your point about frames getting soft is true as well. It was said
>> about
>> steel frames when steel frames were all you could get, and then migrated
>> to
>> aluminum, carbon & ti. I think what happens is that, after a while,
>> people
>> get, in a way, too familiar with both the things they like and dislike in
>> something. Sometimes those things aren't even real, but they convince
>> themselves they are. And the longer they own something, the more they
>> find
>> such things to quibble about. Bicycle frames change very little over time
>> (unless you've crunched one).
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 11:59:29
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 6:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > is minuscule?
>
> Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
> low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
> something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
> you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
> To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
> techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
> builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
> there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
> down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
> that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
> right.
Correct. Ease of manufacture and safety and welding skill all equals
less money, cheaper..not necessarily a better frame. Why
trekspecializedgiantcannondale don't do steel.
>
> Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
> pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
> would think more than "miniscule."
In the bike rider and bicycle formula, it means little. Great steel
frames are about 3.3, great ti frames, about the same. Carbon is the
exception, about a pound less but in a 200 pound 'package', it means
little.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 00:19:30
From: Morten Reippuert Knudsen
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> In the bike rider and bicycle formula, it means little. Great steel
> frames are about 3.3, great ti frames, about the same.
Today a lot of ti frames are in the same weigh class as aluminum
(arround 2.5 pound), yet still strong and stiff. My Merlin CR is 1190g
for a size ML (56,5 top tube).
--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk >
Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:56:46
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 9:48 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> Sushi Fish wrote:
> >>> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> >>> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> >>> is minuscule?
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
> >> frames cost the manufacturer $8.
> >> There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
> >> specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
> >> still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> > able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> > who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> > welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> I should think that a guy in a turban could wreck an aluminum bike as
> well as a steel one. I could be wrong. Weld? They seem to prefer IEDs.
>
So would you, if a foreign military invaded and occupied Wisconsin.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:42:39
From: craig
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 10:10 pm, Smokey <smokeystrodt...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 8:05 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 7:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > > > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > > > is minuscule?
>
> > > Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
> > > low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
> > > something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
> > > you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
> > > To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
> > > techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
> > > builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
> > > there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
> > > down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
> > > that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
> > > right.
>
> > > Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
> > > pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
> > > would think more than "miniscule."
>
> > Perhaps because, if both are built up with the same components, the
> > weight difference between the bicycles will be (OMG!) "a....pound".
> > So, for example, an 18lb bike v. a 19lb bike. BFD.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Good point. My Lemond is a steel frame and I don't notice any weight
> problem at all. The rider, on the other hand..........
>
> Smokey
i love my steel kona singlespeed its as smooth as my carbon road bike
easily
[IMG]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k203/craigjdurkee/kona/
DSCF1690.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k203/craigjdurkee/kona/
DSCF1691.jpg[/IMG]
imho also looks better
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:10:20
From: Smokey
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 8:05 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 7:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > > is minuscule?
>
> > Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
> > low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
> > something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
> > you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
> > To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
> > techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
> > builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
> > there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
> > down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
> > that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
> > right.
>
> > Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
> > pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
> > would think more than "miniscule."
>
> Perhaps because, if both are built up with the same components, the
> weight difference between the bicycles will be (OMG!) "a....pound".
> So, for example, an 18lb bike v. a 19lb bike. BFD.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good point. My Lemond is a steel frame and I don't notice any weight
problem at all. The rider, on the other hand..........
Smokey
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 01:33:58
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
one of the biggest reasons not mentioned is manufacturing costs, the
cutters in the automated mills and machinery last much longer with
aluminum, it comes down to $$ in production
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:54:44 -0700, Sushi Fish
<yellowtail_2005@yahoo.com > wrote:
>steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
>different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
>is minuscule?
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 18:05:15
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 7:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > is minuscule?
>
> Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
> low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
> something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
> you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
> To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
> techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
> builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
> there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
> down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
> that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
> right.
>
> Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
> pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
> would think more than "miniscule."
>
Perhaps because, if both are built up with the same components, the
weight difference between the bicycles will be (OMG!) "a....pound".
So, for example, an 18lb bike v. a 19lb bike. BFD.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 17:29:31
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
right.
Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
would think more than "miniscule."
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 14:34:10
From: velodancer
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Raw aluminum may or may not be relatively inexpensive, but it requires
heat treating post welding. I doubt that it is as cheap to produce on
the low end as mild steel frames. And there are durability issues,
which is why it is very uncommon to find on the structural components
in cars.
Mid range bikes may well cost the same in aluminum or steel, however
it is fashion that is driving the choice, not the engineering or the
real world performance. Part of the fashion is that aluminum frames of
roughly equal strength and stiffness are half to a full pound lighter
than the lightest steel frames. Fashion is also behind much of the
drive to CF. But all materials have their pluses and minuses. Most
custom builders work with steel as the alternatives are much more
costly or require a much different skill set.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 11:56:48
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 1:50 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 9:32 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 3:35 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 11:48 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Sushi Fish wrote:
> > > > > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > > > > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > > > > is minuscule?
>
> > > > You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
> > > > frames cost the manufacturer $8.
>
> > > > There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
> > > > specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
> > > > still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
>
> > > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> > > able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> > > who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> > > welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> > But, will the "guy in a turban" be stocking those 650B wheels and
> > tires?
>
> Don't care. I tour on a Surly Long Haul Trucker.
I was actually addressing the hypocri.....er, inconsistencies in The
Grant's "advice".
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 11:50:06
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 9:32 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 3:35 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 11:48 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sushi Fish wrote:
> > > > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > > > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > > > is minuscule?
>
> > > You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
> > > frames cost the manufacturer $8.
>
> > > There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
> > > specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
> > > still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
>
> > Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> > able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> > who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> > welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> But, will the "guy in a turban" be stocking those 650B wheels and
> tires?
Don't care. I tour on a Surly Long Haul Trucker.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 17:52:09
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
GIVEN a human's low HP output, a few grams off the cycle's front
wheel, a clean repack of grease with round bearings, produces more
speed, accerleration.
So Al wins on lightness, to many but not all buyers and owners.
on-off the showroom floor, it's faster faster.
for the builder it's easier and cheaper to manufacture.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 09:32:08
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 12, 3:35 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 11:48 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sushi Fish wrote:
> > > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > > is minuscule?
>
> > You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
> > frames cost the manufacturer $8.
>
> > There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
> > specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
> > still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
>
> Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> welded by a guy in a turban.
But, will the "guy in a turban" be stocking those 650B wheels and
tires?
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 12:25:07
From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Sushi Fish" <yellowtail_2005@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1186890884.131714.34770@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
>
Troll.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 06:30:48
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 11, 9:54 pm, Sushi Fish <yellowtail_2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
Actually, as everyone is telling you. Alum is way cheaper and pretty
good for its purpose. If you walk into an average bike shop, the bulk
of the road bikes are in the $500-$1000. Essentially these are bikes
with shimano sora, tiagra and 105 groups and a $100 frame made in
Taiwan or china by the same factory. The frame will be light, stiff
and fine for racing, commuting, etc.
If you go into a higher end shop, then you'll see steel bikes as some
mentioned. There are a few companies that use steel frames in their
low end offerings, but not many.
Andres
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 12:35:30
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 11, 9:54 pm, Sushi Fish <yellowtail_2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
'They'?
Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others cannot
keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any other
material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will go so
far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS. Big
makers like trekspecializedgiantcannondale see steel as more expensive
and harder to make into a bike frame so they gravitate toward the 2
materials that can be made inexpensively these days in China and
Tiawan, carbon and aluminum.
BUT steel is alive and well and still provides a tremendous ride,
great looks and breat value for the $. Mass marketers and mailorder
does not the bike industry make.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 17:41:42
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others cannot
> keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any other
> material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will go so
> far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS. Big
> makers like trekspecializedgiantcannondale see steel as more expensive
> and harder to make into a bike frame so they gravitate toward the 2
> materials that can be made inexpensively these days in China and
> Tiawan, carbon and aluminum.
We *could* be a little bit more accurate. Of the umpteen different models of
Trek-branded carbon fiber bikes, only *one* is built overseas. All others
are built in Waterloo, WI. And they are much more expensive, in terms of
both materials and fabrication, than a high-end steel frame would be.
Your point on aluminum is definitely true. China and Taiwan have learned how
to fabricate very cheap, very durable frames out of aluminum, using
processes that depend far less on the skill of the individual doing the
welding than is the case with steel.
And your point about frames getting soft is true as well. It was said about
steel frames when steel frames were all you could get, and then migrated to
aluminum, carbon & ti. I think what happens is that, after a while, people
get, in a way, too familiar with both the things they like and dislike in
something. Sometimes those things aren't even real, but they convince
themselves they are. And the longer they own something, the more they find
such things to quibble about. Bicycle frames change very little over time
(unless you've crunched one).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:55:58
From: still me
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:35:30 -0000, "Qui si parla
Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will go so
>far as claim it gets soft over time.
Hey, this idea belongs in the "why the bridge collapsed" thread!
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:39:02
From: Morten Reippuert Knudsen
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others cannot
> keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any other
> material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will go so
> far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS.
Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic as
a beercan.
In order to bulit a leightweigt steel frame, the tube walls has to be
very thin (0,7/0,4mm or less). Older (and +2kg) designs used 0-8/0-6mm
walls or thicker.
In order to build a steelframe with a stiffness comperable to a
current day standart race ready oversize aluminum frames you will have
to increase the diameter of the steel tubes.
It doesn't take much effort to put a dent into a modern 0,7/0,4mm
butted oversize steeltube. I've done it twize i the past 10 years.
The first time i fidled with my pedals and hit the pavement stone, and
fell to the side while rideing aproximatly 4km/h - my thigh got
squized between the toptube and the bar - the torque was enough to
cause a tiny dent in the top tube and a small crack in the seat
tube. (this was an expensive Battaglin Zero HT round tubed, double
butted 0,7/0,4mm, oversized and TIG welded frame)
The second time i got hit by a car, well in fact i didn't but i crashed
while trying to avoid the car while driving arround 30km/h. Basicly
the same ting happened (appart from the fact that i hurt myself a lot
more this time): An almost invisible dent in the top tube, which
develeoped a crack in the seattube over the next weeks. (This was a
Battaglin Exagon with profiled Nivacrom tubes and zona butting)
last year i decided to spend a lot of money on a new frameset - im not
realy into aluminium and i dont dare to ride plastic frame, so i
decided to get a titanium frame with palin gauge oversized tubes.
--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk >
Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:49:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk >,
Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> > Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> > builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> > Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
> > cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
> > other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
> > go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure
> > BS.
>
> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
> as a beercan.
What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel beverage
can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 00:24:05
From: Morten Reippuert Knudsen
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> > > builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> > > Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
> > > cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
> > > other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
> > > go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure
> > > BS.
> >
> > Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
> > titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
> > as a beercan.
> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they
Strong enough if you avoid dents.
> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel beverage
> can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
The difference is that a 1.7kg oversize aluminum frame doesn't have
paper thin rube walls and don't act like a bear can.
The 1,7kg oversized steel frame is very similar to the beercan.
--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk >
Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 21:03:28
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <5927p4-704.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk >,
Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk > wrote:
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> > Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
> > > Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
> > > > builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
> > > > Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
> > > > cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
> > > > other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
> > > > will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which
> > > > are pure BS.
