Re: Where are the inexpensive steel bikes?

[Werehatrack]

On 19 Jun 2004 09:52:03 -0700, (Tai) wrote:

>I bought a Marin steel - ok, Thron cro-mo - road bike a few years ago
>and notice Marin now have aluminum road bikes, at least at the
>low-end. Looking at other bike makes, the selection of cro-mo road
>bikes under $1K is getting smaller. I know aluminum bikes are a
>little lighter, but are consumers making the choice to go to alum
>and/or the makers finding alum bikes more profitable?
>
>Wondering where steel bikes are going,

It's important to note that the mass market is concentrating on the
mountain bike, cruiser, youth and comfort segments today. Road bikes
are entirely absent from the selections at many major
non-bike-centered retailers. Even some sporting goods stores have
stopped carrying them. As a result, there are few road bikes in the
low-end segment; for a limited market that's perceived as being
esoteric, the selections of materials tends to edge away from what's
regarded as less desirable...and steel is out of fashion for most
types of "real" bikes. It's largely relegated to tandems and the
lowest-end units at Wal-Mart and similar places. Many custom frame
builders still make excellent steel frames, though, and in my opinion,
steel is still the material of choice for a long-term durable bike.

[Dan Daniel]

On 19 Jun 2004 09:52:03 -0700, (Tai) wrote:

>I bought a Marin steel - ok, Thron cro-mo - road bike a few years ago
>and notice Marin now have aluminum road bikes, at least at the
>low-end. Looking at other bike makes, the selection of cro-mo road
>bikes under $1K is getting smaller. I know aluminum bikes are a
>little lighter, but are consumers making the choice to go to alum
>and/or the makers finding alum bikes more profitable?
>
>Wondering where steel bikes are going,
>Tai
>
>P.S. I wasn't really asking for the pros and cons of steel vs.
>aluminum, but more about market and consumer, um, dynamics at the
>low-end of bike sales. :-)

Surly
Soma
Interloc/IRD
Jamis?
Fuji?

Steel isn't common in the mainstream, but on the edges there are
low(er) priced steel frames and complete bicycles which aren't custom.
If these companies grow, you can be sure the large ones will notice
and make steel frames at the low end.

Not a road bike, but...

http://www.marinbikes.com/html/spec_04_muirwoods.html

Others like that scattered around.

By the way, why the 'ok, Thron cro-mo' aside? Something about Thron I
should know? I picked up a DeBernardi Thron frame last winter for
almost nothing and am enjoying it. Is it not real steel or something?
:)

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

taimorris-<< I know aluminum bikes are a
little lighter, but are consumers making the choice to go to alum
and/or the makers finding alum bikes more profitable? >><BR><BR>

Aluminum, when compared to steel, is cheaper and easier to weld together, hence
the proliferation of aluminum.

Specialized has a Foco frameset/fork for about $500..look for that.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Phil Brown]

>Aluminum, when compared to steel, is cheaper and easier to weld together,
>hence
>the proliferation of aluminum.
>
>Specialized has a Foco frameset/fork for about $500..look for that.

To expand on Peter's post-wasn't he a bike rider?-you can buy an aluminium
frame and fork from China for about $25. That's why there are no new
inexpensive steel bikes. But the used bike market is full of very nice steel
bikes at reasonable prices. And there are builders who make custom steel frames
for $600 or $700 dollars as long as you don't want lugs or fancy paint.
Phil Brown

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
(Tai) wrote:

> I bought a Marin steel - ok, Thron cro-mo - road bike a few years ago
> and notice Marin now have aluminum road bikes, at least at the
> low-end. Looking at other bike makes, the selection of cro-mo road
> bikes under $1K is getting smaller. I know aluminum bikes are a
> little lighter, but are consumers making the choice to go to alum
> and/or the makers finding alum bikes more profitable?

