|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
|
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On 6/22/2019 10:10 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 7:29:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 05:17:38 +0700, John B. wrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:49:48 AM UTC-7, duane wrote: On 19/06/2019 10:25 a.m., jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint. What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up. Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs. older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference. Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160 pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee! Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others. -- Jay Beattie. 5lbs? My Tarmac is probably closer to 12 lbs lighter than my cro moly Volpe. And no in reality it's not a subtle or imagined difference. And no, it's not just about weight unless everything else is exactly the same. I changed my Look pedals from CX 6 cyclocross pedals which are very easy to get into and put 206's on which were much lighter. Then since I had those 50 mm deep clinchers just sitting there I installed those The "out-the-door" weight was 21.7 lbs. for the Pinarello. I'm pulling my Basso apart to refinish it and I have another set of cheap Chinese tubeless wheels that I'll install when it get's back together. Also I think that my 44 mm bars are too wide so will reduce this to 42 mm. Chinese carbon bars as well. I think that I can keep a steel bike and have it about the same weight as the Colnago. Granted that the Colnago is not an ultra-light but my friend is touring Italy and he went to a bike factory and they advised him against buying carbon. They said that they support a racing team with these ultra-lights but that they are replaced every single race. They say that there's no way that you can get any reliability out of a piece of cloth that tears with resin on it that cracks .. That last is a rather strange statement given that practically all modern recreation and work boats are made from a mixture of cloth and resin. Do you mean that my 15 year old, 40 ft sloop, that had sailed across the pacific ocean and that I sailed from Thailand to Australia and back was prone to crack? Or is this just another of your poorly thought out and wild eyed statements. As an addendum to the above I found a site that had tested a number of carbon composite samples. The average of 4 separate test samples was 982.5 MPa or 142,499psi. In comparison the ultimate tensile strength of "mild steel" (Aisi 1018) is 440 MPa or 63,816 psi. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...92006000100016 https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6115 As an aside, the carbon composite samples appeared to show no elongation before fracturing during the tensile strength testing while the mild steel specifications show a 15% elongation before failure. Also the tensile strength necessary to produce elongation of the mild steel is 370 MPa. Which illustrates a major difference between carbon composite and steel. The steel bends or elongates prior to complete failure while the carbon just breaks. -- cheers, John B. This is fascinating, but I think your first comment was correct -- Tom is either hallucinating or getting smoke blown up his a**. All my CF bikes have lifetime warranties, including an exceptionally light Emonda SLR. My brother flew CF Dreamliners and lived to retirement. The factory making disposable, one-race CF bikes is made-up by someone. I don't think carbon is magically better or worse: http://joescarbonrepair.com/ https://calfeedesign.com/carbon-repair/ https://carbonbikerepair.co.uk/#services -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 7:36:27 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/23/2019 4:39 AM, wrote: On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 11:04:11 AM UTC+2, sms wrote: On 6/22/2019 8:10 PM, jbeattie wrote: snip All my CF bikes have lifetime warranties, including an exceptionally light Emonda SLR. It would be a mistake to judge the durability of a frame (of any material), or any product for that matter, based on the presence of a lifetime warranty. Even Harbor Freight has a lifetime warranty on its hand tools. Sold my first CF bike (Scott CR1) to a friend a couple of years ago. Bike is almost 12 years old now and it looks like new despite ridden hard and under all circumstances. Unfortunately, one "for example," is not proof of anything. https://www.outsideonline.com/2311816/carbon-fiber-bike-accidents-lawsuits Yes, like this anecdote. And for a lawsuit counter-anecdote, I've been representing Trek and Specialized in Oregon for over 20 years. It's like being the mythical Maytag repairman. There is not an epidemic of old CF frame failures resulting in lawsuits. It is true, though, that CF fails differently than steel and some internal damage is not apparent. When my Supersix was trashed in a roof rack incident, I had it inspected by Ruckus. https://ruckuscomp.com/inspection. They confirmed that it was indeed trashed, and in some areas I had not expected. So I got a new bike. I would have spent a similar amount repairing steel and getting a paint job -- particularly if I went with wet paint. Gads, nice paint is incredibly expensive these days. The moral of the story is that if you're worried about internal frame damage, have the frame inspected. You can get failures in any product, and high volume products have ascertainable defect rates, generally very low with reputable manufacturers. The good news is that most bicycle failures result in warranty claims and not personal injuries. The exception is forks. Reputable manufacturers have spent lots of time and money on getting forks right -- and they police their contractors. CF forks are the standard now, even on steel and aluminum bikes. And note that steel forks are not without their problems. https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2013/Sa...