> > >
> > > Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
> > > titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same
> > > caracteristic as a beercan.
>
> > What are beer cans made from? How strong are they
>
> Strong enough if you avoid dents.
Not necessarily easily avoided. Steel frames tolerate dents for years.
> > Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>
> > Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
> > beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>
> The difference is that a 1.7kg oversize aluminum frame doesn't have
> paper thin rube walls and don't act like a bear can.
Unforutnately the "beer can" problem is common with aluminum frames.
Experience with oversize lightweight aluminum frames here in the US is
frequently otherwise than what you claim. From the experiences of my
friends, they are aluminum frames more likely to break than a steel
frame. I have not had to replace my 1.88 kg steel frame in nearly 10
years of racing, training, light touring, dirt road riding, etc. My
friends with aluminum bikes have had to replace them due to broken tubes
in shorter service lives (cracked head tube X1, cracked chainstays x2).
I weigh 94 kg, they weigh 70-80 kg. A third had to replace a month old
Cannondale after the frame was bent in a simple slip-out crash at a
crit. None of them ride aluminum frames any more because of the
durability problems- they have gone to either Ti or steel.
If there are aluminum frames that work for you, that's great and have
fun riding them. There are no current aluminum frames that meet my
needs in the area of design, so it's not even an option for me to
consider. The claim of superiority for Fe, Ti or Al as a material for
making bike frames is specious and unprovable. It is a matter of which
compromises you need to accommodate.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:08:13
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> Unforutnately the "beer can" problem is common with aluminum frames....
Aluminium (alloy) frames contain poor quality beer? ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 17:37:29
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <46c11086$0$16334$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > ... Unforutnately the "beer can" problem is common with aluminum
> > frames....
>
> Aluminium (alloy) frames contain poor quality beer? ;)
Are there *any* good beers in aluminum? :-D *
*(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:22:25
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-321A71.17372914082007@news.iphouse.com...
>> Aluminium (alloy) frames contain poor quality beer? ;)
>
> Are there *any* good beers in aluminum? :-D *
>
> *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
Wash your mouth out with soap, you revolting man. Well, it would give a
similar effect :-)
Here, most good beers come in aluminium, but that's of the cask variety
rather than can. TBH the decent beer market round here is mostly based
around bottles. Although the steel cans of Cains I have downstairs are quite
drinkable.
(Bottles do have the advantage that you can keep the beer alive - unlike
pasteurised can beer)
cheers,
clive
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 20:53:46
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Clive George wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-321A71.17372914082007@news.iphouse.com...
>
>>> Aluminium (alloy) frames contain poor quality beer? ;)
>>
>> Are there *any* good beers in aluminum? :-D *
>>
>> *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
>
> Wash your mouth out with soap, you revolting man. Well, it would give a
> similar effect :-)
>
> Here, most good beers come in aluminium, but that's of the cask variety
> rather than can. TBH the decent beer market round here is mostly based
> around bottles. Although the steel cans of Cains I have downstairs are
> quite drinkable.
>
> (Bottles do have the advantage that you can keep the beer alive - unlike
> pasteurised can beer)
I like unfiltered beer with the yeast still in it.
Yeasty beer, yum.
Local variety: <http://www.newglarusbrewing.com/beers/spottedcow.html >.
How can anyone dislike a beer that has a picture of a Holstein-Friesian
on the label?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:30:48
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <46c3a214$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
> > "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> > news:timmcn-321A71.17372914082007@news.iphouse.com...
> >
> >>> Aluminium (alloy) frames contain poor quality beer? ;)
> >>
> >> Are there *any* good beers in aluminum? :-D *
> >>
> >> *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
> >
> > Wash your mouth out with soap, you revolting man. Well, it would
> > give a similar effect :-)
> >
> > Here, most good beers come in aluminium, but that's of the cask
> > variety rather than can. TBH the decent beer market round here is
> > mostly based around bottles. Although the steel cans of Cains I
> > have downstairs are quite drinkable.
> >
> > (Bottles do have the advantage that you can keep the beer alive -
> > unlike pasteurised can beer)
>
> I like unfiltered beer with the yeast still in it.
>
> Yeasty beer, yum.
Beer should be alive.
> Local variety:
> <http://www.newglarusbrewing.com/beers/spottedcow.html>. How can
> anyone dislike a beer that has a picture of a Holstein-Friesian on
> the label?
It would go over well in my house (my wife is the general manager of a
dairy cooperative). I haven't seen in here in the Twin Cities, perhaps
it is not distributed into Minnesota. My wife goes to La Crosse and
Westby regularly, I'll send her on a quest for New Glarus beer next time.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:14:42
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46c3a214$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote:
>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>>> news:timmcn-321A71.17372914082007@news.iphouse.com...
>>>
>>>>> Aluminium (alloy) frames contain poor quality beer? ;)
>>>> Are there *any* good beers in aluminum? :-D *
>>>>
>>>> *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
>>> Wash your mouth out with soap, you revolting man. Well, it would
>>> give a similar effect :-)
>>>
>>> Here, most good beers come in aluminium, but that's of the cask
>>> variety rather than can. TBH the decent beer market round here is
>>> mostly based around bottles. Although the steel cans of Cains I
>>> have downstairs are quite drinkable.
>>>
>>> (Bottles do have the advantage that you can keep the beer alive -
>>> unlike pasteurised can beer)
>> I like unfiltered beer with the yeast still in it.
>>
>> Yeasty beer, yum.
>
> Beer should be alive.
>
>> Local variety:
>> <http://www.newglarusbrewing.com/beers/spottedcow.html>. How can
>> anyone dislike a beer that has a picture of a Holstein-Friesian on
>> the label?
>
> It would go over well in my house (my wife is the general manager of a
> dairy cooperative). I haven't seen in here in the Twin Cities, perhaps
> it is not distributed into Minnesota. My wife goes to La Crosse and
> Westby regularly, I'll send her on a quest for New Glarus beer next time.
New Glarus Brewing Company only distributes to us cheeseheads, so you
have to cross the Cheddar Curtain to get it. No. 5:
<http://www.newglarusbrewing.com/faq.html >.
Here is the availability:
<http://www.newglarusbrewing.com/beer%20schedule.html >. Fat Squirrel is
my other regular favorite. Belgian Red is "wow", but not something one
drinks regularly.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:36:59
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <13c6a3so0gt0m69@corp.supernews.com >,
"Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-321A71.17372914082007@news.iphouse.com...
>
> >> Aluminium (alloy) frames contain poor quality beer? ;)
> >
> > Are there *any* good beers in aluminum? :-D *
> >
> > *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
>
> Wash your mouth out with soap, you revolting man. Well, it would give
> a similar effect :-)
Hey, I live in a third world country when it comes to beer. Granted
that Tetley's in a can is not much like Tetley's pulled from a cask
through a sparkler... the options here are limited.
There are a few US beers that I like, too, but most of the "microbrews"
are so overly hopped as to be undrinkable. More like foamy paint
thinner than beer IMHO. Well, again that's what's available locally in
the brewpubs. Perhaps people in other places have better options.
There are some small brewers that do a better job- Summit and Goose
Island spring to mind.
> Here, most good beers come in aluminium, but that's of the cask
> variety rather than can. TBH the decent beer market round here is
> mostly based around bottles. Although the steel cans of Cains I have
> downstairs are quite drinkable.
With the exception of Guinness and Bass Ale, we mostly find British
Isles "ales" in cans in the US with a little nitrogen widget. Locally
at least, I can't speak for other places in the US. Beers from most
other European locales come primarily in bottles as do the better US
beers. I think I most bars and pubs in the US use metal casks.
> (Bottles do have the advantage that you can keep the beer alive -
> unlike pasteurised can beer)
Unpasteurized beers are a rarity here no matter what the container,
except in brewpubs. IIRC Coors is one of those.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:11:35
From: SMS
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
Henninger and Guinness are two more.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:39:07
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <46c32575$0$27247$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
>
> Henninger and Guinness are two more.
Henninger is unfamiliar to me. I'll keep a lookout for it- thanks for
the tip. I frequently drink Guinness but I get it in bottles rather
than cans (there are two bottled varieties, of course- double stout and
"draught." I like both).
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 18:59:50
From: SMS
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Henninger is unfamiliar to me. I'll keep a lookout for it- thanks for
> the tip. I frequently drink Guinness but I get it in bottles rather
> than cans (there are two bottled varieties, of course- double stout and
> "draught." I like both).
Costco sells the Guinness in cans pretty cheaply. Trader Joe's sells
Henninger in cans (tall cans, not 12 ounce cans).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:26:07
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <46c3af55$0$27183$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > Henninger is unfamiliar to me. I'll keep a lookout for it- thanks
> > for the tip. I frequently drink Guinness but I get it in bottles
> > rather than cans (there are two bottled varieties, of course-
> > double stout and "draught." I like both).
>
> Costco sells the Guinness in cans pretty cheaply. Trader Joe's sells
> Henninger in cans (tall cans, not 12 ounce cans).
We've just had Trader Joe's come to this area so I will check there.
However in Minnesota grocery stores cannot sell alcoholic beverages-
only standalone liquor stores. We've haven't fully made it out of
Prohibition yet. So if Trader Joe's sells beer and such here, they
would have had to separate that part of the business.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:47:04
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46c3af55$0$27183$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> Henninger is unfamiliar to me. I'll keep a lookout for it- thanks
>>> for the tip. I frequently drink Guinness but I get it in bottles
>>> rather than cans (there are two bottled varieties, of course-
>>> double stout and "draught." I like both).
>> Costco sells the Guinness in cans pretty cheaply. Trader Joe's sells
>> Henninger in cans (tall cans, not 12 ounce cans).
>
> We've just had Trader Joe's come to this area so I will check there.
> However in Minnesota grocery stores cannot sell alcoholic beverages-
> only standalone liquor stores. We've haven't fully made it out of
> Prohibition yet. So if Trader Joe's sells beer and such here, they
> would have had to separate that part of the business.
shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
"tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 02:09:11
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:47:04 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
>"tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
This one needs to be posted to alt.on-topic. "A newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion and resolution of the question, *What, exactly, is
the topic of this newsgroup?*"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:06:13
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" wrote:
>
> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
> "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered "bike
tech".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 19:17:56
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>>
>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
>> "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
>
> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered "bike
> tech".
>
and drivel about beer is what exactly?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 19:22:00
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>
>>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
>>> "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>>> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
>>
>> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered "bike
>> tech".
>>
> and drivel about beer is what exactly?
Would you prefer we discussed Kentucky Bourbon?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 22:20:43
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
>>>> "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>>>> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
>>>
>>> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered
>>> "bike tech".
>>>
>> and drivel about beer is what exactly?
>
> Would you prefer we discussed Kentucky Bourbon?
>
how about bike tech? now wouldn't that be novel!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:37:00
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>
>>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
>>> "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>>> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
>>
>> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered "bike
>> tech".
>>
> and drivel about beer is what exactly?
Am I the one kvetching about off-topic posts?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 19:56:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
>>>> "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>>>> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
>>>
>>> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered
>>> "bike tech".
>>>
>> and drivel about beer is what exactly?
>
> Am I the one kvetching about off-topic posts?
