Why a Stainless Frame?
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Forksbent, MN
Posts: 3,190
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
15 Posts
I've come to the conclusion that what we perceive as the advantage of light wheels and tires is really the mentioned agility factor and not the individual accelerations of each pedal stroke. Thought differently about that as recent as a couple months ago, but having seen a few real world tests of exactly what IAB references (weight on frame vs wheels) it consistently doesn't effect times on flats and very minimally on grades (so minimally as to be hardly measurable). The consensus of the sources is that aero makes more of a difference.
I personally think that light wheels are "fast" by way of less wind resistance from fewer spokes, and light tires are "fast" by way of lower rolling resistance generally due to more flexible sidewalls (usually also higher TPI casings). Perhaps that's why sources like Zinn argue that light weight matters. It does I think, but seemingly zero measurable benefits for "lightness" itself in any controlled situation.
Going up hills seems the greatest of the common roadie acceleration situations. Gravity slows you down more between pedal strokes than on a flat road. Even there, the controlled tests show very minor to no benefits of the "easier acceleration factor" due to the light wheels.
I personally think that light wheels are "fast" by way of less wind resistance from fewer spokes, and light tires are "fast" by way of lower rolling resistance generally due to more flexible sidewalls (usually also higher TPI casings). Perhaps that's why sources like Zinn argue that light weight matters. It does I think, but seemingly zero measurable benefits for "lightness" itself in any controlled situation.
Going up hills seems the greatest of the common roadie acceleration situations. Gravity slows you down more between pedal strokes than on a flat road. Even there, the controlled tests show very minor to no benefits of the "easier acceleration factor" due to the light wheels.
Last edited by Chrome Molly; 09-20-14 at 11:57 AM. Reason: inserted more personal opinion loosely described as fact
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Posts: 12,054
Mentioned: 201 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3015 Post(s)
Liked 3,804 Times
in
1,408 Posts
When you accelerate your bike with your own effort, you are adding kinetic energy to all parts of the bike. In the first place, linear kinetic energy in proportion to the total mass and the difference in the square of the velocity (i.e. before and after the acceleration). To get the rotating components (most importantly the rims and tires) rotating at the higher rate corresponding to the linear velocity change, you must also add extra rotational kinetic energy to them, above and beyond the linear energy. That is why rim and tire weight counts for more (approximately 4x) than non-rotating components when it comes to acceleration.
Looking at the equations (I'm assuming they are correct, but I am no physicist) here, Moment of Inertia
There is really no difference between linear and angular momentum other than linear inertia is controlled by mass and angular inertia is controlled by the mass and distance.
But then there is the Alp D'Huez experiment. The same wattage created the same results whether the extra weight was on the wheels or the frame. And because of gravity, if you are going uphill at a constant velocity, you are always accelerating by fighting the deacceleration of gravity.
So where is the 4x coming from? Pardon my ignorance but I'm trying to find the governing equation. Is it related to the rate of acceleration? Even though the gradient at Alp D'Huez averages about 8%, the acceleration still would be considered "low". And if your acceleration rate is "low", moment of inertia is negligible compared to the linear inertia. So the 4x comes into play not if you are slowly getting up to top speed, but if you do a burst to top speed, the 4x comes into play. Just my guess right now. Any truth to it? But if rate of acceleration matters, what is the equation that says so?
#79
Senior Member
I've come to the conclusion that what we perceive as the advantage of light wheels and tires is really the mentioned agility factor and not the individual accelerations of each pedal stroke. Thought differently about that as recent as a couple months ago, but having seen a few real world tests of exactly what IAB references (weight on frame vs wheels) it consistently doesn't effect times on flats and very minimally on grades (so minimally as to be hardly measurable). The consensus of the sources is that aero makes more of a difference.
