Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-18-10, 09:16 AM   #26
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes:
Posts: 13,702
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstorkel View Post
I think this is (sort of) a myth. In many cases you can spot problems with carbon fiber if you know what to look for. The problem is: most people don't bother to look, or don't know what they're doing when they do look. I worry more about spontaneous fatigue failure of aluminum parts than I about catastrophic failure of carbon parts... but I've been around the CF block quite a few times by now.
So ... what does the damage look like, then? What would you look for in, say, a drop handlebar? Obviously the parts where the brakes and stem mount to it need a close inspection, but I'm sure that's not all. And I don't know whether there could be anything hidden on the inside?

My kayak paddle is carbon fiber and kevlar, and has stood up to everything I've thrown at it for a couple of years now. It holds most of body weight when I get in and out of the boat, and has survived a collision with a cement wall in rough waves, with the very end breaking off. So I don't think CF is overly brittle ... but I do know that it can be seriously weakened and not show it. Any material can be abused to its breaking point ... it's just a little more obvious with, say, wood.
Seattle Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-10, 10:47 AM   #27
Herbie53
Senior Member
 
Herbie53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 7,136
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
How is that any different than buying a used bike of any material? Can you see fatigue cracks or internal corrosion? I think not.
Herbie53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-10, 11:04 AM   #28
Psyclist_sk
Clyde Cat3 in Chicagoland
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Near West Chicago Burbs
Bikes: Cannondale six13, CAAD4, Isaac TT
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FWIW, I have been racing a CAAD4 (new in 1999) and Cannondale Six13. Both bikes have taken the burden of my weight from my current 210 to my max at 280. Clydes can put out tremendous force on the pedals and my biggest concern in bottom bracket flex and movement. I also have an Isaac monocoque CF TT bike with DA 7800 cranks. The bottom bracket is HUGE and it flexes under heavy load. (CAAD4 with same cranks does not) This can be heard when reefing on the pedals and hearing the big chainring chatter against the front derailleur.

Based on my experience: Working at a bike shop (6yrs sales/mech) Racing, Crashing (#1 killer of CF), and being a Clyde...an aluminum/steel frame with BB30 will be your friend for a long time. I say go CAAD 9. Cannondale aluminum has offered a supple ride since the CAAD4 was introduced.
Psyclist_sk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-10, 11:59 AM   #29
nymtber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NY state
Bikes: See Signature...
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No CF for me. I just don't buy it, sorry. I had a CF Fork on the Allez I had, and yea it was a little more supple than the aluminum fork on my (current) Sirrus, but not so much that better grips wont take away the road buzz.

Steel offers a ride like no other, though. Cro-Moly to be exact. My 1995 Rockhopper frame and fork are smooth riding

Oh, and I am horrendously opposed to spending $3k or more on a BICYCLE!

I am waiting for the carbon fiber tools to start coming out...I mean, its only time.

I have had an aluminum frame stress-crack, due to improper adjustment of headset (actually I did it right, but the top cap was plastic and busted and I forgot that I used a washer on that bike ) I beat the heck out of that aluminum frame and it never showed signs of fatigue until I hastily replaced a Stem and forgot about the broken top cap of the headset. That is what it takes to learn, sometimes.
nymtber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-10, 12:10 PM   #30
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbie53 View Post
How is that any different than buying a used bike of any material? Can you see fatigue cracks or internal corrosion? I think not.
Well, maybe, I wouldn't buy used AL frames either, for exactly this reason. Generally with Steel internal corrosion, long before it gets severe enough for material failure you will see bubbling paint an indication that steel is rusting from the inside out. Generally though, internal corrosion takes a long time, often steel will surface rust and then stop rusting, case in point, I know a piece of railway track that was put in as plain steel no paint, it has been sitting in the same spot and is as solid today as when it was installed in 1865.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-10, 03:27 PM   #31
sstorkel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Bikes: Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Considering that there are steel frames from the early 1900's that are still as solid as the day they were made, and predate the packaging of framesaver by a long period.
Yep! The question you have to ask yourself is: if you bought a steel bicycle today would it be manufactured in the same manner as an early 1900's bicycle?