>
you wrote: "I do not see anything in the above post that would be
considered "bike tech".", so yes, you were. take the beer over to r.b.m
if you simply can't resist yapping about it. take timmy the retard with
you too.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:26:35
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is bike
>>>>> "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>>>>> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
>>>>
>>>> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered
>>>> "bike tech".
>>>>
>>> and drivel about beer is what exactly?
>>
>> Am I the one kvetching about off-topic posts?
>>
>
> you wrote: "I do not see anything in the above post that would be
> considered "bike tech".", so yes, you were. take the beer over to r.b.m
> if you simply can't resist yapping about it. take timmy the retard with
> you too.
Whoosh!
I was not complaining about non-tech posts, but pointing out that "jim
beam's" complaint about the non-tech posts was non-tech. Is it that hard
to understand?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 20:35:43
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is
>>>>>> bike "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>>>>>> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered
>>>>> "bike tech".
>>>>>
>>>> and drivel about beer is what exactly?
>>>
>>> Am I the one kvetching about off-topic posts?
>>>
>>
>> you wrote: "I do not see anything in the above post that would be
>> considered "bike tech".", so yes, you were. take the beer over to
>> r.b.m if you simply can't resist yapping about it. take timmy the
>> retard with you too.
>
> Whoosh!
wow, you /totally/ missed that one.
>
> I was not complaining about non-tech posts, but pointing out that "jim
> beam's" complaint about the non-tech posts was non-tech. Is it that hard
> to understand?
>
i /know/ you're not!!! [but you happen to be one of the biggest
non-tech troll feeders here since we're on that subject.] i know
posting any old crap here is simply recreation for a lot of people, but
there are other fora for that. use them!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:43:12
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is
>>>>>>> bike "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up the
>>>>>>> signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned retard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered
>>>>>> "bike tech".
>>>>>>
>>>>> and drivel about beer is what exactly?
>>>>
>>>> Am I the one kvetching about off-topic posts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> you wrote: "I do not see anything in the above post that would be
>>> considered "bike tech".", so yes, you were. take the beer over to
>>> r.b.m if you simply can't resist yapping about it. take timmy the
>>> retard with you too.
>>
>> Whoosh!
>
> wow, you /totally/ missed that one.
>
>>
>> I was not complaining about non-tech posts, but pointing out that "jim
>> beam's" complaint about the non-tech posts was non-tech. Is it that
>> hard to understand?
>>
>
> i /know/ you're not!!! [but you happen to be one of the biggest
> non-tech troll feeders here since we're on that subject.] i know
> posting any old crap here is simply recreation for a lot of people, but
> there are other fora for that. use them!
Is insulting people "tech"?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:14:38
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> shit timmy, of all your posts here today - not a single one is
>>>>>>>> bike "tech". is this your retarded mission in life - fuck up
>>>>>>>> the signal/noise ratio of the world? stick to topic, goddamned
>>>>>>>> retard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not see anything in the above post that would be considered
>>>>>>> "bike tech".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and drivel about beer is what exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I the one kvetching about off-topic posts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you wrote: "I do not see anything in the above post that would be
>>>> considered "bike tech".", so yes, you were. take the beer over to
>>>> r.b.m if you simply can't resist yapping about it. take timmy the
>>>> retard with you too.
>>>
>>> Whoosh!
>>
>> wow, you /totally/ missed that one.
>>
>>>
>>> I was not complaining about non-tech posts, but pointing out that
>>> "jim beam's" complaint about the non-tech posts was non-tech. Is it
>>> that hard to understand?
>>>
>>
>> i /know/ you're not!!! [but you happen to be one of the biggest
>> non-tech troll feeders here since we're on that subject.] i know
>> posting any old crap here is simply recreation for a lot of people,
>> but there are other fora for that. use them!
>
> Is insulting people "tech"?
>
tom, do i waste time bleating about beer, bollards, politics, mexican
ruins, or any of the other crap that people waste their non-bike,
non-tech time with on this forum? no. do i respond to bullshitters
that want to "defend" their lies and/or ignorance with ad hominem? you
bet your ass. now, stop trying to red herring and get with the point -
beer is not bike.tech. it's bad enough around here with the steel vs.
carbon xenophobes - let's just keep it on topic or move it off forum.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 14:12:27
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:SIydnTdr3f4zvVjbnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> tom, do i waste time bleating about beer, bollards, politics, mexican
> ruins, or any of the other crap that people waste their non-bike, non-tech
> time with on this forum? no. do i respond to bullshitters that want to
> "defend" their lies and/or ignorance with ad hominem? you bet your ass.
> now, stop trying to red herring and get with the point - beer is not
> bike.tech. it's bad enough around here with the steel vs. carbon
> xenophobes - let's just keep it on topic or move it off forum.
You're funny. At least the beer discussion was good natured and people may
have got some useful information from it - unlike the endless political ones
which populate this NG.
clive
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 07:43:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Clive George wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:SIydnTdr3f4zvVjbnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>> tom, do i waste time bleating about beer, bollards, politics, mexican
>> ruins, or any of the other crap that people waste their non-bike,
>> non-tech time with on this forum? no. do i respond to bullshitters
>> that want to "defend" their lies and/or ignorance with ad hominem?
>> you bet your ass. now, stop trying to red herring and get with the
>> point - beer is not bike.tech. it's bad enough around here with the
>> steel vs. carbon xenophobes - let's just keep it on topic or move it
>> off forum.
>
> You're funny. At least the beer discussion was good natured and people
> may have got some useful information from it - unlike the endless
> political ones which populate this NG.
>
> clive
so why tolerate the off-topic crap that doesn't belong here?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 19:23:18
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:SIydnTdr3f4zvVjbnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>> tom, do i waste time bleating about beer, bollards, politics, mexican
>>> ruins, or any of the other crap that people waste their non-bike,
>>> non-tech time with on this forum? no. do i respond to bullshitters
>>> that want to "defend" their lies and/or ignorance with ad hominem?
>>> you bet your ass. now, stop trying to red herring and get with the
>>> point - beer is not bike.tech. it's bad enough around here with the
>>> steel vs. carbon xenophobes - let's just keep it on topic or move it
>>> off forum.
>>
>> You're funny. At least the beer discussion was good natured and people
>> may have got some useful information from it - unlike the endless
>> political ones which populate this NG.
>>
>> clive
>
> so why tolerate the off-topic crap that doesn't belong here?
Q. What is worse than off-topic discussion?
A. People whining about off-topic discussion.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 17:19:18
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:boidnTS-aa-8KVjbnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> You're funny. At least the beer discussion was good natured and people
>> may have got some useful information from it - unlike the endless
>> political ones which populate this NG.
>
> so why tolerate the off-topic crap that doesn't belong here?
So why pick on the vaguely interesting one rather than the other long
repetitive ones?
clive
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 09:41:26
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Clive George wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:boidnTS-aa-8KVjbnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>>> You're funny. At least the beer discussion was good natured and
>>> people may have got some useful information from it - unlike the
>>> endless political ones which populate this NG.
>>
>> so why tolerate the off-topic crap that doesn't belong here?
>
> So why pick on the vaguely interesting one rather than the other long
> repetitive ones?
>
> clive
because it's off topic. the only reason the other stuff gets boring is
because the same old hacks keep repeating the same old preconceptions,
mistakes, uninformed opinions, etc. maybe cleaning that up will take a
while, but for sure, off-topic beer crap doesn't help it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 17:49:24
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:D7KdnZd6xJIqUljbnZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:boidnTS-aa-8KVjbnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>>> You're funny. At least the beer discussion was good natured and people
>>>> may have got some useful information from it - unlike the endless
>>>> political ones which populate this NG.
>>>
>>> so why tolerate the off-topic crap that doesn't belong here?
>>
>> So why pick on the vaguely interesting one rather than the other long
>> repetitive ones?
>>
> because it's off topic. the only reason the other stuff gets boring is
> because the same old hacks keep repeating the same old preconceptions,
> mistakes, uninformed opinions, etc.
Yebbut aren't they off topic too? Or is this rec.bicycles.politics?
clive
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 22:21:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Clive George wrote:
<snip for clarity >
> Or is this rec.bicycles.politics?
unfortunately, it would appear so.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 04:03:23
From: still me
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:43:12 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote:
>Is insulting people "tech"?
Appears to be on-topic here if nothing else.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 22:47:57
From: still me
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:39:07 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>I frequently drink Guinness but I get it in bottles rather
>than cans (there are two bottled varieties, of course- double stout and
>"draught." I like both).
You like that stuff? Want my used engine oil to drink? It tastes about
the same and has the same viscosity.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:26:52
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <1k07c3tb74grl44scdm6abir2gn9j1vta6@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:39:07 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >I frequently drink Guinness but I get it in bottles rather than cans
> >(there are two bottled varieties, of course- double stout and
> >"draught." I like both).
>
> You like that stuff? Want my used engine oil to drink? It tastes
> about the same and has the same viscosity.
LOL! My friend Dan once told me that Guinness was like a pot of coffee
that was forgotten and perked for a couple of days.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 15:37:55
From: still me
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:26:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>> You like that stuff? Want my used engine oil to drink? It tastes
>> about the same and has the same viscosity.
>
>LOL! My friend Dan once told me that Guinness was like a pot of coffee
>that was forgotten and perked for a couple of days.
Actually, I figure that the pour the beer out of the cask first, then
the leftover stuff they scrape off the sides is bottled as stout.
:-)
Tsing-Tao anyone? Oh $hit... I bet it has lead in it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 10:39:46
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
still me wrote:
>
>
> Tsing-Tao anyone? Oh $hit... I bet it has lead in it.
>
I lived on Tsing Tao and Snow while I was in China. That shit is so
weak and tasteless I didn't need to drink the water.
Greg
--
Ticketmaster sucks, but everyone knows that:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 16:06:08
From: Kristian M Zoerhoff
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On 2007-08-16, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> Tsing-Tao anyone? Oh $hit... I bet it has lead in it.
You're already killing brain cells, does it really matter if you take a few
more out?
--
__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:58:37
From: John Verheul
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-321A71.17372914082007@news.iphouse.com...
> Are there *any* good beers in aluminum? :-D *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
More: http://www.oskarblues.com/brew/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:12:43
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <46c32320$0$505$815e3792@news.qwest.net >,
"John Verheul" <vjohn1020@qwest.net > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-321A71.17372914082007@news.iphouse.com...
> > Are there *any* good beers in aluminum? :-D *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *(Actually yes- Boddington's and Tetley's are a couple of them).
>
> More: http://www.oskarblues.com/brew/
I haven't heard of those before. In general I find that American beers
tend to be either flavorless or so aggressively hopped that they are
pretty much undrinkable. The concept of "balance" seems to elude
microbrewers in much the same way that American wines tend to be so
heavily oaked that it's like sucking on wood chips. "If some is good
more is better" is the general motto, it seems.
I prefer British/Irish/Scottish style ales, for the most part. I like to
taste the malt (and with wines I like to taste the grape rather than the
barrel). Boddington's, Belhaven, Guinness and Smithwick's being my
current favorites. Goose Island makes some nice beers. The local brew
is Summit and some of those are pretty good. They are supportive of
bicycling, too.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 09:51:22
From: John Verheul
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-3B1CEF.17124315082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <46c32320$0$505$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
> "John Verheul" <vjohn1020@qwest.net> wrote:
>> More: http://www.oskarblues.com/brew/
>
> I haven't heard of those before.
