Steel no longer real?

On 01/12/15 10:59, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:18:29 -0800 (PST), Doug Landau
wrote:


What you don't understand is that it's not the inherent stiffness of the
allow, it's the tube diameter, the wall thickness, and the geometry,
that contribute to how soft or stiff the frame is.

Certainly not for lack of reading it here. This has to be the most oft-proffered bit of unassailably-vague isms expressed here; repeated by all, and challenged by none.

Ignored by many :-)

In thinking back to all the arguments about frame stiffness I can't
remember ever seeing any sort of actual mechanical test performed on a
bike frame. Say, "supporting a frame on it's dropouts a load of 500
lbs on the bottom bracket resulted in a deflection of XYZ.


Renovo did some nice stiffness tests of theirs and others frames,
comparing wood, metal and CFRP. They've updated their site now, and I
cannot see the test data.

--
JS

Apparently it is something you have to feel, like religion and beliefs.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

gnaw doahn weight the 'question'

subjectivity/objectivity .....ask the timer/energy loss

I began on steel, aluminum feels harsh. tinny yet light*. But lightness has no edge on harsh for me. For Beattie yes.

The first time bike byer knows not steel so whatever Al is it is and no questions asked further.

So the masses get Al on the plate and that's the story 'ceptin a few going on to CF/Ti a few....3% ?

* the harsh tinny Al frames are LBS frames tuned far tighter than my steels.

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:46:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Apparently it is something you have to feel, like religion and beliefs.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

gnaw doahn weight the 'question'

subjectivity/objectivity .....ask the timer/energy loss

I began on steel, aluminum feels harsh. tinny yet light*. But lightness has no edge on harsh for me. For Beattie yes.

The first time bike byer knows not steel so whatever Al is it is and no questions asked further.

So the masses get Al on the plate and that's the story 'ceptin a few going on to CF/Ti a few....3% ?

* the harsh tinny Al frames are LBS frames tuned far tighter than my steels.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

further, the effect tween steel and Al is beyond structural materials analysis...runs to total perceptual response eg sound I and beyond hearing range, visceral response to vibration..even the transmission of 'noise' into the environment and that reverb back.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:05:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/30/2015 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:18:29 -0800 (PST), Doug Landau
wrote:


What you don't understand is that it's not the inherent stiffness of the
allow, it's the tube diameter, the wall thickness, and the geometry,
that contribute to how soft or stiff the frame is.

Certainly not for lack of reading it here. This has to be the most oft-proffered bit of unassailably-vague isms expressed here; repeated by all, and challenged by none.

Ignored by many :-)

In thinking back to all the arguments about frame stiffness I can't
remember ever seeing any sort of actual mechanical test performed on a
bike frame. Say, "supporting a frame on it's dropouts a load of 500
lbs on the bottom bracket resulted in a deflection of XYZ.

For a short while long ago, _Bicycling_ magazine published such data on
(almost?) every bike frame it tested. As I recall, they had a huge and
very rigid framework constructed, into which the tested bike frame would
be fitted. Various dial indicators measured flex in various directions
upon application of static loads.

Then they stopped doing that. I suppose various explanations are
plausible. Maybe the differences weren't significant. Maybe readers
just weren't interested. Maybe advertisers raised a stink about
evidence that their magic bikes weren't magic. Maybe they needed more
room for the type of articles they do today - "Get Great-Looking Legs!"
"Gran Fondo Fashion Show!" "Gear YOU Need for Your Next Ride!"

I think it was just part of the transition from _Bicycling_ to _Buycycing_.

I think that you've just come up with a new battle cry :-)

"Why bicycle when you can buycycle so much easier. Without raising a
sweat, even."
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 11/30/2015 9:24 PM, wrote:
Lou

whatever ok, but the dang al frames make my teeth hurt


try it with less sugar.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:43:03 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 01/12/15 01:24, jbeattie wrote:


I broke a bunch of steel frames, too. They were not warrantied for
life. I repaired one a few times, doing the brazing myself -- but the
paint job still cost $100 (cheap powder coat). I don't know what the
failure rate is for modern TIG'd lightweight steel frames.

Mine is of almost (Tange make some tubes at 0.35mm) the thinnest walled
steel tubing available. 0.38mm in the centre section. The TIG'd frame
has already done over 60,000km.


IMO, Cannondale started the aluminum revolution by producing a
hand-made frame with large diameter tubes that was stiffer and
lighter than steel. That made a big difference to me because in a
63cm frame, an equivalently stiff steel frame weighed a ton.

I really don't know how many cms my frame is, but I am a little over
6'3" tall, so the frame is large. The frame alone (no forks) weighs
about 1.7kg, and due to the oversize diameter tubes it is the stiffest
frame I've ridden. I hate CR rub on the FD.

A friend is about my height and build. He had a titanium frame built.
It is a few hundred grams lighter, but not as stiff - though also using
oversize tubes.

I had an aluminium frame made for me by a local manufacturer who wanted
to see how long it lasted _without_ being properly heat treated
(6061-T6). It lasted about a year before cracking. It was quite stiff
too, and probably weighs about the same. I don't know off hand. It is
repaired now (free of charge), but last time I rode it was about 15
years ago.

My old SP frames were plenty stiff, they were just heavy -- and not as stiff at the BB as the early Cannondales. The more modern Cannondales with the highly shaped tubes are probably less stiff in some respects than my old steel frames, but more stiff through the BB (and a lot lighter). Anyway, you can get practically any "ride feel" you want from any material. The big differences will be in weight and fatigue resistance/failure rate.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/1/2015 12:50 AM, wrote:
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:46:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Apparently it is something you have to feel, like religion and beliefs.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

gnaw doahn weight the 'question'

subjectivity/objectivity .....ask the timer/energy loss

I began on steel, aluminum feels harsh. tinny yet light*. But lightness has no edge on harsh for me. For Beattie yes.