The answer, of course, is 'No'. I'm currently restoring a 1970's steel Schwinn cruiser. The tubes are literally 5-10X thicker on that bike than a modern steel bike. There's a lot of steel there! And it doesn't hurt that the manufacturing tolerances are such that it's virtually impossible for the frame to trap moisture. Still, there's quite a bit of rust on the inside of all the tubes; at least the ones that I can easily examine. Does it worry me? Not given the thickness of the tubes. But if the tubes were as thin as they are on modern steel bikes? I'd be a lot more worried about rust, proper frame prep & maintenance, etc.
sstorkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-10, 03:54 PM   #32
chasm54
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Bikes:
Posts: 8,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dooodstevenn View Post
was wondering how well a carbon fiber frame would hold up with my weight (220) some people say i should be fine, but i keep seeing frames snapping, and im sure more weight isnt going to help. any clydes out there riding a full carbon frame?
To get back to the point, your weight isn't a real problem. I have two carbon bikes that are fine, and while I'm a little lighter than you at 200lbs I have heavier buddies who have been riding carbon for years with no issues. If you crash it, make sure you inspect it minutely for damage: but just riding it at 220lbs isn't going to do it any harm.
chasm54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-10, 08:30 PM   #33
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstorkel View Post
Yep! The question you have to ask yourself is: if you bought a steel bicycle today would it be manufactured in the same manner as an early 1900's bicycle?

The answer, of course, is 'No'. I'm currently restoring a 1970's steel Schwinn cruiser. The tubes are literally 5-10X thicker on that bike than a modern steel bike. There's a lot of steel there! And it doesn't hurt that the manufacturing tolerances are such that it's virtually impossible for the frame to trap moisture. Still, there's quite a bit of rust on the inside of all the tubes; at least the ones that I can easily examine. Does it worry me? Not given the thickness of the tubes. But if the tubes were as thin as they are on modern steel bikes? I'd be a lot more worried about rust, proper frame prep & maintenance, etc.
Yes and the steel in modern bikes isn't just steel, steel makes up a good part of it, but it isn't just steel, other metals are mixed into it. As for modern steel, it really isn't much different then it was in the 1970's, my road bike frame is Tange 5, weight wise it's not too far different from a modern steel frame, about 4 pound odd, as little as 3 years ago, a steel 56cm frame was 4 pound odd. A little surface rust on the inside isn't a frame killer, in fact steel can rust over and if that rust is not regularly exposed to the elements, it can remain the same for decades. Don't forget steel bike frames are a mixture of steel, and other metals, the other metals, commonly Chromium, Manganese and Molybdenum are used in small amounts to strengthen the steel, they also slightly reduce it's tendency to rust.


Now to clarify something I am not against CF or Aluminum, I have one steel bike and one aluminum bike, if someone offered me a new CF bike, I would ride that too, just if I am going to spend good money on a bicycle, it's not going to be used CF and it's not going to be used AL either.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-10, 08:56 PM   #34
epicycle
Senior Member
 
epicycle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL
Bikes:
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyclist_sk View Post
Based on my experience: Working at a bike shop (6yrs sales/mech) Racing, Crashing (#1 killer of CF), and being a Clyde...an aluminum/steel frame with BB30 will be your friend for a long time. I say go CAAD 9. Cannondale aluminum has offered a supple ride since the CAAD4 was introduced.
As someone who is close to pulling a trigger on a new road bike, and is also hesitant of CF, I'm interested in what your opinion is of Titanium frames. And what of Ti frames that don't have BB30, like the Lynskey Cooper without BB30 (I know they have a BB30 version)? Will it be an issue for a 280 clyde who's rapidly losing and has a goal of around 230-250? Same question for CF like say the Trek Madone 4.5?

