Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:44:45 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 11:19:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:29:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/6/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:
On 06/12/16 16:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/5/2016 4:21 PM, James wrote:
On 06/12/16 05:10, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:51:20 AM UTC-6,
wrote:
On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road
surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would
you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in
cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time
going through turns?

For the last 25 years or so all professional bike riders have been
using carbon bikes. Steel has not been used since the 1980s I think.
All the pros go 50 mph down the mountains cornering through the
switchbacks. If you go watch a local criterium in your town you will
see all the riders using carbon bikes. Maybe one aluminum too. Never
any steel bikes, ever. How can they get around all the turns in a
criterium race if their bikes corner so poorly?

You are just making up, imagining nonsense.


Yeah, I sort of missed that part. I thought he was saying it was
something to do with cornering that made the tire wear flat not that
the
CF bikes were so poor in cornering that people didn't use them the
same.
This bike corners better than any bike I've had including the steel
one
I just sold.

My "guess" would be the wheels and tire choices have more to do with
how
a bike corners than what the frame material is.

They are all connected. Frame material and how it's used, design angles
and such, wheels, spokes, tyres, pressure - everything.

Brings me to a slightly off topic point. We recently finished an
extension to our house. The original building is built on a concrete
slab. The new kitchen/dining room has brick piers, hardwood bearers,
joists and hardwood floor boards. The last few floorboards overlap the
concrete slab and are glued to the concrete. As you walk from the
concrete slab supported floor boards to the bearer & joist supported
floor boards, there is an obvious perceivable difference in give or
bounce in the floor. I'm sure if you could measure the deflection of
the floor boards over joists and bearers that it would be lucky to reach
1mm. More likely fractions of a mm.

I think you're likely wrong about the deflections of standard
construction. We could run some numbers, but:


I'd like to run some numbers. The floor boards are Australian hardwood,
a mix of Red Gum and similar timbers, 19mm thick & tongue & groove. The
joists and bearers are also hardwood. Joists F27 120x45mm at 450mm cc.
Bearers F27 2/140x35mm at ~2.5m cc.

The bearer at the slab end is actually a ledger bolted to the concrete
slab. I doubt that has any contributing give. The other end bearer is
supported on brick piers on a concrete strip footing. The middle bearer
is supported at its ends on brick piers and in the middle by a 75x75
steel post in a 450mm dia. x 1m deep concrete footing.

The give in the flooring can be noticed in the first foot strike past
the edge of the concrete slab. That is, 1m of the ledger bolted to
the slab. It's not like you have to jump in the middle of the joist
span between bearers to feel some give.

I weight about 75kg.

Ignoring the effect of the floor boards and load sharing between joists
(which would, I think, be way more difficult, possibly a Finite Element
Analysis problem) I just put your entire weight in the center of one
joist as a static load. I used 11.8 GPa for the elastic modulus of the
wood. The deflection formula is y = P*L^3/(48*E*I). That gave about
3mm deflection, or about 1/8".

In real life, it would be less because of load sharing. But in real
life, your weight (when walking) should be treated as a suddenly applied
load, which causes twice the deflection.

Applying some judgment (i.e. educated guessing), I'd expect a deflection
during walking of perhaps 1/16", or a millimeter, or thereabouts.

To return to the bike related issue, if we're still talking about ride
harshness related to frame material, this would be the flooring analogy:
Could you feel the difference in the floor if you very slightly changed
the stiffness - say, by finishing a basement room beneath the floor by
nailing paneling or gypsum board to the bottom of the joists?

We did that beneath our bedroom many years ago. I certainly never
noticed a change.

When I was a kid, the barn had a similar floor system. In the portion
where the animals were stabled the floor was cement but in an
adjoining section where feed was stored it was wood. I don't remember
any noticeable flexing of the wood floor but it did feel "different"
from the concrete floor.

Perhaps the compressibility of wood fibers compared with concrete?

