A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Off Road
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DANGER: Trek multitrack 7300 (hybrid) aluminum bracket sheers off, rips apart entire rear end of bike



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 4th 05, 03:35 AM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
ups.com...
Cannondale is still made in USA and my 2002 lemond was also made in
usa.


The manufacturing location doesn't guarantee anything. Cannondale has had
plenty of frame failures, and recalls of their frames. Honda has recalled
their aluminum framed motorcycles, year after year.

"http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/tech/recall-114903.html"
"http://www.mcnews.com/anforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=85957&whichpage=2"
"http://www.marinbikes.com/recall/"
"http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04113.html"

"http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/101_framematerials.html"

There is just no way around the inherent properties of aluminum. Frame
failures are rare, but far greater, on a percentage basis, than on steel
frames.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Ads
  #22  
Old April 4th 05, 08:15 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Steven M. Scharf wrote:

There is just no way around the inherent properties of aluminum.


Please make yourself clear. Are you _really_ recommending we all go
back to steel cranks, steel seatposts, steel stems, steel hubs, steel
rims, steel brakes, etc. etc.?

IOW are you _really_ saying we should all ride 1975 Huffys?

Is that what you ride?

- Frank Krygowski

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

  #24  
Old April 4th 05, 09:21 PM
Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You can't compare airplanes to bike frames, there is just no way.
Aluminum or airplanes is constantly pressurized and de-pressurized,
it's not even comparable. Aluminum does have a finite life, as does
most materials. Chromoly frames are great, as long as you like heavy
bike frames, and don't go spouting off about how light the new steel
is, because at the wall thicknesses that you have to use to make a
steel frame as light as an aluminum frame, I'm thinking one crash,
and you'd be done because it would dent and or fold on you.

I've had many bikes over the years, amazingly enough, the only frame
I've ever broken was a custom steel frame. Steel is not real, step
into the 21st century my friend.

Tom

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

  #25  
Old April 5th 05, 03:25 AM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom" wrote in message
ups.com...
You can't compare airplanes to bike frames, there is just no way.


I agree! Yet the airplane analogy is brought up constantly, because it just
seems so obvious that if engineers make airplane hulls out of aluminum that
surely aluminum is good for bicycles!

Aluminum or airplanes is constantly pressurized and de-pressurized,
it's not even comparable. Aluminum does have a finite life, as does
most materials. Chromoly frames are great, as long as you like heavy
bike frames, and don't go spouting off about how light the new steel
is, because at the wall thicknesses that you have to use to make a
steel frame as light as an aluminum frame, I'm thinking one crash,
and you'd be done because it would dent and or fold on you.


It is more expensive to make a light bicycle with a chromoly frame. You can
still buy them, but you'll pay a lot more. The advantage of steel is that
when it does fail, it does so preditictably, not catastrophically.

I've had many bikes over the years, amazingly enough, the only frame
I've ever broken was a custom steel frame. Steel is not real, step
into the 21st century my friend.


Again, anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. You'd be hard pressed to
get statistics out of companies like Specialized or Trek, on numbers of
frame failures. But ask a long-time bike shop owner about comparative
numbers of frame failures, normalized for the number of bikes of each
material that they sell.

I've updated the section on aluminum versus steel on
http://bicycleshortlist.com .

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

  #26  
Old April 5th 05, 06:36 AM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom" wrote in message
ups.com...
You can't compare airplanes to bike frames, there is just no way.


I agree! Yet the airplane analogy is brought up constantly, because it just
seems so obvious that if engineers make airplane hulls out of aluminum that
surely aluminum is good for bicycles!

Aluminum or airplanes is constantly pressurized and de-pressurized,
it's not even comparable. Aluminum does have a finite life, as does
most materials. Chromoly frames are great, as long as you like heavy
bike frames, and don't go spouting off about how light the new steel
is, because at the wall thicknesses that you have to use to make a
steel frame as light as an aluminum frame, I'm thinking one crash,
and you'd be done because it would dent and or fold on you.


It is more expensive to make a light bicycle with a chromoly frame. You can
still buy them, but you'll pay a lot more. The advantage of steel is that
when it does fail, it does so preditictably, not catastrophically.

I've had many bikes over the years, amazingly enough, the only frame
I've ever broken was a custom steel frame. Steel is not real, step
into the 21st century my friend.


Again, anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. You'd be hard pressed to
get statistics out of companies like Specialized or Trek, on numbers of
frame failures. But ask a long-time bike shop owner about comparative
numbers of frame failures, normalized for the number of bikes of each
material that they sell. Overwhelmingly, you'll find that frame failures
were very rare in the days of chromolloy steel frames, and became a big
problem with the early aluminum frames, and remain a problem though less
severe, with the current aluminum frames.

I've updated the section on aluminum versus steel on
http://bicycleshortlist.com .

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

  #27  
Old April 5th 05, 06:37 AM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom" wrote in message
ups.com...
You can't compare airplanes to bike frames, there is just no way.


I agree! Yet the airplane analogy is brought up constantly, because it just
seems so obvious that if engineers make airplane hulls out of aluminum that
surely aluminum is good for bicycles!