The first time bike byer knows not steel so whatever Al is it is and no questions asked further.

So the masses get Al on the plate and that's the story 'ceptin a few going on to CF/Ti a few....3% ?

* the harsh tinny Al frames are LBS frames tuned far tighter than my steels.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

further, the effect tween steel and Al is beyond structural materials analysis...runs to total perceptual response eg sound I and beyond hearing range, visceral response to vibration..even the transmission of 'noise' into the environment and that reverb back.

Regarding frame material and design, "total perception" and "sound" and
such:

On one hand, I'm sure that an aluminum frame can sound different than a
steel frame while riding. With musical instruments, people can detect
the difference in overtones or harmonics to tell (say) a guitar from an
octave mandolin playing the same note. Or between a Martin and a
Gibson, for that matter. Perhaps one can "hear" whether they're on
aluminum or steel.

I suppose one may also be able to "feel" a difference in harmonics in
one's hands on the bars. On the other hand, I really doubt that those
differences amount to real differences in comfort. I think it's
probable that the frequencies involved are far too high.

It may be that what's happening is purely psychological. As I've
mentioned before, the first folding bike I bought - very used, very
cheap, very badly designed - had tons of squeaks and creaks. It rode
very poorly. But after I tracked down every little noise and oiled it
away, the bike immediately _seemed_ to ride better. No mechanical
difference; just a big psychological one. (And gosh, think of how much
better that bike would be if I painted it red!)

Similarly, a few years ago there was a big debate in this forum about
the value (or lack of value) of "Zerts" flexible inserts in certain
Specialized frames and forks. Someone pointed to a graph published by
Specialized that, by golly, did show attenuation of vibration at a
certain frequency! But it turned out the frequency was about 440 Hz - a
sort of middle "A" on a musical scale. Could your butt really detect a
musical note? If it could, would it make you more comfortable? Very
doubtful.

Two of my friends bought Zerts equipped bikes. When asked about them,
one flatly said she could detect no difference at all. The other just
shrugged and said he didn't know.

Is steel real, is aluminum harsh, is titanium incomparable and carbon
fiber magic? I'd be more likely to believe that if we had data from
double blind tests - and if the testers used ear plugs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 7:31:04 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/1/2015 12:50 AM, wrote:
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:46:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Apparently it is something you have to feel, like religion and beliefs..


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

gnaw doahn weight the 'question'

subjectivity/objectivity .....ask the timer/energy loss

I began on steel, aluminum feels harsh. tinny yet light*. But lightness has no edge on harsh for me. For Beattie yes.

The first time bike byer knows not steel so whatever Al is it is and no questions asked further.

So the masses get Al on the plate and that's the story 'ceptin a few going on to CF/Ti a few....3% ?

* the harsh tinny Al frames are LBS frames tuned far tighter than my steels.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

further, the effect tween steel and Al is beyond structural materials analysis...runs to total perceptual response eg sound I and beyond hearing range, visceral response to vibration..even the transmission of 'noise' into the environment and that reverb back.

Regarding frame material and design, "total perception" and "sound" and
such:

On one hand, I'm sure that an aluminum frame can sound different than a
steel frame while riding. With musical instruments, people can detect
the difference in overtones or harmonics to tell (say) a guitar from an
octave mandolin playing the same note. Or between a Martin and a
Gibson, for that matter. Perhaps one can "hear" whether they're on
aluminum or steel.

I suppose one may also be able to "feel" a difference in harmonics in
one's hands on the bars. On the other hand, I really doubt that those
differences amount to real differences in comfort. I think it's
probable that the frequencies involved are far too high.

It may be that what's happening is purely psychological. As I've
mentioned before, the first folding bike I bought - very used, very
cheap, very badly designed - had tons of squeaks and creaks. It rode
very poorly. But after I tracked down every little noise and oiled it
away, the bike immediately _seemed_ to ride better. No mechanical
difference; just a big psychological one. (And gosh, think of how much
better that bike would be if I painted it red!)

Similarly, a few years ago there was a big debate in this forum about
the value (or lack of value) of "Zerts" flexible inserts in certain
Specialized frames and forks. Someone pointed to a graph published by
Specialized that, by golly, did show attenuation of vibration at a
certain frequency! But it turned out the frequency was about 440 Hz - a
sort of middle "A" on a musical scale. Could your butt really detect a
musical note? If it could, would it make you more comfortable? Very
doubtful.

Two of my friends bought Zerts equipped bikes. When asked about them,
one flatly said she could detect no difference at all. The other just
shrugged and said he didn't know.

Is steel real, is aluminum harsh, is titanium incomparable and carbon
fiber magic? I'd be more likely to believe that if we had data from
double blind tests - and if the testers used ear plugs.

CF can be stiff and light, but I don't buy all the stuff about its magical road-smoothing ability, except where the frame design actually allows movement of the frame tubes as with the Trek Domane. CF might suppress some HF road buzz, and its acoustical qualities are certainly different, but you whack a pot hole or ride over rough pavement or trail with high pressure tires, CF does not magically swallow-up the impacts.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/1/2015 8:33 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

... but you whack a pot hole or ride over rough pavement or trail with high pressure tires, CF does not magically swallow-up the impacts.

Sure it does. But only once.

... it turned out the frequency was about 440 Hz - a
sort of middle "A" on a musical scale. Could your butt really detect a
musical note? If it could, would it make you more comfortable? Very
doubtful.

Of course it could, and of course it would, if it were truly an A. A is a very soothing note. But were it sharp or flat, it would make you _less_ comfortable.