Bike Weight and Climbing Speed.

Monday it happened again. I had ridden up about 800 feet with two steep slopes of about 12% so I was barely able to keep the bike rolling while trying to recover when I turned onto a side road to get away from the traffic. This one has a gain of about another 200 feet but since it is a mile long it is only the short jumps that are bothersome. One spot is a quarter of a mile long and it is about 9%. Two young people behind me spotted me and turned it on to pass me. They came flying by and then when I was near the top of the 9% section there they were sitting on the side of the hill and breathing like Steam Engines. I went past and then turned out to the main road which would go about another quarter of a mile before turning into Skyline (Well Skyline comes down off of a higher area and turns making Juaquin Miller now Skyline.) Just before arriving at the main road up, these two passed me again like I was standing still, went through the stop sign far too fast to be able to check out for any on-coming traffic safely cleared the intersection and turned onto an MTB trail. I turned and continued up the hill. They were riding hard tails and my guess was that their bikes weighed about the same as my bike.

I still have the impression that there are bike weights under which climbing is unaffected. My speeds appear more connected to the amount of sleep I'm getting and the amount of riding I'm putting in rather than bike weight. Since the Look is 16 lbs on the road and the LeMond is 24 you would think that my circuit times on a known course would show this if there were significant climbing. But it simply doesn't. I use the same gearing so that has nothing to do with it.

And this isn't just the case with the 25 mile course. I have the same experience with a 37 miles course with two times the climbing.

If you look at the YouTube video's about cutting open questionable frames (one video had the guy cutting open two C60 Colnagos) this is sure to make you feel uneasy. Usually the best that can be said for these frames is that the voids and wrinkles are in places that don't present a clear and present danger.

So even though I have all of these carbon fiber bikes I will probably return to far more reliable steel since I know now that weight is a great deal less of a controlling factor in my type of riding than I thought it would be..

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 07:38:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

If you look at the YouTube video's about cutting open questionable
frames (one video had the guy cutting open two C60 Colnagos) this
is sure to make you feel uneasy.

You might want to invest in a USB borescope/endoscope camera:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=borescope+usb
7 or 8mm is about the right diameter for decent viewing. Be sure to
get one that has a right angle mirror accessory so that you're viewing
the side of the tubing.

There are also two types of flexible cablings. The "flex" cable is
good for going around corners. For tubing inspection, a "semi-rigid"
cable is better because you can more easily rotate the camera in the
tube. There are some that offer wireless connectivity, which I've
found to be useless.

When looking for cracks and imperfections, I suggest you dim or turn
off the built-in borescope LED's and instead insert a white LED down
the tube. The LED will produce shadows that are more easily seen.

I'm not sure what to say about the software that comes with some of
these cameras. Most of it is marginal or out of date. Check with the
camera vendor to see if it will run on your PC, MAC, Android, or
iPhone. I bought a few cameras with software that actually and gave
them away as gifts. Four years later, the software won't run on
todays operating systems.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 9:30:41 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 07:38:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

If you look at the YouTube video's about cutting open questionable
frames (one video had the guy cutting open two C60 Colnagos) this
is sure to make you feel uneasy.
You might want to invest in a USB borescope/endoscope camera:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=borescope+usb
7 or 8mm is about the right diameter for decent viewing. Be sure to
get one that has a right angle mirror accessory so that you're viewing
the side of the tubing.

There are also two types of flexible cablings. The "flex" cable is
good for going around corners. For tubing inspection, a "semi-rigid"
cable is better because you can more easily rotate the camera in the
tube. There are some that offer wireless connectivity, which I've
found to be useless.

When looking for cracks and imperfections, I suggest you dim or turn
off the built-in borescope LED's and instead insert a white LED down
the tube. The LED will produce shadows that are more easily seen.

I'm not sure what to say about the software that comes with some of
these cameras. Most of it is marginal or out of date. Check with the
camera vendor to see if it will run on your PC, MAC, Android, or
iPhone. I bought a few cameras with software that actually and gave
them away as gifts. Four years later, the software won't run on
todays operating systems.
`Wrinkles may or may not be a problem. The real problems are voids and you have to have a lot of experience with the position and placement of voids to be able to know whether they are a threat or not. Buying the improper tool - a scope instead of an ultrasonic scanner, makes little sense.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:07:25 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

`Wrinkles may or may not be a problem. The real problems are voids and you have to have a lot of experience with the position and placement of voids to be able to know whether they are a threat or not. Buying the improper tool - a scope instead of an ultrasonic scanner, makes little sense.