Aluminum has almost no price disadvantage over steel now, for various
mass-production reasons. Since an Al frame can usually be made a little
lighter*, all but the very cheapest new bicycles default to Aluminum.
And since some of the most expensive and lightest bikes are also made of
Al, you get some cachet rubbing off on your "7005 ALUMINUM" Wal-bike.

> Wondering where steel bikes are going,
> Tai

They're just resting. I have been known to pay as much as $10 for a
complete lugged road bike at a garage sale. I grabbed a half-decent 70s
vintage Italian lugged frame out of a pile of garbage last week; I don't
even know what I'm going to do with it, since it's pretty but I have
lots of steel frames already.

Unless you have some very specific reasons for it (you want a special
geometry or it's the cheapest way to get the components you want), I
don't see a keen need to buy a new steel frame. If I was willing to
spend a few hours looking, I could probably bring home a decent-quality
lugged steel road frame every weekend, in most cases as complete 25-year
old bike, for $10 or less. Modern steel, especially in welded,
non-lugged frames, might have a slight weight advantage, but it's on the
order of a pound at most. I ride a mid-range Pinarello with indifferent
(105, Sora) componentry, and it weighs only 22 pounds all in.

> P.S. I wasn't really asking for the pros and cons of steel vs.
> aluminum, but more about market and consumer, um, dynamics at the
> low-end of bike sales. :-)

The Taiwanese factories are very good at aluminum fabrication, and the
price difference between raw steel and raw Al is not high. All the
economic forces push towards defaulting to Al. Only very cheap (and
mostly children's) bikes now use steel on the low end of the market. At
the high end, you get into custom fabrication or companies marketing the
cachet and positive attributes (repairability, beauty, magnets stick to
it, etc.) of high-end steel construction. The middle is owned by Al.

*I have a theory that whatever the relative merits of steel and Al for
road frames, mountain bikes have a heavy natural bias towards aluminum
because an Al frame built strongly enough to have a reasonable fatigue
life will also be able to take relatively high one-time loads. By
comparison, steel construction means not worrying about the fatigue life
(which can be assumed to be nearly infinite if you don't exceed the
yield strength), but that means you are building a bike with a lower
ultimate tensile strength in the places where bike frames can fail. Road
bikes don't get into a lot of super-high-load situations unless they're
being crashed, but mountain bikes tend to get jumped, crashed, and
dropped routinely. Does that make sense?

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Peter Cole]

"Tai" > wrote
> I know aluminum bikes are a
> little lighter, but are consumers making the choice to go to alum
> and/or the makers finding alum bikes more profitable?

Since weight is an important issue in bicycles, it's obvious to even the
unsophisticated buyer that aluminum is a better material for bike frames than
steel. Steel only continues to appeal to traditionalists.

> Wondering where steel bikes are going,

Away.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Peter-<< Since weight is an important issue in bicycles, it's obvious to even
the
unsophisticated buyer that aluminum is a better material for bike frames than
steel. Steel only continues to appeal to traditionalists. >><BR><BR>

"Better' is a big word. If a frameset is lighter..it is just 'lighter', not
better. Thery are more than a few drawbacks to really light aluminum, just like
light steel, like longevity.

An aluminum frameset that is made to last weighs about the same as a steel
frameset that is built to last. All from 3.2 to about 3.6 pounds for the
frameset. Is there sub 3 pound aluminum framesets out there? Sure, at $2500 per
that will not last 3 years.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Derk]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Since weight is an important issue in bicycles, it's obvious to even the
> unsophisticated buyer that aluminum is a better material for bike frames
> than steel.
I completely disagree. There are also lightweight steel frames btw.

>Steel only continues to appeal to traditionalists.
Yeah, right.......................some pro riders also want to ride steel
frames. I saw some frames of Tour de France bikes that were stell frames
painted in the same colours as the alu bikes of their teammates.

Greets, Derk

[Jim Smith]

If you like Thron you should really try Navicrome !!!! Who says steel
bikes can't be light. A Navicrome frame weighs less then a low end
Aluminum frame and only a few ounces more then a high end Aluminum
frame. With its ovalized down tube its both stiff a forgiving.

