Custom build

"rooman" wrote in message
...

Shane Stanley Wrote:
In article ,
rooman wrote:

a Columbus Zonal ridden 200-300 plus klms a week
should give you a good 10 years of joy without metal "memory" hassles

'metal "memory" hassles'?

--
Shane Stanley
my very lay expression about Alum as I see it, but its not a "memory
metal" in the chemical and metallurgist's sense, so consider
it....."stress cycles to failure" if you wish.... Alum bike tubesets
show fewer cycles to failure than steel bike tubesets of same
dimension... AFAIAA.... my understanding is...equiv dimension steel
lasts longer than alum...just likely to be heavier

the suggestion, which I believe is the common view (correct me if you
think it's not) of riders, frame makers etc.... is that alum tubeset
may be cheaper (some) and it may be lighter (most) , and is less rigid,
and it doesn't last as long given the same stresses over time, as the
steel tubeset..


Who on earth would use the same size aluminium and steel tubes?

Shane Stanley Wrote:
In article ,
rooman wrote:
my very lay expression about Alum as I see it, but its not a "memory
metal" in the chemical and metallurgist's sense, so consider
it....."stress cycles to failure" if you wish.... Alum bike tubesets
show fewer cycles to failure than steel bike tubesets of same
dimension

Who builds them to the same dimensions?
not suggesting that... just comparing apples... alloy tubesets appear
bigger dimensioned than steel , but if they were the same the alloy
(fill in space)...


the suggestion, which I believe is the common view (correct me if you
think it's not) of riders, frame makers etc.... is that alum tubeset
may be cheaper (some) and it may be lighter (most) , and is less
rigid,
and it doesn't last as long given the same stresses over time, as the
steel tubeset..

It might be a common view, but the reality is that a frame's lifespan
owes more to its design than the material used. Of course, the design
often reflects the choice of material -- that's why aluminium frames
are
designed to avoid fatigue failures (something that's not hard to do).

There's a lot to be said for steel frames, especially the aesthetics
they allow the frame designer. It seems a shame that those who like
them
often resort to pseudo-scientific attacks on the alternatives, though.
There are still people around who believe aluminium frames "go soft".

--
Shane Stanley
fair enough..(thought that was what I suggested..guess not).... I am
not disagreeing, but I dont accept that alloy will not fail merely
because its beefier( if that's what you mean by design, or are you
suggesting extra cross members in the chainstay and thicker tubeset,
and bottom bracket area ?..........(what are you suggesting?)

I have a "design" life on my alloy R1 bike of approx 10 years...as a
result of section lengths, tubeset and layout combinations that should
reflect the of the bike mainly as a performance bike in that
time....that's what I was told to expect and if I get more great... I
have another alloy bike, a beefy ( make that very beefy C2- that will
probably outlive mankind, but it does weigh a hefty amount, but I
also have four steel bikes... R2-aged 2 year2, C1-3years, T1-4 years,
and Classic1-55 years respectively, all going strong and I expect they
will all outlive the alloy framed R1 by decades.

My preference is for steel first, ( I just like the ride)...but I do
have a Ti frame on order so I put Ti second, then Al and one day
maybe ( big maybe) a carbon frame, but not in a hurry to go
carbon...may change my mind...have to have a lot of wine
first....meantime happy to watch other's carbons get thrown away
after they get a bust up...




--
rooman

In article ,
rooman wrote:

I am
not disagreeing, but I dont accept that alloy will not fail merely
because its beefier( if that's what you mean by design, or are you
suggesting extra cross members in the chainstay and thicker tubeset,
and bottom bracket area ?..........(what are you suggesting?)

Design, as in an engineer calculating what's needed to avoid stress
failures. In some places that amounts to making things "beefier", but
not always.

I have a "design" life on my alloy R1 bike of approx 10 years...as a
result of section lengths, tubeset and layout combinations that should
reflect the of the bike mainly as a performance bike in that
time....that's what I was told to expect and if I get more great...

It's certainly possible to design a frame that won't last, although
stating it in terms of years is unfortunate (but understandable) --
hours of use would make more sense.

(Given that you're spreading your time between six, and it appears soon
to be seven, bikes, and that hours in a day are limited, even a
compromised design might last you a lot longer than you think.)

but I
also have four steel bikes... R2-aged 2 year2, C1-3years, T1-4 years,
and Classic1-55 years respectively, all going strong and I expect they
will all outlive the alloy framed R1 by decades.

Yes, but you're comparing them to a frame you've just told us is
compromised in terms of lifespan.

My preference is for steel first, ( I just like the ride)...

Fine -- enjoy it, and don't go hunting for other justifications.