From 2016:

"Why isn’t the bike industry scanning composites for flaws?"
https://www.bikebiz.com/why-isnt-the-bike-industry-scanning-composites-for-flaws/

CT scanning is faster while ultrasound is cheaper. Only £400,000 for
a CT scanner. No clue on the price of an ultrasound scanner. A $10
borescope or endoscope certainly has its limitations, but methinks
sufficient for finding really gross problems. I don't do CF so I
don't know what's involved, but the borescope was rather handy for
inspecting welds and repairs on steel and aluminum frames.

From 2020:

"Ruckus Composites Inspects Thousands of Bikes with One Ultrasonic
Thickness Gage"
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/insight/ruckus-composites-inspects-thousands-of-bikes-with-one-ultrasonic-thickness-gage/
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/45mg/
Only $2,400 ea:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-Panametrics-45MG-Ultrasonic-Thickness-Gage-w-D7906-SM-Transducer-Gauge-/353320469558
Maybe you can take up a collection among the local CF riders and share
the expense?


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 10:47:22 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:07:25 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

`Wrinkles may or may not be a problem. The real problems are voids and you have to have a lot of experience with the position and placement of voids to be able to know whether they are a threat or not. Buying the improper tool - a scope instead of an ultrasonic scanner, makes little sense.
From 2016:

"Why isn’t the bike industry scanning composites for flaws?"
https://www.bikebiz.com/why-isnt-the-bike-industry-scanning-composites-for-flaws/

CT scanning is faster while ultrasound is cheaper. Only £400,000 for
a CT scanner. No clue on the price of an ultrasound scanner. A $10
borescope or endoscope certainly has its limitations, but methinks
sufficient for finding really gross problems. I don't do CF so I
don't know what's involved, but the borescope was rather handy for
inspecting welds and repairs on steel and aluminum frames.

From 2020:

"Ruckus Composites Inspects Thousands of Bikes with One Ultrasonic
Thickness Gage"
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/insight/ruckus-composites-inspects-thousands-of-bikes-with-one-ultrasonic-thickness-gage/
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/45mg/
Only $2,400 ea:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-Panametrics-45MG-Ultrasonic-Thickness-Gage-w-D7906-SM-Transducer-Gauge-/353320469558
Maybe you can take up a collection among the local CF riders and share
the expense?
--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Yay Ruckus! https://ruckuscomp.com/ I had them inspect my SuperSix after a roof-rack catastrophe, and not surprisingly, they told me it was AFU. The lawyer lips were ripped off the fork-ends, and the seat post got bent up and the saddle ripped off, but the main frame actually looked O.K. externally. It was not O.K. internally. Nice folks and convenient to my house.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 10:47:22 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:07:25 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

`Wrinkles may or may not be a problem. The real problems are voids and you have to have a lot of experience with the position and placement of voids to be able to know whether they are a threat or not. Buying the improper tool - a scope instead of an ultrasonic scanner, makes little sense.
From 2016:

"Why isn’t the bike industry scanning composites for flaws?"
https://www.bikebiz.com/why-isnt-the-bike-industry-scanning-composites-for-flaws/

CT scanning is faster while ultrasound is cheaper. Only £400,000 for
a CT scanner. No clue on the price of an ultrasound scanner. A $10
borescope or endoscope certainly has its limitations, but methinks
sufficient for finding really gross problems. I don't do CF so I
don't know what's involved, but the borescope was rather handy for
inspecting welds and repairs on steel and aluminum frames.