I got my frame from vailcycleworks.com
I bought a full blown custom MTB for less then a off the rack upper end
bike--JJ

[WTF,O]

"Peter Cole" > wrote in message
news:pjABc.89731$Sw.66939@attbi_s51...
> "Tai" > wrote
> > I know aluminum bikes are a
> > little lighter, but are consumers making the choice to go to alum
> > and/or the makers finding alum bikes more profitable?
>
> Since weight is an important issue in bicycles, it's obvious to even the
> unsophisticated buyer that aluminum is a better material for bike frames
than
> steel. Steel only continues to appeal to traditionalists.
>
> > Wondering where steel bikes are going,
>
> Away.
>
>

Troll...

[Terry Morse]

Peter Cole wrote:

> Since weight is an important issue in bicycles, it's obvious to even the
> unsophisticated buyer that aluminum is a better material for bike frames than
> steel. Steel only continues to appeal to traditionalists.

I would say that it's only the unsophisticated buyer who thinks that
Al is a better material than steel.

"The difference between Columbus Altec 2 (Al) and regular Columbus
Foco (steel) for the same size frame, designed for the same rider,
is about 60 grams. Let me repeat - 60 grams. Want to lay money on
which one lasts longer?", Anvil Bike Works, "The Frame Weight Wars"

http://www.anvilbikes.com/story.php?news_ID=16&catID=3

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Peter Cole]

"Terry Morse" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > Since weight is an important issue in bicycles, it's obvious to even the
> > unsophisticated buyer that aluminum is a better material for bike frames
than
> > steel. Steel only continues to appeal to traditionalists.
>
> I would say that it's only the unsophisticated buyer who thinks that
> Al is a better material than steel.
>
> "The difference between Columbus Altec 2 (Al) and regular Columbus
> Foco (steel) for the same size frame, designed for the same rider,
> is about 60 grams. Let me repeat - 60 grams. Want to lay money on
> which one lasts longer?", Anvil Bike Works, "The Frame Weight Wars"
>
> http://www.anvilbikes.com/story.php?news_ID=16&catID=3

Based on the only published frame fatigue tests I've seen, I'll lay my money
on the Al ones.

[Peter Cole]

"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote >
>. All the
> economic forces push towards defaulting to Al. Only very cheap (and
> mostly children's) bikes now use steel on the low end of the market. At
> the high end, you get into custom fabrication or companies marketing the
> cachet and positive attributes (repairability, beauty, magnets stick to
> it, etc.) of high-end steel construction. The middle is owned by Al.

You're leaving out Ti and CF, the latter is the undisputed strength to weight
champ.

> *I have a theory that whatever the relative merits of steel and Al for
> road frames, mountain bikes have a heavy natural bias towards aluminum
> because an Al frame built strongly enough to have a reasonable fatigue
> life will also be able to take relatively high one-time loads.

I think there is some truth to this, but the real reason Al dominates the MTB
market is that those buyers aren't carrying the weight of tradition.

[dianne_1234]

On 21 Jun 2004 12:47:58 GMT, (Qui si parla
Campagnolo ) wrote:

>An aluminum frameset that is made to last weighs about the same as a steel
>frameset that is built to last. All from 3.2 to about 3.6 pounds for the
>frameset. Is there sub 3 pound aluminum framesets out there? Sure, at $2500 per
>that will not last 3 years.
>
>Peter Chisholm

The all-aluminum Trek 2300 frame weighs less than 3 pounds and has a
lifetime warranty. It's also less than the $2500 you quote; the whole
bike goes for about $2000.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=22e6f2e6.0210181308.757a2b21%40posting .google.com&output=gplain

or

http://tinyurl.com/2yvy4

[Terry Morse]

dianne_1234 wrote:

> The all-aluminum Trek 2300 frame weighs less than 3 pounds and has a
> lifetime warranty.

