A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Autofaq now on faster server



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 18th 05, 02:43 PM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Autofaq now on faster server

When I first put the AutoFAQ up it was on an old P120 with 64Mb of your
actual RAM, and the Wiki software brought the poor old thing wheezing
practically to a standstill. I've now transferred it to a newer box
with a 1GHz processor and half a Gb of RAM, and things run a lot
better.

So, once again to advertise: the uk.rec.cycling AutoFAQ is here
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/. It's still very much 'use
it or lose it'. Feel free to add to or modify it. In fact do add to or
modify it, because if it isn't used I won't see it as useful and will
take it down. You cannot damage anything - full version control and
backups are kept.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'



Ads
  #2  
Old March 19th 05, 12:22 AM
Monkey Hanger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Simon Brooke wrote:

When I first put the AutoFAQ up it was on an old P120 with 64Mb of your
actual RAM, and the Wiki software brought the poor old thing wheezing
practically to a standstill. I've now transferred it to a newer box
with a 1GHz processor and half a Gb of RAM, and things run a lot
better.

So, once again to advertise: the uk.rec.cycling AutoFAQ is here
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/. It's still very much 'use
it or lose it'. Feel free to add to or modify it. In fact do add to or
modify it, because if it isn't used I won't see it as useful and will
take it down. You cannot damage anything - full version control and
backups are kept.


I reckon it would be a good idea to advertise it more often. It's more
likely to be used that way. Sadly I won't be contributing anything to it,
being a complete ignoramus and all...
--
Chris
  #3  
Old March 19th 05, 12:28 AM
Richard Bates
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:43:30 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote:

When I first put the AutoFAQ up it was on an old P120 with 64Mb of your
actual RAM, and the Wiki software brought the poor old thing wheezing
practically to a standstill. I've now transferred it to a newer box
with a 1GHz processor and half a Gb of RAM, and things run a lot
better.


From my point of view as an end user, it seems to be the same speed.
Maybe limited upload bandwidth??

--
Microsoft Sam speaks his mind:
www.artybee.net/sam_speaks_his_mind.mp3
  #4  
Old March 19th 05, 02:00 AM
Andy Morris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Simon Brooke wrote:
When I first put the AutoFAQ up it was on an old P120 with 64Mb of
your actual RAM, and the Wiki software brought the poor old thing
wheezing practically to a standstill. I've now transferred it to a
newer box with a 1GHz processor and half a Gb of RAM, and things run
a lot better.

So, once again to advertise: the uk.rec.cycling AutoFAQ is here
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/. It's still very much 'use
it or lose it'. Feel free to add to or modify it. In fact do add to or
modify it, because if it isn't used I won't see it as useful and will
take it down. You cannot damage anything - full version control and
backups are kept.


On broadband its seems a lot faster.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/


  #5  
Old March 19th 05, 02:14 PM
Martin Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:43:30 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote:

When I first put the AutoFAQ up it was on an old P120 with 64Mb of your
actual RAM, and the Wiki software brought the poor old thing wheezing
practically to a standstill. I've now transferred it to a newer box
with a 1GHz processor and half a Gb of RAM, and things run a lot
better.

So, once again to advertise: the uk.rec.cycling AutoFAQ is here
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/. It's still very much 'use
it or lose it'. Feel free to add to or modify it. In fact do add to or
modify it, because if it isn't used I won't see it as useful and will
take it down. You cannot damage anything - full version control and
backups are kept.


Well I disagree with at least some of its contents and seems pointless
editing it to say basically I think this statement is rubbish etc so
I'll leave it as is. As an example;

"
!!The danger signs!!