Thanks for the help!
epicycle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-10, 01:29 AM   #35
sstorkel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Bikes: Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Yes and the steel in modern bikes isn't just steel, steel makes up a good part of it, but it isn't just steel, other metals are mixed into it.
Steel makes up a good part of steel, but it isn't just steel?!? Let's brush up on our materials science for a moment: all steels are alloys. The primary component of a steel alloy is iron, not another steel. And, of course, there are other elements mixed with the iron to give the steel alloy a particular set of properties.

The interesting thing about steel, at least as used in bicycle tubing, is that there's a lot of BS surrounding the content of the steel and its properties. In the past, it was common practice to take a plain alloy, say 4130 chro-moly, add a pinch of something extra (chromium, molybdenum, manganese, nickel, etc), give it a fancy-sounding trade name (Life, Prestige, etc) and then try to convince everyone that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Under the covers, though, it was still just garden variety 4130.

Quote:
As for modern steel, it really isn't much different then it was in the 1970's, my road bike frame is Tange 5, weight wise it's not too far different from a modern steel frame, about 4 pound odd, as little as 3 years ago, a steel 56cm frame was 4 pound odd.
Modern steel alloys are vastly different than the alloys used in the 1970's. Most of them, unfortunately, still rust. The main advantage of newer steels is that they're stronger, so you can use tubes with thinner walls and end up with a lighter frame. The frame on my 1970's Schwinn weighs 9.4lbs and has tubes that are 2.2+mm in thickness. These days, you're hard pressed to find a bicycle main tube that's more than 0.9mm in thickness.

Quote:
A little surface rust on the inside isn't a frame killer, in fact steel can rust over and if that rust is not regularly exposed to the elements, it can remain the same for decades.
How deep do you think "a little surface rust" ends up being? 0.1mm?

A couple of years ago, I took a class where I learned to TIG-weld bicycle frames. Because thin metal is difficult to weld, we used super-thick double-butted chro-moly tubing. Want to know what qualifies as super-thick these days? 0.8mm at the ends and 0.5mm in the middle! If that 0.5mm tube rusts through 0.1mm of the thickness...

All of which is to say: I wouldn't blindly assume that a steel bike is going to be more reliable than an AL or CF bike.
sstorkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-10, 03:28 AM   #36
tallmantim
Senior Member
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Bikes:
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FWIW, I ride a carbon Bottecchia USA (ebay) bike. 6'4", 220lbs (was 245lbs), racing, commuting, recreation and training - including riding off some curbs with it.

I have no stress at all with the carbon frame - only if I had an accident would I be more worried than with aluminium or steel.

Having said that, I had a steel Kojima road bike that I was in an accident with - given a clean bill of health (for the frame - front wheel was toast). 2 months later, the head tube split in half while I was riding - a little scary! Thankfully, they managed to get me a frame under warranty (even though it was crash damage) as the car driver would have paid otherwise if they had of let me know of damage after the fact.
tallmantim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-10, 10:13 AM   #37
Herbie53
Senior Member
 
Herbie53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 7,136
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
I road my steel bike today. My carbon one is in the shop getting an all carbon fork installed. It should be in the low 16# range with that fine addition.

I like how quiet the steel bike is. Drive train noises seem to just disappear compared to my carbon bike. I don't mind the buzz of the chain, but it's cool how the steel makes it seem to just go away.. nothin' but tire noise and wind. Smooth too. Like riding a velvet cloud.

Flipside is it's heavy and flexy. I did manage to hang with the group for the whole ride, but had to mind myself not to get to far back before a climb and anticipate accelerations a good bit... oddly felt really good at the end of the ride. I need to ride my carbon bike like that, wasting my limited energy accelerating and surging is stupid.

I understand why people like steel, I don't understand why anyone would not ride carbon.... don't really care either.

Last edited by Herbie53; 06-19-10 at 11:13 AM.
Herbie53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-10, 01:38 PM   #38
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstorkel View Post
Steel makes up a good part of steel, but it isn't just steel?!? Let's brush up on our materials science for a moment: all steels are alloys. The primary component of a steel alloy is iron, not another steel. And, of course, there are other elements mixed with the iron to give the steel alloy a particular set of properties.

