REI Greatly Improves Novara Transfer Commute Bicycle. Now has Cro-Mo frame and Adjustable Height Quill Stem and Chain Guard and 700C Wheels----20% off Coupon now at REI.

On Apr 1, 6:33*am, Simon Lewis wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:
"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame, built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too long if
you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out of the
garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long ago that
Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item (and we
all know what happened to Cannondale!).

Uh.... no. Aluminum frames became dominant in the marketplace long before
they became cheaper to build. Once dominant, competitive forces pushed
innovation and techniques to lower cost. Had steel remained the dominant
material, the same thing would have happened (and steel frames would be
dirt-cheap).

The overall cost of using an aluminum frame is lower not just due to
production, but also reduced likelihood of warranty expenditures down the
road. Aluminum frames fail at a markedly-lower rate than the steel frames of
yesteryear. Just talk to anyone who worked in a bike shop back in the day.
I'm closing in on 39 years in this biz now and have pretty much seen it all.
But the extraordinary hype that some people confer on steel remains amazing
to me. Especially this one-

Weak non-responsive aluminum frame

My goodness, are we talking about a racing bike with 19mm tires here? No,
this discussion was about a hefty go-anywhere brawler with big wide tires
that are going to soak up just about anything that could be considered an
aspect of "responsiveness" and yet you just have to lay that ridiculous
claim in, yet again. Please tell me how anyone's going to notice much
difference in frame material when you've got big squishy tires?

Are reputed frame builders like Roberts in the UK wrong to be using
quality steels in their touring bike frames then Mike?

I really want to know. I just can not believe an Alu frame can ever by
stronger and longer lasting than a good steel one.

Steel is a lot easier to weld, the tube diameters are pleasing to the
eye, and the weight penalty is a wash for a touring bike. It's really
a great material for custom builders. I don't think anyone who's
honest needs to denigrate one to praise the other material.

You take a lugged steel bike and I'll take the aluminum bike with
durable stack-o-dimes welds, horses for courses. Frames are pretty
boring now that they're far less likely to fail than in the past.
Wheels are far more interesting to talk smack about!

BTW, from what I've read--quite a few contributors here have no
longevity issues with older Cannondale touring bikes.

On Apr 1, 9:30*am, landotter wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:33*am, Simon Lewis wrote:



"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:
"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame, built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too long if
you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out of the
garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long ago that
Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item (and we
all know what happened to Cannondale!).

Uh.... no. Aluminum frames became dominant in the marketplace long before
they became cheaper to build. Once dominant, competitive forces pushed
innovation and techniques to lower cost. Had steel remained the dominant
material, the same thing would have happened (and steel frames would be
dirt-cheap).

The overall cost of using an aluminum frame is lower not just due to
production, but also reduced likelihood of warranty expenditures down the
road. Aluminum frames fail at a markedly-lower rate than the steel frames of
yesteryear. Just talk to anyone who worked in a bike shop back in the day.
I'm closing in on 39 years in this biz now and have pretty much seen it all.
But the extraordinary hype that some people confer on steel remains amazing
to me. Especially this one-

Weak non-responsive aluminum frame

My goodness, are we talking about a racing bike with 19mm tires here? No,
this discussion was about a hefty go-anywhere brawler with big wide tires
that are going to soak up just about anything that could be considered an
aspect of "responsiveness" and yet you just have to lay that ridiculous
claim in, yet again. Please tell me how anyone's going to notice much
difference in frame material when you've got big squishy tires?

Are reputed frame builders like Roberts in the UK wrong to be using
quality steels in their touring bike frames then Mike?

I really want to know. I just can not believe an Alu frame can ever by
stronger and longer lasting than a good steel one.

Steel is a lot easier to weld, the tube diameters are pleasing to the
eye, and the weight penalty is a wash for a touring bike. It's really
a great material for custom builders. I don't think anyone who's
honest needs to denigrate one to praise the other material.

