Autofaq now on faster server

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

Clive George wrote:

"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 :-)

splutter

John B

in message , Martin Wilson
') wrote:

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.Â*Â*TheÂ*problemÂ*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. "

You're quoting slightly out of context there. The page concerned is
about how to tell a good cheap bike from a less good cheap bike.
'Hi-Ten' steel is the stuff of the cheapest and least good bikes,
generally. If money has been shaved that hard on the frame it's almost
certainly been shaved in other important places, too.

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.

'Hi-Ten' steel covers a multitude of sins, and much 'Hi-Ten' steel is
neither particularly strong nor particularly tough. But that's
essentially a side issue, because making any steel or aluminium tube
thin enough walled that it is too weak for bike frames is expensive.
All cheap bikes have /tubes/ that are strong enough. Whether they
have /joints/ which are strong enough is another matter, and any local
bike shop will be able to show you examples of cheap 'Hi-Ten' bikes
which have failed at the welds.

Seriously, if you were given the choice of a 'Hi-Ten' frame, a Cro-Mo
frame, or a 7001 aluminium frame - all of which are available in
inexpensive bikes - would you really choose 'Hi-Ten'? If so, why?

Having said that, it's not my FAQ, it's the group's FAQ, and if people
think it's wrong, feel free to rewrite it.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

in message , Martin Wilson
') wrote:

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

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

As it happens, I have a broken high tensile steel frame in the shed at
present - I brought it home to strip for parts for an experiment I'm
working on. If failed at a weld on the chainstay. But seriously, go
into any LBS in the country, and they'll show you two or three like it
- cheap frames, cheaply made with inadequate quality control. You're
right, of course, that the tubing itself is strong enough. Strong
tubing does not by itself make a strong frame.

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

to err is human, to lisp divine
;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:18:39 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote in message
:

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

But what about in your experience :-)

Never broken a frame on a DF bike, and the new frame on the Stinger
has reinforcements around the stress point which failed the first two
times.

I suppose that I am unusual in having broken more frames than spokes
in my life though...


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 19:32:45 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

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.


I actually thought it was pretty sad that you bothered to mention
depleted uranium as if it would somehow win debate. Its perfectly
clear you are biased against high tensile steel frames full stop. Its
not exactly hard to work this out when you start off with a comment
about 'depleted uranium'.

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.


I suppose the fact that my GT Timberline chromoly framed 1992 bike is
a lot heavier than my high tensile steel bike then is all in my
imagination. Oh wait a minute that would be rather stupid and unfair
though comparing a old chromoly design with a current high tensile
steel design.

The frame of my model is a very popular frame and is used across a
wide range of models and brands. It has an excellent reputation for
strength at the expense of a little weight due to its oversized main
tube from headset to bottom bracket. Here it is on a Falcon model;

http://www.falconcycles.co.uk/2005/g...ima/stormM.jpg

Originally made in Taiwan I think its basically made in China now. The
frame is generally labelled 'oversized' or even 'mega oversized' like
mine to indicate its purpose which is extra strength. That is the
whole point of the design. Hence the description. Its for heavier
riders or riders who expect the bike to get some abuse. Its not
intended to sell against super light aluminium bikes and obviously may
not be the best choice for lighter riders.

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.


You have an unbelievable viewpoint. You say you do not know anyone who
has bought a £120 new bike and has been satisified with it. The vast
majority of bikes sold and used are below £120 in this country. Your
basically saying the vast majority are not happy with their bikes but
nothing could be further from the truth and most of these bikes are
high tensile based. Why would anyone even consult you regarding this?
Its obvious you are anti such bikes.

Importers like Concept and Universal Cycles are going from strength to
strength selling such bikes. Raleigh have introducted new lower end
priced models to try and get a slice of the huge sub £100 bike market.

One of the things I've noticed most about this forum is that the
people complaining about cheap bikes are people that don't use or own
them. When you actually look for purchasers of cheap bikes who are
complaining about them, you don't find them. How many threads in
recent times have been people complaining about cheap bikes they
bought and how badly they perform? Then consider the fact that bikes
that sell for £300+ are almost a niche market.

New bikes are guaranteed however cheap and if the retailer gives you
problems you can get your money back from the credit card company.
Secondhand bikes are often in need of new parts (which you have to pay
for) and if you buy too old a bike you may have problems sourcing
certain bits and pieces. Secondhand again is an option for people who
are already clued up about bikes it is not an option for people new to
cycling.