The interesting thing about steel, at least as used in bicycle tubing, is that there's a lot of BS surrounding the content of the steel and its properties. In the past, it was common practice to take a plain alloy, say 4130 chro-moly, add a pinch of something extra (chromium, molybdenum, manganese, nickel, etc), give it a fancy-sounding trade name (Life, Prestige, etc) and then try to convince everyone that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Under the covers, though, it was still just garden variety 4130.



Modern steel alloys are vastly different than the alloys used in the 1970's. Most of them, unfortunately, still rust. The main advantage of newer steels is that they're stronger, so you can use tubes with thinner walls and end up with a lighter frame. The frame on my 1970's Schwinn weighs 9.4lbs and has tubes that are 2.2+mm in thickness. These days, you're hard pressed to find a bicycle main tube that's more than 0.9mm in thickness.



How deep do you think "a little surface rust" ends up being? 0.1mm?

A couple of years ago, I took a class where I learned to TIG-weld bicycle frames. Because thin metal is difficult to weld, we used super-thick double-butted chro-moly tubing. Want to know what qualifies as super-thick these days? 0.8mm at the ends and 0.5mm in the middle! If that 0.5mm tube rusts through 0.1mm of the thickness...

All of which is to say: I wouldn't blindly assume that a steel bike is going to be more reliable than an AL or CF bike.
Your assuming that there no allowance made for surface rust in building steel bicycle tubing, that tubing design engineers are oblivious to the existence of surface rusting. Considering that Reynolds Cycle Technology has been in business in one form or another since 1898 and that Columbus Tubing was formed in 1919, these companies would know a lot about engineering bicycle tubing that doesn't immediately rust enough to fail in a few short years. Your also assuming that bicycle manufacturers working in steel don't rust treat frames in the factory.

CF is a reasonable material, however where metals will deform (bend), CF will shatter, which is fine if you crash and it shatters, not so if it shatters a week or a month later from cascade failure.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-10, 01:55 PM   #39
Herbie53
Senior Member
 
Herbie53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 7,136
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Your assuming that there no allowance made for surface rust in building steel bicycle tubing, that tubing design engineers are oblivious to the existence of surface rusting. Considering that Reynolds Cycle Technology has been in business in one form or another since 1898 and that Columbus Tubing was formed in 1919, these companies would know a lot about engineering bicycle tubing that doesn't immediately rust enough to fail in a few short years. Your also assuming that bicycle manufacturers working in steel don't rust treat frames in the factory.

CF is a reasonable material, however where metals will deform (bend), CF will shatter, which is fine if you crash and it shatters, not so if it shatters a week or a month later from cascade failure.
Based on my one data point that I know very well, your assumption that steel cannot fail suddenly and without obvious warning is incorrect.... mentioned above in post #13.

The bike was a Tommasini Prestige a lot like this one. It failed suddenly, catastrophically and put me on the pavement with significant force.

You just seem to have a hate for carbon without ever having owned or ridden it. I don't hate steel, even though it once failed me.

It all breaks.

Herbie53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-10, 07:49 PM   #40
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbie53 View Post
Based on my one data point that I know very well, your assumption that steel cannot fail suddenly and without obvious warning is incorrect.... mentioned above in post #13.

The bike was a Tommasini Prestige a lot like this one. It failed suddenly, catastrophically and put me on the pavement with significant force.

You just seem to have a hate for carbon without ever having owned or ridden it. I don't hate steel, even though it once failed me.

It all breaks.

I've said before, I don't hate CF, however I am not going to take the risk on buying a used CF frame bike, that may have been in a crash and suffered damage that isn't immediately visible. Not everyone is honest and upstanding, some guys will fix the visibly damaged parts and sell a bike for a high price without disclosing the fact that the frame is internally cracked, even though they know it is. I'm not saying someone couldn't take a broken steel frame and bondo it together and sell it, they need to colour match and paint the damaged section and hope nobody notices. I doubt anyone would bother though, because used steel frames are pretty reasonably priced due to the large supply.

