Weights of my bikes

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:11:42 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 9:53:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:01:08 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/19/2021 12:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 16:38:33 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2021 08:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Titanium in most cases doesn't get anywhere near the required
stress limits to fatigue since it is so damned strong to begin
with. This is why I said that if the Ti frameset doesn't fail
in the first month or so it will last virtually forever.

"The Fatigue of Titanium and Titanium Alloys"
http://www.metalspiping.com/the-fatigue-of-titanium-and-titanium-alloys.html
"Fatigue life tells us how long a titanium component survives at a
particular stress, while fatigue strength is the maximum stress a
titanium component endures without occurrence of fatigue cracks after
a large numbers of cycles, such as 10^8."

You'll find that if you stress titanium enough times (such as 10^8
times), it will crack. If you attach a few strain gauges to the
various tubes of a titanium frame, and use a data logger to count the
number of stress cycles, you might find that 10^8 cycles (100,000,000
cycles) arrives fairly soon, especially when every bump in the road is
considered a stress cycle.

Hmmm... I could probably guestimate the Ti frame life. A 700c wheel
is very close to 2 meters circumference. In 1 km, that's 500 wheel
revolutions. Pulling a number out of my hat, I would guess(tm) about
1 stress cycle per revolution, or 500 bumps per km. 10^8 bumps would
require riding:
1*10^8 bumps / 500 bumps/km = 200,000 km
At 100 km/week, that would take:
200,000km / 100km/week = 2,000 weeks
2,000 weeks / 52 weeks/year = 38 years
of riding before your titanium frame falls apart. I expected less,
but 38 years seems acceptable. If you want a better number, attach on
the strain gauges and provide a number for how many bumps per km your
experience while riding.

http://www.metalspiping.com/the-fati...um-alloys.html
The point that you are missing in your calculation is the severity of
the stress imposed. At a stress of 900 MPa (130,533.96 psi) the
titanium sample broke after a bit less then 10^4 cycles and at a
stress of 600 MPa (87,022 psi) it required ~10^7 cycles.

Another point is that the strength and fatigue failure of titanium
varies greatly depending on the alloy. the numbers above are obviously
for an alloy of titanium but pure titanium fails as low as 275 MPa
(39,885 psi) for 10^7 cycles in the annealed condition and as cold
rolled at 300 MPa (43,511 psi) for 10^7 cycles.

So, if a titanium alloy you may be able to hit 10,000,000 bumps at a
force of 87,022 psi before the bicycle breaks :-)

This discussion of theoretical limits of an ideal tube with
ideal jointing is one thing. The real world is another.

Failures (in Ti, in steel, in aluminum) are more commonly
associated with internal stress from joining under
tension[1] (misalignment), poor jointing (cold welds,
contaminated welds, poor braze flow, insufficient weld
depth, etc), seam failure in seamed or seamed/redrawn
material and of course catastrophic (crash) impact.

[1] typical 'forced into position' failures:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ZITO2.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/bia201d.jpg

speaking of Marx, the Soviet New Man isn't any better a
framebuilder on his 'off' days:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/rus17g.jpg
Goof Lord, you're not indicating that steel might fail? According to Jay and Frank that only happens to titanium and not steel or carbon fiber. Though each may disagree with the other there.
Why do you just make this sh** up? It's not cute. Neither I nor Frank nor anyone has said that other materials do not fail as often or more often that Ti. I've broken four or more steel frames, five or more aluminum. It is likely that had I owned Ti, I would have broken it. I broke a Ti chain (stupid purchase) and Ti pedal spindles (also a stupid purchase), but that was back in the '70s when Ti was pretty sketchy and was expected to break.

No, you didn't say it but pretended that if I bought it it would fail. As for Frank he is talking about age and loading causing stress fractures. Come on now, Frank does this crap all the time - he doesn't know a thing about it but makes outright ridiculous claims in a steady stream.

On 5/19/2021 2:14 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 19 May 2021 11:25:46 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:

On 5/19/2021 3:18 AM, James wrote:
On 18/5/21 11:38 pm, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op dinsdag 18 mei 2021 om 04:53:45 UTC+2 schreef James:
On 18/5/21 10:22 am, jbeattie wrote:


BTW, your garage operating room is again impressive. I wouldn't know
how to work in such a clean, well organized and lighted space. It
would be disorienting. I'm acclimated to the dim, industrial
revolution feel of my garage and basement shop.
That's a garage? I thought it was Lou's kitchen!

