Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Surly Straggler

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Des Moines, Ia
    My Bikes
    Trek 1.5, Fisher HK2
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Surly Straggler

    Just visited my lbs and ordered the Surly Straggler I have been wanting. Went with the purple color which should fit the attitude of the bike. Decided to upgrade to the 105 brifters and rd. Probably will add a Brooks B-17 soon. I sure hope it plays well with the rest of my fleet.

    Mike

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Suburban Kansas City, MO
    My Bikes
    08 Spec Sequoia Elite, 98 Spec Hardrock Sport, 04 Spec Stumpjumper, 93 Burley Rock n Roll, 11 Trek Transport
    Posts
    217
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nice choice.

  3. #3
    Have bike, will travel Barrettscv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Windy City
    My Bikes
    A road bike for every purpose
    Posts
    8,811
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A great all purpose bike. What tires?
    2014 Trek DS.1: "Viaggiatore" A do-it-all bike that is waiting in Italy
    2012 Pedal Force CG2: "Secolo Bicicletta" the modern carbon fiber road bike
    2012 Pedal Force CX2: "Carbone CX" the carbon fiber CX bike
    2010 Origin 8 CX 700: "Servizio Grave" Monstercross/29er bike
    1997 Simoncini Special Cyclocross: "Little Simon" lugged Columbus steel CX bike
    1987 Serotta Nova Special X: "Azzurri" The retro Columbus SPX steel road bike

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Des Moines, Ia
    My Bikes
    Trek 1.5, Fisher HK2
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The stock 42 Knards for now. I am very interested to get it and contrast it to my trek Damone. You guys are right it should be a great all around bike.
    mike

  5. #5
    Fresh Garbage hairnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,720
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I love mine as an all around bike. Right now I have it set for general road riding and commuting with 28mm tires but I have others for dirt and touring.

    Last edited by hairnet; 06-11-14 at 07:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrodzilla View Post
    I'd rather ride a greasy bowling ball than one of those things.
    Bikerowave
    My Bikes

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Des Moines, Ia
    My Bikes
    Trek 1.5, Fisher HK2
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Glad to hear you like your Straggler. I hope to pick mine up this weekend and begin enjoying it.

    Mike

  7. #7
    Senior Member Duane Behrens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Minnesota and Southern California
    My Bikes
    2009 Specialized Tarmac (CF), 1980 Nishiki (steel), 1984 Raleigh Super Course (steel), 1988 Schwinn World Sport (steel), 2009 Sp. Roubaix (carbon)
    Posts
    473
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If I were to buy a NEW steel-framed bike again, Surly would definitely be the brand. I still miss the Cross Check I gave to my son a few years back. Unfortunately, there are already three 30-year old steel bikes competing for space in the garage with 2 carbon-framed models. And a car. And a motorcycle. If I buy another bicycle, I'll be sleeping out there too.

    Enjoy yours. I'm jealous.
    The world is full of kind people. If you can't find one - BE one.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Des Moines, Ia
    My Bikes
    Trek 1.5, Fisher HK2
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I will give a brief review once I get it and have a chance to ride a few miles.

    Mike

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why Surly? They seem overpriced for a pretty ordinary (and heavy) 4130 steel frame... Great marketing though, so good resell value.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,348
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Steel is real... and Surly builds great bikes with it.

  11. #11
    Senior Member catonec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    burlington VT.
    Posts
    2,213
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    pretty serious headtube stack going on there.
    2010 Kestrel RT900SL, 800k carbon, chorus/record, speedplay, zonda
    1997 Trek ZX6000, 6061w/manitou spyder, xt/xtr, time atac

  12. #12
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,559
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    Why Surly? They seem overpriced for a pretty ordinary (and heavy) 4130 steel frame... Great marketing though, so good resell value.
    Surly, Salsa, SOMA, Jamis, Raleigh, Gunnar, Waterford, and Traitor, are just a few of the last bicycle companies remaining, that produce steel bicycles. There once was a time when there were no other choices outside of steel. Though, our frame choices were limited, the longevity our bicycles sure wasn't. Some of the bicycles that we purchased back then are still going strong. Some will continue to render good service for even more decades to come. That's only due to the fact that steel doesn't suffer the same fatigue issues experienced by aluminum. Steel has a fatigue limit, below which, it can encounter an infinite number of stress cycles. Aluminum has no such limit. It will most definitely suffer material failure after some finite number of stress cycles.

    Therefore, whatever advantage steel lacks in bicycle frame advantages for the cyclist, it more than compensates for, in added years of comfortable service. Many cyclists who've invested in steel bicycles have been rewarded with the comfortable ride of steel for decades. I'm most certain that's a most salient fact considered, when the more prudent cyclists concerned about both comfort and longevity, select a Surly whenever bicycle shopping.