I personally think that light wheels are "fast" by way of less wind resistance from fewer spokes, and light tires are "fast" by way of lower rolling resistance generally due to more flexible sidewalls (usually also higher TPI casings). Perhaps that's why sources like Zinn argue that light weight matters. It does I think, but seemingly zero measurable benefits for "lightness" itself in any controlled situation.
Going up hills seems the greatest of the common roadie acceleration situations. Gravity slows you down more between pedal strokes than on a flat road. Even there, the controlled tests show very minor to no benefits of the "easier acceleration factor" due to the light wheels.
I personally think that light wheels are "fast" by way of less wind resistance from fewer spokes, and light tires are "fast" by way of lower rolling resistance generally due to more flexible sidewalls (usually also higher TPI casings). Perhaps that's why sources like Zinn argue that light weight matters. It does I think, but seemingly zero measurable benefits for "lightness" itself in any controlled situation.
Going up hills seems the greatest of the common roadie acceleration situations. Gravity slows you down more between pedal strokes than on a flat road. Even there, the controlled tests show very minor to no benefits of the "easier acceleration factor" due to the light wheels.
#80
~>~
Since racing is on a closed course cornering speed and lean angles are vastly different than what one can achieve w/o being a hood ornament on the road.
A delicate brake touch to modulate momentum entering a high speed corner is required, light wheels and very good tires help here to maximize entry/exit speeds.
The ham-handed get gapped while the calm and smooth sail through to the next inevitable big jump after jump, after jump.......
edit: Modern aero wheels are very important at race pace. A well selected balance of weight & aerodynamics is in order for well rounded performance.
Of course this assumes a rider trained & experienced in competition, for plootering about, not so much at all. In fact virtually nil.
-Bandera
Last edited by Bandera; 09-20-14 at 06:48 PM.
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Forksbent, MN
Posts: 3,190
Bikes: Yes
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
15 Posts
The physics definition is different from the acceleration that light wheels benefit. For this argument the basic, go faster, acceleration applies. If the wheel speed remains constant for a long period, weight won't matter much. If you race crits, every time you exit a corner, your wheel weight matters. If you don't race but ride in a group, every time you rotate off the front and accelerate to match the speed of the group when you reattach to the back, wheel weight matters.
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yreka, CA, US
Posts: 392
Bikes: Fuji Aloha, ...
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I go on road rides and more or less maintain a constant speed. Therefore, I really don't obtain much of a benefit from a light wheel due to it's weight. I get lots of benefit from few spokes in crosswinds and nice tires are better for anyone at any time. If I raced in a stop and go environment, then I'd want light wheels for the improved control and agility that they offer. On the road, aero trumps weight, though both seem beneficial.
#83
Senior Member
I would be happy with stainless steel chain ring bolts. Same goes for the wire clamping bolt on brakes.
#84
Get off my lawn!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 6,031
Bikes: 1917 Loomis, 1923 Rudge, 1930 Hercules Renown, 1947 Mclean, 1948 JA Holland, 1955 Hetchins, 1957 Carlton Flyer, 1962 Raleigh Sport, 1978&81 Raleigh Gomp GS', 2010 Raliegh Clubman
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 98 Times
in
48 Posts
Light wheels....I thought we were discussing the virtues Stainless Steel frames? Who's da Pirate?
#85
Banned
The Italian factory that made RiGis , was already making Wheelchairs First, and they were likely already using Stainless steel for those.
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,597
Bikes: Too many 3-speeds, Jones Plus LWB
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 265 Times
in
119 Posts
With that equipment list, most comparable bikes would be well over 25lbs. Getting it to under 20 should be easy, but that would just be another number and probably wouldn't impact the ride very much. The wheels could easily lose a lb, the saddle maybe a half, and using a two piece crank would drop some also (if you could stand something modern). The tires could drop a bit too, and still be reliable. None of that's necessary at all, but just places to look if you want to drop it to a straight 20 lb ride. Me, I wouldn't do a carbon post. Dave's bike ride very nice, exactly how you told him you wanted it to.
