View Single Post
  #6  
Old March 19th 05, 01:34 PM
JLB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Martin Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:43:30 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote:


[snip]
So, once again to advertise: the uk.rec.cycling AutoFAQ is here
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/. It's still very much 'use
it or lose it'. Feel free to add to or modify it. In fact do add to or

[snip]
Well I disagree with at least some of its contents and seems pointless
editing it to say basically I think this statement is rubbish etc so
I'll leave it as is. As an example;

"
!!The danger signs!!

* '''High-ten steel''': there is in principle nothing wrong
with steel as a frame building material, but to make a good steel
frame you need pretty special steel. See SteelFrame. The problem with
steel as a frame building material is relatively poor strength to
weight ratio and High-ten is poor compared to good steels here. It's
made worse by the practice of using oversize tubes. Aluminium bikes
have oversize tubes because aluminium is light but not strong. Steel
bikes with oversize tubes look like aluminium bikes - but they're
much, much heavier. "

This statement just seems so wrong to me and contradicts with my own
real world experience. Most bikes in the world have high tensile steel
frames. It is cheap, strong but ends up with a frame that is a bit
heavier so is not the performance option. Why a strong frame should be
a danger sign I don't know.

[snip long discussion of frame material]

It seems to me that Martin's disagreement with Simon amounts mostly to a
failure to agree terms. "High tensile steel" is a vague description that
can easily include some types of hard, brittle steels that would not be
good frame material, as well as other tough, high strength, steels that
would be appropriate for at least some bike frames. So you're both
right. And unless you want to start specifying exactly which steel and
heat treatment / hardness etc. you are talking about your argument is
not going to enlighten anyone.

Much the same applies to aluminium. Aluminium, being pedantic, is the
pure element, and is more or less unusable for engineering. Engineers
use aluminium alloys, which vary a great deal according to their
composition and treatment. If you don't specify which alloy, there is
little point discussing the properties.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home