* '''High-ten steel''': there is in principle nothing wrong
with steel as a frame building material, but to make a good steel
frame you need pretty special steel. See SteelFrame. The problem with
steel as a frame building material is relatively poor strength to
weight ratio and High-ten is poor compared to good steels here. It's
made worse by the practice of using oversize tubes. Aluminium bikes
have oversize tubes because aluminium is light but not strong. Steel
bikes with oversize tubes look like aluminium bikes - but they're
much, much heavier. "

This statement just seems so wrong to me and contradicts with my own
real world experience. Most bikes in the world have high tensile steel
frames. It is cheap, strong but ends up with a frame that is a bit
heavier so is not the performance option. Why a strong frame should be
a danger sign I don't know. Especially when a steel frame fails it
tends to bend and give you plenty of time to stop etc. If you want to
link danger to a frame type surely aluminium is the frame to link it
to as its brittle and has a more shattering/cracking type failure and
many aluminium bikes state weight limitations. If a company makes a
h.t. steel frame with oversize tubes its because they are making a
frame with over the top strength. If people are so stupid as to think
h.t. steel frames are weaker I suggest they let me ride their
aluminium bikes and see how long they cope with my weight of over 20
stone when I've all kitted out with my backpack etc and allow me to
take it around some of the rough roads I have locally. My cheap h.t.
steel bike has taken 1400 miles of abuse and carrying as much as 26
stone. The above autofaq text seems to be based on simple bike
snobbery and from the perspective of a fairly light rider.

Personally I think the autofaq is so heavily biased its pointless and
beyond minor alteration. Does anyone actually writing this faq
actually ride and use a h.t. steel framed bike? Is it based on known
frame failures of h.t. steel framed bikes? What is the evidence that
there is anything wrong with h.t. steel frames? I agree wholeheartedly
that low cost suspension is rubbish and low cost dual suspension bikes
are a poor choice most of the time. I don't know why this newsgroup
seems to have some sort of anti high tensile steel mentality. It is
still a very good material. My old Raleigh Royal has a high tensile
steel frame. My Giant Revive DX8 has high tensile steel forks. You can
find high tensile steel everywhere in bicyles. Sometimes companies
penny pinch and fit h.t. steel instead of chromoly steel so it might
end up a tiny bit heavier but also a bit cheaper. many aluminium bikes
have h.t. steel forks to improve ride comfort. The point is
statiscallly the vast majority of bikes sold in the world are high
tensile steel. Probably well over 90%. Even in the uk the figure is
going to be at least 50% and possibly a lot more. so before you even
start the autofaq has insulted the vast majority of cyclists out there
and the bikes they have chosen. Not every cyclist is motivated by
speed or light weight bikes.



  #6  
Old March 19th 05, 02:34 PM
JLB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Martin Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:43:30 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote:


[snip]
So, once again to advertise: the uk.rec.cycling AutoFAQ is here
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/. It's still very much 'use
it or lose it'. Feel free to add to or modify it. In fact do add to or

[snip]
Well I disagree with at least some of its contents and seems pointless
editing it to say basically I think this statement is rubbish etc so
I'll leave it as is. As an example;

"
!!The danger signs!!

* '''High-ten steel''': there is in principle nothing wrong
with steel as a frame building material, but to make a good steel
frame you need pretty special steel. See SteelFrame. The problem with
steel as a frame building material is relatively poor strength to
weight ratio and High-ten is poor compared to good steels here. It's
made worse by the practice of using oversize tubes. Aluminium bikes
have oversize tubes because aluminium is light but not strong. Steel
bikes with oversize tubes look like aluminium bikes - but they're
much, much heavier. "

This statement just seems so wrong to me and contradicts with my own
real world experience. Most bikes in the world have high tensile steel
frames. It is cheap, strong but ends up with a frame that is a bit
heavier so is not the performance option. Why a strong frame should be
a danger sign I don't know.

[snip long discussion of frame material]

It seems to me that Martin's disagreement with Simon amounts mostly to a
failure to agree terms. "High tensile steel" is a vague description that
can easily include some types of hard, brittle steels that would not be
good frame material, as well as other tough, high strength, steels that
would be appropriate for at least some bike frames. So you're both
right. And unless you want to start specifying exactly which steel and
heat treatment / hardness etc. you are talking about your argument is
not going to enlighten anyone.

Much the same applies to aluminium. Aluminium, being pedantic, is the
pure element, and is more or less unusable for engineering. Engineers
use aluminium alloys, which vary a great deal according to their
composition and treatment. If you don't specify which alloy, there is
little point discussing the properties.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
  #7  
Old March 19th 05, 02:35 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:14:51 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message
:

* '''High-ten steel''': there is in principle nothing wrong
with steel as a frame building material, but to make a good steel
frame you need pretty special steel.