From 2020:

"Ruckus Composites Inspects Thousands of Bikes with One Ultrasonic
Thickness Gage"
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/insight/ruckus-composites-inspects-thousands-of-bikes-with-one-ultrasonic-thickness-gage/
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/45mg/
Only $2,400 ea:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-Panametrics-45MG-Ultrasonic-Thickness-Gage-w-D7906-SM-Transducer-Gauge-/353320469558
Maybe you can take up a collection among the local CF riders and share
the expense?
if you ever actually saw massive carbon fiber failure without any warning you wouldn't be so easily convinced that some borescope that can ONLY allow you to see wrinkles and probably not even cracks is sufficient for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn29u7GoqPk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQJUSZeJE8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjZJsFZ-C6w

I could go on but this gives you the idea. They are presently making steel bikes that weigh about a 1.5 kg so while you have to throw away one of these in a crash, it it obvious and not hidden from view. Every time I'm going fast enough to pass cars I always have to worry about a major failure dumping me in from of the car I'm passing. This HAS occurred to be more than once and luckily I was far enough ahead of the drivers that they had time to stop. Hell, just a couple of years ago I had a tubeless tire fail and be thrown off of the rim dumping me directly in front of a work truck which luckily stopped. So we know that it is highly unlikely to have good tires such as Vittoria Corsa Graphene or Continental 4 Seasons or Gatorskins have an blowout if you're watching the road, that clincher tires normally go flat over at least a couple of seconds and that steel frames fail so little that you can safely buy a 50 year old steel frame from he top producers without any fear of it failing. That aluminum rims do not fail because they were made either heavy enough or built to survive crashing without damage. Aluminum handlebars are 0verbuilt etc.

I'm getting older and a crash at speed could put me in the hospital for a couple of months and then I may not be able to recover my climbing fitness, Only 5 years ago my resting heart rate was 20-40 bpm. I had to sit up and allow my heart to come up to at least 60 before I could stand up without falling. Now my rest heart rate is the normal 60. This is from insufficient riding during lockdown. Will I ever get back to that stage? At 76 who the hell knows?

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:28:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 10:47:22 AM UTC-8, wrote:
From 2020:

"Ruckus Composites Inspects Thousands of Bikes with One Ultrasonic
Thickness Gage"
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/insight/ruckus-composites-inspects-thousands-of-bikes-with-one-ultrasonic-thickness-gage/
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/45mg/
Only $2,400 ea:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-Panametrics-45MG-Ultrasonic-Thickness-Gage-w-D7906-SM-Transducer-Gauge-/353320469558
Maybe you can take up a collection among the local CF riders and share
the expense?

Yay Ruckus! https://ruckuscomp.com/ I had them inspect my SuperSix
after a roof-rack catastrophe, and not surprisingly, they told me it
was AFU. The lawyer lips were ripped off the fork-ends, and the seat
post got bent up and the saddle ripped off, but the main frame actually
looked O.K. externally. It was not O.K. internally. Nice folks and
convenient to my house.
-- Jay Beattie.

Point taken. Looks can be deceiving.

"Ultrasound Explained"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKGncs3bMzA (2:01)
Mo
https://www.youtube.com/c/Ruckuscomp/videos

The Olympus article mentions that they charge $250 for the inspection.
Ouch. Did they test the frame using an Olympus 45MG ultrasonic
thickness gauge, or some other device? Methinks the Olympus gauge is
a fairly new addition. Did they also do a visual borescope
inspection?

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/4/2021 1:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:28:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 10:47:22 AM UTC-8, wrote:
From 2020:

"Ruckus Composites Inspects Thousands of Bikes with One Ultrasonic
Thickness Gage"
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/insight/ruckus-composites-inspects-thousands-of-bikes-with-one-ultrasonic-thickness-gage/
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/45mg/
Only $2,400 ea:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-Panametrics-45MG-Ultrasonic-Thickness-Gage-w-D7906-SM-Transducer-Gauge-/353320469558
Maybe you can take up a collection among the local CF riders and share
the expense?

Yay Ruckus! https://ruckuscomp.com/ I had them inspect my SuperSix
after a roof-rack catastrophe, and not surprisingly, they told me it
was AFU. The lawyer lips were ripped off the fork-ends, and the seat
post got bent up and the saddle ripped off, but the main frame actually
looked O.K. externally. It was not O.K. internally. Nice folks and
convenient to my house.
-- Jay Beattie.

Point taken. Looks can be deceiving.

