Steel is back

[Robert[_6_]]

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel
--
Robert Maskill - G4PYR - Peterborough Cambridgeshire
MF Coastal Radio www.coastalradio.org.uk
Orton info community web site www.ortoninfo.co.uk
Nene Valley Railway Pictures www.nenevalley.ortoninfo.co.uk/

[Paul Boyd[_2_]]

On 02/10/2007 21:12, Robert said,
> http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

Not sure it had ever been away :-) My first "proper" MTB was an
Overbury's Pioneer (remember those? They had, wait for it, sloping top
tubes!!!), and now I ride an Orange P7 - they've been around for ages!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Robert[_6_]]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 02/10/2007 21:12, Robert said,
>> http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel
>
> Not sure it had ever been away :-) My first "proper" MTB was an
> Overbury's Pioneer (remember those? They had, wait for it, sloping top
> tubes!!!), and now I ride an Orange P7 - they've been around for ages!
>
I would agree I was merely quoting their headline...

--
Robert Maskill - G4PYR - Peterborough Cambridgeshire
MF Coastal Radio www.coastalradio.org.uk
Orton info community web site www.ortoninfo.co.uk
Nene Valley Railway Pictures www.nenevalley.ortoninfo.co.uk/

[vernon]

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel
> --
> Robert Maskill - G4PYR - Peterborough Cambridgeshire
> MF Coastal Radio www.coastalradio.org.uk
> Orton info community web site www.ortoninfo.co.uk
> Nene Valley Railway Pictures www.nenevalley.ortoninfo.co.uk/

I wasn't aware that it had ever been away. Four out of five of my bikes are
steel framed and, should I ever purchase another bike, it's likely to be a
steel framed Audax or tourer hand made in the UK by the usual suspects.

[Duncan Smith]

On Oct 2, 9:12 pm, Robert > wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

I didn't like the bit about vendor lock-in through non-standard
components. I hope enough people have the good sense to vote with
their wallets (see past the marketing hype) and keep the market open
for standard frame. forks, bottom brackets, etc.

Regards,

Duncan

[[email protected]]

On 3 Oct, 07:15, Duncan Smith > wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:12 pm, Robert > wrote:
>http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel
>
> I didn't like the bit about vendor lock-in through non-standard
> components. I hope enough people have the good sense to vote with
> their wallets (see past the marketing hype) and keep the market open
> for standard frame. forks, bottom brackets, etc.

<AOL> Me too </AOL>, but Shimano's domination of the component
industry is an alarming precedent.
Given the current enthusiasm for disposable bicyles, I wouldn't be
surprised if the industry goes this way. It's hard enough to get parts
already and I'm sure that it would suit many a bike shop to sell you a
new, unmaintainable bike every few years instead of having to carry a
stock of parts to keep your current bike rolling.
What's the design life of your bikes? Five years? twenty five? It
must be better for a manufacturer to sell you a new one every few
years than to sell you one bike and then leave it to the component
manufacturers to keep it going indefinitely.

Cheers,
W.

[Duncan Smith]

On Oct 3, 9:53 am, wrote:
> On 3 Oct, 07:15, Duncan Smith > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 9:12 pm, Robert > wrote:
> >http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel
>
> > I didn't like the bit about vendor lock-in through non-standard
> > components. I hope enough people have the good sense to vote with
> > their wallets (see past the marketing hype) and keep the market open
> > for standard frame. forks, bottom brackets, etc.
>
> <AOL> Me too </AOL>, but Shimano's domination of the component
> industry is an alarming precedent.
> Given the current enthusiasm for disposable bicyles, I wouldn't be
> surprised if the industry goes this way. It's hard enough to get parts
> already and I'm sure that it would suit many a bike shop to sell you a
> new, unmaintainable bike every few years instead of having to carry a
> stock of parts to keep your current bike rolling.
> What's the design life of your bikes? Five years? twenty five? It
> must be better for a manufacturer to sell you a new one every few
> years than to sell you one bike and then leave it to the component
> manufacturers to keep it going indefinitely.
>
> Cheers,
> W.