lifetime warranty != built to last. Could Trek be betting that the
typical lifetime of a bike is about 500 miles, if that much? Most
riders never wear out their tires, no to mention the frame.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Terry Morse]

Russell Seaton wrote:

> > > "The difference between Columbus Altec 2 (Al) and regular Columbus
> > > Foco (steel) for the same size frame, designed for the same rider,
> > > is about 60 grams. Let me repeat - 60 grams. Want to lay money on
> > > which one lasts longer?", Anvil Bike Works, "The Frame Weight Wars"
> > >
> > > http://www.anvilbikes.com/story.php?news_ID=16&catID=3
> >
> > Based on the only published frame fatigue tests I've seen, I'll lay my
> > money on the Al ones.
>
> True. When you look at the EFBE frame fatigue tests posted by Damon
> Rinard, now on Sheldon Brown's website, the much maligned Cannondale,
> Principia aluminum, and equally maligned Trek OCLV were the only ones
> to withstand the tests. The Merlin titanium, lugged steel bikes, etc.
> all broke. Very odd and unsettling how perception and reality don't
> always agree. Or even rarely agree.
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

The most salient conclusion from that test:

"The fact that aluminum and carbon frames in this test lasted longer
than the steel frames is not in our estimate a question of the
material, but the design effort. Not the material, but its skillful
use gives the result."

In other words, any of these materials (Al, Ti, steel, carbon) can
be used to make a durable, lighhtweight frame. Conversely, poor
design can lead to a weak and heavy frame, whatever material is used.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <ZWGBc.86612$HG.59285@attbi_s53>,
"Peter Cole" > wrote:

> "Ryan Cousineau" > wrote >
> >. All the
> > economic forces push towards defaulting to Al. Only very cheap (and
> > mostly children's) bikes now use steel on the low end of the market. At
> > the high end, you get into custom fabrication or companies marketing the
> > cachet and positive attributes (repairability, beauty, magnets stick to
> > it, etc.) of high-end steel construction. The middle is owned by Al.
>
> You're leaving out Ti and CF, the latter is the undisputed strength to weight
> champ.

Oh, for sure. And even famous Aluminum builders Cannondale have gone to
a partly-CF design for their ultralight new frame (the 613).

But both CF and Ti are expensive enough that they are still used only on
high-end bikes. There is the possibility that these materials might
someday become inxepensive enough to compete in Wal-Mart land, or at
least cheap enough that cheaper "serious" bikes start getting made out
of them. Not now, though, so neither figures in a discussion of the
relative merits of frame materials for inexpensive bikes (unless we're
talking about forks or the rear triangle*).

> > *I have a theory that whatever the relative merits of steel and Al for
> > road frames, mountain bikes have a heavy natural bias towards aluminum
> > because an Al frame built strongly enough to have a reasonable fatigue
> > life will also be able to take relatively high one-time loads.
>
> I think there is some truth to this, but the real reason Al dominates the MTB
> market is that those buyers aren't carrying the weight of tradition.

*This migration of CF into lower-end bicycles one tube at a time,
starting with the rear triangle, reminds me of the intermediate steps
low-end steel bikes traveled through, in which one tube after another
got converted from high-tensile steel to cro-moly steel tubing. My first
bicycle had a cro-moly main triangle, and I recently salvaged a
department-store bike that boasted of its cro-moly seat tube.

There were never any Al/steel hybrids because those materials don't play
particularly well with each other for various technical reasons.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Tom Sherman]

Terry Morse wrote:

> dianne_1234 wrote:
>
>
>>The all-aluminum Trek 2300 frame weighs less than 3 pounds and has a
>>lifetime warranty.
>
>
> lifetime warranty != built to last. Could Trek be betting that the
> typical lifetime of a bike is about 500 miles, if that much? Most
> riders never wear out their tires, no to mention the frame.