You take a lugged steel bike and I'll take the aluminum bike with
durable stack-o-dimes welds, horses for courses. Frames are pretty
boring now that they're far less likely to fail than in the past.
Wheels are far more interesting to talk smack about!

BTW, from what I've read--quite a few contributors here have no
longevity issues with older Cannondale touring bikes.

I'm one of them. My Cannondale was over 15 years old when it carried
me coast-to-coast, fully loaded. In fact, I was extra loaded, since I
was trying to minimize the load for my wife and daughter who rode with
me.

Back in 1992, I did an overnight tour with a friend who was riding his
new custom steel touring bike. The difference was very significant.
He found that, with packs, his bike shimmied frighteningly at downhill
speeds over about 20 mph. My wife once had the same problem with a
steel Raleigh used for touring, at even lower speeds. But our
Cannondales have always been reassuringly steady.

Admittedly, shimmy is a somewhat tricky phenomenon. But I'm convinced
the aluminum frame with large tubes increases the lateral stiffness to
the point where shimmy is very unlikely.

(Has anyone ever had a serious shimmy problem with a large-tube
Cannondale?)

- Frank Krygowski

On Apr 1, 10:12*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:30*am, landotter wrote:



On Apr 1, 6:33*am, Simon Lewis wrote:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:
"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame, built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too long if
you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out of the
garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long ago that
Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item (and we
all know what happened to Cannondale!).

Uh.... no. Aluminum frames became dominant in the marketplace long before
they became cheaper to build. Once dominant, competitive forces pushed
innovation and techniques to lower cost. Had steel remained the dominant
material, the same thing would have happened (and steel frames would be
dirt-cheap).

The overall cost of using an aluminum frame is lower not just due to
production, but also reduced likelihood of warranty expenditures down the
road. Aluminum frames fail at a markedly-lower rate than the steel frames of
yesteryear. Just talk to anyone who worked in a bike shop back in the day.
I'm closing in on 39 years in this biz now and have pretty much seen it all.
But the extraordinary hype that some people confer on steel remains amazing
to me. Especially this one-

Weak non-responsive aluminum frame

My goodness, are we talking about a racing bike with 19mm tires here? No,
this discussion was about a hefty go-anywhere brawler with big wide tires
that are going to soak up just about anything that could be considered an
aspect of "responsiveness" and yet you just have to lay that ridiculous
claim in, yet again. Please tell me how anyone's going to notice much
difference in frame material when you've got big squishy tires?

Are reputed frame builders like Roberts in the UK wrong to be using
quality steels in their touring bike frames then Mike?

I really want to know. I just can not believe an Alu frame can ever by
stronger and longer lasting than a good steel one.

Steel is a lot easier to weld, the tube diameters are pleasing to the
eye, and the weight penalty is a wash for a touring bike. It's really
a great material for custom builders. I don't think anyone who's
honest needs to denigrate one to praise the other material.

You take a lugged steel bike and I'll take the aluminum bike with
durable stack-o-dimes welds, horses for courses. Frames are pretty
boring now that they're far less likely to fail than in the past.
Wheels are far more interesting to talk smack about!

BTW, from what I've read--quite a few contributors here have no
longevity issues with older Cannondale touring bikes.

I'm one of them. *My Cannondale was over 15 years old when it carried
me coast-to-coast, fully loaded. *In fact, I was extra loaded, since I
was trying to minimize the load for my wife and daughter who rode with
me.

Back in 1992, I did an overnight tour with a friend who was riding his
new custom steel touring bike. *The difference was very significant.
He found that, with packs, his bike shimmied frighteningly at downhill
speeds over about 20 mph. *My wife once had the same problem with a
steel Raleigh used for touring, at even lower speeds. *But our
Cannondales have always been reassuringly steady.

Admittedly, shimmy is a somewhat tricky phenomenon. *But I'm convinced
the aluminum frame with large tubes increases the lateral stiffness to
the point where shimmy is very unlikely.