They are fairly regional to the Rocky Mountains I think.
> In general I find that American beers
> tend to be either flavorless or so aggressively hopped that they are
> pretty much undrinkable. The concept of "balance" seems to elude
> microbrewers in much the same way that American wines tend to be so
> heavily oaked that it's like sucking on wood chips. "If some is good
> more is better" is the general motto, it seems.
>
> I prefer British/Irish/Scottish style ales, for the most part. I like to
> taste the malt (and with wines I like to taste the grape rather than the
> barrel).
Precisely why I posted the link, the Old Chub is my favorite Scottish ale.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 18:21:32
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <46c5c40d$0$514$815e3792@news.qwest.net >,
"John Verheul" <vjohn1020@qwest.net > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-3B1CEF.17124315082007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <46c32320$0$505$815e3792@news.qwest.net>, "John Verheul"
> > <vjohn1020@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> More: http://www.oskarblues.com/brew/
> >
> > I haven't heard of those before.
>
> They are fairly regional to the Rocky Mountains I think.
>
> > In general I find that American beers tend to be either flavorless
> > or so aggressively hopped that they are pretty much undrinkable.
> > The concept of "balance" seems to elude microbrewers in much the
> > same way that American wines tend to be so heavily oaked that it's
> > like sucking on wood chips. "If some is good more is better" is
> > the general motto, it seems.
> >
> > I prefer British/Irish/Scottish style ales, for the most part. I
> > like to taste the malt (and with wines I like to taste the grape
> > rather than the barrel).
>
> Precisely why I posted the link, the Old Chub is my favorite Scottish
> ale.
Well, it's an easy-enough-to-remember name so if I ever see it, I'll try
it! Thanks for the recommendation.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 07:58:58
From: Morten Reippuert Knudsen
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
> Unforutnately the "beer can" problem is common with aluminum frames.
> Experience with oversize lightweight aluminum frames here in the US is
> frequently otherwise than what you claim.
Please notice the weight of the frames i'm refering to. In denmark a
lot of riders has dent's in their aluminum Principia Rex's as well -
hoverver those don't weight in at 1700g, they weight arround 1200g.
1200g gram oversize aluminum acts as beercans as well as 1700g steel
frames.
> If there are aluminum frames that work for you, that's great and have
> fun riding them.
I've never owned an aluminum frame and i never will - i'm just trying
to explain why a cheap aluminum frame makes more sense than a simialr
priced steel frame.
Secondly im trying to explain the weaknes of stupid light and
expensive steel frames, because somebody in this group ofte compares
those expensive and stupid light steel frames to cheap aluminum frames
in the same weight rage.
--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk >
Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:59:13
From: SMS
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Unforutnately the "beer can" problem is common with aluminum frames.
> Experience with oversize lightweight aluminum frames here in the US is
> frequently otherwise than what you claim. From the experiences of my
> friends, they are aluminum frames more likely to break than a steel
> frame.
Since most bicycles never get ridden anywhere near the amount that your
friends ride their bicycles, aluminum is "good enough" for most buyers,
and much more profitable to the manufacturer.
You wouldn't want to buy an aluminum-frame bicycle if you're a frequent
rider, though some people get away with it for years.
Steel is overkill for the usage that most bicycles get, of a few miles a
week, if that. The metal fatigue of aluminum will never be a problem for
the casual rider.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 19:30:34
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <5927p4-704.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which
>>>>> are pure BS.
>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same
>>>> caracteristic as a beercan.
>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they
>> Strong enough if you avoid dents.
>
> Not necessarily easily avoided. Steel frames tolerate dents for years.
>
>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>> The difference is that a 1.7kg oversize aluminum frame doesn't have
>> paper thin rube walls and don't act like a bear can.
>
> Unforutnately the "beer can" problem is common with aluminum frames.
spoken from experience?
> Experience with oversize lightweight aluminum frames here in the US is
> frequently otherwise than what you claim. From the experiences of my
> friends, they are aluminum frames more likely to break than a steel
> frame. I have not had to replace my 1.88 kg steel frame in nearly 10
> years of racing, training, light touring, dirt road riding, etc. My
> friends with aluminum bikes have had to replace them due to broken tubes
> in shorter service lives (cracked head tube X1, cracked chainstays x2).
> I weigh 94 kg, they weigh 70-80 kg.
but that's not a tube thinness problem.
> A third had to replace a month old
> Cannondale after the frame was bent in a simple slip-out crash at a
> crit. None of them ride aluminum frames any more because of the
> durability problems- they have gone to either Ti or steel.
see above.
>
> If there are aluminum frames that work for you, that's great and have
> fun riding them. There are no current aluminum frames that meet my
> needs in the area of design, so it's not even an option for me to
> consider. The claim of superiority for Fe, Ti or Al as a material for
> making bike frames is specious and unprovable. It is a matter of which
> compromises you need to accommodate.
it's basic materials. morten's right on this - aluminum can mean
thicker more dent-resistant tube.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 00:18:31
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
>>> go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure
>>> BS.
>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
>> as a beercan.
>
> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
Real beer does NOT come in cans.
> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>
> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel beverage
> can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
Give the drunk crushing aluminium cans on his head a steel can, an he
will knock himself out.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:09:04
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
>>> go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure
>>> BS.
>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
>> as a beercan.
>
> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>
> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>
> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel beverage
> can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that way.
formability is a major plus with aluminum.
seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus and
higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to smash
against the forehead...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 10:09:42
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
>>>> go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS.
>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
>>> as a beercan.
>>
>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>
>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>
>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>
> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>
> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
> primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that way.
> formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>
> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus and
> higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to smash
> against the forehead...
>
Actually, you're wrong. Current state of the art beverage cans made from
steel and aluminum have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given
that aluminum is 3x less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
Given the superior burst strength of steel, that's not surprising.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 14:08:44
From:
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Getting back to the topic, to be honest it baffles me why anyone would
worry about a couple of pounds on a touring frame. Racing riders might
need the psychological boost of thinking that they're lighter by
miniscule amounts such as 2 lbs. However with touring, if weight is an
issue, i'd rather have a 3mm thick(probably no way that thick i'm
guessing) Reynolds 531 and just skip a few hundred calories per day
for a couple of months and effectively eliminate the whole frame
weight.
My bike weighs 56lbs loaded, which is probably i guess double
the weight of most and quite alot of steel to carry a few miles across
heavy undergrowth. However as regards total load, i've lost over a
stone during the last month, so it's like the bike now only weighs
40lbs. I would of thought for serious touring cyclists, it can be
literally a case of life or death whether the frame lasts or not.
That being the case, my choice would be to go for a hugely over
engineered steel frame, with double chain stays and double crossbar,
because just going to the toilet and a quick diet can drop the 5 or 10
pounds that alu might save over steel.
Are there any metalurgists out there that would now if the modern
Reynolds tubing is available in thick wall versions for touring? I'm
aiming to buy a Dave Yates Wanderer, and it would be great to know
that the steel tubing was thicker than 1mm.
cheers, Nick.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 20:29:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <1187557724.732842.288790@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
voltimando@aol.com wrote:
> Getting back to the topic, to be honest it baffles me why anyone would
> worry about a couple of pounds on a touring frame. Racing riders might
> need the psychological boost of thinking that they're lighter by
> miniscule amounts such as 2 lbs. However with touring, if weight is an
> issue, i'd rather have a 3mm thick(probably no way that thick i'm
> guessing) Reynolds 531 and just skip a few hundred calories per day
> for a couple of months and effectively eliminate the whole frame
> weight.
Odds are that the Reynolds 531 tube walls are 1 mm at the butted ends
and .8 mm in the middle.
> My bike weighs 56lbs loaded, which is probably i guess double
> the weight of most and quite alot of steel to carry a few miles across
> heavy undergrowth. However as regards total load, i've lost over a
> stone during the last month, so it's like the bike now only weighs
> 40lbs. I would of thought for serious touring cyclists, it can be
> literally a case of life or death whether the frame lasts or not.
> That being the case, my choice would be to go for a hugely over
> engineered steel frame, with double chain stays and double crossbar,
> because just going to the toilet and a quick diet can drop the 5 or 10
> pounds that alu might save over steel.
The main issue IMHO is that a touring frame has to be stiff enough to
deal with the loads imposed by the luggage. Not so much for not
breaking tubes, which rarely fail catastrophically in a steel frame, but
for the bike to handle well, track in a straight line reliably, to not
shimmy, etc.
> Are there any metalurgists out there that would now if the modern
> Reynolds tubing is available in thick wall versions for touring? I'm
> aiming to buy a Dave Yates Wanderer, and it would be great to know
> that the steel tubing was thicker than 1mm.
Yates would be the guy to ask, no?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 20:19:47
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
voltimando@aol.com wrote:
> Getting back to the topic, to be honest it baffles me why anyone would
> worry about a couple of pounds on a touring frame. Racing riders might
> need the psychological boost of thinking that they're lighter by
> miniscule amounts such as 2 lbs. However with touring, if weight is an
> issue, i'd rather have a 3mm thick(probably no way that thick i'm
> guessing) Reynolds 531 and just skip a few hundred calories per day
> for a couple of months and effectively eliminate the whole frame
> weight.
> My bike weighs 56lbs loaded, which is probably i guess double
> the weight of most and quite alot of steel to carry a few miles across
> heavy undergrowth. However as regards total load, i've lost over a
> stone during the last month, so it's like the bike now only weighs
> 40lbs. I would of thought for serious touring cyclists, it can be
> literally a case of life or death whether the frame lasts or not.
> That being the case, my choice would be to go for a hugely over
> engineered steel frame, with double chain stays and double crossbar,
> because just going to the toilet and a quick diet can drop the 5 or 10
> pounds that alu might save over steel.
> Are there any metalurgists out there that would now if the modern
> Reynolds tubing is available in thick wall versions for touring? I'm
> aiming to buy a Dave Yates Wanderer, and it would be great to know
> that the steel tubing was thicker than 1mm.
Premium seamless steel tube selection generally spans 0.3mm to a heavy
touring gauge of 1.2mm. There's not likely to be "5 to 8 pounds"
difference among all current frame materials. Light frames are 3 to
3.5lb, bleeding edge just under a kilo (2~2.1lb) Heavy frames rarely
pass 8 pounds even on the murky bottom at XMart.
Don't know Mr Yates but if you call him, I'm sure he'll make material
and geometry recommendations based on your size, weight and intended use.
I generally share your view but check out frame material supliers' web
sites for specific numbers.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 16:53:03
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
voltimando@aol.com wrote:
> Getting back to the topic, to be honest it baffles me why anyone would
> worry about a couple of pounds on a touring frame. Racing riders might
> need the psychological boost of thinking that they're lighter by
> miniscule amounts such as 2 lbs. However with touring, if weight is an
> issue, i'd rather have a 3mm thick(probably no way that thick i'm
> guessing) Reynolds 531 and just skip a few hundred calories per day
> for a couple of months and effectively eliminate the whole frame
> weight.