--
JS

At the moment it is the repair shop of my dryer:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/DfgedkfM7euUvgo28

Lou, waiting for parts.


Our dryer looks remarkably less complicated.

https://www.hillshome.com.au/our-pro...t-clothesline/

Ah yes, a solar powered clothes dryer!

We recently lost the tree that held the hook for our two retractable
clothes lines. I suppose I'll have to sink a post of some sort in the
middle of the yard.

We have a large Amish area in the northern part of my riding area. It's
very picturesque, including the look of clothes drying on a line.


https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20190906/DSC00104.jpg

A picture taken while riding around the Périgord noir area in France,
2019.


https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20190906/DSC00096.jpg

We enjoyed riding there. In no way similar to Amish areas, but
picturesque, too.

Looks lovely, including the drying laundry. I think the laundry's splash
of extra color is usually charming.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/19/2021 12:40 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 6:47:11 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2021 7:32 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 11:15:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2021 11:16 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Jay, we've just gone through this entire charade of titanium being as fatigue prone as anything else.
Bull****. Nobody said that. It sprung from your imagination.
We don't get actual fatigue failures unless a material is stressed to 90% or so of its maximum strength repeatedly.
Also bull****. Quit spouting ignorant nonsense.
Frank, you continue to make it clear why you were a teacher and not a real engineer. http://www.metalspiping.com/the-fati...um-alloys.html

"The fatigue behaviours are often illustrated by a Stress – Number of Cycles (S-N) curve, which are often described by two parameters: fatigue life tells us how long a titanium component survives at a particular stress, while fatigue strength is the maximum stress a titanium component endures without occurance of fatigue cracks after a large numbers of cycles,"

A real engineer is aware that there are stress levels below where fatigue failures do not occur.
I have been aware of that for over 50 years. That does not refute what I
said above, nor does it confirm what you said above. For one thing, a
typical value of the fatigue limit (or endurance limit) is roughly 50%
of the ultimate strength of a metal. It's nowhere near 90%.

Want a reference? Try Table 1 of this paper:
https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1564171

So your response is yet another Kunich deflection, even though you gave
a largely irrelevant web citation.

Frank, your comments are as usual completely irrelevant so I would suggest you stop trying to put the shoe on the other food. UNLESS you can identify the exactly loadings and the number of cycles at which these loadings may occur what exactly does it matter if failing comes at 60% or 90% if you cannot even identify the loadings? In that paper they show inclusions and identify those as the source of most of these failings. So how exactly do you propose identifying any of these in a bicycle frame?

If you have not identified the loadings on your own steel bike why would you have no trouble identifying them on another that you have no knowledge of or the loadings on it?

sigh Tom, the ratio of fatigue limit to ultimate tensile strength is a
practical engineering fact. It is determined to reasonable accuracy in a
materials testing laboratory. The ratio varies for different alloys, but
I don't recall any alloy that had the 90% ratio you claimed. Roughly 50%
is much more common.

That's all I was commenting on, and that's what my citation showed. If
you want to dispute what I said, don't deflect yet again. Just find a
bunch of titanium alloys whose ratios are what you claimed.

We'll wait. If instead of data with a proper citation we get yet another
deflection, we'll know you spouted ignorant nonsense yet again.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/19/2021 1:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 9:53:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:01:08 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/19/2021 12:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 16:38:33 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2021 08:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Titanium in most cases doesn't get anywhere near the required
stress limits to fatigue since it is so damned strong to begin
with. This is why I said that if the Ti frameset doesn't fail
in the first month or so it will last virtually forever.

"The Fatigue of Titanium and Titanium Alloys"
http://www.metalspiping.com/the-fatigue-of-titanium-and-titanium-alloys.html
"Fatigue life tells us how long a titanium component survives at a
particular stress, while fatigue strength is the maximum stress a
titanium component endures without occurrence of fatigue cracks after
a large numbers of cycles, such as 10^8."

You'll find that if you stress titanium enough times (such as 10^8
times), it will crack. If you attach a few strain gauges to the
various tubes of a titanium frame, and use a data logger to count the
number of stress cycles, you might find that 10^8 cycles (100,000,000
cycles) arrives fairly soon, especially when every bump in the road is
considered a stress cycle.