I have an AL bike I bought new, 5 years ago, I wouldn't buy used AL either. Steel tends to tear or deform, I'd love to see photos of the break when it failed suddenly, not to disprove it, but to see if there are clues as to why it failed. I am sure the bicycle tubing maker would have liked to see that as well.
To turn your question around, you say you don't hate steel, but your writing says you do. I have always been honest here, in specifying that it's used CF that I have a problem with.

If I had say $2500 to spend on a bike, then CF would be in the running, but if the budget is say $800 then new CF would be beyond the budget and that means CF is beyond the budget. If I have a dumpster find and $75 then you can be 99.999% sure it's not going to be CF, and if it was, then it would be to strip the components off for another frame.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-10, 08:09 PM   #41
Herbie53
Senior Member
 
Herbie53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 7,136
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
I've said before, I don't hate CF, however I am not going to take the risk on buying a used CF frame bike, that may have been in a crash and suffered damage that isn't immediately visible. Not everyone is honest and upstanding, some guys will fix the visibly damaged parts and sell a bike for a high price without disclosing the fact that the frame is internally cracked, even though they know it is. I'm not saying someone couldn't take a broken steel frame and bondo it together and sell it, they need to colour match and paint the damaged section and hope nobody notices. I doubt anyone would bother though, because used steel frames are pretty reasonably priced due to the large supply.

I have an AL bike I bought new, 5 years ago, I wouldn't buy used AL either. Steel tends to tear or deform, I'd love to see photos of the break when it failed suddenly, not to disprove it, but to see if there are clues as to why it failed. I am sure the bicycle tubing maker would have liked to see that as well.
To turn your question around, you say you don't hate steel, but your writing says you do. I have always been honest here, in specifying that it's used CF that I have a problem with.

If I had say $2500 to spend on a bike, then CF would be in the running, but if the budget is say $800 then new CF would be beyond the budget and that means CF is beyond the budget. If I have a dumpster find and $75 then you can be 99.999% sure it's not going to be CF, and if it was, then it would be to strip the components off for another frame.
If I hated steel why on earth would I still have the steel bike I replaced the Tomassini with?

And no, I had no camera and hence have no pictures (it was 1989 and I was a grad student). My only evidence is a scar on my elbow and a missing section of eyebrow, so call me a liar all you want as it seems to better fit your narrative.

Your pseudo science is incorrect.

Goodbye.
Herbie53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-10, 08:22 PM   #42
sstorkel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Bikes: Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Your assuming that there no allowance made for surface rust in building steel bicycle tubing, that tubing design engineers are oblivious to the existence of surface rusting. Considering that Reynolds Cycle Technology has been in business in one form or another since 1898 and that Columbus Tubing was formed in 1919, these companies would know a lot about engineering bicycle tubing that doesn't immediately rust enough to fail in a few short years. Your also assuming that bicycle manufacturers working in steel don't rust treat frames in the factory.
Columbus tells people who use their tubing that it needs to be "properly rust-treated", though they don't give specifics. Surly suggest FrameSaver for their frames. I'm not aware of any major manufacturers that add rust-preventative to their steel frames at the factory. Maybe you can name some?

Quote:
CF is a reasonable material, however where metals will deform (bend), CF will shatter, which is fine if you crash and it shatters, not so if it shatters a week or a month later from cascade failure.
Your knowledge of materials science is, as ever, amusing. Metal will only bend so much before it fails catastrophically. Especially true with today's thin-wall (0.3-0.4mm) tubing. Call it the Beer Can Effect. You can put all the blind faith you want in steel, but that doesn't change the facts: everything can fail and buying used is always a bit of a crap-shoot... even for steel!
sstorkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-10, 07:46 AM   #43
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstorkel View Post
Columbus tells people who use their tubing that it needs to be "properly rust-treated", though they don't give specifics. Surly suggest FrameSaver for their frames. I'm not aware of any major manufacturers that add rust-preventative to their steel frames at the factory. Maybe you can name some?



