A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Steel Frames and Tire Wear



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 5th 16, 09:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tosspot[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,563
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On 05/12/16 17:51, wrote:
snip

So can anyone explain this?

I've just got back from the pub, and I can confirm my tyres are still
round...ish...



Ads
  #12  
Old December 5th 16, 09:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Doug Landau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,424
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
we ?


sorry
  #13  
Old December 5th 16, 10:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On 05/12/2016 2:19 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:10:21 PM UTC-5, 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.


? maybe.....take another look at the geometry's geometry


Well yeah, but if you have a different geometry, different wheels and
different tires and think the cornering is different because of the
frame material...
  #15  
Old December 5th 16, 10:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

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.

Makes me wonder about the "stiff but compliant" frame claims and how
much riders can feel through their hands and butt.

--
JS
  #16  
Old December 5th 16, 10:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 9:54:42 AM UTC-8, 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.


Uh, Russell - for 15 of those 30 years the carbon fiber frames had aluminum lugs, fairly flexible tubing and cornered about the same as a steel bike. Then with the advent of the aircraft aluminum frames "stiff" became the watchword and the frames rapidly became stiffer and stiffer. This led to the CF frames becoming lighter in order to keep up and that in turn led to them becoming stiffer because flex in a light frame leads to fracturing. Several of the largest manufacturers have actually started making heavier frames to prevent lawsuits from massive frame failures.

I am fast downhills. And it didn't matter WHAT the frame material was. But I'm faster through the corners with the steel bikes. I even drop cars if the roads are twisty enough. So proposing that some riders are faster than others when they ALL have nearly identical frames is hardly proof that lighter stiffer CF is better than steel.

Someone on Ebay I believe was advertising a steel bike made from Columbus EL that weighed 16 lbs all up. That's the UCI weight limit presently. And while CF does fail catastrophically at fairly regular intervals (and perhaps because it was abused) I have seen and heard of (good) steel frames failing but never catastrophically. You could always make it home if you were careful. As someone that has broken enough frames to know the difference let me tell you that being able to make it home is pretty important unless you're a pro-racer with a car following you. I have broken three carbon forks and two carbon frames. One of the frames in a crash and one where I spotted the failure in time not to ride it. All thee fork failures occurred suddenly and with dire consequences. On a really old Peugeot PX-10 I had the off-side chain-stay break and didn't even know it until someone told me. I have seen several ti frames break but only by showing a longitudinal crack. And I have not only never seen a modern style aluminum frame break I haven't even heard of one.

The ONLY reason that the CF frames are used in the pro peloton is because manufacturers want to sell more expensive bikes. The aluminum frames and forks offer ALL the same advantages as the CF until the UCI lowers or drops the weight limit.

In a correspondence with the UCI technical chair he said that they will not pay any attention to outside opinions regardless the effects on the sportsmen that always buy what the pros ride. And full carbon bikes can get as light as 12 lbs. He said that heavier bikes could fail as easily as lighter one's. You could probably make a case for that but not a practical case.

Unfortunately it appears that the largest causes of failure in the super-lights is a bubble in the lay-up that you cannot see nor prevent. These frames are cast in a single piece over inflatable balloons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn29u7GoqPk
  #17  
Old December 5th 16, 10:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:10:21 AM UTC-8, 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.


Well, that sounds good but I tore down two carbon bikes and used the parts and wheels on the steel bikes so that the wheels and tires are the same.

Another point of reference - On a couple of hills there is a fairly sharp turn about 100 yards below where a steep drop starts. On the CF bikes I had to "set up" for this turn and would be shaking when I got around them at 40 mph or so. But on the steel bikes I don't even have to set up and just ride around them.

Possibly this is because I am used to steel bikes after riding for some 40 years. But I don't think it is. The stiff bikes hoping all over the road are not conducive to a lot of relaxation.
  #18  
Old December 5th 16, 10:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 2:19 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:10:21 PM UTC-5, 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.


? maybe.....take another look at the geometry's geometry


Well yeah, but if you have a different geometry, different wheels and
different tires and think the cornering is different because of the
frame material...


My C40 and my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra have almost identical geometry. So again that sounds good but doesn't seem to be the case.
  #19  
Old December 5th 16, 11:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:08:46 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 06/12/16 04:54, 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.


I haven't raced for 2 years, but during the preceding 5 years I raced A
grade veterans. I won a few criteriums on my steel bike.

Just saying.


And in just the last three weeks I set my record times over known courses that I've been riding for the last four years and not improving. On one course I leave from home and go about 7 miles through cities in which I am always stopped by lights for about the same amount of time. Then another 13 miles in which about half is uphill, then a return through the cities. Two weeks ago on the steel bike I averaged 14.9 mph. I don't know about others but I almost always average between 12 and 13 mph on the aluminum or CF bikes over this same course.
  #20  
Old December 6th 16, 06:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Steel Frames and Tire Wear

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:

We had a new furnace installed some years ago. Not long after, we
noticed mysterious rumblings coming from the basement - very low
frequency noise, sounding vaguely like thunder. It came at odd times,
and while not really loud, it was pretty hard to ignore. I remember
hurrying to the basement (from where the sound seemed to emanate) trying
to find the source.

It turned out that some new sheet metal "panning" had been added between
the joists, as part of a cold air return. When my wife slid her rocking
chair closer to the TV, she was over those joists. If she rocked in
just the right way, the sheet metal flexed and produced at "thunder" sound.

Note, the difference in deflection wasn't from zero weight to her full
body weight (which is not very much, I'll add). It was just from her
leaning forward or back in that rocking chair.

--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Steel frames and le Tour [email protected] Racing 611 August 29th 08 08:42 AM
Steel frames and le Tour [email protected] Techniques 730 August 29th 08 08:42 AM
BB on steel frames PJay Techniques 8 November 1st 05 04:16 AM
Good Steel Frames danimal Off Road 2 May 29th 04 05:46 AM
Do aluminum frames wear out? Chris Hansen General 172 April 29th 04 10:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.