It's a really nice looking frame, and once all your personal touches are added it I'd love to see a big glossy photo thread about it (it deserves it).
It's a really nice looking frame, and once all your personal touches are added it I'd love to see a big glossy photo thread about it (it deserves it).
#87
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 85
Bikes: Schwinn Voyageur 11.8 Chrome (original owner),Specialized Tarmac, Specialized Rockhopper FS, Bianchi Pista, Biachi Limited, Bianchi Nuovo Record, Orbea Carpe Diem carbon, Long Haul Trucker, Specialized Tricross, Kabiki Submariner fixed conversion,...
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times
in
14 Posts
I ran across your Submariner -
Made me want to show mine - altered. I had wanted to experience fixed riding and the Kabuki beckoned me. Stainless steel triangle set in forged aluminum joints. Remainder of the frame is chrome plated - at least that's what the original advertisements claimed. It made for a nice conversion since there were no braze-ons to take away from the clean lines.
I also have identical bike to yours in the pic unaltered and same size. Under appreciated as they are, I love them.
Made me want to show mine - altered. I had wanted to experience fixed riding and the Kabuki beckoned me. Stainless steel triangle set in forged aluminum joints. Remainder of the frame is chrome plated - at least that's what the original advertisements claimed. It made for a nice conversion since there were no braze-ons to take away from the clean lines.
I also have identical bike to yours in the pic unaltered and same size. Under appreciated as they are, I love them.
Last edited by ItsTimeToBike; 09-22-14 at 06:58 PM.
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 11,128
Bikes: 1986 Alan Record Carbonio, 1985 Vitus Plus Carbone 7, 1984 Peugeot PSV, 1972 Line Seeker, 1986(est.) Medici Aerodynamic (Project), 1985(est.) Peugeot PY10FC
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 34 Times
in
27 Posts
#89
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winnipeg Mb
Posts: 166
Bikes: 1930's CCM Flyer, black and gold, 1930's CCM Flyer, chrome, 1939 CCM Flyer Gold plated, 1903 CCM Rambler, 1912 Glasgo Cycle Co, 1935 Silver King Wingbar
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Stainless is not a new thing. I have a custom made stainless bike from 1929. The stainless on this bike does have pits. I have been told the bike is nickel plated but I looked close in spots and see bare metal. Nickel will peel or chip where it is pitted, I cannot chip the nickel off where the pits are.
#90
Cat 6
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mountain Brook, AL
Posts: 7,482
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 500 Post(s)
Liked 183 Times
in
118 Posts
Stainless is not a new thing. I have a custom made stainless bike from 1929. The stainless on this bike does have pits. I have been told the bike is nickel plated but I looked close in spots and see bare metal. Nickel will peel or chip where it is pitted, I cannot chip the nickel off where the pits are.
#91
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winnipeg Mb
Posts: 166
Bikes: 1930's CCM Flyer, black and gold, 1930's CCM Flyer, chrome, 1939 CCM Flyer Gold plated, 1903 CCM Rambler, 1912 Glasgo Cycle Co, 1935 Silver King Wingbar
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have not tried riding the bike yet. It needs tires and the bearings greased. I will check things out this winter. No track here now. We used to have a wood track here. I have trophies from the early 30's with the original owners name and some paper memorabilia with his name on them.
#92
Decrepit Member
Stainless is not a new thing. I have a custom made stainless bike from 1929. The stainless on this bike does have pits. I have been told the bike is nickel plated but I looked close in spots and see bare metal. Nickel will peel or chip where it is pitted, I cannot chip the nickel off where the pits are.
#93
curmudgineer
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW burbs
Posts: 4,417
Bikes: 2 many 2 fit here
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times
in
70 Posts
I have not tried riding the bike yet. It needs tires and the bearings greased. I will check things out this winter. No track here now. We used to have a wood track here. I have trophies from the early 30's with the original owners name and some paper memorabilia with his name on them.
