STEEL/CF FRAME ESSAY

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 10:05:58 AM UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:15*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:42:17 PM UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:

On Jun 7, 6:38*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



On Friday, June 7, 2013 1:24:31 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:



On 6/6/2013 6:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:



On Thursday, June 6, 2013 7:37:37 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:



But the most ridiculous thing is the trend toward carbon fiber forks on



aluminum or steel framed bicycles. Why would someone choose to have the



only carbon fiber piece of a bicycle be something that is so prone to



failure and where the failures often result in bad things happening?



I have a piece of carbon fibre on my bike. It is an ironic statement. It is the bottle cage, the least critical component on the bike.



Aren't you worried about losing a water bottle?



You don't know how apt that comment is. I'm a credit card/day tourer, so my bike wasn't ordered with extra bottle cage socketry on the underside of the down tube, etc. Having just one set of bottle cage mountings never bothered me until I got an electric motor with a bottle battery, which I asked for on special order as a replacement for the rack top battery to move the substantial weight of the battery to the centre of the bike. *So where to put the water bottle? I found an SKS clip, which consists of a piece poly strap and a patent plastic quick release clip and fixed it to the seat tube on the other side from my D-lock (no longer carried, functionally replaced by an n'lock stem lock). When people see how easy it is to take this thing off, they wonder how many I lose in a week. I've never lost even one.. Seehttp://coolmainpress.com/miscimage/sks_fit_anywhere_bottle_cage_mount....a piccie of the assembly of the strapmount with BBB carbon cage and water bottle on my bike.



Andre Jute



So about those abysmal pedals, did the dust-caps fall off or has the



chrome rusted through? * Have they gone clunky or has the rubber



crumbled? * Are they still "junk pedals" or do you think you should



have held out for pre-war Rudge or Humber pedals?



Those are Phillips pedals,



I remember that.



that you declared excellent when I bought them.



I don't remember using so strong a word, but i did say they were good.



The dustcaps are on them, they haven't fallen off, the chrome hasn't rusted through, they haven't gone clunky, the rubber hasn't crumbled. I have about 6300km on those pedals and they are quite as smooth in operations (after I washed out the original grease with light oil, then replaced the light oil first with ceramic grease, which proved disappointingly soluble in water, and later with Phil's Tenacious) as the famous VP-191 they replaced, but wider, which was what I wanted them for.



Good!



I love them. I can't now remember whether I bought them as 40s/50s pedals or prewar; the seller honestly didn't know anything more than was on the box, which didn't include a date. But I didn't buy them as collector's items, but to use, and on your advice at that, Trevor. I'm very surprised to hear you've changed your mind, or gone senile, or been dipping into the rum....



I was asking you how you were getting along with them. At the time

you purchased them you made some comment about them not being of the

highest grade, you apparently had consulted elsewhere. It seemed you

had got it in your bonnet that I'd misled you, which I had not. From

memory, you wrote that you paid around 40 euros, and I thought this to

be at their maximum worth. A little excessive, but what you gonna

do, make your own? I wouldn't consider them as a collector's item,

simply something that worked and will go on working until the bike's

crushed by a road roller.



No I didn't change-my-mind over this and I'm glad you are enjoying the

pedals. I doubt they will prove to be the weak link.

You remember right, Trevor. And you are right, I don't even remember what I paid, I'm just happy to have pedals whose outer edge don't dig into the lateral middle of my foot, and that work so smoothly that I'd forgotten they were there until you noticed them in that photograph.

Thanks for good advice.

Andre Jute

On 2013-06-08 07:35:23 +0000, sms said:

On 6/8/2013 12:24 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

Selective reading, selective believing. Like my advice to Duane I'm not
going to discuss CF with you.

That's certainly the best course of action for you given your
understanding of the subject.

Yep. I don't how you can judge my understanding of the subject but it
is a typical reply of someone with a limited view.
--

Lou

On Jun 8, 11:11*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2013 10:05:58 AM UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:15*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:42:17 PM UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:

On Jun 7, 6:38*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, June 7, 2013 1:24:31 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:

On 6/6/2013 6:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 7:37:37 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:

But the most ridiculous thing is the trend toward carbon fiber forks on

aluminum or steel framed bicycles. Why would someone choose to have the

only carbon fiber piece of a bicycle be something that is so prone to

failure and where the failures often result in bad things happening?