Hmmm... I could probably guestimate the Ti frame life. A 700c wheel
is very close to 2 meters circumference. In 1 km, that's 500 wheel
revolutions. Pulling a number out of my hat, I would guess(tm) about
1 stress cycle per revolution, or 500 bumps per km. 10^8 bumps would
require riding:
1*10^8 bumps / 500 bumps/km = 200,000 km
At 100 km/week, that would take:
200,000km / 100km/week = 2,000 weeks
2,000 weeks / 52 weeks/year = 38 years
of riding before your titanium frame falls apart. I expected less,
but 38 years seems acceptable. If you want a better number, attach on
the strain gauges and provide a number for how many bumps per km your
experience while riding.

http://www.metalspiping.com/the-fati...um-alloys.html
The point that you are missing in your calculation is the severity of
the stress imposed. At a stress of 900 MPa (130,533.96 psi) the
titanium sample broke after a bit less then 10^4 cycles and at a
stress of 600 MPa (87,022 psi) it required ~10^7 cycles.

Another point is that the strength and fatigue failure of titanium
varies greatly depending on the alloy. the numbers above are obviously
for an alloy of titanium but pure titanium fails as low as 275 MPa
(39,885 psi) for 10^7 cycles in the annealed condition and as cold
rolled at 300 MPa (43,511 psi) for 10^7 cycles.

So, if a titanium alloy you may be able to hit 10,000,000 bumps at a
force of 87,022 psi before the bicycle breaks :-)

This discussion of theoretical limits of an ideal tube with
ideal jointing is one thing. The real world is another.

Failures (in Ti, in steel, in aluminum) are more commonly
associated with internal stress from joining under
tension[1] (misalignment), poor jointing (cold welds,
contaminated welds, poor braze flow, insufficient weld
depth, etc), seam failure in seamed or seamed/redrawn
material and of course catastrophic (crash) impact.

[1] typical 'forced into position' failures:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ZITO2.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/bia201d.jpg

speaking of Marx, the Soviet New Man isn't any better a
framebuilder on his 'off' days:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/rus17g.jpg
Goof Lord, you're not indicating that steel might fail? According to Jay and Frank that only happens to titanium and not steel or carbon fiber. Though each may disagree with the other there.

Why do you just make this sh** up? It's not cute. Neither I nor Frank nor anyone has said that other materials do not fail as often or more often that Ti.

Tom makes this sh** up because he's suffering from mental problems. He's
not a typical Usenet troll. He's just mental.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/19/2021 2:40 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:11:42 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 9:53:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:01:08 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/19/2021 12:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 16:38:33 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2021 08:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Titanium in most cases doesn't get anywhere near the required
stress limits to fatigue since it is so damned strong to begin
with. This is why I said that if the Ti frameset doesn't fail
in the first month or so it will last virtually forever.

"The Fatigue of Titanium and Titanium Alloys"
http://www.metalspiping.com/the-fatigue-of-titanium-and-titanium-alloys.html
"Fatigue life tells us how long a titanium component survives at a
particular stress, while fatigue strength is the maximum stress a
titanium component endures without occurrence of fatigue cracks after
a large numbers of cycles, such as 10^8."

You'll find that if you stress titanium enough times (such as 10^8
times), it will crack. If you attach a few strain gauges to the
various tubes of a titanium frame, and use a data logger to count the
number of stress cycles, you might find that 10^8 cycles (100,000,000
cycles) arrives fairly soon, especially when every bump in the road is
considered a stress cycle.

Hmmm... I could probably guestimate the Ti frame life. A 700c wheel
is very close to 2 meters circumference. In 1 km, that's 500 wheel
revolutions. Pulling a number out of my hat, I would guess(tm) about
1 stress cycle per revolution, or 500 bumps per km. 10^8 bumps would
require riding:
1*10^8 bumps / 500 bumps/km = 200,000 km
At 100 km/week, that would take:
200,000km / 100km/week = 2,000 weeks
2,000 weeks / 52 weeks/year = 38 years
of riding before your titanium frame falls apart. I expected less,
but 38 years seems acceptable. If you want a better number, attach on
the strain gauges and provide a number for how many bumps per km your
experience while riding.

http://www.metalspiping.com/the-fati...um-alloys.html
The point that you are missing in your calculation is the severity of
the stress imposed. At a stress of 900 MPa (130,533.96 psi) the
titanium sample broke after a bit less then 10^4 cycles and at a
stress of 600 MPa (87,022 psi) it required ~10^7 cycles.

Another point is that the strength and fatigue failure of titanium
varies greatly depending on the alloy. the numbers above are obviously
for an alloy of titanium but pure titanium fails as low as 275 MPa
(39,885 psi) for 10^7 cycles in the annealed condition and as cold
rolled at 300 MPa (43,511 psi) for 10^7 cycles.