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.


Not every high tensile steel bike is a y frame mountain bike. You'll
find high tensile steel bikes across all ranges. Even big brands like
Giant do high tensile commuter bikes.

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 ;-)


Well I can tell you that high tensile steel framed bikes are the
workhorses of the world. When you see a overloaded bike carrying god
knows how much in weight in the streets of china it will be high
tensile steel. It won't be 7005 or 6061 thats for sure. When you see a
cycle with 2 or 3 people on board one bike going along a road thats a
series of potholes and lumps in india it won't be titanium or carbon
fibre.


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.


How have you established that oversized hi-ten frames are bad? They
are simply strong, cheap and slightly heavier frames. 7005 frames are
often nameless and the same can be said of chromoly.

So your logic is that a bike based around a stronger heavier frame
needs more careful consideration than a lighter, weaker frame like a
budget 7005 offering which is much more likely to cause injury if the
frame fails which it is more likely to do?


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.


Lets get one thing straight the difference between something like a
7005 mountain bike and a high tensile steel mountain bike can be as
little as nothing in weight to an extreme difference of about 5lbs.
Most of the main components are roughly the same weight and its only
the frame and forks that vary. A rigid fork can also be a fair bit
lighter than a suspension fork that some would say is more necessary
on a aluminium bike. I have two rigid h.t. mountain bikes, the
oversized one is about 34lbs (but heavier now that I've added a lot of
stuff), the lighter one is about 31lbs. My kona lanai is about
28-29lbs and the GT Timberline FS (chromoly) is about 38lbs. The
difference in weight is not that dramatic. The heavy oversized main
tube of the h.t. bike gives it excellent stability in the wind so its
not all bad news. There is obviously a sliding scale where a lighter
person would suffer more with any additional weight on a bike where as
a heavier rider would find this less important. This is a variable
that is probably quite important. To my mind it doesn't seem much
different cycling any of them uphill but to a lighter person the
difference may be dramatic.


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.


Its funny though that both the Kona Lanai and the GT Timberline both
seem less comfortable than the cheap h.t. bike. I'll admit I've put a
super comfy saddle on the cheap bike. Both GT and Kona have nice
damped front suspension but a lot of shock/vibration still seems to
come up through the saddle. I suppose the chromoly frame in theory
should be better in this regard but its the triple diamond GT design
that causes the rear seat and chain stays to be more rigid with less
flexing. To be honest I like the unique feeling of riding any of the
three bikes but the kona definitely feels the most efficient however
it isn't the most comfortable. If I want to get somewhere fast the
Kona would seem the best option. However for a comfortable trip my
h.t. bike with the oversized frame would seem better. I say that as a
fact the h.t. oversized frame seems the most comfortable overall but
thats with a replacement saddle.

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.

Maybe your right but it has to be said I've ridden my bike at upto 26
stone which is effectively twice the weight of the normal rider or
more. Ok I only went for short rides at 26 stone but at about 24 stone
I was using it quite a lot and by about 22 stone I was using it most
days. Only when I got below 20 stone did I feel comfortable riding the
Kona Lanai and even now it doesn't feel like its happy with the
weight. When I tried a bike in a showroom last year which was 7005
based there was a serious crack/rebound noise when I sat on it while
waiting for the salesman to come back with some information. He
suggested I got on it. I then looked at the tyres which were what I
would call flatlining and then bounced on it a few times to test the
suspension. There was a nasty crack noise but luckily no one nearby to
hear. I got off the bike and moved away. It was not a healthy noise. A
second salesman turned up and I basically ended up ordering a Kona
Smoke. They couldn't get one in the end due to supply shortages but I
got the cheap high tensile steel mountain bike instead from ebay. I
spent ages looking at sites and google groups postings regarding heavy
riders and what has worked and failed. I also looked at many taiwanese
sites regarding frames.

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.


Your not really getting the hang of this are you? I'm 20 stone approx,
bare this in mind. The bike certainly seems more comfortable to me and
Its my belief that it surely must be the seat and chain stays as the
frame has that massive oversized main tube (not much flexing there I
would have thought). Maybe theres another explanation but it seems the
logical one to me. Something is absorbing shocks and it feels like the
seat/chain stays, what else can it be? It just seems to take the
sharpness out of bumps more so than the other bikes and the tyres are
basically similar and pressures are the same.


