#51
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
Chalo wrote:
jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: [ Surly LHT] it's cheapo garbage churned out from cheapo materials and sold to idiots for 10x what it's worth. it's a tax on stupidity and delusion. [...] that frame is narrow diameter tube, low grade steel. that's poor for torsional stiffness and doesn't do anything for durability. All the relevant tubes are a size up from what Merckx rode. Thicker walled, too. And 4130 CrMo may be "low grade steel" to you, but most folks who know what they're talking about think of it as the good stuff. It represents a very acceptable compromise of structural properties, workability, availability, and cost. You do know that steel is three times stiffer than aluminum, and doesn't need to be as big to have equal or better stiffness, right? Because reading a lot of what you post here might lead one to believe you didn't know that. er, chalo, hate to break it to you, but stiffness is not just modulus. But 3X the modulus means that a steel tube breaks even on stiffness at less than 3/4 the diameter of an aluminum tube. That's the moral of the story. When size is constrained, steel wins. You don't have to make the tubes as big for a steel frame to have all the stiffness you need. dude, you just don't get it. look up specific modulus. [that's "stiffness to weight"] http://www.reynoldstechnology.biz/do...ialcompweb.pdf Weight is a low design priority for a loaded tourer. � you're not following the argument chalo. �did you even read the cite? You're not making an argument; you're just being argumentative. You're dishing out unwarranted abuse and providing links to support things you've suggested but haven't specified. Chalo dude, pointing out that you differentiate between stiffness and modulus, and giving the link, is not abusing you. as for "haven't specified", a comment like that can only come from lack of comprehension. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
Mark wrote:
SMS wrote: Chalo wrote: All the relevant tubes are a size up from what Merckx rode. Thicker walled, too. And 4130 CrMo may be "low grade steel" to you, but most folks who know what they're talking about think of it as the good stuff. The low grade steel is the high-tensile steel that used to be used in department store bicycles before they realized that aluminum was even cheaper. I guess there's low-grade and then there's low-grade. Seems to me there were decent seamless hi-ten tubesets back in the day, built into jillions of your serviceable entry-level 70's road bikes (right about at the level where the steel rims gave way to aluminum - remember, this is a long time ago). What I think of as "used-to-be-used" low grade Xmart stuff was rolled & seamed with the seams ground off. You're right, there was nothing really wrong with the hi-ten steel, it was just lower grade and heavier than the 4130 and 520. There are still bike store bikes for kids made from hi-ten steel where the frame is small enough that the weight and strength of the higher grade steel isn't worth it. My son's Jamis Ranger XR is made from hi-ten steel. I didn't seek it out, but it was one of the only available "tween-size" bicycles on the market, with 26" wheels and a small enough frame (12"). The 24" wheeled models were too small, and most of the 26" models were too large. It's been fine, and in six months I'll be able to sell it on craigslist for 2/3 of what I paid for it. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
jim beam wrote:
SMS wrote: Chalo wrote: All the relevant tubes are a size up from what Merckx rode. Thicker walled, too. And 4130 CrMo may be "low grade steel" to you, but most folks who know what they're talking about think of it as the good stuff. The low grade steel is the high-tensile steel that used to be used in department store bicycles before they realized that aluminum was even cheaper. 4130 is an ideal material for bicycle frames. really? based on what exactly? It's relatively easy to work with, it's high strength, and while it's more costly than 520, Hi-Ten, or aluminum, it's not exorbitantly priced like titanium. I wonder if department stores and bicycle manufacturers factored in the costs of all the recalls of the cheap AL frames. Even when a company like Trek recalls 49,000 bicycles as they did in the frame breakage of the MT220, the dealer still bears a lot of costs in the program. They need to assemble the free replacement and presumably offer free warranty service on the replacement. How much revenue producing business do they lose due to the time spent assembling replacements? Or maybe Trek pays the dealer a per-bicycle amount to cover these costs. give us the tech on what you think 4130 is guy - share your steel expertise! Here's an interesting set of opinions and observations in the area: http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3818 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
jim beam wrote:
Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: You do know that steel is three times stiffer than aluminum, and doesn't need to be as big to have equal or better stiffness, right? Because reading a lot of what you post here might lead one to believe you didn't know that. er, chalo, hate to break it to you, but stiffness is not just modulus. But 3X the modulus means that a steel tube breaks even on stiffness at less than 3/4 the diameter of an aluminum tube. That's the moral of the story. When size is constrained, steel wins. You don't have to make the tubes as big for a steel frame to have all the stiffness you need. dude, you just don't get it. look up specific modulus. [that's "stiffness to weight"] http://www.reynoldstechnology.biz/do...ialcompweb.pdf Weight is a low design priority for a loaded tourer. you're not following the argument chalo. did you even read the cite? You're not making an argument; you're just being argumentative. You're dishing out unwarranted abuse and providing links to support things you've suggested but haven't specified. dude, pointing out that you differentiate between stiffness and modulus, and giving the link, is not abusing you. *as for "haven't specified", a comment like that can only come from lack of comprehension. Stiffness is a direct function of modulus when size is constrained. You know this. There are several places on a touring bike where frame member size is constrained for functional reasons, and I have specified two of them. I think I made myself clear on both counts. What is it you think I'm not comprehending, dude? Chalo |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
Chalo wrote:
jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: Chalo wrote: You do know that steel is three times stiffer than aluminum, and doesn't need to be as big to have equal or better stiffness, right? Because reading a lot of what you post here might lead one to believe you didn't know that. er, chalo, hate to break it to you, but stiffness is not just modulus. But 3X the modulus means that a steel tube breaks even on stiffness at less than 3/4 the diameter of an aluminum tube. That's the moral of the story. When size is constrained, steel wins. You don't have to make the tubes as big for a steel frame to have all the stiffness you need. dude, you just don't get it. look up specific modulus. [that's "stiffness to weight"] http://www.reynoldstechnology.biz/do...ialcompweb.pdf Weight is a low design priority for a loaded tourer. you're not following the argument chalo. did you even read the cite? You're not making an argument; you're just being argumentative. You're dishing out unwarranted abuse and providing links to support things you've suggested but haven't specified. dude, pointing out that you differentiate between stiffness and modulus, and giving the link, is not abusing you. �as for "haven't specified", a comment like that can only come from lack of comprehension. Stiffness is a direct function of modulus when size is constrained. You know this. There are several places on a touring bike where frame member size is constrained for functional reasons, he said, dodging and weaving. and I have specified two of them. I think I made myself clear on both counts. What is it you think I'm not comprehending, dude? Chalo what are you not comprehending about a cite showing relative specific modulus, dude? third time around and you /still/ can't belly up to the facts. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
On Mar 7, 11:09*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article , *SMS wrote: Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: "SMS" wrote in message .. . wrote: For a frame that large you'll want to stick with steel of course, plus if you want to do some touring you'll want steel. How can somebody normally so reasonable and experienced possibly say such things? So many years of experience putting people on bikes and working on them tells me entirely the opposite. With all due respect, you put people on what Trek sells. I'm neither tall nor a Trek salesman, but do you know of a large-diameter steel tubeset that I don't? Rivendell, of all serious steel builders, has started putting double top-tubes on their larger and more skookum bikes. It looks like you have to get a 67cm frame to get the double top tube on the Homer Hilson (probably a good idea, and certainly not a new one), but hey, even the 52cm Bombadil has one. So if you are short and want a steel fix, get one of those. They're factory made and only $2K, such a deal. -- Jay Beattie. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