So, if a titanium alloy you may be able to hit 10,000,000 bumps at a
force of 87,022 psi before the bicycle breaks :-)

This discussion of theoretical limits of an ideal tube with
ideal jointing is one thing. The real world is another.

Failures (in Ti, in steel, in aluminum) are more commonly
associated with internal stress from joining under
tension[1] (misalignment), poor jointing (cold welds,
contaminated welds, poor braze flow, insufficient weld
depth, etc), seam failure in seamed or seamed/redrawn
material and of course catastrophic (crash) impact.

[1] typical 'forced into position' failures:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ZITO2.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/bia201d.jpg

speaking of Marx, the Soviet New Man isn't any better a
framebuilder on his 'off' days:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/rus17g.jpg
Goof Lord, you're not indicating that steel might fail? According to Jay and Frank that only happens to titanium and not steel or carbon fiber. Though each may disagree with the other there.
Why do you just make this sh** up? It's not cute. Neither I nor Frank nor anyone has said that other materials do not fail as often or more often that Ti. I've broken four or more steel frames, five or more aluminum. It is likely that had I owned Ti, I would have broken it. I broke a Ti chain (stupid purchase) and Ti pedal spindles (also a stupid purchase), but that was back in the '70s when Ti was pretty sketchy and was expected to break.

No, you didn't say it but pretended that if I bought it it would fail. As for Frank he is talking about age and loading causing stress fractures. Come on now, Frank does this crap all the time - he doesn't know a thing about it but makes outright ridiculous claims in a steady stream.

No, I said nothing about age. I linked a research paper presenting the
results of fatigue tests. What is wrong with you?

Sheesh.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 18 May 2021 22:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
wrote:

Jeff to clear things up my dryer is a Siemens WTXL722NL05 not
a Miele (that is my washer)

My apologies. I again made a bad assumption. I saw the Miele name on
the washer and assumed that dryer was the same brand. Except for
specific references to the Miele TWI 180, such as the specification
sheet and location of the motor start capacitor, my remaining comments
also apply to the Siemens WTXL 722 NL05 dryer.

User manual in German. No schematic or wiring diagram:
https://preview.u-manual.com/preview-manual-for-free-174450/clothes-dryer-siemens-wtxl-722/page-1.html
I couldn't find a data sheet or any info on a US version. As you
mentioned elsewhere, it runs on 230VAC 50Hz.

and a circuit breaker in my electrical system blew not a fuse
in the the dryer.

Thanks for the clarification. That wasn't clear in your posting:
"My fuse blew even after I had turned off the dryer (power plug still
plugged in)."

I just reset that one after unplugging the dryer. As for the
heater they are known for failing after some times. This dryer
is about 10 year old. Sorry for the misunderstanding because
of my bad English.

Your English is quite good. A few minor errors in terminology are
easily corrected after asking a few questions. No need to apologize.
Best of luck on the repair.

Incidentally, I also have a multipurpose workbench. In my case, it's
electronics and chainsaws:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/chainsaw/chain-saw-repair.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 12:32:38 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/19/2021 12:40 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 6:47:11 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2021 7:32 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 11:15:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2021 11:16 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Jay, we've just gone through this entire charade of titanium being as fatigue prone as anything else.
Bull****. Nobody said that. It sprung from your imagination.
We don't get actual fatigue failures unless a material is stressed to 90% or so of its maximum strength repeatedly.
Also bull****. Quit spouting ignorant nonsense.
Frank, you continue to make it clear why you were a teacher and not a real engineer. http://www.metalspiping.com/the-fati...um-alloys.html

"The fatigue behaviours are often illustrated by a Stress – Number of Cycles (S-N) curve, which are often described by two parameters: fatigue life tells us how long a titanium component survives at a particular stress, while fatigue strength is the maximum stress a titanium component endures without occurance of fatigue cracks after a large numbers of cycles,"

A real engineer is aware that there are stress levels below where fatigue failures do not occur.
I have been aware of that for over 50 years. That does not refute what I
said above, nor does it confirm what you said above. For one thing, a
typical value of the fatigue limit (or endurance limit) is roughly 50%
of the ultimate strength of a metal. It's nowhere near 90%.

Want a reference? Try Table 1 of this paper:
https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1564171

So your response is yet another Kunich deflection, even though you gave
a largely irrelevant web citation.