> My bike weighs 56lbs loaded, which is probably i guess double
> the weight of most and quite alot of steel to carry a few miles across
> heavy undergrowth. However as regards total load, i've lost over a
> stone during the last month, so it's like the bike now only weighs
> 40lbs. I would of thought for serious touring cyclists, it can be
> literally a case of life or death whether the frame lasts or not.
> That being the case, my choice would be to go for a hugely over
> engineered steel frame, with double chain stays and double crossbar,
> because just going to the toilet and a quick diet can drop the 5 or 10
> pounds that alu might save over steel.
> Are there any metalurgists out there that would now if the modern
> Reynolds tubing is available in thick wall versions for touring? I'm
> aiming to buy a Dave Yates Wanderer, and it would be great to know
> that the steel tubing was thicker than 1mm.
> cheers, Nick.
>
why 1mm? and why worry about wall thickness if you're not specifying
the diameter of tube?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 19:27:25
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
>>>>> go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS.
>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
>>>> as a beercan.
>>>
>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>
>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>
>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>
>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>
>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
>> primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that
>> way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>
>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
>> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus
>> and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to
>> smash against the forehead...
>>
>
> Actually, you're wrong.
ok, let's see.
candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected by
that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil micrometer
#436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
a: 0.09mm
b: 0.24mm
that's average, three measurements each.
> Current state of the art beverage cans made from
> steel and aluminum have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given
> that aluminum is 3x less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you then
go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
> Given the superior burst strength of steel, that's not surprising.
what's your burst strength?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:04:27
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> ...
> ok, let's see.
>
> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel....
I will help in the testing next time, as long as I drink the Japanese
beer and you drink the Diet Coke. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 07:48:42
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
>>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are
>>>>>> pure BS.
>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
>>>>> as a beercan.
>>>>
>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>>
>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>>
>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>>
>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
>>> primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that
>>> way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>>
>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
>>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
>>> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus
>>> and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to
>>> smash against the forehead...
>>>
>>
>> Actually, you're wrong.
>
> ok, let's see.
>
> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>
> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected by
> that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil micrometer
> #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>
> a: 0.09mm
> b: 0.24mm
>
> that's average, three measurements each.
>
>
>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and aluminum
>> have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that aluminum is 3x
>> less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>
<http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html >
6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded metal
container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of tinplate
still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been reduced to 21.4 g.
The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983 to 27.8 g in 2003.
Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6 grammes (330 ml) and
13.8 grammes (500 ml).
> see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you then
> go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:15:51
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
>>>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are
>>>>>>> pure BS.
>>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same
>>>>>> caracteristic as a beercan.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>>>
>>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>>>
>>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts
>>>> - primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper
>>>> that way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>>>
>>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
>>>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
>>>> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus
>>>> and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to
>>>> smash against the forehead...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, you're wrong.
>>
>> ok, let's see.
>>
>> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
>> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>>
>> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected
>> by that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil
>> micrometer #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>>
>> a: 0.09mm
>> b: 0.24mm
>>
>> that's average, three measurements each.
>>
>>
>>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and aluminum
>>> have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that aluminum is 3x
>>> less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>>
>
>
> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>
> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>
> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded metal
> container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of tinplate
> still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been reduced to 21.4 g.
> The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983 to 27.8 g in 2003.
> Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6 grammes (330 ml) and
> 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>
> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you then
> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>
> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
to be a jerk, i'd have to falsely accuse you of something that was
untrue - clearly not the case here. you didn't check your facts, [your
cite doesn't exactly go into exhaustive detail on how the differing end
closures on the different can types affect average weights], and you
spewed presumptive nonsense as if it were fact. ergo, you /are/ a
bullshitter.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:13:46
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
>>>>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which
>>>>>>>> are pure BS.
>>>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same
>>>>>>> caracteristic as a beercan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>>>>
>>>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts
>>>>> - primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper
>>>>> that way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>>>>
>>>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
>>>>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
>>>>> lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus
>>>>> and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to
>>>>> smash against the forehead...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, you're wrong.
>>>
>>> ok, let's see.
>>>
>>> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
>>> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>>>
>>> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected
>>> by that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil
>>> micrometer #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>>>
>>> a: 0.09mm
>>> b: 0.24mm
>>>
>>> that's average, three measurements each.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and aluminum
>>>> have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that aluminum is
>>>> 3x less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>>
>> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>>
>> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
>> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded
>> metal container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of
>> tinplate still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been reduced
>> to 21.4 g. The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983 to 27.8 g
>> in 2003. Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6 grammes (330
>> ml) and 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>>
>> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you then
>> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>>
>> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
>
> to be a jerk, i'd have to falsely accuse you of something that was
> untrue -
No, you'd just have to be abusive, which you are regularly.
> you didn't check your facts, [your
> cite doesn't exactly go into exhaustive detail on how the differing end
> closures on the different can types affect average weights],
Sure it does, you didn't read it, apparently.
<http://www.ball-europe.com/382_1281_ENG_PHP.html?parentid=671 >
"The tinplate can is therefore slimmer and lighter than ever before: in
the 1930s the 330 ml can weighed around 100 grams, in 2005 it is merely
21.4 grams. This enormous weight reduction is due primarily to the
down-gauged wall thickness of currently just 0.07 mm, corresponding to
the thickness of a human hair."
<http://forum.europa.eu.int:8080/Public/irc/env/waste_strat/library?l=/test/01-_apealdoc/_EN_1.0_&a=d >
"The steel industry has developed over the years increasingly lighter
packaging solutions which require less raw material and lower energy
consumption to produce. Thanks to the development of new steel grades,
it is today possible to produce steel beverage cans with a wall
thickness of approximately 67 microns"
> and you
> spewed presumptive nonsense as if it were fact. ergo, you /are/ a
> bullshitter.
Sure, whatever you say.
"timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct."
And you're a jerk.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 20:10:37
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>>>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
>>>>>>>>> other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some
>>>>>>>>> will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which
>>>>>>>>> are pure BS.
>>>>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>>>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same
>>>>>>>> caracteristic as a beercan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>>>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel
>>>>>> counterparts - primarily because then /can/ be made that way and
>>>>>> it's cheaper that way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
>>>>>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum
>>>>>> with lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher
>>>>>> modulus and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be
>>>>>> easiest to smash against the forehead...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you're wrong.
>>>>
>>>> ok, let's see.
>>>>
>>>> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
>>>> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>>>>
>>>> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are affected
>>>> by that, but here the readings, measured by starrett ball-anvil
>>>> micrometer #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>>>>
>>>> a: 0.09mm
>>>> b: 0.24mm
>>>>
>>>> that's average, three measurements each.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and aluminum
>>>>> have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that aluminum is
>>>>> 3x less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>>>
>>> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>>>
>>> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
>>> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded
>>> metal container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of
>>> tinplate still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been reduced
>>> to 21.4 g. The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983 to 27.8
>>> g in 2003. Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6 grammes
>>> (330 ml) and 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>>>
>>> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you
>>> then
>>> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>>>
>>> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
>>
>> to be a jerk, i'd have to falsely accuse you of something that was
>> untrue -
>
> No, you'd just have to be abusive, which you are regularly.
poor peter. do you need your blankie?
>
>
>
>> you didn't check your facts, [your
>> cite doesn't exactly go into exhaustive detail on how the differing end
>> closures on the different can types affect average weights],
>
> Sure it does, you didn't read it, apparently.
>
> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_1281_ENG_PHP.html?parentid=671>
>
> "The tinplate can is therefore slimmer and lighter than ever before: in
> the 1930s the 330 ml can weighed around 100 grams, in 2005 it is merely
> 21.4 grams. This enormous weight reduction is due primarily to the
> down-gauged wall thickness of currently just 0.07 mm, corresponding to
> the thickness of a human hair."
1. that doesn't explain my japanese beer can - one of the /few/ steel
cans i could find btw.
2. you stated that the steel can must be thinner in proportion to weight
difference. my aluminum can is 0.09mm. that's /with/ paint. your
article cites 0.07mm. that hardly accounts for a 3x density ratio
difference or the steel can that "must have thinner walls".
>
> <http://forum.europa.eu.int:8080/Public/irc/env/waste_strat/library?l=/test/01-_apealdoc/_EN_1.0_&a=d>
>
>
> "The steel industry has developed over the years increasingly lighter
> packaging solutions which require less raw material and lower energy
> consumption to produce. Thanks to the development of new steel grades,
> it is today possible to produce steel beverage cans with a wall
> thickness of approximately 67 microns"
that's 0.067mm. or 0.07mm to 2dp.
>
>
>> and you
>> spewed presumptive nonsense as if it were fact. ergo, you /are/ a
>> bullshitter.
>
> Sure, whatever you say.
>
> "timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct."
>
> And you're a jerk.
>
if calling a spade a spade, i.e. that you are a bullshitter, makes me a
jerk, then sure, i'm a jerk. and i'll keep on being a jerk too. easy
enough to avoid the problem though - don't bullshit. duh.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:43:02
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>>>>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
>>>>>>>>>> Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
>>>>>>>>>> cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than
>>>>>>>>>> any other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and
>>>>>>>>>> some will go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of
>>>>>>>>>> which are pure BS.
>>>>>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
>>>>>>>>> titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same
>>>>>>>>> caracteristic as a beercan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>>>>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel
>>>>>>> counterparts - primarily because then /can/ be made that way and
>>>>>>> it's cheaper that way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
>>>>>>> there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum
>>>>>>> with lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher
>>>>>>> modulus and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be
>>>>>>> easiest to smash against the forehead...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, you're wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, let's see.
>>>>>
>>>>> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
>>>>> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>>>>>
>>>>> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are
>>>>> affected by that, but here the readings, measured by starrett
>>>>> ball-anvil micrometer #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>>>>>
>>>>> a: 0.09mm
>>>>> b: 0.24mm
>>>>>
>>>>> that's average, three measurements each.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and
>>>>>> aluminum have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that
>>>>>> aluminum is 3x less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>>>>
>>>> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>>>>
>>>> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
>>>> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded
>>>> metal container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of
>>>> tinplate still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been
>>>> reduced to 21.4 g. The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in 1983
>>>> to 27.8 g in 2003. Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just 10.6
>>>> grammes (330 ml) and 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>>>>
>>>> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong, you
>>>> then
>>>> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
>>>
>>> to be a jerk, i'd have to falsely accuse you of something that was
>>> untrue -
>>
>> No, you'd just have to be abusive, which you are regularly.
>
> poor peter. do you need your blankie?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> you didn't check your facts, [your
>>> cite doesn't exactly go into exhaustive detail on how the differing end
>>> closures on the different can types affect average weights],
>>
>> Sure it does, you didn't read it, apparently.
>>
>> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_1281_ENG_PHP.html?parentid=671>
>>
>> "The tinplate can is therefore slimmer and lighter than ever before:
>> in the 1930s the 330 ml can weighed around 100 grams, in 2005 it is
>> merely 21.4 grams. This enormous weight reduction is due primarily to
>> the down-gauged wall thickness of currently just 0.07 mm,
>> corresponding to the thickness of a human hair."
>
> 1. that doesn't explain my japanese beer can - one of the /few/ steel
> cans i could find btw.