"Ultrasound Explained"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKGncs3bMzA (2:01)
Mo
https://www.youtube.com/c/Ruckuscomp/videos

The Olympus article mentions that they charge $250 for the inspection.
Ouch. Did they test the frame using an Olympus 45MG ultrasonic
thickness gauge, or some other device? Methinks the Olympus gauge is
a fairly new addition. Did they also do a visual borescope
inspection?


I watched a YouTube video - maybe a different one - in which a guy had
cut open many CF frames right along the centerline. It was disturbing,
being such, um, destructive testing, but I was really interested to see
the results. While the borescope sounds useful too, it won't (always)
show what is going on within the tube walls, hence the ultrasound makes
good sense to me.

Mark J.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 10:47:14 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:07:25 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

`Wrinkles may or may not be a problem. The real problems are voids and you have to have a lot of experience with the position and placement of voids to be able to know whether they are a threat or not. Buying the improper tool - a scope instead of an ultrasonic scanner, makes little sense.

From 2016:

"Why isn’t the bike industry scanning composites for flaws?"
https://www.bikebiz.com/why-isnt-the-bike-industry-scanning-composites-for-flaws/

CT scanning is faster while ultrasound is cheaper. Only £400,000 for
a CT scanner. No clue on the price of an ultrasound scanner. A $10
borescope or endoscope certainly has its limitations, but methinks
sufficient for finding really gross problems. I don't do CF so I
don't know what's involved, but the borescope was rather handy for
inspecting welds and repairs on steel and aluminum frames.

From 2020:

"Ruckus Composites Inspects Thousands of Bikes with One Ultrasonic
Thickness Gage"
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/insight/ruckus-composites-inspects-thousands-of-bikes-with-one-ultrasonic-thickness-gage/
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/45mg/
Only $2,400 ea:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-Panametrics-45MG-Ultrasonic-Thickness-Gage-w-D7906-SM-Transducer-Gauge-/353320469558
Maybe you can take up a collection among the local CF riders and share
the expense?

One of the problems is that weak points in composite structures are
frequently a matter of various layers of the fabric not being
completely saturated with the adhesive and thus not adhering to the
adjacent layers completely. To completely check the structure you will
require something that can check the entire thickness of the structure
and check it completely with no spots missed as even a tiny point with
lower strength can result in a stress concentration point.

Thus simply looking at the inside of the tubes with a "bore scope"
really is not really a conclusive check as defects can actually be
inside the body of the structure.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 08:22:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

One of the problems is that weak points in composite structures are
frequently a matter of various layers of the fabric not being
completely saturated with the adhesive and thus not adhering to the
adjacent layers completely. To completely check the structure you will
require something that can check the entire thickness of the structure
and check it completely with no spots missed as even a tiny point with
lower strength can result in a stress concentration point.

Yep. However, I never suggested that a bore scope should be used as
the sole method of inspection. It just happens to be a cheap and easy
way to inspect the inside of the tube for damage. The choice between
a zero dollar "tap test", a $10 borescope, or a $250 ultrasound
inspection, is limited by the resources of the owner. If the bicycle
has been in a crash, then the $250 test is probably the right choice.
You have but one life to give for your bicycle ride. However, if it's
just paranoia, suspicion, or preventive maintenance, the borescope is
cheap and easy.

Thus simply looking at the inside of the tubes with a "bore scope"
really is not really a conclusive check as defects can actually be
inside the body of the structure.

Oh, you want conclusive. We'll, there's nothing more conclusive than
a destructive test. Plug up all the holes in the bicycle frame and
apply air pressure. Carbon fiber is very good in compression, but not
so great in tension. I have no idea how much pressure it can survive,
but a number should be available from the manufacturer. Apply
something less that what is required for a catastrophic failure and
look for cracks and bulges in the paint. If there are any internal
imperfections, one should see a "blow out". If air pressure is
insufficient, maybe fill the frame with water or oil and perform a
hydro test. (Hydroforming is how aluminum frames are shaped.) If the
destructive pressure test blows out a tube or a glue joint, thus
precipitating an expensive repair job, the owner should thank the
bicycle gods that he wasn't riding the bicycle when it failed.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558