    If you'd spend some time researching more factual information, you'd soon discover, that most 4130 and 520 double butted versions of steel tubed bicycles, outweigh their aluminum siblings by only a couple of pounds, at the most. In some cases, aluminum bicycle frames even outweigh certain proprietary steel tubed ones, that have alloy compositions and processes very similar to that of 4130 steel.

    Therefore, we should all thank Surly for bringing us the Straggler!

    PS.

    Jamis makes an aluminum framed road bicycle called, the Ventura. It also makes a steel framed bicycle, called the Quest. The following are weights of each:

    Jamis Road Bike Relative Weights

    Ventura Sport = 23.00 lbs.
    Quest Sport = 25.00 lbs.

    Venture Comp = 21.00 lbs.
    Quest Comp = 23.00 lbs.
    Last edited by WestPablo; 06-15-14 at 08:23 AM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    314
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I love steel as well, and have a similar LeMond Poprad that I traded in my Surly Cross-Check for. I am just wondering why people love. Surly frames so passionately. IE you could buy this entire bike for half the price of a Surly and get 4130 a steel frame of the same quality: Save Up to 60% Off Touring Bikes | Commuting | Commuter Bikes | Motobecane Bikes - Gran Turismo for touring the country there is nothing better and the 2 frames may actually be welded at the same Taiwanese factory, from the same steel tubing.

    Or for an extra $100 ($800 total) get Reynolds 520: http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...remio_xiii.htm
    Last edited by Erik_A; 06-15-14 at 07:34 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,559
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    I love steel as well, and have a similar LeMond Poprad that I traded in my Surly Cross-Check for. I am just wondering why people love. Surly frames so passionately. IE you could buy this entire bike for half the price of a Surly and get 4130 a steel frame of the same quality: Save Up to 60% Off Touring Bikes | Commuting | Commuter Bikes | Motobecane Bikes - Gran Turismo for touring the country there is nothing better and the 2 frames may actually be welded at the same Taiwanese factory, from the same steel tubing.

    Or for an extra $100 ($800 total) get Reynolds 520: Save Up To 60% Off Pro Level Steel Road Bikes | Commuting | Commuter Bikes | Motobecane Gran Premio PRO
    Yes! Of course! I do get your point, but the same could be said of just about any model of bicycle coming from a major brand. That's only because of Bikesdirect's method of marketing its bicycles. They have a uniquely sweet mass production deal going with Kinesis, coupled with the fact that they have no brick & mortar sales distribution costs with which to contend. The Internet serves as a tool, for sales, advertising, and aids in distribution, as well. There are no salespeople on the floor to be paid. There are no bicycle mechanics to be paid. There are no bicycle managers or regional sales reps to be paid. There are no building rents to be paid. There are no building utilities to be paid.

    Bikesdirect has managed to slay Goliath, the giant middleman! That's how they are able to charge such discounted prices for their bicycles. You order it, and they then ship it! That's it!

  15. #15
    Senior Member grolby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BOSTON BABY
    Posts
    6,702
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    Surly, Salsa, SOMA, Jamis, Raleigh, Gunnar, Waterford, and Traitor, are just a few of the last bicycle companies remaining, that produce steel bicycles.
    The implication that steel bikes are fading in popularity and are only made by a small handful of manufacturers is simply false. Steel remains by far the most common material for bicycle frames.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    There once was a time when there were no other choices outside of steel. Though, our frame choices were limited, the longevity our bicycles sure wasn't. Some of the bicycles that we purchased back then are still going strong. Some will continue to render good service for even more decades to come. That's only due to the fact that steel doesn't suffer the same fatigue issues experienced by aluminum. Steel has a fatigue limit, below which, it can encounter an infinite number of stress cycles. Aluminum has no such limit. It will most definitely suffer material failure after some finite number of stress cycles.
    So much BS here. Yes, steel has a "fatigue limit," but this irrelevant when it comes to bicycle frame life. There are two major reasons for this. First, bicycles, aircraft, etc, built with aluminum are designed such that normal fatigue should not cause a failure in a lifetime of use. That doesn't mean fatigue failure is impossible, as it depends upon the frame, how it is assembled, damage and a host of other factors. Second, although steel itself has a fatigue limit, steel frames almost certainly do not and have a finite lifespan just as aluminum frames do. Steel frames absolutely accumulate fatigue stress and do eventually fail from it. Yes, including notoriously overbuilt Surlys - I've heard of multiple Surly frames that eventually failed from fatigue. That's not because there's anything wrong with Surly frames, and they are certainly not dangerous. But a frame of joined metal tubing is absolutely subject to fatigue stress, no matter what it is made from. The "fatigue limit" argument is pure, grade-A BS when applied to bike frames and making it is a sure sign that you do not have any actual experience with or knowledge about bicycle frame failures.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    Therefore, whatever advantage steel lacks in bicycle frame advantages for the cyclist, it more than compensates for, in added years of comfortable service. Many cyclists who've invested in steel bicycles have been rewarded with the comfortable ride of steel for decades. I'm most certain that's a most salient fact considered, when the more prudent cyclists concerned about both comfort and longevity, select a Surly whenever bicycle shopping.
    As mentioned above, those Surly frames sure can (and do!) fail after years of use. You can't predict the longevity of a frame from what it's made of; there are plenty of carbon and aluminum bikes from the 1980s and 1990s that are still doing fine, and steel frames from that time period that have broken.

