On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:43:30 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote:
When I first put the AutoFAQ up it was on an old P120 with 64Mb of your
actual RAM, and the Wiki software brought the poor old thing wheezing
practically to a standstill. I've now transferred it to a newer box
with a 1GHz processor and half a Gb of RAM, and things run a lot
better.
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
modify it, because if it isn't used I won't see it as useful and will
take it down. You cannot damage anything - full version control and
backups are kept.
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. Especially when a steel frame fails it
tends to bend and give you plenty of time to stop etc. If you want to
link danger to a frame type surely aluminium is the frame to link it
to as its brittle and has a more shattering/cracking type failure and
many aluminium bikes state weight limitations. If a company makes a
h.t. steel frame with oversize tubes its because they are making a
frame with over the top strength. If people are so stupid as to think
h.t. steel frames are weaker I suggest they let me ride their
aluminium bikes and see how long they cope with my weight of over 20
stone when I've all kitted out with my backpack etc and allow me to
take it around some of the rough roads I have locally. My cheap h.t.
steel bike has taken 1400 miles of abuse and carrying as much as 26
stone. The above autofaq text seems to be based on simple bike
snobbery and from the perspective of a fairly light rider.
Personally I think the autofaq is so heavily biased its pointless and
beyond minor alteration. Does anyone actually writing this faq
actually ride and use a h.t. steel framed bike? Is it based on known
frame failures of h.t. steel framed bikes? What is the evidence that
there is anything wrong with h.t. steel frames? I agree wholeheartedly
that low cost suspension is rubbish and low cost dual suspension bikes
are a poor choice most of the time. I don't know why this newsgroup
seems to have some sort of anti high tensile steel mentality. It is
still a very good material. My old Raleigh Royal has a high tensile
steel frame. My Giant Revive DX8 has high tensile steel forks. You can
find high tensile steel everywhere in bicyles. Sometimes companies
penny pinch and fit h.t. steel instead of chromoly steel so it might
end up a tiny bit heavier but also a bit cheaper. many aluminium bikes
have h.t. steel forks to improve ride comfort. The point is
statiscallly the vast majority of bikes sold in the world are high
tensile steel. Probably well over 90%. Even in the uk the figure is
going to be at least 50% and possibly a lot more. so before you even
start the autofaq has insulted the vast majority of cyclists out there
and the bikes they have chosen. Not every cyclist is motivated by
speed or light weight bikes.
|