I have a piece of carbon fibre on my bike. It is an ironic statement. It is the bottle cage, the least critical component on the bike.

Aren't you worried about losing a water bottle?

You don't know how apt that comment is. I'm a credit card/day tourer, so my bike wasn't ordered with extra bottle cage socketry on the underside of the down tube, etc. Having just one set of bottle cage mountings never bothered me until I got an electric motor with a bottle battery, which I asked for on special order as a replacement for the rack top battery to move the substantial weight of the battery to the centre of the bike. *So where to put the water bottle? I found an SKS clip, which consists of a piece poly strap and a patent plastic quick release clip and fixed it to the seat tube on the other side from my D-lock (no longer carried, functionally replaced by an n'lock stem lock). When people see how easy it is to take this thing off, they wonder how many I lose in a week. I've never lost even one. Seehttp://coolmainpress.com/miscimage/sks_fit_anywhere_bottle_cage_mount...piccie of the assembly of the strapmount with BBB carbon cage and water bottle on my bike.

Andre Jute

So about those abysmal pedals, did the dust-caps fall off or has the

chrome rusted through? * Have they gone clunky or has the rubber

crumbled? * Are they still "junk pedals" or do you think you should

have held out for pre-war Rudge or Humber pedals?

Those are Phillips pedals,

I remember that.

that you declared excellent when I bought them.

I don't remember using so strong a word, but i did say they were good.

The dustcaps are on them, they haven't fallen off, the chrome hasn't rusted through, they haven't gone clunky, the rubber hasn't crumbled. I have about 6300km on those pedals and they are quite as smooth in operations (after I washed out the original grease with light oil, then replaced the light oil first with ceramic grease, which proved disappointingly soluble in water, and later with Phil's Tenacious) as the famous VP-191 they replaced, but wider, which was what I wanted them for.

Good!

I love them. I can't now remember whether I bought them as 40s/50s pedals or prewar; the seller honestly didn't know anything more than was on the box, which didn't include a date. But I didn't buy them as collector's items, but to use, and on your advice at that, Trevor. I'm very surprised to hear you've changed your mind, or gone senile, or been dipping into the rum...

I was asking you how you were getting along with them. * At the time

you purchased them you made some comment about them not being of the

highest grade, you apparently had consulted elsewhere. *It seemed you

had got it in your bonnet that I'd misled you, which I had not. *From

memory, you wrote that you paid around 40 euros, and I thought this to

be at their maximum worth. * A little excessive, but what you gonna

do, make your own? * I wouldn't consider them as a collector's item,

simply something that worked and will go on working until the bike's

crushed by a road roller.

No I didn't change-my-mind over this and I'm glad you are enjoying the

pedals. *I doubt they will prove to be the weak link.

You remember right, Trevor. And you are right, I don't even remember what I paid, I'm just happy to have pedals whose outer edge don't dig into the lateral middle of my foot, and that work so smoothly that I'd forgotten they were there until you noticed them in that photograph.

Thanks for good advice.

Andre Jute

I noticed your comment on the cattle, here's another little reminder
from Genesis in Taverner's bible.

"Only the flesh with his lyfe, which is his bloud, see that ye eate
not."

"For verely the bloud of you wherin your lyves are, will I requi
Even the hande of all beastes will I require it, and of the hande of
man, and of the hande of every mans brother, will I require the lyfe
of man: so that he which sheddeth man's bloud, shall have his bloude
shed by man agayne : so : God made man after his owne lyknesse. Se
that ye encrease, and ware, and be occupped upon the earthe, and
multiplye therin."


I'm coming round to the thinking that this is not "don't eat meat that
has not been drained of it's blood" but "don't eat the flesh of
animals". It seems to be that I may eat animal fat and organ meat
without injury but the flesh (AKA meat in modern parlance), whether or
not it is Kosher, Halal or aged well, exhausts me. That "it drains
my blood" seems particularly apt. If you think of it, muscles need
blood and this may apply whether utilising muscles in life or
consuming them AS meat in death. They will draw blood whether in use
or through digestion. Simples. It'd take a lot of deception to
cover that one up.