I wonder whether measuring the height that a golf (for instance) ball
bounces when dropped from a fixed height would offer any data here :-)

Perhaps a basketball would give you more insight.

You apparently are not aware of the Leeb Test, one of the four most
used methods for testing metal hardness.

But not, apparently, floor hardness. Basketball is typically played on
wood floors laid down with some care, because, some say, it makes a
difference.

As are bowling alleys I am told.
--
cheers,

John B.

Bowling alleys make a difference ?

too much rice ?

On 12/8/2016 10:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 11:19:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:29:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/6/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:
On 06/12/16 16:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/5/2016 4:21 PM, James wrote:
On 06/12/16 05:10, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:51:20 AM UTC-6,
wrote:
On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road
surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would
you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in
cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time
going through turns?

For the last 25 years or so all professional bike riders have been
using carbon bikes. Steel has not been used since the 1980s I think.
All the pros go 50 mph down the mountains cornering through the
switchbacks. If you go watch a local criterium in your town you will
see all the riders using carbon bikes. Maybe one aluminum too. Never
any steel bikes, ever. How can they get around all the turns in a
criterium race if their bikes corner so poorly?

You are just making up, imagining nonsense.


Yeah, I sort of missed that part. I thought he was saying it was
something to do with cornering that made the tire wear flat not that
the
CF bikes were so poor in cornering that people didn't use them the
same.
This bike corners better than any bike I've had including the steel
one
I just sold.

My "guess" would be the wheels and tire choices have more to do with
how
a bike corners than what the frame material is.

They are all connected. Frame material and how it's used, design angles
and such, wheels, spokes, tyres, pressure - everything.

Brings me to a slightly off topic point. We recently finished an
extension to our house. The original building is built on a concrete
slab. The new kitchen/dining room has brick piers, hardwood bearers,
joists and hardwood floor boards. The last few floorboards overlap the
concrete slab and are glued to the concrete. As you walk from the
concrete slab supported floor boards to the bearer & joist supported
floor boards, there is an obvious perceivable difference in give or
bounce in the floor. I'm sure if you could measure the deflection of
the floor boards over joists and bearers that it would be lucky to reach
1mm. More likely fractions of a mm.

I think you're likely wrong about the deflections of standard
construction. We could run some numbers, but:


I'd like to run some numbers. The floor boards are Australian hardwood,
a mix of Red Gum and similar timbers, 19mm thick & tongue & groove. The
joists and bearers are also hardwood. Joists F27 120x45mm at 450mm cc.
Bearers F27 2/140x35mm at ~2.5m cc.

The bearer at the slab end is actually a ledger bolted to the concrete
slab. I doubt that has any contributing give. The other end bearer is
supported on brick piers on a concrete strip footing. The middle bearer
is supported at its ends on brick piers and in the middle by a 75x75
steel post in a 450mm dia. x 1m deep concrete footing.

The give in the flooring can be noticed in the first foot strike past
the edge of the concrete slab. That is, 1m of the ledger bolted to
the slab. It's not like you have to jump in the middle of the joist
span between bearers to feel some give.

I weight about 75kg.

Ignoring the effect of the floor boards and load sharing between joists
(which would, I think, be way more difficult, possibly a Finite Element
Analysis problem) I just put your entire weight in the center of one
joist as a static load. I used 11.8 GPa for the elastic modulus of the
wood. The deflection formula is y = P*L^3/(48*E*I). That gave about
3mm deflection, or about 1/8".

In real life, it would be less because of load sharing. But in real
life, your weight (when walking) should be treated as a suddenly applied
load, which causes twice the deflection.

Applying some judgment (i.e. educated guessing), I'd expect a deflection
during walking of perhaps 1/16", or a millimeter, or thereabouts.

To return to the bike related issue, if we're still talking about ride
harshness related to frame material, this would be the flooring analogy:
Could you feel the difference in the floor if you very slightly changed
the stiffness - say, by finishing a basement room beneath the floor by
nailing paneling or gypsum board to the bottom of the joists?

