Surly Karate Monkey

wrote:
jim beam wrote:

1. it's steel. with all the superior solutions out there today, the
only reason to use that material is to get retrogrouches to pay ~10x
what it costs to land those things f.o.b. l.a.

what is a better material in your mind?

i like the big tube aluminum frames. properly made, they're light,
stiff where you need them to be, and very very durable. not all
manufacturers build with the same quality of course, but experienced
high volume shops typically know what they're doing. materials and
methods have improved significantly.

On Apr 13, 11:28*am, wrote:
jim beam wrote:
1. it's steel. *with all the superior solutions out there today, the
only reason to use that material is to get retrogrouches to pay ~10x
what it costs to land those things f.o.b. l.a.

what is a better material in your mind?

Tc=9

It doesn't matter. I like aluminum because it doesn't rust when it
gets chipped in city use. I have a steel bike as well. I like the way
it looks, but having ridden it with the same tires as an aluminum
bike...I can't tell the difference--and I'm very sensitive to changes
in geometry, road buzz, etc.

landotter wrote:

Tc=9

what does above mean?

wrote:

jim beam wrote:

1. it's steel. *with all the superior solutions out there today, the
only reason to use that material is to get retrogrouches to pay ~10x
what it costs to land those things f.o.b. l.a.

what is a better material in your mind?

"jim beam" seems to prefer whatever is a less proven or less reliable
alternative to the usual or traditional material. For a bike frame,
he'll claim that aluminum is great and steel is crap. For a seatpost,
where aluminum is more customary, it's carbon fiber reinforced plastic
he prefers, and aluminum is hopelessly flawed in his eyes. He likes
silica-filled tire tread compounds and finds some problem with
traditional carbon-filled tread compounds that nobody else has been
able to identify. He probably favors ceramic bearings over steel
ones, and God help us all if some damn fool starts making ceramic
brakes or handlebars or something. We'll never hear the end of why
we're all "retards" for thinking metal ones are a better idea.

Chalo

Chalo wrote:
wrote:
jim beam wrote:
1. it's steel. �with all the superior solutions out there today, the
only reason to use that material is to get retrogrouches to pay ~10x
what it costs to land those things f.o.b. l.a.
what is a better material in your mind?

"jim beam" seems to prefer whatever is a less proven or less reliable
alternative to the usual or traditional material. For a bike frame,
he'll claim that aluminum is great and steel is crap. For a seatpost,
where aluminum is more customary, it's carbon fiber reinforced plastic
he prefers, and aluminum is hopelessly flawed in his eyes. He likes
silica-filled tire tread compounds and finds some problem with
traditional carbon-filled tread compounds that nobody else has been
able to identify. He probably favors ceramic bearings over steel
ones, and God help us all if some damn fool starts making ceramic
brakes or handlebars or something. We'll never hear the end of why
we're all "retards" for thinking metal ones are a better idea.

Chalo

au conraire, idiot, i favor materials appropriate to the application.
aluminum allows stiff frames without the weight penalty. steel can't do
that. that's a real simple fact accessible to more than your average
rocket surgeon.

as for "reliable", coming from you. that's just a spectacular joke. you
spend your time driving a machine that makes parts for planes out of
aluminum alloys, and yet somehow you've failed to connect the dots on
material and reliability. that's truly amazingly dumb.

oh, you might want to drop the suggestio falsi chalo - it speaks volumes
about you, and it's probably not what what you want.

jim beam wrote:

Chalo wrote:

"jim beam" seems to prefer whatever is a less proven or less reliable
alternative to the usual or traditional material. *For a bike frame,
he'll claim that aluminum is great and steel is crap. *For a seatpost,
where aluminum is more customary, it's carbon fiber reinforced plastic
he prefers, and aluminum is hopelessly flawed in his eyes. *He likes
silica-filled tire tread compounds and finds some problem with
traditional carbon-filled tread compounds that nobody else has been
able to identify. *He probably favors ceramic bearings over steel
ones, and God help us all if some damn fool starts making ceramic
brakes or handlebars or something. *We'll never hear the end of why
we're all "retards" for thinking metal ones are a better idea.

au conraire, idiot, i favor materials appropriate to the application.
aluminum allows stiff frames without the weight penalty. *steel can't do
that. *that's a real simple fact accessible to more than your average
rocket surgeon.

For what it's worth, I like big-tube aluminum frames, and I know them
to be reliable. I have equal numbers of steel and aluminum frames
among my "normal" bikes. But steel is proven and customary,
intrinsically fit for purpose because the purpose of a bicycle was
predicated upon the availability of steel. I believe its traditional
use is why you don't like it, because that fits your other
assertions-- e.g. your contention that aluminum isn't the right choice
for seatposts and lamp black makes inferior tires.

as for "reliable", coming from you. that's just a spectacular joke. *you
spend your time driving a machine that makes parts for planes out of
aluminum alloys, and yet somehow you've failed to connect the dots on
material and reliability. *that's truly amazingly dumb.

Aluminum, especially aerospace alloys, are excellent materials and as
reliable as anything when used appropriately. I like aluminum frames,
as I've said, and I favor (appropriately beefy) aluminum cranks. But
it's significant that the parts of an airplane most highly stressed
and most vulnerable to FOD ("foreign object damage", or the regime
that bikes live in), the landing gear and turbine blades, are usually
made of very strong and tough steels.

Chalo

landotter wrote:

The Monodog I rode with
a S/A 8 and a twisty shifter was the lousiest drivetrain I've ever had
the opportunity to shift,

I'm curious what you didn't like about the Sturmey Archer hub. I
haven't had the opportunity to check one out in person. The all-
overdrive Sturmey 8 seems like a uniquely terrible choice for a 29"-
wheeled bike.

but I've loved my Nexus 7s and would welcome
an 8 or even a rarer 4 into the fleet.