Sounds like a worrying continuation of the trend of the big players to
maximize cost and minimize lifetime that started with the integrated
headset. This is just as bad, if not worse, manufacturers can choose
to abitrarily change the design slightly at whim and force you into
'upgrading' several expensive pieces of kit in one go that are
perfectly fine.

Put the right spin on it, and people will lap it up. I wonder how
these new integrated bottom brackets will be advertized - as working
in perfect synergy with the frame to give you that crucial race-
winning edge?

It's not such a stretch of the imagination to imagine a future where
'cycling as a service' materializes - you never actually own the bike
- just agree to handover a grands worth of subscription fees each year
to the manufacturer and they'll keep you up to date with all the
latest fads.

I just hope enough custom is diverted to keep the Chris Kings and On-
Ones of the world in business. I'm not a member, but do/should the
CTC lobby the manufacturers against such trends and practices?

Regards,

Duncan

[Peter Clinch]

Duncan Smith wrote:

> I just hope enough custom is diverted to keep the Chris Kings and On-
> Ones of the world in business. I'm not a member, but do/should the
> CTC lobby the manufacturers against such trends and practices?

As far as I know it's not on the radar at the moment: it's not really
Big News and I suspect there's quite a lot of more pressing issues.

However, the organisation is ultimately beholden to its membership as
they pay for it, so if it does become a problem and enough people raise
it as one I imagine they would. Thus far, however, it doesn't seem to
be polluting the mainstream.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>, Duncan
Smith ') wrote:

> On Oct 2, 9:12 pm, Robert > wrote:
>> http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel
>
> I didn't like the bit about vendor lock-in through non-standard
> components. I hope enough people have the good sense to vote with
> their wallets (see past the marketing hype) and keep the market open
> for standard frame. forks, bottom brackets, etc.

********. That's the way to 'no technical innovation please'.

Every serious improvement to bicycle technology started out as someone's
proprietary innovation. It takes market leaders to create new standards.

We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor. Larger
diameter headset bearings also increase the rigidity and reliability of
the bearing, and the handling of the bike - but you can only get them
as 'proprietary' systems, since there is as yet no standard.

Cannondale/SRAM's new monoblade epicyclic transmission is
similarly 'proprietary' at this stage. But it's also very clearly the
right way to go for a huge category of bikes. Sooner or later we will
have 'standard' parts which are in concept at least very similar. In
general I think that what Cannondale and Nicolai are doing with bicycles
is defining what the 'conventional standard bike' of twenty years hence
will be like.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
;; knowledge increaseth sorrow.." - Ecclesiastes 1:18

[Ben C]

On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke > wrote:
[...]
> We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
> for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
> shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor.

Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Ben C
says...
> On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> [...]
> > We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
> > for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
> > shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor.
>
> Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?
>
He's saying that the current situation is an uncomfortable compromise,
and the real solution is larger bottom bracket shells, but until the
manufacturers bite the bullet we have to put up with it.

[Paul Boyd]

Ben C said the following on 06/10/2007 10:20:

> Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

AIUI, increased Q factor is a bad thing because it pushes the feet
further apart. Good designs will minimise this, but as Simon says, the
right answer is to have a bigger bearing in a bigger shell.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Ben C]

On 2007-10-06, Rob Morley > wrote:
> In article >, Ben C
> says...
>> On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke > wrote:
>> [...]
>> > We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
>> > for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
>> > shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor.
>>
>> Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?
>>
> He's saying that the current situation is an uncomfortable compromise,
> and the real solution is larger bottom bracket shells, but until the
> manufacturers bite the bullet we have to put up with it.

I understand. I missed the sense of "we need larger bottom bracket
shells".

Isn't the reason for larger diameter bearings larger diameter axles? And
why do we need those... something to do with making them out of
aluminium and square tapers coming loose for some riders?