It is becoming clearer that the natural lifespan of man is 120 years
if he does not eat the flesh of animals. This is as declared in
Genesis. We must eradicate the animal flesh from our bodies, as is
sucks our bloud, our lyfe away. Only by a diet rich in fruits, fats
and greens may we counter the injury which continues to cause weakness
and illness.

A feeble mind - feeble body. Be persuaded to give away your life
to the tricksters, doctors and scientists or live by the instruction
manual our creator has left.

God gave us all that moves, that we may eat, but for the flesh of
animals. Taking the flesh of an animal, may as well be your brother,
for you will pay with your life.

My eyes have been diverted from the truth for too long. For too long
I have been deceived . I have take back control of MY thoughts and
doings and shall not return to be directed by any man (or woman)
howsoever their robes glisten or their voice booms.


You have your answer within yourself. See that ye knows it and not
receive direction from man.

On 6/7/2013 8:36 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 7, 4:11 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 6/6/2013 10:22 PM, sms wrote:



On 6/6/2013 11:46 AM, Duane wrote:
snip
Your link is to a search returning a list of companies announcing
recalls to avoid incidents where they think their forks may fail. Not
of actual failures.
Every one I read was a recall that was instituted because of failures.
It's good that they are doing a recall, but the reason that there are
so many recalls is because they're using the wrong material for the
components.
You didn't read this one then:http://isolatecyclist.bostonbiker.or...-bicycle-forks...

Seriously, we're looking at cases where 2 out of 12000 cracked and the
company issued a recall.
And the incidence of bicycle related head injuries... ?

If there was a recall, then there was a valid concern about the other
11,998.


There's a difference between a valid concern and saying that it's the
wrong material for the job. I'm glad that they recall parts when there
is a concern, even if it's just a fear of lawsuits or loss of sales.

On 6/7/2013 8:45 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:01 am, sms wrote:

snip

First, I don't deal in opinions, I deal in referenced facts. Opinions
are only useful on subjects for which there is no hard evidence.

That's just silly.

snip
Well that's his opinion.

On 6/7/2013 9:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:30:01 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 6/6/2013 7:03 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/13 04:37, sms wrote:
On 6/6/2013 8:53 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

I think that there is a certain presumptuousness to buying racing
gear and not racing, so I have shied away from buying a CF race
bike. Anyway, other people don't seem to care. This morning, I
passed some woman wearing sandals and riding a Roubaix. WTF?
There's also a lot of CF sales generated by bike clubs where there
is significant peer pressure to be on CF.

But the most ridiculous thing is the trend toward carbon fiber forks
on aluminum or steel framed bicycles. Why would someone choose to
have the only carbon fiber piece of a bicycle be something that is so
prone to failure and where the failures often result in bad things
happening?

https://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+fiber+fork+recall&oq=carbon+fiber+ fork+recall&aqs=chrome.0.57j62l3.6501j0&sourceid=c hrome&ie=UTF-8



Because steel forks are like a boat anchor by comparison.

100,000km on my previous steel frame with the same carbon forks (Giant
blades with Al steerer) through it's life. When I rebuilt it for a
mate, I put on some new forks - but not "uber light stuff", more like
"over engineered but still heaps lighter than steel" forks.

My new steel bike has CFRP forks with Al steerer. Eastern EC70.
They've done 2-3 years already and seem to be just fine, and much
lighter than a steel fork.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/easton-ec70-carbon-road-forks/

(I didn't look very hard)
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/surly-steamr...ck-bike-forks/

Note that there is little tyre clearance on the EC70 fork, but I have no
intention of using a wider tyre on the front.

EC70 about half the weight in 1.1/8"

I don't fuss /too/ much about weight - heck I race a steel frame and
deep Al rims. But I don't see the point in lugging extra kgs around for
the heck of it. $60 extra? $60 is nothing in the grand scheme.


Most of the marketing I see for CF forks is about smoothing the ride
rather than lowering the weight. Specialized Secteur is AL frame with
CF fork, chain stays and seat post. I test drove one when last shopping
for bikes and it felt good. I usually don't like AL. Don't know if it
was the CF bits. At any rate, the Secteur was a size too small and
there was a last year's model full CF Tarmac that was about the right
price. I took that out for 50k. It was about the same price as the
Secteur and the rest is history.