-Bicycle-Forks But if CF forks are too scary, get steel. They're still available. I've been riding on CF forks since about '92 when I got first generation Kestrel forks, and I haven't looked back. -- Jay Beattie. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On 6/23/2019 8:42 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip Yes, like this anecdote. And for a lawsuit counter-anecdote, I've been representing Trek and Specialized in Oregon for over 20 years. It's like being the mythical Maytag repairman. There is not an epidemic of old CF frame failures resulting in lawsuits. Be careful there..."Among dishwasher owners, 13 percent of Maytag purchases required repairs, more than Bosch (7 percent), Whirlpool (8 percent), Miele (9 percent) and Kenmore (11 percent). Among refrigerators, Maytag ranked third, behind Kenmore and Samsung while among washing machines, it was tied for fourth with Whirlpool, behind LG, Samsung, and Kenmore." The Maytag repairman isn't so lonely anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/business/media/maytag-repairmans-new-job-keeps-him-busy.html. It is true, though, that CF fails differently than steel and some internal damage is not apparent. When my Supersix was trashed in a roof rack incident, I had it inspected by Ruckus. https://ruckuscomp.com/inspection. They confirmed that it was indeed trashed, and in some areas I had not expected. So I got a new bike. I would have spent a similar amount repairing steel and getting a paint job -- particularly if I went with wet paint. Gads, nice paint is incredibly expensive these days. The moral of the story is that if you're worried about internal frame damage, have the frame inspected. Someone buying a used CF frame is unlikely to be the kind of person that will spent several hundred dollars on a proper inspection. You can get failures in any product, and high volume products have ascertainable defect rates, generally very low with reputable manufacturers. The good news is that most bicycle failures result in warranty claims and not personal injuries. The exception is forks. Reputable manufacturers have spent lots of time and money on getting forks right -- and they police their contractors. CF forks are the standard now, even on steel and aluminum bikes. And note that steel forks are not without their problems. https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2013/Sa...-Bicycle-Forks But if CF forks are too scary, get steel. They're still available. I've been riding on CF forks since about '92 when I got first generation Kestrel forks, and I haven't looked back. Yes, fork failures have been the most common and most likely to cause injury. For a while Rivendell was offering a replacement program, offering their steel forks at a discount when exchanged for a CF fork. http://web.archive.org/web/20100801102119/http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/carbonoms-fork/50-718 "Our offer: The fork sells for $200, and we won't have them 'till August 1. Call 800-345-3918 or email to pre-order. Or, if you send us your carbon fork (write your name on the steerer tube, address below, along with your contact info), we'll sell you its replacement for $115. We will permanently remove your fork from circulation. That is the point, after all. If you sell it on eBay, the problem is still out there." |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:17:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:49:48 AM UTC-7, duane wrote: On 19/06/2019 10:25 a.m., jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint. What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up. Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs. older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference. Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160 pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee! Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others. -- Jay Beattie. 5lbs? My Tarmac is probably closer to 12 lbs lighter than my cro moly Volpe. And no in reality it's not a subtle or imagined difference. And no, it's not just about weight unless everything else is exactly the same. I changed my Look pedals from CX 6 cyclocross pedals which are very easy to get into and put 206's on which were much lighter. Then since I had those 50 mm deep clinchers just sitting there I installed those The "out-the-door" weight was 21.7 lbs. for the Pinarello. I'm pulling my Basso apart to refinish it and I have another set of cheap Chinese tubeless wheels that I'll install when it get's back together. Also I think that my 44 mm bars are too wide so will reduce this to 42 mm. Chinese carbon bars as well. I think that I can keep a steel bike and have it about the same weight as the Colnago. Granted that the Colnago is not an ultra-light but my friend is touring Italy and he went to a bike factory and they advised him against buying carbon. They said that they support a racing team with these ultra-lights but that they are replaced every single race. They say that there's no way that you can get any reliability out of a piece of cloth that tears with resin on it that cracks. That last is a rather strange statement given that practically all modern recreation and work boats are made from a mixture of cloth and resin. Do you mean that my 15 year old, 40 ft sloop, that had sailed across the pacific ocean and that I sailed from Thailand to Australia and back was prone to crack? Or is this just another of your poorly thought out and wild eyed statements. Well, that sold me. Wheels and handlebars can be carbon because the loads put on those are fatigue and CF has almost infinite fatigue resistance. -- cheers, John B. I didn't realize that your sloop was an ultralight. Anything built heavy enough becomes almost bulletproof as in Old Ironsides. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 7:29:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 05:17:38 +0700, John B. wrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:49:48 AM UTC-7, duane wrote: On 19/06/2019 10:25 a.m., jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint. What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up. Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs.. older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference. Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160 pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee! Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others. -- Jay Beattie. 5lbs? My Tarmac is probably closer to 12 lbs lighter than my cro moly Volpe. And no in reality it's not a subtle or imagined difference. And no, it's not just about weight unless everything else is exactly the same.. I changed my Look pedals from CX 6 cyclocross pedals which are very easy to get into and put 206's on which were much lighter. Then since I had those 50 mm deep clinchers just sitting there I installed those The "out-the-door" weight was 21.7 lbs. for the Pinarello. I'm pulling my Basso apart to refinish it and I have another set of cheap Chinese tubeless wheels that I'll install when it get's back together. Also I think that my 44 mm bars are too wide so will reduce this to 42 mm. Chinese carbon bars as well. I think that I can keep a steel bike and have it about the same weight as the Colnago. Granted that the Colnago is not an ultra-light but my friend is touring Italy and he went to a bike factory and they advised him against buying carbon. They said that they support a racing team with these ultra-lights but that they are replaced every single race. They say that there's no way that you can get any reliability out of a piece of cloth that tears with resin on it that cracks. That last is a rather strange statement given that practically all modern recreation and work boats are made from a mixture of cloth and resin. Do you mean that my 15 year old, 40 ft sloop, that had sailed across the pacific ocean and that I sailed from Thailand to Australia and back was prone to crack? Or is this just another of your poorly thought out and wild eyed statements. As an addendum to the above I found a site that had tested a number of carbon composite samples. The average of 4 separate test samples was 982.5 MPa or 142,499psi. In comparison the ultimate tensile strength of "mild steel" (Aisi 1018) is 440 MPa or 63,816 psi. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...92006000100016 https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6115 As an aside, the carbon composite samples appeared to show no elongation before fracturing during the tensile strength testing while the mild steel specifications show a 15% elongation before failure. Also the tensile strength necessary to produce elongation of the mild steel is 370 MPa. Which illustrates a major difference between carbon composite and steel. The steel bends or elongates prior to complete failure while the carbon just breaks. -- cheers, John B. Not only is carbon fiber stronger than steel but it has a WHOLE lot more fatigue resistance. Now explain why steel bikes don't break and carbon fiber does. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:10:16 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 7:29:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 05:17:38 +0700, John B. wrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:49:48 AM UTC-7, duane wrote: On 19/06/2019 10:25 a.m., jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint. What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up. Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs. older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference. Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160 pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee! Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others. -- Jay Beattie. 5lbs? My Tarmac is probably closer to 12 lbs lighter than my cro moly Volpe. And no in reality it's not a subtle or imagined difference. And no, it's not just about weight unless everything else is exactly the same. I changed my Look pedals from CX 6 cyclocross pedals which are very easy to get into and put 206's on which were much lighter. Then since I had those 50 mm deep clinchers just sitting there I installed those The "out-the-door" weight was 21.7 lbs. for the Pinarello. I'm pulling my Basso apart to refinish it and I have another set of cheap Chinese tubeless wheels that I'll install when it get's back together. Also I think that my 44 mm bars are too wide so will reduce this to 42 mm. Chinese carbon bars as well. I think that I can keep a steel bike and have it about the same weight as the Colnago. Granted that the Colnago is not an ultra-light but my friend is touring Italy and he went to a bike factory and they advised him against buying carbon. They said that they support a racing team with these ultra-lights but that they are replaced every single race. They say that there's no way that you can get any reliability out of a piece of cloth that tears with resin on it that cracks. That last is a rather strange statement given that practically all modern recreation and work boats are made from a mixture of cloth and resin. Do you mean that my 15 year old, 40 ft sloop, that had sailed across the pacific ocean and that I sailed from Thailand to Australia and back was prone to crack? Or is this just another of your poorly thought out and wild eyed statements. As an addendum to the above I found a site that had tested a number of carbon composite samples. The average of 4 separate test samples was 982.5 MPa or 142,499psi. In comparison the ultimate tensile strength of "mild steel" (Aisi 1018) is 440 MPa or 63,816 psi. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...92006000100016 https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6115 As an aside, the carbon composite samples appeared to show no elongation before fracturing during the tensile strength testing while the mild steel specifications show a 15% elongation before failure. Also the tensile strength necessary to produce elongation of the mild steel is 370 MPa. Which illustrates a major difference between carbon composite and steel. The steel bends or elongates prior to complete failure while the carbon just breaks. -- cheers, John B. This is fascinating, but I think your first comment was correct -- Tom is either hallucinating or getting smoke blown up his a**. All my CF bikes have lifetime warranties, including an exceptionally light Emonda SLR. My brother flew CF Dreamliners and lived to retirement. The factory making disposable, one-race CF bikes is made-up by someone. -- Jay Beattie. Jay - I realize the Trek gives a lifetime warranty on the frameset. And my friend has exercised that three times. Another friend had a Lynskey titanium frame and I warned him to watch for cracks since the material is EXTREMELY sensitive to oxidation in the welding process. He laughed in my face and the very following week I pointed out a crack around the upper headset. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
wrote:
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 10:35:04 AM UTC+2, Tosspot wrote: On 23/06/2019 03.29, John B. wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 05:17:38 +0700, John B. wrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:49:48 AM UTC-7, duane wrote: On 19/06/2019 10:25 a.m., jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint. What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up. Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs. older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference. Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160 pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee! Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others. -- Jay Beattie. 5lbs? My Tarmac is probably closer to 12 lbs lighter than my cro moly Volpe. And no in reality it's not a subtle or imagined difference. And no, it's not just about weight unless everything else is exactly the same. I changed my Look pedals from CX 6 cyclocross pedals which are very easy to get into and put 206's on which were much lighter. Then since I had those 50 mm deep clinchers just sitting there I installed those The "out-the-door" weight was 21.7 lbs. for the Pinarello. I'm pulling my Basso apart to refinish it and I have another set of cheap Chinese tubeless wheels that I'll install when it get's back together. Also I think that my 44 mm bars are too wide so will reduce this to 42 mm. Chinese carbon bars as well. I think that I can keep a steel bike and have it about the same weight as the Colnago. Granted that the Colnago is not an ultra-light but my friend is touring Italy and he went to a bike factory and they advised him against buying carbon. They said that they support a racing team with these ultra-lights but that they are replaced every single race. They say that there's no way that you can get any reliability out of a piece of cloth that tears with resin on it that cracks. That last is a rather strange statement given that practically all modern recreation and work boats are made from a mixture of cloth and resin. Do you mean that my 15 year old, 40 ft sloop, that had sailed across the pacific ocean and that I sailed from Thailand to Australia and back was prone to crack? Or is this just another of your poorly thought out and wild eyed statements. As an addendum to the above I found a site that had tested a number of carbon composite samples. The average of 4 separate test samples was 982.5 MPa or 142,499psi. In comparison the ultimate tensile strength of "mild steel" (Aisi 1018) is 440 MPa or 63,816 psi. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...92006000100016 https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6115 As an aside, the carbon composite samples appeared to show no elongation before fracturing during the tensile strength testing while the mild steel specifications show a 15% elongation before failure. Also the tensile strength necessary to produce elongation of the mild steel is 370 MPa. Which illustrates a major difference between carbon composite and steel. The steel bends or elongates prior to complete failure while the carbon just breaks. Which is what makes CF frames incredibly rigid. They are fun to ride because you feel that every erg on the pedal converts to KE without loss. I've never owned one so can't comment on the 'rough ride' criticism, but I could believe it. When do the old farts learn to understand that the properties of CF depends on the direction. Today CF frames are one of most comfortable frames. Lou I mentioned that once and got blasted