editorial opinion, steel frames

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 6:06:41 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 7:16:52 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:29:11 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
Here you go, Tom:

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/...e-steel-bikes/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Once again after reading Jan I am reminded of Peanuts.
http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1955/09/25

I like what he says about steel versus carbon he

"They now offer a performance that is difficult to equal with other materials. With performance, I don’t just mean speed – although the best steel bikes have no trouble keeping up with ti or carbon racers..."

and he

"What about the performance of a steel bike? We’ve tested our steel bikes against the best titanium and carbon bikes. We expected the steel bikes to be a little slower, but we were surprised: The best bikes’ performances were indistinguishable. (And quite a few titanium and carbon bikes actually were slower, because their flex characteristics didn’t work as well with our pedal strokes.)"

and then he says:

"One carbon bike was a tiny bit faster up a steep hill, because it was lighter. Once we equalized the weights of the bikes, their performance was the same. The extra weight of our bikes came mostly from the fenders, lights and rack. The frame tubes themselves don’t actually weigh that much.. We added two full water bottles to the carbon bike, and it was as heavy as the steel bikes."

Did he not put two water bottles on the steel frame too? Why all the effort to make the carbon bike as heavy as the steel ones? The whole thing about carbon frames is that they are lighter than steel not the same weight. Sounds to me like he's soupting a whole big pile of El TToro Poo Poo.

He was testing characteristics of the materials and not the bikes themselves. When they built bikes of the Columbus Thron vs. the much higher grades ALL of the testers picked Thron as the best riding bike. Why? Because it wasn't quite as stiff.

A quick perusal of aluminum frame test rides will show that
aluminum is no good because it's 'noodly' and also because
it's 'too harsh', except for advertised models which are
both rigid and flexible.

--
Andrew Muzi

Personally, I own steel, titanium, aluminum, and carbon frames. They all ride fine. I cannot tell which one I am on unless I look. But I am very insensitive.

I sure as hell can tell you what bike I'm on with my eyes closed. Steel bikes have an initial flex and then harden up rapidly.

Andy said all the wonder frame materials are stiff but flexible. Good to see someone believes that. As a side note, send me a check for $1000 and I will tell you what to eat, drink, smoke to make your tool 7 times longer, 4 times greater diameter, and where to invest your money to triple it overnight. Honest.

On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I've owned my Paramount since 1988, and it's dialed in to the Nth degree. I did it not by changing components or adjusting anything, but instead by having my body conform to the bike over the last 28 years.

I don't care what steel tubes you choose, though, I think CF has more compliance and is going to give you a more comfortable ride.

The problem is that a frame can be made extremely rigid or very
flexible not depending on the material but depending on the design. It
is quite possible to built an aluminum frame that is heavier then a
steel frame (I've got one) for example, and which certainly feels more
rigid then my road bike.

The whole argument about bike flexibility versus frame material is
just hokum. Yes, you can build an aluminum frame that is stiff, but
equally you can build a steel frame that is stiff, or even (shudder) a
C.F. frame that is stiff.


--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 22 May 2017 20:47:25 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:

According to the cycling press over the past
30~40 years, steel frames are flexible, yet
rigid. Carbon frames are rigid, yet flexible.

Ha ha

What about "aluminum" frames as the material is
spelled in the US and Canada?

As for the cycling press, I've read the Swedish
edition of Bicycling the last 1-2 years.
That magazine is very predictable. There is
always tons of equipment you should buy, like
bags, bottles, clothing ...

The bike reviews are interesting, but even more
predictable. They could actually drop the
"article form" and instead make the reviews in
tabular form. Bike type: comfort MTB. Frame:
hardtail aluminium with unaggressive geometry.
Fork: CF with 100 mm suspension travel. Etc.
etc. The only thing they never mention is the
spoke layouts, tho they always mention who made
the wheels, what tire dimensions it has, and
sometimes even the patters of the tires.

Remember that the major source of income for a magazine is not from
the people that buy the magazine but from the amount paid to them for
advertisement in the magazine. Expecting any magazine to talk bad
about any product advertised in their magazine is to ignore reality
(or economics if you prefer :-).
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:

Remember that the major source of income for
a magazine is not from the people that buy the
magazine but from the amount paid to them for
advertisement in the magazine. Expecting any
magazine to talk bad about any product
advertised in their magazine is to ignore
reality (or economics if you prefer :-).

Right, but still, what company would produce
a really bad bike and expect to sell it to
customers for some 10 000 USD?

It is not like the movie industry where you can
produce crappy movies for insane amounts
because some people will think it is still OK
to spend a ticket to the cinema...