Does this 500 mile average figure include a lot a discount store bicycle
shaped objects that get ridden for less than 100 total miles? It would
seem that the typical buyer of a Trek 2300 would be the club rider type
that puts in 3000+ miles a year and may ride the same bike for 10+ years.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[Warren Block]

Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> There were never any Al/steel hybrids because those materials don't play
> particularly well with each other for various technical reasons.

Guess my Fisher CR-7 doesn't exist, what with its imaginary aluminum
front triangle and hypothetical bolted-on steel rear triangle.

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

[jim beam]

Terry Morse wrote:
> Russell Seaton wrote:
>
>
>>>>"The difference between Columbus Altec 2 (Al) and regular Columbus
>>>>Foco (steel) for the same size frame, designed for the same rider,
>>>>is about 60 grams. Let me repeat - 60 grams. Want to lay money on
>>>>which one lasts longer?", Anvil Bike Works, "The Frame Weight Wars"
>>>>
>>>>http://www.anvilbikes.com/story.php?news_ID=16&catID=3
>>>
>>>Based on the only published frame fatigue tests I've seen, I'll lay my
>>>money on the Al ones.
>>
>>True. When you look at the EFBE frame fatigue tests posted by Damon
>>Rinard, now on Sheldon Brown's website, the much maligned Cannondale,
>>Principia aluminum, and equally maligned Trek OCLV were the only ones
>>to withstand the tests. The Merlin titanium, lugged steel bikes, etc.
>>all broke. Very odd and unsettling how perception and reality don't
>>always agree. Or even rarely agree.
>>
>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm
>
>
> The most salient conclusion from that test:
>
> "The fact that aluminum and carbon frames in this test lasted longer
> than the steel frames is not in our estimate a question of the
> material, but the design effort. Not the material, but its skillful
> use gives the result."
>
> In other words, any of these materials (Al, Ti, steel, carbon) can
> be used to make a durable, lighhtweight frame. Conversely, poor
> design can lead to a weak and heavy frame, whatever material is used.

that is /so/ true. when engineers ask: "our widets keep breaking - what
material should we specify?" the answer is far too often "your material
is already over spec - you need to fix the design [and/or execution]"
for my comfort. bike frames are absolutely a case in point.

> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Terry Morse > wrote:

> dianne_1234 wrote:
>
> > The all-aluminum Trek 2300 frame weighs less than 3 pounds and has a
> > lifetime warranty.

At least for 2004, the 2300 has carbon seat stays.

> lifetime warranty != built to last. Could Trek be betting that the
> typical lifetime of a bike is about 500 miles, if that much? Most
> riders never wear out their tires, no to mention the frame.

http://tinyurl.com/26u3u
[Trek bike comparison]

That's a rather odd thing to suggest about a midrange road frame.
Especially one that Trek specifies for "racing or light touring".

http://trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/road/index.jsp

The 2300 is above an entry-level or Wal-Mart bike. It's a good bet that
the typical $2000 bike is purchased with sufficient commitment that it
gets used pretty regularly; do you know a lot of people who buy $2000
road bikes as their way of finding out if they like cycling? They exist,
sure, and I love buying their cast-offs, but the "serious"
(non-department-store) bike business survives on bicycle users, not
bicycle buyers.

There are also people who upgrade their bikes every two years because
they're so serious, but I think that's the other end of the bell curve
from the riders who put 500 miles on a Trek 2000-series bike.

If Trek or Cannondale or any other fairly large maker of high-end bikes
had major problems with frame failures after a couple of years, you
would have heard something. I ride around with a club that has some
Cannondale sponsorship, leading to a fair number of fancy-pants Al bikes
in the pack. They aren't falling apart. Notwithstanding mountain bike
issues (MTBs tend towards some _interesting_ warranty claims), when you
look for notes on failures with either manufacturer (whom I am picking
on mainly as high-volume makers of high-quality Al bikes), you hear
about Trek's problems with early OCLV frames (mostly related to chains
dropping and grinding chainstays to death; they came up with a couple of
fixes for that) and Cannondale's financial problems as a result of
entering the motorized off-road vehicle market.