I remember when I was a teenager with my first non-crap 10-speed, getting on the track and racing with my friend for a few laps. There were no locked doors, back then at least.
Track surface was concrete. In my inexperience, I succumbed to the booby trap rut at the bottom of the banked surface, and somehow blew a tire in the process. Ended up walking my bike home several miles; my friend was a true buddy and walked his bike home as well, at my side.
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,929 Times
in
2,554 Posts
You guys do a good job of taking on "stainless" and its rudt and corrosion properties. I just keep it really simple. "Stainless" as in "stainless steel" doesn't mean "without stain". It means "stains less".
Ben
Ben
#96
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Woodstown NJ
Posts: 274
Bikes: 1975 Schwinn Voyageur II (Made by Panasonic), 1988 Schwinn Voyaguer (touring)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Scopper
The SS/CS property tables are simply fantastic. Thanks for the work. 3 questions:
1. What gives 953 such higher strengths than the other SS alloys in your 1st table? The alloying or heat treatment?
2. What tube wall thickness did you use on the SS Waterford??? Do you know the wall thickness of the 531 Paramount?
3. Can you see the seam weld on the 953 tubes. Your 1st table showed 953 as seam welded tubing.
Allegheny Ludlum supplied Ford with SS in 1935 and a number of sedans were made, which A-L salesman used around the country. Very high mileage and the car looks brand new. One 1935 is at the Heinz History Center in Pittsburgh PA. It is very shiny. A-L wanted to show other uses of SS. I do not know if they supplied SS coil for bicycle tubing at the time.
John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ
The SS/CS property tables are simply fantastic. Thanks for the work. 3 questions:
1. What gives 953 such higher strengths than the other SS alloys in your 1st table? The alloying or heat treatment?
2. What tube wall thickness did you use on the SS Waterford??? Do you know the wall thickness of the 531 Paramount?
3. Can you see the seam weld on the 953 tubes. Your 1st table showed 953 as seam welded tubing.
Allegheny Ludlum supplied Ford with SS in 1935 and a number of sedans were made, which A-L salesman used around the country. Very high mileage and the car looks brand new. One 1935 is at the Heinz History Center in Pittsburgh PA. It is very shiny. A-L wanted to show other uses of SS. I do not know if they supplied SS coil for bicycle tubing at the time.
John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: TORONTO , ONT , CA
Posts: 813
Bikes: '86 AMBROSI / C RECORD. PINARELLO MONTELLO / FRAME, FORK.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There were a number of SS T Birds and Continentals during, at least, the 1960's.
Regards,
J T
Regards,
J T
#98
Pedal to the medal
Old news:
Crescent rostfria
Crescent rostfria
#99
Decrepit Member
953 TT is 0.5/0.3/0.5, ST is 0.6/0.4, and DT is 0.6/0.4/0.6
Paramount 531 TT is 0.8/0.5/0.8, ST is 0.8/0.5, and DT is 0.9/0.6/0.9
Allegheny Ludlum supplied Ford with SS in 1935 and a number of sedans were made, which A-L salesman used around the country. Very high mileage and the car looks brand new. One 1935 is at the Heinz History Center in Pittsburgh PA. It is very shiny. A-L wanted to show other uses of SS. I do not know if they supplied SS coil for bicycle tubing at the time.
I think it's much more likely that oldy57's frame is nickel plated as that was a popular and inexpensive way to make steel frames pretty corrosion resistant in the 20s and 30s. This 1927 Stayer is nickel plated but only has some minor pitting after nearly ninety years.
Last edited by Scooper; 12-10-14 at 01:30 AM. Reason: corrected 531 wall thickness
#100
Senior Member
With some error, stainless can be tested with a magnet. Many (most) stainless steels aren't magnetic. Those that are, aren't very magnetic. The magnet will just barely stick. I would think that oldy57s frame would hold a magnet very well if it's nickel plated steel not so much if it's stainless.