jwbinpdx wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:09�pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: In article , �SMS wrote: Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: "SMS" wrote in message ... wrote: For a frame that large you'll want to stick with steel of course, plus if you want to do some touring you'll want steel. How can somebody normally so reasonable and experienced possibly say such things? So many years of experience putting people on bikes and working on them tells me entirely the opposite. With all due respect, you put people on what Trek sells. I'm neither tall nor a Trek salesman, but do you know of a large-diameter steel tubeset that I don't? Rivendell, of all serious steel builders, has started putting double top-tubes on their larger and more skookum bikes. It looks like you have to get a 67cm frame to get the double top tube on the Homer Hilson (probably a good idea, and certainly not a new one), but hey, even the 52cm Bombadil has one. So if you are short and want a steel fix, get one of those. They're factory made and only $2K, such a deal. -- Jay Beattie. two top tubes is not as elegant as using "oversize" tube. which is really what they should be doing on frames that large. [and i'll wager that very few of the large frames sold actually need to be that large. most of the oversize stuff i see is ridden by some guy with the seat down near the top tube - utterly stupid and evidence that they got "sold" by an either ignorant or unscrupulous shop anxious for the profit of "custom" sales.] |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
jim beam wrote:
what are you not comprehending about a cite showing relative specific modulus, dude? *third time around and you /still/ can't belly up to the facts. Your cite was apropos what? Because I thought I was discussing the Surly LHT and why big aluminum tubes would be disadvantageous to its function as a touring bike. Relative specific abstruse hypothetical modulus aside (or however many modifiers you care to keep adding) doesn't amount to a thing when you have a certain structural job to do and a tightly constrained amount of space to do it in. Only the _absolute_ modulus and _absolute_ tensile strength of the material do anything for you. That is where steel beats aluminum. When physical clearances or component size constraints don't apply, steel isn't at a natural advantage. But the tighter the physical space limitations are (e.g. BB shell, head tube), the better steel is compared to aluminum, magnesium, plastic, or whatever. Tungsten is even better than steel in this one regard, but it's expensive, horrible to work with, and has lousy elongation. Chalo |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
Chalo wrote:
jim beam wrote: what are you not comprehending about a cite showing relative specific modulus, dude? �third time around and you /still/ can't belly up to the facts. Your cite was apropos what? Because I thought I was discussing the Surly LHT and why big aluminum tubes would be disadvantageous to its function as a touring bike. Relative specific abstruse hypothetical modulus aside (or however many modifiers you care to keep adding) doesn't amount to a thing when you have a certain structural job to do and a tightly constrained amount of space to do it in. Only the _absolute_ modulus and _absolute_ tensile strength of the material do anything for you. That is where steel beats aluminum. dude, there's no such thing as "absolute" modulus. When physical clearances or component size constraints don't apply, steel isn't at a natural advantage. But the tighter the physical space limitations are (e.g. BB shell, head tube), the better steel is compared to aluminum, magnesium, plastic, or whatever. wriggle, squirm, bull****... Tungsten is even better than steel in this one regard, but it's expensive, horrible to work with, and has lousy elongation. Chalo now you're being a /real/ jackass. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
tall guy road bike
jim beam wrote:
Chalo wrote: jim beam wrote: what are you not comprehending about a cite showing relative specific modulus, dude? �third time around and you /still/ can't belly up to the facts. Your cite was apropos what? Because I thought I was discussing the Surly LHT and why big aluminum tubes would be disadvantageous to its function as a touring bike. Relative specific abstruse hypothetical modulus aside (or however many modifiers you care to keep adding) doesn't amount to a thing when you have a certain structural job to do and a tightly constrained amount of space to do it in. Only the _absolute_ modulus and _absolute_ tensile strength of the material do anything for you. That is where steel beats aluminum. dude, there's no such thing as "absolute" modulus. When physical clearances or component size constraints don't apply, steel isn't at a natural advantage. But the tighter the physical space limitations are (e.g. BB shell, head tube), the better steel is compared to aluminum, magnesium, plastic, or whatever. wriggle, squirm, bull****... Tungsten is even better than steel in this one regard, but it's expensive, horrible to work with, and has lousy elongation. Chalo now you're being a /real/ jackass. sorry, make that /absolute/ jackass. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Road bikes for tall rider | Jim | Marketplace | 1 | October 5th 06 09:16 AM |
FS Custom Road Bike for TALL rider | Brian Fahs | Marketplace | 0 | August 12th 06 10:58 PM |
How to build a better tall bike | landotter | Techniques | 4 | August 8th 06 04:45 AM |
Compact Road Bike not suitable for tall riders? | powinc | Australia | 33 | December 26th 03 02:52 PM |
Bike for big AND tall person | Peter Cole | General | 20 | August 13th 03 01:38 PM |