There's nothing wrong with any of the big four frame materials (steel,
Ti, Al, and carbon fibre). Each represents a set of engineering
compromises, and each frame makes those compromises in a different way.

One of the heavier track frames around is made of carbon fibre:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2004/features/BT_road

But it represents a rather deliberate decision to emphasize aerodynamics
over weight reduction. Not surprising given the dearth of hills on most
velodromes ("the north end of this velodrome is about a foot higher than
the south end; it's considered a category 3 climb...").

Steel performs very very well. I _race_ on a _lugged_ steel frame. It's
not the bike. That's because the five pounds I could pull out of my bike
by buying into a barely-legal frame ("yes folks, she's just seventeen,
if you know what I mean!") would be more profitably pulled off of my
frame. Maybe next year if I meet all my weight goals and get a promotion
or something, I'll buy a light bike.

It's an interesting question whether a comparably light steel bike would
outlast an aluminum frame. It's undeniable that when comparing a steel
and aluminum bike made to the same weight and with similar competence,
the ultimate tensile strength of the Al frame will be greater.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Terry Morse]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
> > lifetime warranty != built to last. Could Trek be betting that the
> > typical lifetime of a bike is about 500 miles, if that much? Most
> > riders never wear out their tires, no to mention the frame.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26u3u
> [Trek bike comparison]
>
> That's a rather odd thing to suggest about a midrange road frame.
> Especially one that Trek specifies for "racing or light touring".
>
> http://trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/road/index.jsp
>
> The 2300 is above an entry-level or Wal-Mart bike. It's a good bet that
> the typical $2000 bike is purchased with sufficient commitment that it
> gets used pretty regularly; do you know a lot of people who buy $2000
> road bikes as their way of finding out if they like cycling? They exist,
> sure, and I love buying their cast-offs, but the "serious"
> (non-department-store) bike business survives on bicycle users, not
> bicycle buyers.

From what I've heard from LBS workers, the bulk of their sales go to
people who don't ride very much. It could be the high-tech nature of
the area, where people don't flinch at a $2000 price tag, or just
the fact that people don't have much free time. The entry level for
club riders seems to be a Trek 5200, with a 5900 or a Calfee the
step-up.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Tom Sherman]

Terry Morse wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>
>>Terry Morse wrote:
>>
>>
>>>lifetime warranty != built to last. Could Trek be betting that the
>>>typical lifetime of a bike is about 500 miles, if that much? Most
>>>riders never wear out their tires, no to mention the frame.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/26u3u
>>[Trek bike comparison]
>>
>>That's a rather odd thing to suggest about a midrange road frame.
>>Especially one that Trek specifies for "racing or light touring".
>>
>>http://trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/road/index.jsp
>>
>>The 2300 is above an entry-level or Wal-Mart bike. It's a good bet that
>>the typical $2000 bike is purchased with sufficient commitment that it
>>gets used pretty regularly; do you know a lot of people who buy $2000
>>road bikes as their way of finding out if they like cycling? They exist,
>>sure, and I love buying their cast-offs, but the "serious"
>>(non-department-store) bike business survives on bicycle users, not
>>bicycle buyers.
>
>
> From what I've heard from LBS workers, the bulk of their sales go to
> people who don't ride very much. It could be the high-tech nature of
> the area, where people don't flinch at a $2000 price tag, or just
> the fact that people don't have much free time. The entry level for
> club riders seems to be a Trek 5200, with a 5900 or a Calfee the
> step-up.

While this may be true in Silly Cone Valley, it is certainly not the
case in the upper Midwest where the "average club cyclist" is on a TIG
welded Cro-Moly steel or aluminium alloy frame bicycle with regular
spoked wheels and Shimano 105 level components.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[Benjamin Weiner]

Warren Block > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> > There were never any Al/steel hybrids because those materials don't play
> > particularly well with each other for various technical reasons.