We did that beneath our bedroom many years ago. I certainly never
noticed a change.

When I was a kid, the barn had a similar floor system. In the portion
where the animals were stabled the floor was cement but in an
adjoining section where feed was stored it was wood. I don't remember
any noticeable flexing of the wood floor but it did feel "different"
from the concrete floor.

Perhaps the compressibility of wood fibers compared with concrete?

I wonder whether measuring the height that a golf (for instance) ball
bounces when dropped from a fixed height would offer any data here :-)

Perhaps a basketball would give you more insight.

You apparently are not aware of the Leeb Test, one of the four most
used methods for testing metal hardness.

But not, apparently, floor hardness. Basketball is typically played on
wood floors laid down with some care, because, some say, it makes a
difference.

Interestingly, I couldn't find anything online specifying the rebound
characteristics of a basketball floor.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/8/2016 3:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 7 Dec 2016
23:07:05 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:


The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...

BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood for floor
joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine, AFAIK. Driving
nails into that hardwood must be difficult!

Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa, for example,
is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.

Oak is by no means a softwood.

Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.

Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.

Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.

As an engineer, I'd greatly prefer if "hardwood" vs. "softwood" were
actually distinguished by, you know, hardness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_hardness_test

As a human being, I would prefer world peace, with fries.

The softwood/hardwood distinction is not completely wrong -- most
hardwoods are harder than most softwoods. There are exceptions. I'm
curious about which softwood Phil was trying to recall, yew perhaps?

FWIW, I've had to drive nails into oak beams. To me, that stuff is
_hard_. Australian Red Gum, I don't know about.

Oaks are harder than the softwoods normally used for US construction.
Common oak lumber is softer than hard (sugar) maple, or any of the
locusts or hickories, among N. American lumber species. Live oak is
hard, at 3200 Janka hardness.

Next time I go tomy local distreesed lumber outlet I may pick up a piece
of ipe, which has recently become popular for decks, just to fool
around. 3340 Janka, and denser than water. I don't believe anyone
pounds nails through it, even with a nail gun.

I have made small items out of mesquite, which is actually quite a bit
harder than hickory. Never had a piece big enough to want to nail.

--

John B. writes:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:44:45 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 11:19:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:29:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/6/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:
On 06/12/16 16:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/5/2016 4:21 PM, James wrote:
On 06/12/16 05:10, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:51:20 AM UTC-6,
wrote:
On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road
surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would
you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in
cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time
going through turns?

For the last 25 years or so all professional bike riders have been
using carbon bikes. Steel has not been used since the 1980s I think.
All the pros go 50 mph down the mountains cornering through the
switchbacks. If you go watch a local criterium in your town you will
see all the riders using carbon bikes. Maybe one aluminum
too. Never
any steel bikes, ever. How can they get around all the turns in a
criterium race if their bikes corner so poorly?

You are just making up, imagining nonsense.


Yeah, I sort of missed that part. I thought he was saying it was
something to do with cornering that made the tire wear flat not that
the
CF bikes were so poor in cornering that people didn't use them the
same.
This bike corners better than any bike I've had including the steel
one
I just sold.

My "guess" would be the wheels and tire choices have more to do with
how
a bike corners than what the frame material is.

They are all connected. Frame material and how it's used,
design angles
and such, wheels, spokes, tyres, pressure - everything.

Brings me to a slightly off topic point. We recently finished an
extension to our house. The original building is built on a concrete
slab. The new kitchen/dining room has brick piers, hardwood bearers,
joists and hardwood floor boards. The last few floorboards overlap the
concrete slab and are glued to the concrete. As you walk from the
concrete slab supported floor boards to the bearer & joist supported
floor boards, there is an obvious perceivable difference in give or
bounce in the floor. I'm sure if you could measure the deflection of
the floor boards over joists and bearers that it would be
lucky to reach
1mm. More likely fractions of a mm.

