|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Go Faster New Bike Recommendations ? | Mike Beauchamp | General | 50 | December 16th 04 04:13 PM |
Go Faster New Bike Recommendations ? | Mike Beauchamp | Techniques | 0 | December 9th 04 12:57 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 |