> 2. you stated that the steel can must be thinner in proportion to weight
> difference. my aluminum can is 0.09mm. that's /with/ paint. your
> article cites 0.07mm. that hardly accounts for a 3x density ratio
> difference or the steel can that "must have thinner walls".
>
>>
>> <http://forum.europa.eu.int:8080/Public/irc/env/waste_strat/library?l=/test/01-_apealdoc/_EN_1.0_&a=d>
>>
>>
>> "The steel industry has developed over the years increasingly lighter
>> packaging solutions which require less raw material and lower energy
>> consumption to produce. Thanks to the development of new steel grades,
>> it is today possible to produce steel beverage cans with a wall
>> thickness of approximately 67 microns"
>
> that's 0.067mm. or 0.07mm to 2dp.
>
>>
>>
>>> and you
>>> spewed presumptive nonsense as if it were fact. ergo, you /are/ a
>>> bullshitter.
>>
>> Sure, whatever you say.
>>
>> "timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct."
>>
>> And you're a jerk.
>>
>
> if calling a spade a spade, i.e. that you are a bullshitter, makes me a
> jerk, then sure, i'm a jerk. and i'll keep on being a jerk too. easy
> enough to avoid the problem though - don't bullshit. duh.
Instead of all this (typical) squirming around, why don't you just admit
you were wrong? Of course you never do that and never cite any reference
other than yourself. Whenever I've dug into any of the claims you've
made I've found the evidence doesn't support you. Calling people names
doesn't change that. Why don't you just put up or shut up?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:43:54
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <6o74p4-m84.ln1@wm.reippuert.dk>,
>>>>>>>>> Morten Reippuert Knudsen<spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
>>>>>>>>>>> builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of
>>>>>>>>>>> Sachs, Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and
>>>>>>>>>>> many others cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more
>>>>>>>>>>> steel than any other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being
>>>>>>>>>>> 'heavy' and some will go so far as claim it gets soft over
>>>>>>>>>>> time. Both of which are pure BS.
>>>>>>>>>> Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum
>>>>>>>>>> (or titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same
>>>>>>>>>> caracteristic as a beercan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel
>>>>>>>>> beverage can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel
>>>>>>>> counterparts - primarily because then /can/ be made that way and
>>>>>>>> it's cheaper that way. formability is a major plus with aluminum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap,
>>>>>>>> so there's much less need to be economical. thin walled
>>>>>>>> aluminum with lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel
>>>>>>>> with higher modulus and higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is
>>>>>>>> going to be easiest to smash against the forehead...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, you're wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok, let's see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> candidate a: big brand diet coke can - aluminum.
>>>>>> candidate b: import japanese beer can - steel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> admittedly, i didn't bother to remove paint, so results are
>>>>>> affected by that, but here the readings, measured by starrett
>>>>>> ball-anvil micrometer #436 [- which accounts for can curvature].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a: 0.09mm
>>>>>> b: 0.24mm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's average, three measurements each.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Current state of the art beverage cans made from steel and
>>>>>>> aluminum have approximately a 2:1 weight difference. Given that
>>>>>>> aluminum is 3x less dense, the steel can must have thinner walls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_368_ENG_PHP.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. How much does a beverage can weigh?
>>>>>
>>>>> The first can launched in 1951 weighed 83 g (0.35 l). Since then,
>>>>> continuous research work has meant that the weight of the rounded
>>>>> metal container has become lower and lower. The 330 ml can made of
>>>>> tinplate still weighed 48 g in 1973 but by 2003 this had been
>>>>> reduced to 21.4 g. The 500 ml tinplate can dropped from 45 g in
>>>>> 1983 to 27.8 g in 2003. Today an aluminium beverage can weighs just
>>>>> 10.6 grammes (330 ml) and 13.8 grammes (500 ml).
>>>>>
>>>>> > see above. conclusion: not only do you get the basics wrong,
>>>>> you then
>>>>> > go on to bullshit presumptive nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure "jim", whatever you say, you abusive jerk.
>>>>
>>>> to be a jerk, i'd have to falsely accuse you of something that was
>>>> untrue -
>>>
>>> No, you'd just have to be abusive, which you are regularly.
>>
>> poor peter. do you need your blankie?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> you didn't check your facts, [your
>>>> cite doesn't exactly go into exhaustive detail on how the differing end
>>>> closures on the different can types affect average weights],
>>>
>>> Sure it does, you didn't read it, apparently.
>>>
>>> <http://www.ball-europe.com/382_1281_ENG_PHP.html?parentid=671>
>>>
>>> "The tinplate can is therefore slimmer and lighter than ever before:
>>> in the 1930s the 330 ml can weighed around 100 grams, in 2005 it is
>>> merely 21.4 grams. This enormous weight reduction is due primarily
>>> to the down-gauged wall thickness of currently just 0.07 mm,
>>> corresponding to the thickness of a human hair."
>>
>> 1. that doesn't explain my japanese beer can - one of the /few/ steel
>> cans i could find btw.
>> 2. you stated that the steel can must be thinner in proportion to
>> weight difference. my aluminum can is 0.09mm. that's /with/ paint.
>> your article cites 0.07mm. that hardly accounts for a 3x density
>> ratio difference or the steel can that "must have thinner walls".
>>
>>>
>>> <http://forum.europa.eu.int:8080/Public/irc/env/waste_strat/library?l=/test/01-_apealdoc/_EN_1.0_&a=d>
>>>
>>>
>>> "The steel industry has developed over the years increasingly lighter
>>> packaging solutions which require less raw material and lower energy
>>> consumption to produce. Thanks to the development of new steel
>>> grades, it is today possible to produce steel beverage cans with a
>>> wall thickness of approximately 67 microns"
>>
>> that's 0.067mm. or 0.07mm to 2dp.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and you
>>>> spewed presumptive nonsense as if it were fact. ergo, you /are/ a
>>>> bullshitter.
>>>
>>> Sure, whatever you say.
>>>
>>> "timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct."
>>>
>>> And you're a jerk.
>>>
>>
>> if calling a spade a spade, i.e. that you are a bullshitter, makes me
>> a jerk, then sure, i'm a jerk. and i'll keep on being a jerk too.
>> easy enough to avoid the problem though - don't bullshit. duh.
>
> Instead of all this (typical) squirming around, why don't you just admit
> you were wrong? Of course you never do that and never cite any reference
> other than yourself. Whenever I've dug into any of the claims you've
> made I've found the evidence doesn't support you. Calling people names
> doesn't change that. Why don't you just put up or shut up?
eh? now who's being the jerk??? /i/ measured real world. you just sat
on your ass and surfed the web. and that's what you're still doing -
surfing the web. all the web sites in the world don't mean SHIT if real
world is not paying attention. and the shelving of your local
supermarket is about as real world as it gets. geeze - what a prick.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 08:36:33
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> geeze - what a prick.
You are a bully.
Because you generally resort to the crudest form of name calling.
You are a coward.
Because you do it anonymously.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 07:41:50
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> geeze - what a prick.
>
> You are a bully.
>
> Because you generally resort to the crudest form of name calling.
>
> You are a coward.
>
> Because you do it anonymously.
bwaaaah!!! quoth the prick that dishes it out without having first got
his facts straight.
i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't. i'm /not/ here to
get suckered into credentials pissing matches with a bunch of sheep that
are all using one songsheet, even though their choir-master has them all
bleating desperately off-key about things like anodizing, brinneling,
fatigue, deformation, strength of materials, etc. all topics on which
you are opinionated but notably useless.
so what are you here for? off-topic chit chat, exercise of a small
little mind that doesn't like to learn anything new, beration of those
you don't happen to like and what else? reap what you sow little boy.
or grow up.
investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 11:44:14
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
"aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
"Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today possible to
produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of approximately 67
microns"
> i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't.
OK, I guess we've established that.
> investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
I have one, thanks. Perhaps you could invest in some civility?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 09:48:38
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>
>
> "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
> primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
>
> "Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today possible to
> produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of approximately 67
> microns"
what the fuck use is that if beverage vendors are still using the thick
stuff? oh, but that's not convenient to your attempts to cover your
mistake is it.
>
> > i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't.
>
> OK, I guess we've established that.
what is your mission peter? aside from being a prick.
>
>
> > investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
>
> I have one, thanks. Perhaps you could invest in some civility?
fuck you. invest in some freakin' reality - go the the supermarket, buy
some cans, and report back with your results. but i predict that you
won't because the results won't suit you.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 07:22:04
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
>> primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
>>
>> "Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today possible
>> to produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of approximately
>> 67 microns"
>
> what the fuck use is that if beverage vendors are still using the thick
> stuff? oh, but that's not convenient to your attempts to cover your
> mistake is it.
Dodge.
>
>
>>
>> > i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't.
>>
>> OK, I guess we've established that.
>
> what is your mission peter? aside from being a prick.
I don't know -- teaching metallurgy to a "metallurgist"?
>>
>>
>> > investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
>>
>> I have one, thanks. Perhaps you could invest in some civility?
>
> fuck you.
Nice. Clever. Witty. Informative.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 06:58:08
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts
>>> - primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
>>>
>>> "Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today possible
>>> to produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of approximately
>>> 67 microns"
>>
>> what the fuck use is that if beverage vendors are still using the
>> thick stuff? oh, but that's not convenient to your attempts to cover
>> your mistake is it.
>
> Dodge.
eh?
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't.
>>>
>>> OK, I guess we've established that.
>>
>> what is your mission peter? aside from being a prick.
>
> I don't know -- teaching metallurgy to a "metallurgist"?
except that you don't know what you're talking about!
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> > investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
>>>
>>> I have one, thanks. Perhaps you could invest in some civility?
>>
>> fuck you.
>
> Nice. Clever. Witty. Informative.
just like being an incessant ignorant argumentative misleading prick you
mean?
again, since you snipped it:
"go the the supermarket, buy some cans, and report back with your
results. but i predict that you won't because the results won't suit you."
want to prove me wrong?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 10:37:32
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts
>>>> - primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
>>>>
>>>> "Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today possible
>>>> to produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of
>>>> approximately 67 microns"
>>>
>>> what the fuck use is that if beverage vendors are still using the
>>> thick stuff? oh, but that's not convenient to your attempts to cover
>>> your mistake is it.
>>
>> Dodge.
>
> eh?
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I guess we've established that.
>>>
>>> what is your mission peter? aside from being a prick.
>>
>> I don't know -- teaching metallurgy to a "metallurgist"?
>
> except that you don't know what you're talking about!
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
>>>>
>>>> I have one, thanks. Perhaps you could invest in some civility?
>>>
>>> fuck you.
>>
>> Nice. Clever. Witty. Informative.
>
> just like being an incessant ignorant argumentative misleading prick you
> mean?
>
> again, since you snipped it:
>
> "go the the supermarket, buy some cans, and report back with your
> results. but i predict that you won't because the results won't suit you."
>
> want to prove me wrong?
I already did, you're just not able to get it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 08:36:33
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel
>>>>> counterparts - primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today
>>>>> possible to produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of
>>>>> approximately 67 microns"
>>>>
>>>> what the fuck use is that if beverage vendors are still using the
>>>> thick stuff? oh, but that's not convenient to your attempts to
>>>> cover your mistake is it.
>>>
>>> Dodge.
>>
>> eh?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I guess we've established that.