Your knowledge of materials science is, as ever, amusing. Metal will only bend so much before it fails catastrophically. Especially true with today's thin-wall (0.3-0.4mm) tubing. Call it the Beer Can Effect. You can put all the blind faith you want in steel, but that doesn't change the facts: everything can fail and buying used is always a bit of a crap-shoot... even for steel!
Your correct, but your also talking across purposes here, your comparing characteristics of new material with old. If you take a 35 year old steel frame, from 1975 the steel isn't .3mm thick (even if some modern ones are), it's a lot closer to 1mm at the thinner points, even if it's Reynolds 531. Take a 20 year old frame and it's probably not much thinner, even if one made last week is much thinner. Funny thing though, even though the material is much thinner, the weight isn't that much different. Steel frames are still 4 pounds, even though the material is 1/3 the thickness, not sure how that works.

I think we will need to agree to disagree on this point and let this thread die...
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-10, 02:17 PM   #44
sstorkel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Bikes: Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Funny thing though, even though the material is much thinner, the weight isn't that much different. Steel frames are still 4 pounds, even though the material is 1/3 the thickness, not sure how that works.
Once again, you're making up facts and, as usual, they are completely ridiculous...

Frames made with newer steel alloys do not have to weigh 4.5lbs. That's the whole point of using a more modern alloy like Reynolds 853, Reynolds 953, True Temper OX Platinum, or True Temper S3: to build a bike with a weight that approaches CF or AL. With S3, for example, it's possible to build a frame that weighs around 1300g (2.87lbs). Wouldn't surprise me if you could go even lighter with Reynolds 953.

Quote:
I think we will need to agree to disagree on this point and let this thread die...
We both know you can't resist beating a dead (steel) horse! I can't wait to see what "facts" you're going to make up next...
sstorkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-10, 04:01 PM   #45
grimace308
crash 5
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: mpls
Bikes: 90s? serotta t-max, 09' planet x ti frame w/sram force, '10 Bianchi Volpe
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstorkel View Post
We both know you can't resist beating a dead (steel) horse!
come on now, dont be bringin' jbj into this, neither of you are wanted dear or alive...yet.
grimace308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-10, 09:31 PM   #46
chasmm
Senior Member
 
chasmm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Bikes: '85 Rossin Super Record, '88 Specialized Sequoia, '10 Raleigh Cadent FT2, '10 Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 1,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtalinm View Post
I'm over 275 (not for long though!) and my specialized roubaix is swimming right along
Wow...I could have written that word for word (which is why I quoting it) about 2 months ago. I'm now at 265 and LOVE my Specialized CF Roubaix.

Charles
chasmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-10, 10:36 AM   #47
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstorkel View Post
Once again, you're making up facts and, as usual, they are completely ridiculous...

Frames made with newer steel alloys do not have to weigh 4.5lbs. That's the whole point of using a more modern alloy like Reynolds 853, Reynolds 953, True Temper OX Platinum, or True Temper S3: to build a bike with a weight that approaches CF or AL. With S3, for example, it's possible to build a frame that weighs around 1300g (2.87lbs). Wouldn't surprise me if you could go even lighter with Reynolds 953.



We both know you can't resist beating a dead (steel) horse! I can't wait to see what "facts" you're going to make up next...
Pardon me for not having the doctorate in mechanical engineering, with a speciality in metalurgy, you so obviously possess that means you know more then the engineers at the companies making the tube sets. Actually you missed a couple of points though. You can't apply corrosion characteristics of gas pipe or even Reynolds 531 onto some of the modern alloys. For example Reynolds 953 or Columbus XCr are stainless steels, so corrosion characteristics will be very different then 4130 steel, and True Temper S3 is corrosion treated with their TrucoteT anti-corrosion process so will again have different characteristics. This all comes from the websites of the respective companies, so assume whatever you like.