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?

Actually I wasn't thinking of chromoly, I was comparing them against
aluminium. High tensile steel frames make little concession to weight,
absorb shocks very well and are easy to weld. A chromoly frame may be
optimised for low weight. The real quality of a frame is how many
failures in the real world and I believe the h.t. steel frames do very
well in this regard. I believe even cheap bike frames are built to
high standards. Its your belief that they are not obviously. Anyway my
frame in question seems to have excellent welds was sold as a heavy
duty frame and has performed faultlessly so far under extreme weight
loads.


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.


Thats a fair point, I've never hopped between rocks on mine. However I
have encountered some truly awful road surfaces where literally there
is no proper road surface just rubble, bumps and holes and its real
hard surfaces too. I'm pretty sure the bike could handle most things
though.


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.


I don't have a bee in my bonnet at all. I simply stated I disagree
with the faq and don't see it as useful. I've not needed to reply with
comments like 'magna megaweight xtra-heavy neutronium plus' to try and
prove a point. The faq is basically pointing people away from buying a
cheap bike which seems to be the standard reply to many urc postings.
It really doesn't matter though as people are continuing to buy cheap
bikes in huge numbers. Which I'm not saying is a good thing obviously
as I'm not keen on the dual suspension cheap bikes myself.




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

I'm not suggesting scrapping the faq my point is it represents a view
and opinions that may not be useful or beneficial to a lot of people.
Its not an everyman faq. Its like a faq about cars written by mercedes
benz owners. In the end their viewpoint about cars is going to be
biased a certain way and they aren't going to give much regard to the
ford Focus or similar cars.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:49:28 +0000, Simon Brooke
You're quoting slightly out of context there. The page concerned is
about how to tell a good cheap bike from a less good cheap bike.
'Hi-Ten' steel is the stuff of the cheapest and least good bikes,
generally. If money has been shaved that hard on the frame it's almost
certainly been shaved in other important places, too.


Thats your opinion but there is no evidence to support it.


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.

'Hi-Ten' steel covers a multitude of sins, and much 'Hi-Ten' steel is
neither particularly strong nor particularly tough. But that's
essentially a side issue, because making any steel or aluminium tube
thin enough walled that it is too weak for bike frames is expensive.
All cheap bikes have /tubes/ that are strong enough. Whether they
have /joints/ which are strong enough is another matter, and any local
bike shop will be able to show you examples of cheap 'Hi-Ten' bikes
which have failed at the welds.


Again where is the evidence, I've never seen any broken frames in a
bike shop and it probably wouldn't be in their interest to display
them whatever the frame material. The internet would be a logical
place to search for evidence and the evidence here seems to indicate
aluminium is more likely to fail and thats in a world where hi-ten
massively outsells aluminium bikes.



Seriously, if you were given the choice of a 'Hi-Ten' frame, a Cro-Mo
frame, or a 7001 aluminium frame - all of which are available in
inexpensive bikes - would you really choose 'Hi-Ten'? If so, why?


I don't know what I would choose but I would certainly consider the
hi-ten because as already stated I believe 7005 frames are generally
weaker and thats the evidence I have accumulated. Cro-Mo would be my
first choice though but it would be all down to the bikes full
specification. If I could have the same strength and lose a few pounds
in weight on the bike that would be beneficial.

Having said that, it's not my FAQ, it's the group's FAQ, and if people
think it's wrong, feel free to rewrite it.

It probably does represent the view of the group generally so its
probably on the button as the urc faq but whether its useful to a
wider cycling audience who may own or be considering a low cost high
tensile bike I don't know.

Martin Wilson wrote:

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;


Well dont just carp on about it, put a page on title something like
FunFromGoodCheapBikes.


--
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/

in message , Martin Wilson
') wrote:

Again where is the evidence, I've never seen any broken frames in a
bike shop and it probably wouldn't be in their interest to display
them whatever the frame material.

Ask them.

The internet would be a logical
place to search for evidence and the evidence here seems to indicate
aluminium is more likely to fail and thats in a world where hi-ten
massively outsells aluminium bikes.

Except the _only_ comparative study I'm aware of on the Internet shows
that all the aluminium frames tested survived and many of the steel
ones broke.

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

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605