My Nexus 7s and 4s have made me say "meh" generally, but they are
stupidly consistent and reliable. The shifters suck, but the hubs are
without obvious weakness.

Don't have enough experience
with the newer Sachs/SRAM to have an opinion.

To me it feels like the Sachs/SRAM Spectro 7 runs freer than the Nexus
7, but the outside-the-dropout shift mechanism is crude and
vulnerable. And I haven't broken a Nexus 7, but I have broken a
Spectro 7 (partly because I trusted the SRAM hub enough to lace it
into a large-diameter wheel).

Chalo

On Apr 13, 5:06*pm, Chalo wrote:
landotter wrote:

The Monodog I rode with
a S/A 8 and a twisty shifter was the lousiest drivetrain I've ever had
the opportunity to shift,

I'm curious what you didn't like about the Sturmey Archer hub. *I
haven't had the opportunity to check one out in person. *The all-
overdrive Sturmey 8 seems like a uniquely terrible choice for a 29"-
wheeled bike.

The detents were vague enough for most shifts to miss and put one at
peril of being between gears. Total crap shifter. Who knows, the hub
might be fine with the right shifter.


but I've loved my Nexus 7s and would welcome
an 8 or even a rarer 4 into the fleet.

My Nexus 7s and 4s have made me say "meh" generally, but they are
stupidly consistent and reliable. *The shifters suck, but the hubs are
without obvious weakness.

The orginal nexus rapidfire shifter was pretty good. I don't really
get along with grip shifters. Big hands or something.

The abuse that my seven got during the winters with no maintenance
needed was near miraculous--or just a sign of great sealing. A little
noisy in a couple gears--but for the price, who cares?


Don't have enough experience
with the newer Sachs/SRAM to have an opinion.

To me it feels like the Sachs/SRAM Spectro 7 runs freer than the Nexus
7, but the outside-the-dropout shift mechanism is crude and
vulnerable. *And I haven't broken a Nexus 7, but I have broken a
Spectro 7 (partly because I trusted the SRAM hub enough to lace it
into a large-diameter wheel).


Your needs are a little more severe than most. However, I don't
believe SRAM is doing anything other than grip**** anyway. I aways
have had a little affection for the dual drive stuff, just because
it's odd, and probably quite robust with 3pd tech worked out a hundred
years ago.

landotter wrote:

Chalo wrote:

landotter wrote:

The Monodog I rode with
a S/A 8 and a twisty shifter was the lousiest drivetrain I've ever had
the opportunity to shift,

I'm curious what you didn't like about the Sturmey Archer hub. *I
haven't had the opportunity to check one out in person. *The all-
overdrive Sturmey 8 seems like a uniquely terrible choice for a 29"-
wheeled bike.

The detents were vague enough for most shifts to miss and put one at
peril of being between gears. Total crap shifter. Who knows, the hub
might be fine with the right shifter.

The twist grip shifter on one of my Nexus 7 bikes is chronically
sticky, meaning after making a shift I have to gently tease it back to
the detent, or else I face the same issue.

My Nexus 7s and 4s have made me say "meh" generally, but they are
stupidly consistent and reliable. *The shifters suck, but the hubs are
without obvious weakness.

The orginal nexus rapidfire shifter was pretty good. I don't really
get along with grip shifters. Big hands or something.

My Nexus 7 trigger has a busted return spring, so I have to diddle it
to set up for the next shift. (I found another one used, but haven't
made the time to swap it out.) Plus those things look and feel like
they came out of Toys R Us's clearance bin.

But the hubs are swell. I wish the shift cable pull were some kind of
SIS-standard.

Chalo

Chalo wrote:
jim beam wrote:
Chalo wrote:
"jim beam" seems to prefer whatever is a less proven or less reliable
alternative to the usual or traditional material. �For a bike frame,
he'll claim that aluminum is great and steel is crap. �For a seatpost,
where aluminum is more customary, it's carbon fiber reinforced plastic
he prefers, and aluminum is hopelessly flawed in his eyes. �He likes
silica-filled tire tread compounds and finds some problem with
traditional carbon-filled tread compounds that nobody else has been
able to identify. �He probably favors ceramic bearings over steel
ones, and God help us all if some damn fool starts making ceramic
brakes or handlebars or something. �We'll never hear the end of why
we're all "retards" for thinking metal ones are a better idea.
au conraire, idiot, i favor materials appropriate to the application.
aluminum allows stiff frames without the weight penalty. �steel can't do
that. �that's a real simple fact accessible to more than your average
rocket surgeon.

For what it's worth, I like big-tube aluminum frames, and I know them
to be reliable. I have equal numbers of steel and aluminum frames
among my "normal" bikes. But steel is proven and customary,
intrinsically fit for purpose because the purpose of a bicycle was
predicated upon the availability of steel. I believe its traditional
use is why you don't like it, because that fits your other
assertions-- e.g. your contention that aluminum isn't the right choice
for seatposts and lamp black makes inferior tires.

as for "reliable", coming from you. that's just a spectacular joke. �you
spend your time driving a machine that makes parts for planes out of
aluminum alloys, and yet somehow you've failed to connect the dots on
material and reliability. �that's truly amazingly dumb.

Aluminum, especially aerospace alloys, are excellent materials and as
reliable as anything when used appropriately. I like aluminum frames,
as I've said, and I favor (appropriately beefy) aluminum cranks. But
it's significant that the parts of an airplane most highly stressed
and most vulnerable to FOD ("foreign object damage", or the regime
that bikes live in), the landing gear and turbine blades, are usually
made of very strong and tough steels.

Chalo