(Has anyone ever had a serious shimmy problem with a large-tube
Cannondale?)

I've only had shimmy with 70s-80s traditional diameter steel tube
bikes--my burly steel Redline doesn't even think of wobbling. The
Viscount Aerospace (!) I sold a couple years ago was the absolute
worst at speed. The crit fork didn't help.

On 31/03/10 9:32 PM, landotter wrote:

I've yet to see you provide evidence that the introduction of aluminum
bikes upon the mass market has resulted in a terrible increase in
frame failure.

You have to look at the big picture here. What's happened in the past 25
years is a huge decrease in bicycle touring, where the properties of
steel were especially desirable.

Now with an increase in bicycle commuting, where the bicycles are
subjected to a similar environment as touring, it makes sense to go back
to steel for those bicycles. You want a stronger frame because of
heavier loads, and for a less jarring ride. Which, incidentally, is
exactly what REI stated for the reasons they went to steel, "New for the
Transfer is a sturdy chromoly frame, offering up a pleasantly smooth
ride quality while also delivering plenty of strength to withstand heavy
loads and rough roads."

You may benefit by reading the article at
"http://web.archive.org/web/20040103115616/http://www.anvilbikes.com/story.php?news_ID=16&catID=3".

On Apr 1, 11:04*am, SMS wrote:
On 31/03/10 9:32 PM, landotter wrote:

I've yet to see you provide evidence that the introduction of aluminum
bikes upon the mass market has resulted in a terrible increase in
frame failure.

You have to look at the big picture here. What's happened in the past 25
years is a huge decrease in bicycle touring, where the properties of
steel were especially desirable.

Now with an increase in bicycle commuting, where the bicycles are
subjected to a similar environment as touring, it makes sense to go back
to steel for those bicycles. You want a stronger frame because of
heavier loads, and for a less jarring ride. Which, incidentally, is
exactly what REI stated for the reasons they went to steel, "New for the
Transfer is a sturdy chromoly frame, offering up a pleasantly smooth
ride quality while also delivering plenty of strength to withstand heavy
loads and rough roads."

You may benefit by reading the article at
"http://web.archive.org/web/20040103115616/http://www.anvilbikes.com/s...".

So it's both stronger and more vertically compliant?
Bwahahahahhahahaha.

REI changed materials to have a trendy tube diameter. End of story.
You're full of **** and happy April 1st!

"Simon Lewis" wrote in message
...
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame,
built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too long
if
you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out of
the
garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long ago
that
Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item (and
we
all know what happened to Cannondale!).

Uh.... no. Aluminum frames became dominant in the marketplace long before
they became cheaper to build. Once dominant, competitive forces pushed
innovation and techniques to lower cost. Had steel remained the dominant
material, the same thing would have happened (and steel frames would be
dirt-cheap).

The overall cost of using an aluminum frame is lower not just due to
production, but also reduced likelihood of warranty expenditures down the
road. Aluminum frames fail at a markedly-lower rate than the steel frames
of
yesteryear. Just talk to anyone who worked in a bike shop back in the
day.
I'm closing in on 39 years in this biz now and have pretty much seen it
all.
But the extraordinary hype that some people confer on steel remains
amazing
to me. Especially this one-

Weak non-responsive aluminum frame

My goodness, are we talking about a racing bike with 19mm tires here? No,
this discussion was about a hefty go-anywhere brawler with big wide tires
that are going to soak up just about anything that could be considered an
aspect of "responsiveness" and yet you just have to lay that ridiculous
claim in, yet again. Please tell me how anyone's going to notice much
difference in frame material when you've got big squishy tires?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Are reputed frame builders like Roberts in the UK wrong to be using
quality steels in their touring bike frames then Mike?

I really want to know. I just can not believe an Alu frame can ever by
stronger and longer lasting than a good steel one.

An aluminum frame could be stronger and longer-lasting that a "good" steel
frame. But a good steel frame can certainly be made strong enough for its
intended purpose. It's not so much the material, but what you do with it
that makes the difference.

Custom frame builders use steel because it's a dream material for customized
fabrication. You can weld it, braze it, use decorative lugs if you wish, all
sorts of ways to personalize it. And it has the extreme advantage, for the
custom builder, of not having to be heat-treated afterward. One-off aluminum
simply isn't practical because what comes out of the heat treatment doesn't
always bear a close resemblance to what went in. Each design has to be
tested first, before it becomes production. That's just not practical for a
custom frame builder.

And let's face it, those decorative touches that you can do with steel
scream artisan. They can be works of art, something very difficult to do
with aluminum (where all the fancy touches pretty much have to be done with
paint).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Simon Lewis" wrote in message
...
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/10 10:53 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

They changed to a chrome-moly frame exactly for the "marketing
advantage" in terms of product differentiation. An aluminum frame,
built
for strength and not stupid-lightness, is going to be far more durable
than a steel frame... any steel frame.

You've been listening to the marketing department at Trek for too
long if
you believe all that. It's no secret why manufacturers like aluminum
frames--they are extremely low cost. Shaving $12-15 off the cost of a
complete bicycle is something that can't be passed up since they know,
statistically, that few of those bicycles will spend much time out
of the
garage. The higher-end steel, carbon-fiber, and titanium frames are
marketed as expensive boutique items. Of course it wasn't so long
ago that
Cannondale marketed aluminum frames as an expensive boutique item
(and we
all know what happened to Cannondale!).

Uh.... no. Aluminum frames became dominant in the marketplace long
before
they became cheaper to build. Once dominant, competitive forces pushed
innovation and techniques to lower cost. Had steel remained the dominant
material, the same thing would have happened (and steel frames would be
dirt-cheap).

The overall cost of using an aluminum frame is lower not just due to
production, but also reduced likelihood of warranty expenditures down
the
road. Aluminum frames fail at a markedly-lower rate than the steel
frames of
yesteryear. Just talk to anyone who worked in a bike shop back in the
day.
I'm closing in on 39 years in this biz now and have pretty much seen
it all.
But the extraordinary hype that some people confer on steel remains
amazing
to me. Especially this one-

Weak non-responsive aluminum frame

My goodness, are we talking about a racing bike with 19mm tires here?
No,
this discussion was about a hefty go-anywhere brawler with big wide
tires
that are going to soak up just about anything that could be
considered an
aspect of "responsiveness" and yet you just have to lay that ridiculous
claim in, yet again. Please tell me how anyone's going to notice much
difference in frame material when you've got big squishy tires?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Are reputed frame builders like Roberts in the UK wrong to be using
quality steels in their touring bike frames then Mike?

I really want to know. I just can not believe an Alu frame can ever by
stronger and longer lasting than a good steel one.

An aluminum frame could be stronger and longer-lasting that a "good"
steel frame. But a good steel frame can certainly be made strong enough
for its intended purpose. It's not so much the material, but what you do
with it that makes the difference.

Custom frame builders use steel because it's a dream material for
customized fabrication. You can weld it, braze it, use decorative lugs
if you wish, all sorts of ways to personalize it. And it has the extreme
advantage, for the custom builder, of not having to be heat-treated
afterward. One-off aluminum simply isn't practical because what comes
out of the heat treatment doesn't always bear a close resemblance to
what went in. Each design has to be tested first, before it becomes
production. That's just not practical for a custom frame builder.

And let's face it, those decorative touches that you can do with steel
scream artisan. They can be works of art, something very difficult to do
with aluminum (where all the fancy touches pretty much have to be done
with paint).

Lugged steel is easy. I repaired one of mine never having used an O-A
torch before. I have no doubt I could buy a tube set and a bunch of lugs
and braze up a frame. I doubt very much I could weld a frame, even with
exotic equipment, even in steel, aluminum would be hopeless.