> Guess my Fisher CR-7 doesn't exist, what with its imaginary aluminum
> front triangle and hypothetical bolted-on steel rear triangle.

I have an Easton Reflex MTB with aluminum main tubes and
steel fork, headtube, lugs and rear triangle. These were
glued together and are related to Raleigh Technia. (Technii?
Whatever the plural of Technium is.) Ryan's point about
the migration of CF into bikes via the rear triangle is
strengthened if anything by remembering all the frames
that had CF main triangle tubes and aluminum lugs (Specialized,
Trek, Giant, Vitus, etc). It's all about product
differentiation.

[Peter Cole]

"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote
>
> There's nothing wrong with any of the big four frame materials (steel,
> Ti, Al, and carbon fibre). Each represents a set of engineering
> compromises, and each frame makes those compromises in a different way.

True, and I'm not a weight-weenie myself, but many/most of the high-end buyers
are. CF properties are really unbeatable for those who want the ultimate. With
aluminum at least as good as steel, and cheaper to make, it pretty much covers
the low to mid market. Nothing wrong with steel, it just lacks a rationale
except among the traditionalists. As that market fades, steel road bikes will
become as scarce as steel mountain bikes -- hence my (ok, a bit provocative)
claim that steel frames will go away.

[Jim Smith]

Raliegh Technium Al&Seel

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

dianne-<< The all-aluminum Trek 2300 frame weighs less than 3 pounds and has a
lifetime warranty. >><BR><BR>

A lifetime warranty doesn't mean it will last forever. It just means that Trek
finds it cheaper to replace them than make them more durable.

And I think you ought to take two framesets of the same size, a Trek and a
steel frameset and actually weigh them, not believe what Trek says.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[dianne_1234]

On 22 Jun 2004 13:12:30 GMT, (Qui si parla
Campagnolo ) wrote:

>dianne-<< The all-aluminum Trek 2300 frame weighs less than 3 pounds and has a
>lifetime warranty. >><BR><BR>
>
>A lifetime warranty doesn't mean it will last forever. It just means that Trek
>finds it cheaper to replace them than make them more durable.

No frame will last forever. Dunno how long this one will last. But
with a lifetime warranty I won't worry as much as if I bought a euro
alu frame with a 2-year warranty. ;-)

>And I think you ought to take two framesets of the same size, a Trek and a
>steel frameset and actually weigh them, not believe what Trek says.

I'll have to weigh mine next time it's apart. The only listing I found
quickly was for a 63cm at 3.3 pounds, so a smaller one might still be
over 3.0...

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=roadframes

>Peter Chisholm
>Vecchio's Bicicletteria
>1833 Pearl St.
>Boulder, CO, 80302
>(303)440-3535
>http://www.vecchios.com
>"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Terry Morse]

Russell Seaton wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm
> >
> > The most salient conclusion from that test:
> >
> > "The fact that aluminum and carbon frames in this test lasted longer
> > than the steel frames is not in our estimate a question of the
> > material, but the design effort. Not the material, but its skillful
> > use gives the result."
> >
> > In other words, any of these materials (Al, Ti, steel, carbon) can
> > be used to make a durable, lighhtweight frame. Conversely, poor
> > design can lead to a weak and heavy frame, whatever material is used.
>
> So you are accusing Merlin and DeRosa and Klein of poor design?

If I had to make a conclusion based solely on those test results, I
would say yes, all of those makers had poor designs. The article
even describes the specific design/manufacturing flaws that led to
the failures.

> Each of these makers had frames that broke in the test. One would
> think Merlin, DeRosa, and Klein would use good design given the
> prices they charge.

New around here?
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Ted Bennett]

> A lifetime warranty doesn't mean it will last forever. It just means that Trek
> finds it cheaper to replace them than make them more durable.
>
> And I think you ought to take two framesets of the same size, a Trek and a
> steel frameset and actually weigh them, not believe what Trek says.
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria


Dammit, Peter. Are you trying to ruin the bicycle industry along with
all our fun here in wreck.bikes?

