|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |