A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old June 23rd 19, 03:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Steel is Real and Carbon is Lighter

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

Ads
  #102  
Old June 23rd 19, 03:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 04:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 06:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 10:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 11:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 11:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 11:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 11:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old June 24th 19, 12:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.