Facts destroy all that.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <40d7d62c@darkstar>, Benjamin Weiner >
wrote:

> Warren Block > wrote:
> > Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> > > There were never any Al/steel hybrids because those materials don't play
> > > particularly well with each other for various technical reasons.
>
> > Guess my Fisher CR-7 doesn't exist, what with its imaginary aluminum
> > front triangle and hypothetical bolted-on steel rear triangle.

Just my luck. I make a stupid claim and there's three different readers
of this ng with different Al/steel bikes. Of course, my own stupidity
has drawn out stronger evidence for my thesis about progressive tube
replacement! So I'm even more right! I'm a frickin' genius!!

And did I mention modest?

Ahem. What I should have said is that these hybrids were rare because of
various technical reasons, basically meaning that you have to glue them
together.

> I have an Easton Reflex MTB with aluminum main tubes and
> steel fork, headtube, lugs and rear triangle. These were
> glued together and are related to Raleigh Technia. (Technii?
> Whatever the plural of Technium is.) Ryan's point about
> the migration of CF into bikes via the rear triangle is
> strengthened if anything by remembering all the frames
> that had CF main triangle tubes and aluminum lugs (Specialized,
> Trek, Giant, Vitus, etc). It's all about product
> differentiation.

I think that was also about making frames easily. I suspect that casting
(forging?) Al lugs in a variety of sizes and cutting standard CF tubes
to length made both materials do what they did most easily, and meant
that producing a variety of frame sizes only required about three new Al
molds per size.

Even today, most CF frames use special rear dropouts: the dropout either
bolts to or is fabricated with tube ends that are bonded into the seat
and chain stays. The ends that joins to the seat tube can be adjusted to
various angles and is permanently bolted into place at the correct angle
when the frame is being made. This saves the manufacturer the pain of
stocking a different set of dropouts for each frame size.

Metal frames get around this by just welding or brazing the stay ends
directly to the metal dropout at whatever angle the frame calls for.

Spent my lunch hour bending my derailleur hanger into alignment,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Dion Dock]

There is also catastrophic failure. Drop a wrench on an aluminum tube and
see what happens. Now repeat the test on steel, titanium and carbon. Which
one shows a dent? How will that dent alter the fatigue tests?

It's one thing to place a pristine frame on a machine and bend it back and
forth. It's something else to get the chain wedged in the stay before doing
the test.

-Dion

> > > > http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm
> > >
> > > The most salient conclusion from that test:
> > >
> > > "The fact that aluminum and carbon frames in this test lasted longer
> > > than the steel frames is not in our estimate a question of the
> > > material, but the design effort. Not the material, but its skillful
> > > use gives the result."
> > >
> > > In other words, any of these materials (Al, Ti, steel, carbon) can
> > > be used to make a durable, lighhtweight frame. Conversely, poor
> > > design can lead to a weak and heavy frame, whatever material is used.

[Dion Dock]

A dent would not qualify for warranty work as it was not caused by a defect
in the frame. Likewise for failures that were initiated by dents and
gouges.

-Dion

"Tai" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dion Dock" > wrote in message
>...
> > There is also catastrophic failure. Drop a wrench on an aluminum tube
and
> > see what happens. Now repeat the test on steel, titanium and carbon.
Which
> > one shows a dent? How will that dent alter the fatigue tests?
> >
> > It's one thing to place a pristine frame on a machine and bend it back
and
> > forth. It's something else to get the chain wedged in the stay before
doing
> > the test.
> >
> > -Dion
>
> Are Al frames really that sensitive to corruption of the frame
> integrity? Surely not, since mtn bikes get beat up all the time with
> crashes. Bike makers would go back to steel instead of dealing with
> warranty replacements.
>
> Tai