>>>>
>>>> what is your mission peter? aside from being a prick.
>>>
>>> I don't know -- teaching metallurgy to a "metallurgist"?
>>
>> except that you don't know what you're talking about!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one, thanks. Perhaps you could invest in some civility?
>>>>
>>>> fuck you.
>>>
>>> Nice. Clever. Witty. Informative.
>>
>> just like being an incessant ignorant argumentative misleading prick
>> you mean?
>>
>> again, since you snipped it:
>>
>> "go the the supermarket, buy some cans, and report back with your
>> results. but i predict that you won't because the results won't suit
>> you."
>>
>> want to prove me wrong?
>
> I already did, you're just not able to get it.
no, you posted cites of a web site stating what is possible, not what is
actually used. but why am i bothering to say this - you've shown yet
again that you can't and won't accept the reality that is stacked on the
shelves of your local supermarket. prick.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 16:28:47
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel
>>>>>> counterparts - primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today
>>>>>> possible to produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of
>>>>>> approximately 67 microns"
>>>>>
>>>>> what the fuck use is that if beverage vendors are still using the
>>>>> thick stuff? oh, but that's not convenient to your attempts to
>>>>> cover your mistake is it.
>>>>
>>>> Dodge.
>>>
>>> eh?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I guess we've established that.
>>>>>
>>>>> what is your mission peter? aside from being a prick.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know -- teaching metallurgy to a "metallurgist"?
>>>
>>> except that you don't know what you're talking about!
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one, thanks. Perhaps you could invest in some civility?
>>>>>
>>>>> fuck you.
>>>>
>>>> Nice. Clever. Witty. Informative.
>>>
>>> just like being an incessant ignorant argumentative misleading prick
>>> you mean?
>>>
>>> again, since you snipped it:
>>>
>>> "go the the supermarket, buy some cans, and report back with your
>>> results. but i predict that you won't because the results won't suit
>>> you."
>>>
>>> want to prove me wrong?
>>
>> I already did, you're just not able to get it.
>
> no, you posted cites of a web site stating what is possible, not what is
> actually used. but why am i bothering to say this - you've shown yet
> again that you can't and won't accept the reality that is stacked on the
> shelves of your local supermarket.
You go on learning "metallurgy" at the supermarket and composites at the
bike shop, I'll stick to published materials.
> prick.
Clever.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 14:12:59
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel
>>>>>>> counterparts - primarily because then /can/ be made that way"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Thanks to the development of new steel grades, it is today
>>>>>>> possible to produce steel beverage cans with a wall thickness of
>>>>>>> approximately 67 microns"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what the fuck use is that if beverage vendors are still using the
>>>>>> thick stuff? oh, but that's not convenient to your attempts to
>>>>>> cover your mistake is it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dodge.
>>>>
>>>> eh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > i'm here to share what i know and learn what i don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, I guess we've established that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what is your mission peter? aside from being a prick.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know -- teaching metallurgy to a "metallurgist"?
>>>>
>>>> except that you don't know what you're talking about!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > investment in a micrometer wouldn't hurt you either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have one, thanks. Perhaps you could invest in some civility?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fuck you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice. Clever. Witty. Informative.
>>>>
>>>> just like being an incessant ignorant argumentative misleading prick
>>>> you mean?
>>>>
>>>> again, since you snipped it:
>>>>
>>>> "go the the supermarket, buy some cans, and report back with your
>>>> results. but i predict that you won't because the results won't
>>>> suit you."
>>>>
>>>> want to prove me wrong?
>>>
>>> I already did, you're just not able to get it.
>>
>> no, you posted cites of a web site stating what is possible, not what
>> is actually used. but why am i bothering to say this - you've shown
>> yet again that you can't and won't accept the reality that is stacked
>> on the shelves of your local supermarket.
>
> You go on learning "metallurgy" at the supermarket and composites at the
> bike shop, I'll stick to published materials.
no, /i/ check my facts. simple observation by visual for the oclv, and
measurement for the beverage can will tell you what i obviously can't.
and if you were so freakin' confident of your position, you'd do it and
prove me wrong. but you can't/won't because the facts are not on your
side. and you know it. instead, you're just being a bone-headed prick,
for reasons i can't even begin to fathom.
>
>
>> prick.
>
> Clever.
since when was statement of fact "clever"? oh, you're being sarcastic!
clearly in th same spirit in which you're arguing that black is white
and that the pope doesn't fart. prick.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 09:06:48
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <Bu6dnXtmccnMC1jbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> > geeze - what a prick.
>
> You are a bully.
>
> Because you generally resort to the crudest form of name calling.
>
> You are a coward.
>
> Because you do it anonymously.
And why waste any further time on him? The only time I see his drivel
is when someone quotes him. That's enough to tell me that he hasn't
changed and isn't worth expending the energy to read.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 07:42:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <Bu6dnXtmccnMC1jbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> geeze - what a prick.
>> You are a bully.
>>
>> Because you generally resort to the crudest form of name calling.
>>
>> You are a coward.
>>
>> Because you do it anonymously.
>
> And why waste any further time on him? The only time I see his drivel
> is when someone quotes him. That's enough to tell me that he hasn't
> changed and isn't worth expending the energy to read.
baaaa.
who makes a big public announcement of his discovery of killfiles, and
then proceeds not to use them? timmy the retard.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 06:02:17
From: John Henderson
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> who makes a big public announcement of his discovery of
> killfiles, and then proceeds not to use them? timmy the
> retard.
You should be aware that your name-calling tells us absolutely
nothing about your victims. It does however speak volumes
about yourself.
John
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 18:19:29
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <5imd69F3puorlU2@mid.individual.net >,
John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
> > who makes a big public announcement of his discovery of killfiles,
> > and then proceeds not to use them? timmy the retard.
>
> You should be aware that your name-calling tells us absolutely
> nothing about your victims. It does however speak volumes about
> yourself.
Including his own cognitive deficiencies, since he's overlooked the
obvious fact that I only ever respond to posts of his that are quoted in
the posts of others. I never even see a jim beam post any more. He'll
change his sock puppet again, eventually, but he'll show us who he is
quickly enough and I can killfile him again.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 21:20:38
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article
<timmcn-E88B30.18192917082007@news.iphouse.com >,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <5imd69F3puorlU2@mid.individual.net>,
> John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> > > who makes a big public announcement of his discovery of killfiles,
> > > and then proceeds not to use them? timmy the retard.
> >
> > You should be aware that your name-calling tells us absolutely
> > nothing about your victims. It does however speak volumes about
> > yourself.
>
> Including his own cognitive deficiencies, since he's overlooked the
> obvious fact that I only ever respond to posts of his that are quoted in
> the posts of others. I never even see a jim beam post any more. He'll
> change his sock puppet again, eventually, but he'll show us who he is
> quickly enough and I can killfile him again.
It will be easy to spot defiling a perfectly respectable name.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 22:22:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <5imd69F3puorlU2@mid.individual.net>,
> John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> who makes a big public announcement of his discovery of killfiles,
>>> and then proceeds not to use them? timmy the retard.
>> You should be aware that your name-calling tells us absolutely
>> nothing about your victims. It does however speak volumes about
>> yourself.
>
> Including his own cognitive deficiencies, since he's overlooked the
> obvious fact that I only ever respond to posts of his that are quoted in
> the posts of others. I never even see a jim beam post any more. He'll
> change his sock puppet again, eventually, but he'll show us who he is
> quickly enough and I can killfile him again.
freakin' retard.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:33:42
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
In article <BcadnZ_LPOjapVnbnZ2dnUVZ_tSknZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
> > if calling a spade a spade, i.e. that you are a bullshitter, makes
> > me a jerk, then sure, i'm a jerk. and i'll keep on being a jerk
> > too. easy enough to avoid the problem though - don't bullshit.
> > duh.
>
> Instead of all this (typical) squirming around, why don't you just
> admit you were wrong? Of course you never do that and never cite any
> reference other than yourself. Whenever I've dug into any of the
> claims you've made I've found the evidence doesn't support you.
Hence his being an "ex-metallurgist," I suspect. If he acts like this
at work he'd be unable to keep a job.
> Calling people names doesn't change that. Why don't you just put up
> or shut up?
Pretty soon he'll have to change sock puppets again, this one is
thoroughly discredited.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:44:53
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <BcadnZ_LPOjapVnbnZ2dnUVZ_tSknZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> if calling a spade a spade, i.e. that you are a bullshitter, makes
>>> me a jerk, then sure, i'm a jerk. and i'll keep on being a jerk
>>> too. easy enough to avoid the problem though - don't bullshit.
>>> duh.
>> Instead of all this (typical) squirming around, why don't you just
>> admit you were wrong? Of course you never do that and never cite any
>> reference other than yourself. Whenever I've dug into any of the
>> claims you've made I've found the evidence doesn't support you.
>
> Hence his being an "ex-metallurgist," I suspect. If he acts like this
> at work he'd be unable to keep a job.
>
>> Calling people names doesn't change that. Why don't you just put up
>> or shut up?
>
> Pretty soon he'll have to change sock puppets again, this one is
> thoroughly discredited.
poor timmy. you find a little friend to play with. but you're still a
retard.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 20:01:19
From: Luke
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:09:42 -0400, Peter Cole
<peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
>Actually, you're wrong. Current state of the art beverage cans...
<snip >
I must be out of touch. Isn't a 'state of the art' beverage can
oxymoronic?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 19:27:37
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Luke wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:09:42 -0400, Peter Cole
> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually, you're wrong. Current state of the art beverage cans...
>
> <snip>
>
> I must be out of touch. Isn't a 'state of the art' beverage can
> oxymoronic?
absolutely not. have you any idea how much technology goes into those
things? we're talking serious research and development hours. over
decades.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:01:37
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
jim beam wrote:
> Luke wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:09:42 -0400, Peter Cole
>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, you're wrong. Current state of the art beverage cans...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I must be out of touch. Isn't a 'state of the art' beverage can
>> oxymoronic?
>
> absolutely not. have you any idea how much technology goes into those
> things? we're talking serious research and development hours. over
> decades.
I attended a presentation by the head engineer of the can department at
Anheuser-Busch (as part of a class).
A tiny per can savings in manufacturing cost adds up when one is making
hundred of millions of cans per year.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 10:40:14
From: Kinky Cowboy
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:54:44 -0700, Sushi Fish
<yellowtail_2005@yahoo.com > wrote:
>steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
>different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
>is minuscule?
They do - everything from $50 bicycle shaped objects from the
supermarket to $2000+ (frame only) 953 objets d'art
The mid market steel bike has disappeared because aluminium is about
10 times cheaper if you're aiming for a frame weight in the 3lb area,
plus aluminium can be written along the top tube to make a $300 dollar
bike look more 'high end' to non-cyclists without actually increasing
the manufacturing cost by more than a few dollars
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:44:36
From: Morten Reippuert Knudsen
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Kinky Cowboy <user@domain.com > wrote:
> The mid market steel bike has disappeared because aluminium is about
> 10 times cheaper if you're aiming for a frame weight in the 3lb area,
> plus aluminium can be written along the top tube to make a $300 dollar
> bike look more 'high end' to non-cyclists without actually increasing
> the manufacturing cost by more than a few dollars
> Kinky Cowboy*
Another factor is that a cheap 1,7kg aluminum frame has a better
chance of surviving a crash than a highend 1.7kg steel frame. In the
1,7kg weight range the steel tubes will have the characteristics of a
beercan, the aluminum frame won't.