This will probably start another flame war.
I've owned bikes with carbon fiber forks and all steel bikes and
frankly I've never found that the carbon fiber forks soaked up any
more shocks than the steel forks. And, I once bought an expensive
carbon fiber seat post and frankly couldn't see any improvement in the
ride.



I think the comparison is usually CF against AL. From my experience my
CroMoly bike was the most comfortable. The CF bike comes in second and
the AL bikes sucked. But this is a sample of 4 and highly subjective.

-snip-
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Good clean water as long as something dead isn't in the water upstream of where you decided to drink from the stream.

Andre Jute wrote:
There's always something dead in the water upstream, including in the water out of the tap you drink wherever you are. The hazard in farming country isn't the something dead in the water, which our bodies are used to, but the something large and living, like a cow, standing in the water upstream and going plop, which can spoil the taste of a small stream for a few hundred metros downstream up you have a sensitive palate.

Irishman sees a hiker on one knee about to sip an handful of
water from a stream. He calls out in Gaelic "Don't drink
that, it's full of cow poop".

The man stands and replies, "Speak English, man!"

The Irishman calls back, "Use both hands, you'll get more"

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/7/2013 4:11 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

Seriously, we're looking at cases where 2 out of 12000 cracked and the
company issued a recall.

The way product recalls work is that the company determines that there's
a problem based on a relatively small number of reported problems. Not
everyone reports a failure. 2 out of 12,000 may like a small number of
failures, but it was indicative of a manufacturing or design problem.
Only if the manufacturer's investigation determines that there's an
actual defect that caused the failure do they issue a recall.

Sometimes component manufacturers get into disputes with bicycle
manufacturers over the need for a recall, i.e. see
http://www.cervelo.com/en/support/recalls.html and scroll down to the
"Wolf SL Fork Recall" (it's the third recall down, just under the recall
for the R2.5 carbon fiber frame recall).

On Jun 7, 6:14*pm, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:11:54 -0400, Duane Hébert
wrote:









On 6/6/2013 10:22 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/6/2013 11:46 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Your link is to a search returning a list of companies announcing
recalls to avoid incidents where they think their forks may fail. *Not
of actual failures.

Every one I read was a recall that was instituted because of failures.
It's good that they are doing a recall, but the reason that there are
so many recalls is because they're using the wrong material for the
components.

You didn't read this one then:
http://isolatecyclist.bostonbiker.or...-bicycle-forks...

Seriously, we're looking at cases where 2 out of 12000 cracked and the
company issued a recall.

I think that is very much true today. Probably due to the over
abundance of Lawyers :-)

But years ago if the whatchmacallit broke on your new car you took it
back to the dealer and he fixed it. Now the car companies are
terrified of a class action suit and have a recall.

As an aside, I've always been amazed at some of the judgments the
courts seem to make. "Lawyer's Lips" for example. Said to be a
protection against the wheel falling off if one neglects to tighten
the axle holding device. Is there no concept in law that one should
not operate something unless one actually knows how to do it?

It's not judges deciding that lawyer's lips are necessary -- it's
juries, although the judge does decide what instructions will be
given.

Anyway, an attorney somewhere convinced a jury that a bicycle was
defective because it did not have lawyer's lips. Defective means that
it was more dangerous than expected by an "ordinary consumer." Or
the allegation could have been that the manufacturer was negligent for
failing to have lawyer's lips or some other wheel retention device.
The defendant in that case undoubtedly argued that the plaintiff was a
schmo who should have checked the quick release. The jury said,
"well, maybe yes, but . . . " There may have been a big comparative
fault allocation to the plaintiff but still a net verdict in his or
her favor. Many states have "pure comparative fault" where a
plaintiff can recover even though he or she is 99% at fault. The
damages are just reduced by 99% in that scenario.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/8/2013 8:43 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Anyway, an attorney somewhere convinced a jury that a bicycle was
defective because it did not have lawyer's lips. Defective means that
it was more dangerous than expected by an "ordinary consumer."

I think the juries were right in this case if the standard was "the
ordinary consumer." For all the whining about "lawyer lips" they don't
really affect anyone other than racers who either have custom forks or
file off the lawyer lips.