This statement just seems so wrong to me and contradicts with my own
real world experience.


Really? The only bikes I've seen which say "Hi-Ten" are the sub-£100
sort which actually appear to be made of a special alloy of lead and
depleted uranium. Cr-Mo is a different animal.

I have a suspicion that Mr Ballantine has said similar in the past.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
  #8  
Old March 19th 05, 03:22 PM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

in message , JLB
') wrote:

Monkey Hanger wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:

So, once again to advertise: the uk.rec.cycling AutoFAQ is here
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/.


I reckon it would be a good idea to advertise it more often. It's
more likely to be used that way. Sadly I won't be contributing
anything to it, being a complete ignoramus and all...


I endorse the above comment. A periodic post with the same subject
line every time will allow regulars to kill-file the subject line if
they object to seeing the post each time. For anyone else, it will be
a useful clue-pointer.


OK, I'll set up a cron job.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us
;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.
;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase
  #9  
Old March 19th 05, 05:27 PM
Martin Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:35:20 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:14:51 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message
:

* '''High-ten steel''': there is in principle nothing wrong
with steel as a frame building material, but to make a good steel
frame you need pretty special steel.


This statement just seems so wrong to me and contradicts with my own
real world experience.


Really? The only bikes I've seen which say "Hi-Ten" are the sub-£100
sort which actually appear to be made of a special alloy of lead and
depleted uranium. Cr-Mo is a different animal.


Thats just the sort of rubbish post that goes on in this newsgroup.
Nothing is proved by comparing high tensile steel to depleted uranium
and lead. If you want to make a case against high tensile steel do it
with some facts. If there are high tensile steel frame failures or
problems there will obviously be information regarding this somewhere.
I searched myself and can find nothing yet aluminium frame failures
seem far more common. Cr-Mo is a different animal maybe but some of
the cheap bikes are using cr-mo now and its only marginally stronger
and in extreme cases can be weaker than high tensile steel if not
processed properly. At best its somewhere between 10-30% stronger and
therefore can effectively be lighter for the same strength however
high tensile steel frames make minimal concessions to being low weight
and so effectively are probably stronger anyway. Cromo requires extra
expense and processing and has been documented not all cromo frames
are made to exacting standards so effectively they can be weaker than
high tensile steel. Its really all down to your perspective. To
someone obsessed with the weight of a bike cromo might be a good
choice but if you really just want a throwabout bike to take a lot of
abuse high tensile frames seem an excellent option. The only argument
against h.t. steel seems to be;

1) cheap bikes use them
2) they are heavier than aluminium/chromoly frames.

However there are good points to them to;

1) They are heavier than aluminium/chromoly frames (good for burning
calories).
2) cheap bikes use them.
3) they take a lot of abuse
4) more comfortable to ride thanks to flexing seat and chain stays (at
least on non suspension bikes where as many aluminium frames are
designed to minimise flexing due to this weakening the aluminium)
5) They take heavier riders
6) They don't remember every impact and have minor structrual damage
in the same way as aluminium like 7005.
7) Manufacturers offer long guarantees on them (for non suspension h.t
frames anyway)




  #10  
Old March 19th 05, 06:26 PM
Arthur Clune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Martin Wilson wrote:

: Thats just the sort of rubbish post that goes on in this newsgroup.

I read that part of the FAQ differently. I read it as a warning against
cheap steel frames which are made with oversize tubes so they look like
a alloy frame. Hence they weigh a ton.

I had a perfectly nice MTB (converted for commuting use) made from hiten
steel, but it had tubes of a reasonable size for the material (ie thin)

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes
 




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
Go Faster New Bike Recommendations ? Mike Beauchamp General 50 December 16th 04 05:13 PM
Go Faster New Bike Recommendations ? Mike Beauchamp Techniques 0 December 9th 04 01:57 AM
How much faster and I supposed to go? ChangingLINKS.com Unicycling 7 May 31st 04 01:23 PM
Scottish Cycling Fund Smithy UK 148 April 29th 04 12:56 AM
this newsgroup's URL Steve Fox Recumbent Biking 20 August 21st 03 03:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 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.