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'

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

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

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.

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

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

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)

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

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:27:13 +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.

Pleased to be of service. It's a bit sad that you apparently didn't
understand what I was trying to say.

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.

The point was simple and, I thought, sound: if you look at bikes on
sale and the frame says "Hi-Ten" that appears to indicate a lower
grade of bike than one which says "Cr-Mo". I have bought bikes of
both types in the past. The Cr-Mo bikes we still have, or have sold
to friends, the ones marked "Hi-Ten" went in the skip. A child's 20"
hi-ten bike turned out to weigh as much as a full-size adult Cr-Mo
(definitely not high end) adult bike. Hence the comment about weight.
The tubes did not look to be oversize, but they were evidently thick
walled. What in my youth we would have called gas pipe.

You seem to have a perception that objections to bargain-basement
bikes are based on snobbery. If that is your view, then it is this:
********. We have bought cheap bikes, second-hand bikes, £200 bikes
and £2,000 bikes over the years, you but what suits. I'd still rather
have a second-hand bike of reasonable quality than a brand new cheap
one at the same price. I do not know of anyone who has bought a bike
for under £120 new and been satisfied with it. I know plenty of
people who have bought second hand for less than that and been happy,
or new for not much more and been happy. Of course the frame does not
account for all of that, nasty bikes have nasty components as well,
but a bike with one or two substandard components can always be fixed
as long as one of them is not the frame.

I am absolutely confident that we, as cyclists, could buy the best one
out of any long line of bikes - or if not the best, at lest one which
is tolerably well specified and screwed together. We are not the
target audience. The audience for this frame buy hi-ten Y-frame bikes
because they look cool, and choose on colour not components.

If there are high tensile steel frame failures or
problems there will obviously be information regarding this somewhere.

Since I never mentioned that, I have no comment to make. All the
frames I've broken have been aluminium, but if I make sniffy remarks
about it I get slapped down by James Annan ;-)

The only argument against h.t. steel seems to be;
1) cheap bikes use them
2) they are heavier than aluminium/chromoly frames.

If you are looking solely at the frame material, yes. But the FAQ is
quite clear: it is talking about how to buy a *good* *cheap* bike. It
says:

"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."

OK, so we've established that oversize alu-lookalike hi-ten frames are
a work of Stan. You've agreed that hi-ten is less strong per unit
mass than specialist bike tubing. So you seem to be writing off not
just this page but the entire site based on the contention that a
nameless tubeset with the words Hi-Ten slapped on for marketing
reasons is somehow not a warning sign. Well pardon me for
disagreeing: I think it is. It is a sign that you should look very
closely. The result of looking very closely may be that you decide
this is actually an OK bike, but that doesn't undermine the idea that
hi-ten frames are a danger sign, especially for those not well-versed
in the arcana.

However there are good points to them to;
1) They are heavier than aluminium/chromoly frames (good for burning
calories).

Are you in politics? I think that point is complete cobblers. If you
want to burn calories you ride faster, because you can still slow down
on the hills. A heavy bike is a ******* to drag uphill, and calling
it exercise is self-delusion. I ride a 40lb bike which climbs like a
thing which climbs exceptionally slowly, so I know that for a fact.
Heavy weight is something to be endured, end of story.

2) cheap bikes use them.

Actually it's simply that they are over-represented in the specific
sector of bad cheap bikes, which is what the FAQ is steering people
away from because experience indicates that bad cheap bikes are likely
to reinforce perceptions of cycling as uncomfortable and hard work.

3) they take a lot of abuse

So you say. In my experience most bikes do. Of all component
failures the frame is, in my estimation, probably the least likely.

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)

On a hi-ten bike? I don't think so. I can't recall even a Cr-Mo bike
that gives the feeling of comfort a 531ST frame gives, but in any case
I reckon you won't notice a lot other than in the forks, and cheap
bikes have steel forks even if the frame is aluminium.

5) They take heavier riders

Than what? Cr-Mo? Are you suggesting that a nameless hhi-ten frame
is a smart choice for the seriously heavy rider? You seem to be
suggesting that less care is required precisely for those most likely
to approach the limits of the frame's design. Remember, we are
talking about cheap bikes here, which is what that page is about.
Cheap bikes are not designed, manufactured or tested to exacting
standards. On balance, do you think you are more likely to find a bad
weld on a bottom-end hi-ten frame or on something made from a named
tubeset?

6) They don't remember every impact and have minor structrual damage
in the same way as aluminium like 7005.

You're missing the point. Cheap bikes tend to be bought and ridden by
people dipping their toe in the water. They are not going to do much
singletrack or rockhopping.

7) Manufacturers offer long guarantees on them (for non suspension h.t
frames anyway)

Ditto Cr-Mo.

If I was strapped for cash (as I have been in the past) I would rather
buy a second-hand Dawes rigid Cr-Mo framed bike than any cheap new
bike for the same price.

But all this is digression. You have a bee in your bonnet about
hi-ten, because according to you it *can* be a good choice. Fine.
The FAQ page doesn't actually say otherwise. What it says is that,
for the uninitiated, a frame made of a tubeset in some notionally
bike-optimised steel is more likely to be a satisfactory ride than the
Magna Megaweight Xtra-Heavy Neutronium Plus.

And even then, if you don't like it you can click the Edit link and
fix the damn thing! Wouldn't that be better than scrapping the FAQ,
sitting back and waiting for the next newbie to be offered the advice,
and then hoping you can get in there and counter what you regard as a
bum steer?


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

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

Of all component
failures the frame is, in my estimation, probably the least likely.

But what about in your experience :-)

cheers,
clive