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 7:16:52 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:29:11 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
Here you go, Tom:

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/...e-steel-bikes/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Once again after reading Jan I am reminded of Peanuts.
http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1955/09/25

I like what he says about steel versus carbon he

"They now offer a performance that is difficult to equal with other
materials. With performance, I don’t just mean speed – although the best
steel bikes have no trouble keeping up with ti or carbon racers..."

and he

"What about the performance of a steel bike? We’ve tested our steel bikes
against the best titanium and carbon bikes. We expected the steel bikes
to be a little slower, but we were surprised: The best bikes’
performances were indistinguishable. (And quite a few titanium and carbon
bikes actually were slower, because their flex characteristics didn’t
work as well with our pedal strokes.)"

and then he says:

"One carbon bike was a tiny bit faster up a steep hill, because it was
lighter. Once we equalized the weights of the bikes, their performance
was the same. The extra weight of our bikes came mostly from the fenders,
lights and rack. The frame tubes themselves don’t actually weigh that
much. We added two full water bottles to the carbon bike, and it was as
heavy as the steel bikes."

Did he not put two water bottles on the steel frame too? Why all the
effort to make the carbon bike as heavy as the steel ones? The whole
thing about carbon frames is that they are lighter than steel not the
same weight. Sounds to me like he's soupting a whole big pile of El TToro Poo Poo.

Cheers


I've said this before but the reason I bought a CF Tarmac is that it was
probably 40% less expensive than an equivalent steel Marinoni. At that
price point 40% is a lot. Specialized used to be very well priced if you
didn't go for the S-Works models. They seem to be getting more expensive
lately.

That Tarmac was only a bit lighter. But by the time you put wheels, water
bottles, tool bags and a slightly overweight rider on the bike, the weight
difference is not that significant.

--
duane

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:45:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 11:28:08 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

This is what we're dealing with in Portland this year:
http://brooklyn-neighborhood.org/wp-...9.55.30-AM.png


And I raise you these, on one of my regular loops:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index....59139#msg59139

Andre Jute
Pothole mister

What gives here? McAfee Anti-Virus says this aboutt hat site:
"http://thorncyclesfor​um.co.uk/index.phptopic=8165.msg59139 URL entered
(http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php topic=8165.msg59139 ) is not a
valid website URL or has no data "

Cheers


Works on my iPad. Looks like Montreal around L'Acadie Andre. You don't
want to challenge Montréal for king of the pot hole. Lol.

--
duane

On 5/22/2017 8:54 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:45:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 11:28:08 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

This is what we're dealing with in Portland this year: http://brooklyn-neighborhood.org/wp-...9.55.30-AM.png

And I raise you these, on one of my regular loops:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index....59139#msg59139

Andre Jute
Pothole mister

What gives here? McAfee Anti-Virus says this aboutt hat site:
"http://thorncyclesfor​um.co.uk/index.phptopic=8165.msg59139 URL entered (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php topic=8165.msg59139 ) is not a valid website URL or has no data"

Cheers


That's odd. Popped right up on my machine.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/22/2017 11:16 PM, wrote:

A quick perusal of aluminum frame test rides will show that
aluminum is no good because it's 'noodly' and also because
it's 'too harsh', except for advertised models which are
both rigid and flexible.

--
Andrew Muzi

Personally, I own steel, titanium, aluminum, and carbon frames. They all ride fine. I cannot tell which one I am on unless I look. But I am very insensitive.

I sure as hell can tell you what bike I'm on with my eyes closed. Steel bikes have an initial flex and then harden up rapidly.

Andy said all the wonder frame materials are stiff but flexible. Good to see someone believes that. As a side note, send me a check for $1000 and I will tell you what to eat, drink, smoke to make your tool 7 times longer, 4 times greater diameter, and where to invest your money to triple it overnight. Honest.


Only $1000? How much extra to scientifically screw up my
riding position?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 11:13:40 AM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:45:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 11:28:08 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

This is what we're dealing with in Portland this year:
http://brooklyn-neighborhood.org/wp-...9.55.30-AM.png


And I raise you these, on one of my regular loops:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index....59139#msg59139

Andre Jute
Pothole mister

What gives here? McAfee Anti-Virus says this aboutt hat site:
"http://thorncyclesfor​um.co.uk/index.phptopic=8165.msg59139 URL entered
(http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php topic=8165.msg59139 ) is not a
valid website URL or has no data "

Cheers


Works on my iPad. Looks like Montreal around L'Acadie Andre. You don't
want to challenge Montréal for king of the pot hole. Lol.

--
duane

Or cold. I love Montreal in the summer. Beautiful city, lovely people. But three seasons out of four are plain nasty. If I lived in Montreal, I'd be a motorist, not a cyclist.

Andre Jute
Ain't that just the truth