On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:35:20 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:14:51 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message
:

* '''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.

This statement just seems so wrong to me and contradicts with my own
real world experience.

Really? The only bikes I've seen which say "Hi-Ten" are the sub-£100
sort which actually appear to be made of a special alloy of lead and
depleted uranium. Cr-Mo is a different animal.

Thats just the sort of rubbish post that goes on in this newsgroup.
Nothing is proved by comparing high tensile steel to depleted uranium
and lead. If you want to make a case against high tensile steel do it
with some facts. If there are high tensile steel frame failures or
problems there will obviously be information regarding this somewhere.
I searched myself and can find nothing yet aluminium frame failures
seem far more common. Cr-Mo is a different animal maybe but some of
the cheap bikes are using cr-mo now and its only marginally stronger
and in extreme cases can be weaker than high tensile steel if not
processed properly. At best its somewhere between 10-30% stronger and
therefore can effectively be lighter for the same strength however
high tensile steel frames make minimal concessions to being low weight
and so effectively are probably stronger anyway. Cromo requires extra
expense and processing and has been documented not all cromo frames
are made to exacting standards so effectively they can be weaker than
high tensile steel. Its really all down to your perspective. To
someone obsessed with the weight of a bike cromo might be a good
choice but if you really just want a throwabout bike to take a lot of
abuse high tensile frames seem an excellent option. The only argument
against h.t. steel seems to be;

1) cheap bikes use them
2) they are heavier than aluminium/chromoly frames.

However there are good points to them to;

1) They are heavier than aluminium/chromoly frames (good for burning
calories).
2) cheap bikes use them.
3) they take a lot of abuse
4) more comfortable to ride thanks to flexing seat and chain stays (at
least on non suspension bikes where as many aluminium frames are
designed to minimise flexing due to this weakening the aluminium)
5) They take heavier riders
6) They don't remember every impact and have minor structrual damage
in the same way as aluminium like 7005.
7) Manufacturers offer long guarantees on them (for non suspension h.t
frames anyway)