--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk >
Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 01:35:00
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 11, 11:48 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Sushi Fish wrote:
> > steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> > different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> > is minuscule?
>
> You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
> frames cost the manufacturer $8.
>
> There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
> specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
> still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
welded by a guy in a turban.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 21:48:48
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
>> Sushi Fish wrote:
>>> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
>>> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
>>> is minuscule?
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
>> frames cost the manufacturer $8.
>> There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
>> specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
>> still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
> able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
> who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
> welded by a guy in a turban.
I should think that a guy in a turban could wreck an aluminum bike as
well as a steel one. I could be wrong. Weld? They seem to prefer IEDs.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:41:57
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> Sushi Fish wrote:
>>>> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
>>>> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
>>>> is minuscule?
>
>> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
>>> frames cost the manufacturer $8.
>>> There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
>>> specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
>>> still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
>
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>> Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
>> able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
>> who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
>> welded by a guy in a turban.
>
> I should think that a guy in a turban could wreck an aluminum bike as
> well as a steel one. I could be wrong. Weld? They seem to prefer IEDs.
Who that wears turbans is using IED's? (Possibly part of the low level
conflict in Kashmir?)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct wave
Point” - gene daniels
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 23:48:38
From: SMS
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Sushi Fish wrote:
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
frames cost the manufacturer $8.
There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:52:16
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 16, 8:21 pm, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>
> news:13c4oj7amj8se75@corp.supernews.com...> >>>>> "Art Harris" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >>>>>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>> "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an
> experienced
> > >>>>> enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have
> been
> > >>>>> replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used
> another
> > >>>>> frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a frame
> that was
> > >>>>> likely to fail.
>
> > >>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > >>>> Well . . .
> > >>>> "Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm ahead
> of
> > >>>> the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two years
> > >>>> ago, and was splinted and brazed."
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...> >>>> It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
> > >>>> I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same welding-repaired
> > >>>> frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
> > >>>>http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
> > >>>> (fromhttp://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100)
> > >>>> When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can let us
> > >>>> know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the tube
> > >>>> replaced or is happy with the repair.
> > >>>> Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour
> descriptions
> > >>>> didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
> > >>>> " . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and
> down
> > >>>> tubes . . ."
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
>
>
> > >>>> In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took
> along
> > >>>> (Same story as before)."
> > >>>> For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame, welded at
> > >>>> what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle seat
> > >>>> posts split into an upside-down Y:
> > >>>>http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
> > >>>> Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension frame-loop on
> > >>>> the left.
> > >>>> It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly
> pretended
> > >>>> that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time
> blasting
> > >>>> up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has
> lasted.
>
> > >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > >>> Aha!
> > >>> On 16 May 2005, Jobst wrote:
> > >>> "This bicycle is over 15 years old and has at least 10,000 miles per
> > >>> year on it."
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c548e4b6cd90e7...
>
>
>
> > >>> Some pictures from the post that started that thread:
> > >>>http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html
>
> > > Smokey <smokeystrodt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely gets
> > >> my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many
> teeth
> > >> are on it?
>
> > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > Jobst is notorious masher and uses a 50/46 x 13/24 six-speed:
> > > "I used Avocet Road 700x28 wire-bead, non-Kevlar tires on 36 hole
> > > Mavic MA-2 rims with 1.8-1.6mm DT spokes; Campagnolo Record brakes
> > > (Kool-Stop red pads), small flange hubs with a SunTour new winner pro
> > > 6-speed FW 13-15-17-19-21-24, Sun Tour Pro derailleur and downtube
> > > shift levers, and Shimano Dura Ace 180mm cranks with 46-50 CW . . ."
>
> http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
>
>
>
> > Jobst Brandt is presently using the Shimano HG Seven 13~26 cassette.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
>
> We all get old sometime...... ;-)
>
> I can't push my 49/45 13-26 halfstep gears in the hills any more.
And why should you? Not that I am a super low gear kind of guy, but I
was climbing a really steep grade on my way home from work, and some
kid goes steaming by on a fixed gear with probably a 65 inch gear.
Pretty impressive (this was a 25+ percent stair step), but he hit a
tipping point at the top of the next pitch where he could barely turn
the gear -- and where I caught up again, in my less macho gear. If he
had a reasonable gear, he would have dumped me by a long shot. He did
dump me when it flattened out a bit, but then turned off to avoid
having to duke it out with a fat 50 year old on the flats (at least
that's my story). Remember that Jobst is a freak. He is not only Mr.
Wheel, but he used to spank some seriously talented Nor Cal riders
back in the day (racers who routinely crushed me like a bug in the
70s) -- and apparently he can still generate serious torque. The rest
of us have to use reasonable gears. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 08:48:49
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message
news:1187329936.628389.316690@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 16, 8:21 pm, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> > "A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> >
> > news:13c4oj7amj8se75@corp.supernews.com...> >>>>> "Art Harris"
<n...@hotmail.com > wrote
> > > >>>>>> Read about Jobst's emergency frame repair in the alps:
> >
> >
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >>>> "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Jobst rides a very large frame, at least 64cm (25"). He is an
> > experienced
> > > >>>>> enough cyclist to have realized that the chainstay should have
> > been
> > > >>>>> replaced rather than patched. Even better he should have used
> > another
> > > >>>>> frame and not have set out on such a demanding trip with a
frame
> > that was
> > > >>>>> likely to fail.
> >
> > > >>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > >>>> Well . . .
> > > >>>> "Then I saw that the right chainstay had separated about 30mm
ahead
> > of
> > > >>>> the dropout. This faulty tube had broken at midspan about two
years
> > > >>>> ago, and was splinted and brazed."
> >
> >
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A... >
>>>> It sounds as if the original brazing repair lasted two years.
> > > >>>> I suspect that Jobst may still be riding the same
welding-repaired
> > > >>>> frame. This picture shows (I _think_) the welded area:
> > > >>>>http://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100-O-LB
> > > >>>> (fromhttp://mly.smugmug.com/gallery/1895371#125761100)
> > > >>>> When Jobst returns from his current tour of the Alps, he can
let us
> > > >>>> know if it's the same frame from 1995 and whether he had the
tube
> > > >>>> replaced or is happy with the repair.
> > > >>>> Jobst's description in the second paragraph of his tour
> > descriptions
> > > >>>> didn't change the frame details in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997:
> > > >>>> " . . . the frame is steel and about 26" with oversized top and
> > down
> > > >>>> tubes . . ."
> >
> >
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >
> >
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >
> >
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >
> >
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >
> >
> >
> > > >>>> In 1996 and 1997, the opening heading was "How and what I took
> > along
> > > >>>> (Same story as before)."
> > > >>>> For what it's worth, here's a Honda trials machine frame,
welded at
> > > >>>> what would be roughly the seat post on a bicycle, if bicycle
seat
> > > >>>> posts split into an upside-down Y:
> > > >>>>http://i12.tinypic.com/6329bww.jpg
> > > >>>> Gas tank on the left, rear fender and dual suspension
frame-loop on
> > > >>>> the left.
> > > >>>> It broke clean through about 25 years ago when I foolishly
> > pretended
> > > >>>> that I was back in timed competition and had a wonderful time
> > blasting
> > > >>>> up and down a familiar mountain trail. So far, the repair has
> > lasted.
> >
> > > >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > >>> Aha!
> > > >>> On 16 May 2005, Jobst wrote:
> > > >>> "This bicycle is over 15 years old and has at least 10,000 miles
per
> > > >>> year on it."
> >
> >
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c548e4b6cd90e7...
> >
> >
> >
> > > >>> Some pictures from the post that started that thread:
> > >
>>>http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html
> >
> > > > Smokey <smokeystrodt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Wow, that's a big inner chain ring that Jobst has. He definitely
gets
> > > >> my respect for climbing the Alps with that. Anyone know how many
> > teeth
> > > >> are on it?
> >
> > > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > Jobst is notorious masher and uses a 50/46 x 13/24 six-speed:
> > > > "I used Avocet Road 700x28 wire-bead, non-Kevlar tires on 36 hole
> > > > Mavic MA-2 rims with 1.8-1.6mm DT spokes; Campagnolo Record brakes
> > > > (Kool-Stop red pads), small flange hubs with a SunTour new winner
pro
> > > > 6-speed FW 13-15-17-19-21-24, Sun Tour Pro derailleur and downtube
> > > > shift levers, and Shimano Dura Ace 180mm cranks with 46-50 CW . .
."
> >
> >
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_A...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jobst Brandt is presently using the Shimano HG Seven 13~26 cassette.
> > > --
> > > Andrew Muzi
> >
> > We all get old sometime...... ;-)
> >
> > I can't push my 49/45 13-26 halfstep gears in the hills any more.
>
> And why should you? Not that I am a super low gear kind of guy, but I
> was climbing a really steep grade on my way home from work, and some
> kid goes steaming by on a fixed gear with probably a 65 inch gear.
> Pretty impressive (this was a 25+ percent stair step), but he hit a
> tipping point at the top of the next pitch where he could barely turn
> the gear -- and where I caught up again, in my less macho gear. If he
> had a reasonable gear, he would have dumped me by a long shot. He did
> dump me when it flattened out a bit, but then turned off to avoid
> having to duke it out with a fat 50 year old on the flats (at least
> that's my story). Remember that Jobst is a freak. He is not only Mr.
> Wheel, but he used to spank some seriously talented Nor Cal riders
> back in the day (racers who routinely crushed me like a bug in the
> 70s) -- and apparently he can still generate serious torque. The rest
> of us have to use reasonable gears. -- Jay Beattie.
>
He used to organize training rides in the evenings that would kill some of
the top local racers.
I frequently ride with a group of retro-grouches on classic steel bikes.
With a few exceptions, I've noticed that most of them use ride 28T
sprockets on their steeds. Some even have Campy NR triples and long arm
Campy RDs.
I have a 48-38-28 triple with a 13-28 cassette on one of my bikes when I
know I'm going to have to do some climbing. I can pull a lot of hills in a
38/28 but coming up Whiskey Hill bonked out at the end of a long ride
makes me glad to have a granny gear available.
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 23:47:04
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
On Aug 11, 8:54 pm, Sushi Fish <yellowtail_2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
Of the three new bikes I've purchased in the last three years, one was
aluminum and two were steel.
I don't ride the aluminum one that much.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 06:17:59
From: sally
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Sushi Fish <yellowtail_2005@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1186890884.131714.34770
@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
For low-end manufacturing techniques, the weight difference is not miniscule.
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 23:31:32
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Sushi Fish who? wrote:
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
INDEFINITE PRONOUN ALERT!
Who is "they"? Certainly not everyone, since new steel bikes are still
being made.
--
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: 12 Aug 2007 04:18:34
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
"Sushi Fish" <yellowtail_2005@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1186890884.131714.34770@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
Steel bikes are alive and well.
http://www.serotta.com/
http://www.gunnarbikes.com/
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 21:06:38
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: why no more steel bikes?
|
Sushi Fish wrote:
> steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
> different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
> is minuscule?
>
cT = 0.95
|
|