--
Shane Stanley

On 2007-02-21, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
In article ,
rooman wrote:
my very lay expression about Alum as I see it, but its not a "memory
metal" in the chemical and metallurgist's sense, so consider
it....."stress cycles to failure" if you wish.... Alum bike tubesets
show fewer cycles to failure than steel bike tubesets of same
dimension

Who builds them to the same dimensions?

the suggestion, which I believe is the common view (correct me if you
think it's not) of riders, frame makers etc.... is that alum tubeset
may be cheaper (some) and it may be lighter (most) , and is less rigid,
and it doesn't last as long given the same stresses over time, as the
steel tubeset..

It might be a common view, but the reality is that a frame's lifespan
owes more to its design than the material used. Of course, the design
often reflects the choice of material -- that's why aluminium frames are
designed to avoid fatigue failures (something that's not hard to do).

There's a lot to be said for steel frames, especially the aesthetics
they allow the frame designer. It seems a shame that those who like them
often resort to pseudo-scientific attacks on the alternatives, though.
There are still people around who believe aluminium frames "go soft".

I see a connection between this and aluminium cookware. Aluminium
doesn't cause Alzheimers; it was a claim invented by a steel cookware
maker who saw his sales drop off because of cheaper and better
aluminium. So he came up with a "research" paper that showed
aluminium causes Alzheimers. Within months, there were 5 peer
reviewed papers refuting the claim, but the damage had been done --
people still think, 20 years on, that aluminium cookware causes
alzheimers.

--
TimC
Error in operator: add beer

Shane Stanley Wrote:
us is
compromised .....

(snip)

justifications.

--
Shane Stanley
compromise?...you might think that!......I am not the least bit
comprised with the alum frame , it is exactly what I wanted, and
represents very good value for money over time....

justifications... dribble.... all in your head !


--
rooman

TimC wrote:

I see a connection between this and aluminium cookware. Aluminium
doesn't cause Alzheimers; it was a claim invented by a steel cookware
maker who saw his sales drop off because of cheaper and better
aluminium. So he came up with a "research" paper that showed
aluminium causes Alzheimers. Within months, there were 5 peer
reviewed papers refuting the claim, but the damage had been done --
people still think, 20 years on, that aluminium cookware causes
alzheimers.

Does anybody know what causes Alzheimers? Somebody told me once but my mum
used aluminium pots and I don't remember.
If you're going to absorb aluminium, you are more likely to do it from your
deoderant.

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote:

If you're going to absorb aluminium, you are more likely to do it from your
deoderant.

Very true. Aluminium, by itself, doesn't cross the blood brain barrier.
For this reason, some argue that aluminium couldn't possibly cause
Alzheimer's disease, since it can't get to the brain in the first place.

However, one of the toxic effects of fluoride is to make that barrier
permeable to aluminium. Fluoride allows the uptake of aluminium into
your brain.

That aluminium is harmful to the brain is well accepted, at least in
animal studies (a collection of references:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/).


Supposedly one group of researchers tested the aluminium/fluoride link
by administering it to rats intravenously, killing all their "low dose"
group before they ever got to the "high dose" group. They were expecting
small, measurable differences between the groups.


Cycling is fun.


Russ, always on topic.

Russ wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

If you're going to absorb aluminium, you are more likely to do it from
your deoderant.

Very true. Aluminium, by itself, doesn't cross the blood brain barrier.
For this reason, some argue that aluminium couldn't possibly cause
Alzheimer's disease, since it can't get to the brain in the first place.

However, one of the toxic effects of fluoride is to make that barrier
permeable to aluminium. Fluoride allows the uptake of aluminium into
your brain.

That aluminium is harmful to the brain is well accepted, at least in
animal studies (a collection of references:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/).


Supposedly one group of researchers tested the aluminium/fluoride link
by administering it to rats intravenously, killing all their "low dose"
group before they ever got to the "high dose" group. They were expecting
small, measurable differences between the groups.


Cycling is fun.


Russ, always on topic.

Isn't the dangers of Fluoride something thought up by the bottled water
manufacturers?

And isn't the dangers of aging plastic bottles something thought up by ...

And so on....

Use a wooden spoon in your aluminum pots and it's not a problem.


Friday

Friday wrote:

Isn't the dangers of Fluoride something thought up by the bottled water
manufacturers?

If only... That it was an enzymatic poison was known decades before its
use on humans.

One might say that the /benefits/ of fluoride was thought up by the
aluminium manufacturers, given that the *chemical waste given off by the
process to make aluminium... is creatively used in tap water


It would be nice if it were just FUD; it'd be much more simpler to
believe that.


And isn't the dangers of aging plastic bottles something thought up by ...

And so on....

Use a wooden spoon in your aluminum pots and it's not a problem.

Or just use stainless-steel coated aluminium. The steel industry say the
chromium isn't bad for you And it probably isn't, based on the best
available evidence.


Russ.

*(also "...in the form of either fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) or sodium
silicofluoride (Na2SiF6), both of which are obtained from the untreated
waste liquor from cleaning the scrubbers in phosphate fertiliser
manufacturing plants. This source of fluoride contains traces of
arsenic, cadmium and other toxic chemicals..." - Dr Mark Diesendorf -
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3014)