I think you're likely wrong about the deflections of standard
construction. We could run some numbers, but:


I'd like to run some numbers. The floor boards are Australian hardwood,
a mix of Red Gum and similar timbers, 19mm thick & tongue & groove. The
joists and bearers are also hardwood. Joists F27 120x45mm at 450mm cc.
Bearers F27 2/140x35mm at ~2.5m cc.

The bearer at the slab end is actually a ledger bolted to the concrete
slab. I doubt that has any contributing give. The other end bearer is
supported on brick piers on a concrete strip footing. The middle bearer
is supported at its ends on brick piers and in the middle by a 75x75
steel post in a 450mm dia. x 1m deep concrete footing.

The give in the flooring can be noticed in the first foot strike past
the edge of the concrete slab. That is, 1m of the ledger bolted to
the slab. It's not like you have to jump in the middle of the joist
span between bearers to feel some give.

I weight about 75kg.

Ignoring the effect of the floor boards and load sharing between joists
(which would, I think, be way more difficult, possibly a Finite Element
Analysis problem) I just put your entire weight in the center of one
joist as a static load. I used 11.8 GPa for the elastic modulus of the
wood. The deflection formula is y = P*L^3/(48*E*I). That gave about
3mm deflection, or about 1/8".

In real life, it would be less because of load sharing. But in real
life, your weight (when walking) should be treated as a suddenly applied
load, which causes twice the deflection.

Applying some judgment (i.e. educated guessing), I'd expect a deflection
during walking of perhaps 1/16", or a millimeter, or thereabouts.

To return to the bike related issue, if we're still talking about ride
harshness related to frame material, this would be the flooring analogy:
Could you feel the difference in the floor if you very slightly changed
the stiffness - say, by finishing a basement room beneath the floor by
nailing paneling or gypsum board to the bottom of the joists?

We did that beneath our bedroom many years ago. I certainly never
noticed a change.

When I was a kid, the barn had a similar floor system. In the portion
where the animals were stabled the floor was cement but in an
adjoining section where feed was stored it was wood. I don't remember
any noticeable flexing of the wood floor but it did feel "different"
from the concrete floor.

Perhaps the compressibility of wood fibers compared with concrete?

I wonder whether measuring the height that a golf (for instance) ball
bounces when dropped from a fixed height would offer any data here :-)

Perhaps a basketball would give you more insight.

You apparently are not aware of the Leeb Test, one of the four most
used methods for testing metal hardness.

But not, apparently, floor hardness. Basketball is typically played on
wood floors laid down with some care, because, some say, it makes a
difference.

As are bowling alleys I am told.

Hard to compare that, since very few play pickup bowling games on
asphalt.

--

DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH writes:

Prob not. Air drying is 2 steps forward one back with dimishing
forwards as wood loses moisture...as a sponge hardens loosing
moisture, wood shrinks.

Hardness in wood is density. Finding a chart is easy. Flooring
qualities are density and grain/fiber structure related

Roughly true.

Tho there would be exceptions eg tamarack, hardwoods lose leaves n
softwoods do not. Relevant to moisture loss drying and density as
growth cycles

I'm sure that's not generally true of tropical hardwoods. In N. America
live oaks do not lose their leaves. I have several large white pines in
my front yard, and I can assure you that every fall they lose a *lot* of
leaves, which I rake up. They just don't lose all of them.

The growth cycles produce 'soft' wood structural properties of
straightness when narrowly cut where narrowly cut hardwood placed
standing freely as a joist not flooring, may bend n twist. Barn beams
of hardwood are timbers not narrowly cut.

Bending may be avoided in reasonably straight grained lumber by
quartersawing (vertical grain), but that wastes more material.

Most dense NA woods prob oak hard maple poss madrone n ironwood. White
oak is a wooden ship material. Cherry is fairly soft n unstable.

White oak is wooden ship (and cask) material because water does not
travel through its pores as it does for red oak.

We were blessed with a huge supply of softwood structural woods in
white pine eastern hemlock yellow pine n fir with redwood for railroad
ties. White is from a 'woods products' family as are my father's
family.