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Ben C
') wrote:

> On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> [...]
>> We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter
>> bearings for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current
>> generation shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q
>> factor.
>
> Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

No, it's a bad thing. Which why people like Cannondale are using larger
diameter - 'non standard' - bottom bracket shells which the new larger
bearings fit inside, so that they can reduce the Q measurement.

Don't get me wrong - standards are on the whole a good thing. But where
standards hold back positive development, they aren't a good thing. They
certainly aren't things to get religious about.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Ben C
') wrote:

> On 2007-10-06, Rob Morley > wrote:
>> In article >, Ben C
>> says...
>>> On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> > We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter
>>> > bearings for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current
>>> > generation shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q
>>> > factor.
>>>
>>> Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?
>>>
>> He's saying that the current situation is an uncomfortable compromise,
>> and the real solution is larger bottom bracket shells, but until the
>> manufacturers bite the bullet we have to put up with it.
>
> I understand. I missed the sense of "we need larger bottom bracket
> shells".
>
> Isn't the reason for larger diameter bearings larger diameter axles? And
> why do we need those...

They're lighter. If they're larger, you can make them hollow. And as a side
benefit they're also more rigid, allowing you to transmit more power.

You know, once upon a time the 'ordinary bicycle' was standard. That's why
it's called 'ordinary'. If people took the attitude of 'standard is always
right', we wouldn't have ever developed safety bicycles, or gears, or
brakes, or...

Is that /really/ what you want?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Simon Brooke wrote:
>We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
>for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
>shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor. Larger
>diameter headset bearings also increase the rigidity and reliability of
>the bearing, and the handling of the bike - but you can only get them
>as 'proprietary' systems, since there is as yet no standard.

Cannondale are at least trying to get BB30 adopted as an industry standard,
rather than saying "it's ours, we patented it, no-one else can copy it".
(Though the basic idea of "bigger bearings should go in a bigger housing"
is probably too obvious even for an often dodgy patent system, I expect
there's some detail than could be used to make exact compatibility hard
if they tried.)
And the counter-argument is that most of us don't need larger bearings,
there are thirty year old bikes with bearings that work fine, however
much other areas have moved on.

[Ben C]

On 2007-10-06, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> in message >, Ben C
> ') wrote:
[...]
>> I understand. I missed the sense of "we need larger bottom bracket
>> shells".
>>
>> Isn't the reason for larger diameter bearings larger diameter axles? And
>> why do we need those...
>
> They're lighter. If they're larger, you can make them hollow. And as a side
> benefit they're also more rigid, allowing you to transmit more power.
>
> You know, once upon a time the 'ordinary bicycle' was standard. That's why
> it's called 'ordinary'. If people took the attitude of 'standard is always
> right', we wouldn't have ever developed safety bicycles, or gears, or
> brakes, or...
>
> Is that /really/ what you want?

Not at all. Of course you do want to be able to get a replacement BB
that fits easily etc., but eventually things settle down and you end up
with a new standard anyway.

I don't miss steel rims, cotterpins, or cup-and-cone BBs.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Simon Brooke >:
>in message >, Ben C
>>I understand. I missed the sense of "we need larger bottom bracket
>>shells".

Of course we've _got_ a perfectly good existing standard for same.

>>Isn't the reason for larger diameter bearings larger diameter axles? And
>>why do we need those...

.... because the square taper's size is such that even made out of solid
steel they break every now and then, especially under heavy riders.

>They're lighter. If they're larger, you can make them hollow. And as a side
>benefit they're also more rigid, allowing you to transmit more power.

Right, because hysteresis losses in a square taper were _really_
significant.
--
David Damerell > flcl?
Today is Second Chedday, September - a weekend.

[James Thomson]

"Simon Brooke" > a écrit:

> We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter
> bearings for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current
> generation shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases
> Q factor.

While I agree that a change to the bottom bracket shell standard is the next
logical step, Shimano and Campagnolo both claim that Q-factor hasn't changed
with the adoption of outboard bearings. For emphasis, some of the current
Campag cranks have the Q-factor printed on the crank face near the pedal
eye.

James Thomson