Aluminum or airplanes is constantly pressurized and de-pressurized,
it's not even comparable. Aluminum does have a finite life, as does
most materials. Chromoly frames are great, as long as you like heavy
bike frames, and don't go spouting off about how light the new steel
is, because at the wall thicknesses that you have to use to make a
steel frame as light as an aluminum frame, I'm thinking one crash,
and you'd be done because it would dent and or fold on you.


It is more expensive to make a light bicycle with a chromoly frame. You can
still buy them, but you'll pay a lot more. The advantage of steel is that
when it does fail, it does so preditictably, not catastrophically.

I've had many bikes over the years, amazingly enough, the only frame
I've ever broken was a custom steel frame. Steel is not real, step
into the 21st century my friend.


Again, anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. You'd be hard pressed to
get statistics out of companies like Specialized or Trek, on numbers of
frame failures. But ask a long-time bike shop owner about comparative
numbers of frame failures, normalized for the number of bikes of each
material that they sell. Overwhelmingly, you'll find that frame failures
were very rare in the days of chromolloy steel frames, and became a big
problem with the early aluminum frames, and remain a problem though less
severe, with the current aluminum frames.

I've updated the section on aluminum versus steel on
http://bicycleshortlist.com .


--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

  #28  
Old April 5th 05, 06:38 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Steven M. Scharf wrote:


I've updated the section on aluminum versus steel on
http://bicycleshortlist.com .


:-) Wow! Yet another Steven M. Scharf website for getting the last
word after losing an argument! :-)

But I have spotted a serious problem. Check out every one of the
bicycles listed as receiving the heretofore nonexistent, but
nonetheless "coveted Nordic Group Best Buy Award" [AKA the "Scharf
likes it" award].

Yes, it's shocking but true. All those bikes feature aluminum parts!
And yes, the aluminum parts are subject to stress! Those vile
purveyors of sin, the Aluminum Association, seem to have infiltrated
the Nordic Group [AKA "Scharf's web ramblings"]!

What's next, aluminum coffee cups? Oh, the horror!


- Frank Krygowski

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

  #29  
Old April 6th 05, 08:33 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If that's true, now that the Tour de France (and all other races) are
composed purely of aluminum and carbon bikes, what is the rate of
failures there? After all, these are bikes that are ridden more in a
month than most bicycles get ridden in their entire lifetime. Plus,
they get ridden outside in the rain, get bashed over cobblestone roads
at high speed, and get washed with corrosive chemicals and blasted with
a hose every single day of their lives.

When WAS the last time a steel bike won any significant race, of any
kind, any where? I'm not old enough to remember.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

  #30  
Old April 6th 05, 10:43 PM
Werehatrack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:33:58 CST, wrote:

If that's true, now that the Tour de France (and all other races) are
composed purely of aluminum and carbon bikes, what is the rate of
failures there? After all, these are bikes that are ridden more in a
month than most bicycles get ridden in their entire lifetime.


And in many cases, are then discarded. These are *racing* bikes.
They aren't intended to be racing 2 years from now because they'll be
2 years out of date at that point. Your question makes as much sense
as asking "When was the last time a Chevy Monte Carlo won a race on
the nascar circuit?" the answer in that case, if you are speaking of
a vehicle substantially similar to one that might be driven daily on
the street, is "never". While it is possible to buy a bike
substantially similar to many of those used in the TdF, doing so when
the intent is to obtain a *durable* product is the wrong approach.
Racing hardware, whether it's intended for cars, motorcycles,
skateboards or bikes, is oriented towards short-term performance, not
longevity. It doesn't have to be the best stuff for *any* use, it
just has to be the best for the specific event, for long enough to get
to the end of the course.

Plus,
they get ridden outside in the rain, get bashed over cobblestone roads
at high speed, and get washed with corrosive chemicals and blasted with
a hose every single day of their lives.


And do you really think they don't also have multiple backup bikes,
techs to check them each day, and spares for everything that might
wear or fail?

When WAS the last time a steel bike won any significant race, of any
kind, any where? I'm not old enough to remember.


Probably in the '70s, maybe the '80s. What of it? Those were
tissue-thin steel frames, not intended to be any more durable than the
beer-can aluminum ones that replaced them. As with the new ones, a
bike for a high-end comepetitive TdF team hasn't been built for a
75000km life expectancy in a very long time. There's no reason to do
so; it's going to be retired at the end of the season, or maybe even
at the end of the race. It's been a long time since *that* wasn't
true.

More importantly, though, when was the last time that somebody who
doesn't train 6 hours a day won the TdF? *That*, not the frame
material, is where the real competitive edge lies. You can't make a
Lance Armstrong by putting his bike under a random rider. When the
competitor gets to within a few percentage points of the performance
of the leaders of the field for a given race, then the bike that's
under him may become an important factor. Until then, it's really
irrelevant.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see
http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
gary fisher 2004 nirvana or trek 2004 hybrid 7300?? please help... Steve Techniques 2 August 9th 04 01:38 AM
Trek 7200 vs. 7300 Steve Techniques 16 July 26th 04 09:50 PM
Trek 7210 hybrid? tony R UK 2 May 29th 04 11:27 AM
No fitting for a Trek Hybrid? Badger_South General 14 April 25th 04 04:41 AM
FA: TREK Aluminum Investment Cast Lugs & Tubing The Ink Company Marketplace 0 September 8th 03 01:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.