Redwood for railroad ties? Not in my lifetime. Maybe back when Abe
Lincoln was splitting black walnut for rail fences.

The yellow pine forest stretched from the Carolinas n Georgia to
Dallas. Lewis n Clark surveyed Pennsylvania writing they walked fir
days in a deer browse clearing under white pine not seeing the sky.

Today, good wood is regional. Fir in the GNW is outstanding esp
plywood. I'm laying on a 3/8ths piece now n it's bang solid
plywood. Yellow pine in Alabama/Mississippi same.

--

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:30:15 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 7 Dec 2016
23:07:05 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:


The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...

BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood for floor
joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine, AFAIK. Driving
nails into that hardwood must be difficult!

Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa, for example,
is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.

Oak is by no means a softwood.

Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.

Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.

Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.

The definition I've always heard is that hardboods are broadleaf and softwoods are needle leafed. While I know this doesn't really identify the wood too accurately it is a lot closer than saying angiosperm since virtually every tree has flowers and seeds.

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:51:49 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/8/2016 3:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 7 Dec 2016
23:07:05 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:


The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...

BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood for floor
joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine, AFAIK. Driving
nails into that hardwood must be difficult!

Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa, for example,
is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.

Oak is by no means a softwood.

Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.

Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.

Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.

As an engineer, I'd greatly prefer if "hardwood" vs. "softwood" were
actually distinguished by, you know, hardness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_hardness_test

FWIW, I've had to drive nails into oak beams. To me, that stuff is
_hard_. Australian Red Gum, I don't know about.


--
- Frank Krygowski

There is trouble there as well - if you have a climate change in an area such as a wetter winter and a more constant sunny summer this will cause rapid growth. These wide rings greatly soften an otherwise hardwood that would test well.

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 3:53:16 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 09/12/16 09:21, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/8/2016 2:51 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/8/2016 3:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Wed,
7 Dec 2016
23:07:05 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:


The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E
is 18.5 GPa, and
that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...

BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood
for floor
joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine,
AFAIK. Driving
nails into that hardwood must be difficult!

Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa,
for example,
is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.

Oak is by no means a softwood.

Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of
seasonal.

Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.

Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.

As an engineer, I'd greatly prefer if "hardwood" vs.
"softwood" were actually distinguished by, you know, hardness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_hardness_test

FWIW, I've had to drive nails into oak beams. To me, that
stuff is _hard_. Australian Red Gum, I don't know about.



Relatively hard. Try a 120 year old maple floor...


Is there a resource that claims timber hardens with years of ageing,
much beyond that of simply being kiln dried?

--
JS

I don't know about a "resource" but kiln drying is a rapid drying that causes cracks in the wood. Age drying which is almost never done anymore allowed the wood to shrink at a much slower rate so that this cracking doesn't occur and the wood is measurable harder.

writes:

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:30:15 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 7 Dec 2016
23:07:05 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/7/2016 6:16 PM, James wrote:


The timber in the joists and bearers is F27 grade, so E is 18.5 GPa, and
that reduces the 3mm to 1.9mm...

BTW, I'm really surprised that Australians use hardwood for floor
joists! Here, it's almost always some species of pine, AFAIK. Driving
nails into that hardwood must be difficult!

Not all hardwoods are particularly hard though - balsa, for example,
is technically a hardwood, while oak is a softwood.

Oak is by no means a softwood.

Hardwood simply means non-seasonal growth, instead of seasonal.

Anything with rings grows seasonally, softwood or hardwood.

Hardwood means angiosperm, softwood means gymnosperm.

The definition I've always heard is that hardboods are broadleaf and
softwoods are needle leafed. While I know this doesn't really identify
the wood too accurately it is a lot closer than saying angiosperm
since virtually every tree has flowers and seeds.

All hardwoods are angiosperms, but not all angioserms (by a long chalk)
could be called hardwoods. Hardwoods are flowering trees, softwoods are
conifers.

--