From what I gather, much of the far East frame production is robotic --
tube mitering and hydroforming, welding and painting. Aluminum is what,
$0.60/lb? It's not the material cost.

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[---]

Back in 1992, I did an overnight tour with a friend who was riding his
new custom steel touring bike. The difference was very significant.
He found that, with packs, his bike shimmied frighteningly at downhill
speeds over about 20 mph.

Also my experience with a relatively new (2006) steel-framed tourer
(Fahrradmanufaktur, Germany).

[---]

Admittedly, shimmy is a somewhat tricky phenomenon. But I'm convinced
the aluminum frame with large tubes increases the lateral stiffness to
the point where shimmy is very unlikely.

Agreed.

Custom frame builders use steel because it's a dream material for
customized fabrication. You can weld it, braze it, use decorative lugs if
you wish, all sorts of ways to personalize it. And it has the extreme
advantage, for the custom builder, of not having to be heat-treated
afterward. One-off aluminum simply isn't practical because what comes out
of the heat treatment doesn't always bear a close resemblance to what
went in. Each design has to be tested first, before it becomes
production. That's just not practical for a custom frame builder.

And let's face it, those decorative touches that you can do with steel
scream artisan. They can be works of art, something very difficult to do
with aluminum (where all the fancy touches pretty much have to be done
with paint).

Lugged steel is easy. I repaired one of mine never having used an O-A
torch before. I have no doubt I could buy a tube set and a bunch of lugs
and braze up a frame. I doubt very much I could weld a frame, even with
exotic equipment, even in steel, aluminum would be hopeless.

I built a frame and fork myself, back in the day, just because it was the
thing to do at the time. I rode the frame but wasn't brave enough to trust
the fork. The cost of failure, of doing something not-quite-right, is just
too high with a fork. I also nearly burned down the tool shed, but hey, who
hasn't? :-)

From what I gather, much of the far East frame production is robotic --
tube mitering and hydroforming, welding and painting. Aluminum is what,
$0.60/lb? It's not the material cost.

Robotics can be applied to steel as easily as aluminum. You just have to
make the investment to do so, and investment follows big orders.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Custom frame builders use steel because it's a dream material for
customized fabrication. You can weld it, braze it, use decorative
lugs if you wish, all sorts of ways to personalize it. And it has the
extreme advantage, for the custom builder, of not having to be
heat-treated afterward. One-off aluminum simply isn't practical
because what comes out of the heat treatment doesn't always bear a
close resemblance to what went in. Each design has to be tested
first, before it becomes production. That's just not practical for a
custom frame builder.

And let's face it, those decorative touches that you can do with
steel scream artisan. They can be works of art, something very
difficult to do with aluminum (where all the fancy touches pretty
much have to be done with paint).

Lugged steel is easy. I repaired one of mine never having used an O-A
torch before. I have no doubt I could buy a tube set and a bunch of
lugs and braze up a frame. I doubt very much I could weld a frame,
even with exotic equipment, even in steel, aluminum would be hopeless.

I built a frame and fork myself, back in the day, just because it was
the thing to do at the time. I rode the frame but wasn't brave enough to
trust the fork. The cost of failure, of doing something not-quite-right,
is just too high with a fork. I also nearly burned down the tool shed,
but hey, who hasn't? :-)

From what I gather, much of the far East frame production is robotic
-- tube mitering and hydroforming, welding and painting. Aluminum is
what, $0.60/lb? It's not the material cost.

Robotics can be applied to steel as easily as aluminum. You just have to
make the investment to do so, and investment follows big orders.

Right, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I intended to say was that
steel is more cheaper to hand craft, so early aluminum bike were
pricey. The advent of robotics tipped the scales. If carbon fiber
production could be automated to the same degree, those prices would
fall too and displace a lot more aluminum and steel frames. You can
argue that aluminum is less durable than steel and CF is less durable
than aluminum (I said *could*), but when the frames get cheap enough,
who cares?