According to a supplier of True Temper tubing Henry James Bicycles, Inc. in Redondo Beach, CA some of these super thin, super light tubes are not even recommended for riders over specific weights anyway, leaving the whole point kinda moot. Reynolds makes their steel tubes to order, at least their website states as much, so I would assume that if you want a tubeset made of thicker metal, they would be pleased to offer it to you, I wonder who would do the weight engineering though, the frame builder or Reynolds. If someone wanted say a Reynolds 953 frame, and they weigh 150kg, would the frame builder need to figure out the thickness or would they simply pass this on to the folks at Reynolds and have them figure it out.

Now back to our regularly scheduled
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-10, 11:39 PM   #48
Loose Chain
Senior Member
 
Loose Chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Bikes: 84 Pinarello Trevisio, 86 Guerciotti SLX, 96 Specialized Stumpjumper, 2010 Surly Cross Check, 88 Centurion Prestige, 73 Raleigh Sports
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Considering that there are steel frames from the early 1900's that are still as solid as the day they were made, and predate the packaging of framesaver by a long period. I think I would rather trust a steel frame where damage is fairly obvious then a CF frame where damage could be fairly well hidden, cracks can appear on the inside as easily as the outside. The problem with used CF is that it can have been crashed, internal damage determined through Xray, the seller sells it to you for a good price without disclosing the damage, and you get seriously hurt when it fails.
Ditto. I would purchase a new cf bike but I would not buy a used one unless I knew the person I was buying it from and therefore had some history on it.

Last edited by Loose Chain; 06-24-10 at 11:51 PM.
Loose Chain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-10, 11:14 AM   #49
sstorkel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Bikes: Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Schwinn Typhoon, Nashbar touring, custom steel MTB
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Actually you missed a couple of points though. You can't apply corrosion characteristics of gas pipe or even Reynolds 531 onto some of the modern alloys.
Why not? Has the 4130 alloy used to build modern Surly, Soma, and other frames really changed much from the 4130 used to build bikes in the 1970's and 1980's? I don't think so...

Did I say that modern alloys like 953 and S3 corrode like older alloys? No. But realize: all steels corrode under the right conditions. This includes the so-called "stainless" steels as well as 953, S3, and other bicycle tubing. Think of them as being corrosion resistant and you'll have the right picture. There's a reason that manufacturers of steel bikes (e.g. Surly, Waterford, etc) recommend applying FrameSaver to any steel frame.

Quote:
According to a supplier of True Temper tubing Henry James Bicycles, Inc. in Redondo Beach, CA some of these super thin, super light tubes are not even recommended for riders over specific weights anyway, leaving the whole point kinda moot.
I think you're confusing Hank's pre-selected tube sets with an inherent limitation in the material... If you want to build a frame for a Clyde, it's possible to do that but you'll have to read through the catalog (or call Hank) and pick the appropriate tubes.

Quote:
Reynolds makes their steel tubes to order, at least their website states as much, so I would assume that if you want a tubeset made of thicker metal, they would be pleased to offer it to you, I wonder who would do the weight engineering though, the frame builder or Reynolds.
"Made to order" in this case means: "When you order it, then we'll make it. So be prepared to wait a while." It does not mean that they'll make you anything you want... unless you have a very large pocket book!
sstorkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-10, 07:06 AM   #50
garethzbarker
Senior Member
 
garethzbarker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kimpo, S. Korea
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Expert 09, Custom 2013 Bike Friday Pocket Rocket
Posts: 697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Carbon is kind of scary until you get used to it. It's really strong stuff though. I get a little flex on my Roubaix @ 220 but it's not bad. I was scared of carbon until someone pointed out to me that so many forks are carbon these days no matter what your frame is made of. If carbon is good enough for forks it's good enough for me.

Will a heavy guy have a better chance of breaking a carbon bike in a crash than a small guy? For sure!
Will a heavy guy have a better chance of breaking a metal bike in a crash than a small guy? For sure!
garethzbarker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:31 PM.