by a bunch of people here. I doubt any had ridden a decent CF road bike. So I stopped paying attention to their posts. Although I have to admit that the age of old farts seems to be a moving target. -- duane |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 15:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 7:29:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 05:17:38 +0700, John B. wrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:49:48 AM UTC-7, duane wrote: On 19/06/2019 10:25 a.m., jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2019 1:24 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: For ordinary riding? No, most tiny improvements make no noticeable difference. Even though we all know the near-magic power of red paint. What is a "tiny improvement"? The frame on my Emonda probably weighs less than the Columbus steel forks off my last custom racing bike. Those things were suitable for clubbing baby harp seals or home defense. Weight and stiffness do matter when climbing. If we're talking about aero bits, that's harder call -- except that dopes on aero bars riding in packs can result in a massive worsening of your riding experience. Wearing aero shoe covers may keep your feet warmer on chilly mornings, which might make you faster. It all adds up. Stiffness probably does not make a detectable difference, unless the frame is so flexible that things are scraping. Remember the discussion we had about the bike magazine's test of modern stiff CF frames vs. older, heavier steel frames? The test riders gushed about how the stiffness improved their climbing, but the math showed the speed difference was precisely what would be predicted by the weight difference. Weight matters when climbing. If getting to the top of the hill before your buddy is really, really important, a lighter bike will help by whatever the percent difference in total bike+rider weight. If a 160 pound rider changes his 20 pound bike for an 18 pound bike, he should be about 1% faster up a steep hill. Whoopee! Make that a 5lb weight difference. You need to borrow a well-fitting modern 15lb racing bike with an appropriate gear range and then do a long ride with lots of hills. It's not a subtle or imagined difference compared to a T1000 or old-school steel sport touring bike, particularly if you're trying to keep up with others. -- Jay Beattie. 5lbs? My Tarmac is probably closer to 12 lbs lighter than my cro moly Volpe. And no in reality it's not a subtle or imagined difference. And no, it's not just about weight unless everything else is exactly the same. I changed my Look pedals from CX 6 cyclocross pedals which are very easy to get into and put 206's on which were much lighter. Then since I had those 50 mm deep clinchers just sitting there I installed those The "out-the-door" weight was 21.7 lbs. for the Pinarello. I'm pulling my Basso apart to refinish it and I have another set of cheap Chinese tubeless wheels that I'll install when it get's back together. Also I think that my 44 mm bars are too wide so will reduce this to 42 mm. Chinese carbon bars as well. I think that I can keep a steel bike and have it about the same weight as the Colnago. Granted that the Colnago is not an ultra-light but my friend is touring Italy and he went to a bike factory and they advised him against buying carbon. They said that they support a racing team with these ultra-lights but that they are replaced every single race. They say that there's no way that you can get any reliability out of a piece of cloth that tears with resin on it that cracks. That last is a rather strange statement given that practically all modern recreation and work boats are made from a mixture of cloth and resin. Do you mean that my 15 year old, 40 ft sloop, that had sailed across the pacific ocean and that I sailed from Thailand to Australia and back was prone to crack? Or is this just another of your poorly thought out and wild eyed statements. As an addendum to the above I found a site that had tested a number of carbon composite samples. The average of 4 separate test samples was 982.5 MPa or 142,499psi. In comparison the ultimate tensile strength of "mild steel" (Aisi 1018) is 440 MPa or 63,816 psi. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...92006000100016 https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6115 As an aside, the carbon composite samples appeared to show no elongation before fracturing during the tensile strength testing while the mild steel specifications show a 15% elongation before failure. Also the tensile strength necessary to produce elongation of the mild steel is 370 MPa. Which illustrates a major difference between carbon composite and steel. The steel bends or elongates prior to complete failure while the carbon just breaks. -- cheers, John B. Not only is carbon fiber stronger than steel but it has a WHOLE lot more fatigue resistance. Now explain why steel bikes don't break and carbon fiber does. Probably because "Light sells better than Heavy" and that light weight steel frames are limited by the lightest tube that can be bought while carbon fiber can be easily laid up in about any thickness, and weight, that is wanted. A German company, SPIN, makes, or made, a frame that weighed 22.7 ounces and a fork that weighed 6.5 ounces - total 29.2 ounces (0.83 kg) - while a "light" steel frame and fork will weigh perhaps 2 kg ( 70 ounces). -- cheers, John B. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 10:53:39 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/23/2019 8:42 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Yes, like this anecdote. And for a lawsuit counter-anecdote, I've been representing Trek and Specialized in Oregon for over 20 years. It's like being the mythical Maytag repairman. There is not an epidemic of old CF frame failures resulting in lawsuits. Be careful there..."Among dishwasher owners, 13 percent of Maytag purchases required repairs, more than Bosch (7 percent), Whirlpool (8 percent), Miele (9 percent) and Kenmore (11 percent). Among refrigerators, Maytag ranked third, behind Kenmore and Samsung while among washing machines, it was tied for fourth with Whirlpool, behind LG, Samsung, and Kenmore." The Maytag repairman isn't so lonely anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/business/media/maytag-repairmans-new-job-keeps-him-busy.html. Yes, and in anticipation of this dopey come-back, I used the term "mythical Maytag repairman." You know exactly what I mean as does everyone in our demographic. Pah-lease. It is true, though, that CF fails differently than steel and some internal damage is not apparent. When my Supersix was trashed in a roof rack incident, I had it inspected by Ruckus. https://ruckuscomp.com/inspection. They confirmed that it was indeed trashed, and in some areas I had not expected. So I got a new bike. I would have spent a similar amount repairing steel and getting a paint job -- particularly if I went with wet paint. Gads, nice paint is incredibly expensive these days. The moral of the story is that if you're worried about internal frame damage, have the frame inspected. Someone buying a used CF frame is unlikely to be the kind of person that will spent several hundred dollars on a proper inspection. The assurance of a credible seller that a CF frame has not been crashed is probably adequate. I'm sure Lou was honest about his crash history, if any.. You can get failures in any product, and high volume products have ascertainable defect rates, generally very low with reputable manufacturers. The good news is that most bicycle failures result in warranty claims and not personal injuries. The exception is forks. Reputable manufacturers have spent lots of time and money on getting forks right -- and they police their contractors. CF forks are the standard now, even on steel and aluminum bikes. And note that steel forks are not without their problems. https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2013/Sa...-Bicycle-Forks But if CF forks are too scary, get steel. They're still available. I've been riding on CF forks since about '92 when I got first generation Kestrel forks, and I haven't looked back. Yes, fork failures have been the most common and most likely to cause injury. For a while Rivendell was offering a replacement program, offering their steel forks at a discount when exchanged for a CF fork. http://web.archive.org/web/20100801102119/http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/carbonoms-fork/50-718 "Our offer: The fork sells for $200, and we won't have them 'till August 1. Call 800-345-3918 or email to pre-order. Or, if you send us your carbon fork (write your name on the steerer tube, address below, along with your contact info), we'll sell you its replacement for $115. We will permanently remove your fork from circulation. That is the point, after all. If you sell it on eBay, the problem is still out there." The fork is out of stock, although Grant is over-stocked with anti-CF hysteria. It makes absolute sense if your business model is based on marketing historically correct steel bikes and accompanying canvas, wool and leather do-dads. https://barndoorcycling.wordpress.co...-mean-company/ I got into bicycling at the tail-end of Singer and Rene Herse era in the late 60s early 70s and thought those frames were precious throw-backs even then. If Grant were knocking off California Masis or De Rosas (with modern geometry and not the ridiculously short TTs of yore), then I might bite. But really, I don't want or need some boat-anchor Homer Hogfarm with 35mm tires on 650B wheels. Why would I? To go with my houndstooth wool gabardine riding jodhpurs and bowler hat? I can get fat snow tires in and out of my CAADX no sweat, and that has big fat CF forks with disc mounts. It's a dog, too -- but has a much stiffer BB and front end than a historically correct 62-64mm steel touring frame. And its half the price of a Rivendell. Actually, the CAADX was a free replacement for a broken proto-CAADX. Gotta love the lifetime warranties. I owned five or six custom steel frames. I also broke them. I've broken basically every frame I've owned as an adult except for a Cannondale T1000 (that will dwell with the cockroaches after the apocalypse) and my '69-70 Raleigh Pro track bike. I also didn't break the CAAD 9 I gave to my son. That, BTW, is a great riding bike. I assume I will break a CF frame, although it has not happened yet. Knock on fiber. And my prior steel and aluminum failures were all fatigue related, which is not the usual failure mode for CF. I sometimes worry about CF steerers, but not that much. I'm careful with the compression plug torque and the stem torque on the Emonda. I wash my bikes and check for cracks or problems. I'll be dead or on a tricycle before my CF frames get that old. -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Steel is real | Doug Landau | Techniques | 10 | December 28th 16 07:11 PM |
Steel is real - again | Ralph Barone[_3_] | Techniques | 18 | January 5th 16 08:29 AM |
Steel may be real but.... | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 5 | June 4th 13 03:06 AM |
Steel is Real | Gags | Australia | 12 | August 18th 05 11:57 AM |
Steel is real. A real dick! | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 0 | February 11th 05 03:53 PM |