Frank, your comments are as usual completely irrelevant so I would suggest you stop trying to put the shoe on the other food. UNLESS you can identify the exactly loadings and the number of cycles at which these loadings may occur what exactly does it matter if failing comes at 60% or 90% if you cannot even identify the loadings? In that paper they show inclusions and identify those as the source of most of these failings. So how exactly do you propose identifying any of these in a bicycle frame?

If you have not identified the loadings on your own steel bike why would you have no trouble identifying them on another that you have no knowledge of or the loadings on it?
sigh Tom, the ratio of fatigue limit to ultimate tensile strength is a
practical engineering fact. It is determined to reasonable accuracy in a
materials testing laboratory. The ratio varies for different alloys, but
I don't recall any alloy that had the 90% ratio you claimed. Roughly 50%
is much more common.

That's all I was commenting on, and that's what my citation showed. If
you want to dispute what I said, don't deflect yet again. Just find a
bunch of titanium alloys whose ratios are what you claimed.

We'll wait. If instead of data with a proper citation we get yet another
deflection, we'll know you spouted ignorant nonsense yet again.

Frank, you're the one that made the citation. But without a single thing to back it up you were implying failure was imminent. You grow more comical with time. What seems to other you, Jay and the others in your gang of four is that I can afford to do these things.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:18:06 +1000, James
wrote:

Our dryer looks remarkably less complicated.
https://www.hillshome.com.au/our-pro...t-clothesline/

At first glance, I thought that was a ham radio antenna:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cobweb+antenna&tbm=isch

I don't have a washer or dryer at home. I use one of the local
laundromats. Two wash and dry loads usually end up costing me about
$15US for everything. 5 visits per year costs me $75/year. A
tolerable washer and dry would cost me about $2,000. At $75/year, it
would take me 27 years to break even (ignoring maintenance costs). The
laundromats aren't very convenient, but they are relatively cheap.

During the winter, it's really a awkward dragging the laundry to the
laundromat in the rain. When I run out of something, I hand wash the
clothes in the kitchen sink, let it drip-dry a little in the bathroom,
and then hang it near the wood burning stove:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/home/wood-burner.jpg

In the distant past, I owned an electric cement mixer. One day, I had
the bright idea of using it to simulate a washing machine. I crammed
a 33 gallon plastic trash can into the mixer and added water, clothes
and detergent. The lid was held on with bungee cords. It was a bit
messy (no spin dry cycle), but worked well enough. For drying, I used
two retractable reels of vinyl covered wire rope. Someone "borrowed"
my cement mixer, which ended the home laundry experience.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 1:55:25 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:18:06 +1000, James
wrote:
Our dryer looks remarkably less complicated.
https://www.hillshome.com.au/our-pro...t-clothesline/
At first glance, I thought that was a ham radio antenna:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cobweb+antenna&tbm=isch

I don't have a washer or dryer at home. I use one of the local
laundromats. Two wash and dry loads usually end up costing me about
$15US for everything. 5 visits per year costs me $75/year. A
tolerable washer and dry would cost me about $2,000. At $75/year, it
would take me 27 years to break even (ignoring maintenance costs). The
laundromats aren't very convenient, but they are relatively cheap.

5 visits a year? Yikes. Note that "changing" your underwear does not include minor modifications like turning them inside-out or wearing them backwards.

You can get a decent used washer/dryer pretty cheaply on Craigslist. I felt liberated after buying my first washer and dryer. I didn't have to sit around at a laundromat or run up and down stairs in an apartment complex to make sure nobody stole my boxers. My current washing machine is a 80s Maytag I inherited from great aunt, may she rest in peace. It still works great.

Op woensdag 19 mei 2021 om 22:55:25 UTC+2 schreef :
On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:18:06 +1000, James
wrote:
Our dryer looks remarkably less complicated.
https://www.hillshome.com.au/our-pro...t-clothesline/
At first glance, I thought that was a ham radio antenna:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cobweb+antenna&tbm=isch

I don't have a washer or dryer at home. I use one of the local
laundromats. Two wash and dry loads usually end up costing me about
$15US for everything. 5 visits per year costs me $75/year. A
tolerable washer and dry would cost me about $2,000. At $75/year, it
would take me 27 years to break even (ignoring maintenance costs). The
laundromats aren't very convenient, but they are relatively cheap.

Five visits a year and 2 loads per visit?????? Never understood the concept of a laundromat. Sitting there waiting the wash/dry to finish.....We have no laundromats here. Everyone has a washer and most of them also a dryer.

Lou