    As for comfort, that's laughable. I've had a Surly LHT and a Surly Cross-Check, and they are great bikes, but not because they are comfortable; in fact, every Surly I've ever ridden rides like a brick. They are commodity frames built with thick-walled, extremely stiff tubing. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make a comfortable bike. If you think a Surly has the "magic ride of steel," it's only because you've never ridden a GOOD steel frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    If you'd spend some time researching more factual information, you'd soon discover, that most 4130 and 520 double butted versions of steel tubed bicycles, outweigh their aluminum siblings by only a couple of pounds, at the most. In some cases, aluminum bicycle frames even outweigh certain proprietary steel tubed ones, that have alloy compositions and processes very similar to that of 4130 steel.
    "A couple of pounds," at typical bicycle weights, is a HUGE amount to gain or remove from a single component. Downplaying a roughly 10% difference to the total weight of a bicycle is being hugely disingenuous about the difference in weight that a steel frame can make.

    Relevant information: ALL of my bicycles are steel. I like steel just fine. I do not like puffed-up, uninformed BS.

  16. #16
    Junior Member OldSurlyBastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    My Bikes
    2014 Surly Pacer
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Congrats Mike in DSM...from Keith in Ankeny aka the OldSurlyBastard; A "PacerFan"!!!!

    Mike: Congrats on your purchase of the Surly Straggler!!! I see that you're here in DSM...Which LBS did you purchase your Straggler from??? I'm a very satisfied Surly owner as of this May here in DSM/Ankeny!!! Built a SURLY PACER and have about 650 miles on it since I started riding it in early May. I love it!!!! Ultegra 30 speed drivetrain etc. It's a WONDERFUL RIDE!!!!

    In Reference to:

    Quote Originally Posted by grolby View Post
    The implication that steel bikes are fading in popularity and are only made by a small handful of manufacturers is simply false. Steel remains by far the most common material for bicycle frames.

    As for comfort, that's laughable. I've had a Surly LHT and a Surly Cross-Check, and they are great bikes, but not because they are comfortable; in fact, every Surly I've ever ridden rides like a brick. They are commodity frames built with thick-walled, extremely stiff tubing. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make a comfortable bike. If you think a Surly has the "magic ride of steel," it's only because you've never ridden a GOOD steel frame.



    "A couple of pounds," at typical bicycle weights, is a HUGE amount to gain or remove from a single component. Downplaying a roughly 10% difference to the total weight of a bicycle is being hugely disingenuous about the difference in weight that a steel frame can make.

    Relevant information: ALL of my bicycles are steel. I like steel just fine. I do not like puffed-up, uninformed BS.
    My experience has not been what grolby's has been in terms of ride. My Pacer is smooth, comfortable and the handling is quick and responsive. The couple of 40-50 mile rides I've done have been very enjoyable; not like riding a "brick". Average speeds 16.4 - 17.3 and my normal average ride is about 25 miles. The Pacer weighed in @ 23.05 on the LBS scale on the day we completed the build. I figure that if I need to carry less weight, then it isn't the bike that needs to lose 5 pounds; it's me !!! Mike: Enjoy the Straggler; Maybe I'll see you on the trails (I live in and ride out of Ankeny most days!!! Just look for the Disco Tomato Red roadie).

    And whether you ride steel, aluminum, titanium or carbon, find what makes riding fun for you and just pedal!!!! Old Surly Bastard: Keith in Ankeny

  17. #17
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,559
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by grolby View Post
    The implication that steel bikes are fading in popularity and are only made by a small handful of manufacturers is simply false. Steel remains by far the most common material for bicycle frames.
    Have you been living under a rock or something?

    If you go to just about any brick & mortar bicycle shop, you'll see practically nothing but aluminum and carbon bicycles available. If you visit just about any online bicycle distributor, you see that the overwhelming number of bicycles are dressed in either aluminum or carbon, and most definitely NOT steel!

    Go ahead, check 'em for yourself:
    www.performancebike.com
    Bikes, Cycling Clothing, Bike Parts & Cycling Gear: Bike Discounts & Deals from Nashbar
    Save Up To 60% Off Road Bikes, Bicycles, Mountain Bikes and Bicycles with Bikesdirect.com, New with full warranties
    Jenson USA - Online mountain & road bike parts, clothing and accessories shop | Jenson USA
    Bikes and Bicycles Online from Evans Cycles | UK Online Bike Shop

    Kinesis is one of the largest bicycle producers in the entire world. Most of their bicycles are made of aluminum, not steel. Steel is much more expensive to use for bicycle production. Although extracting aluminum from bauxite ore is more expensive than extracting iron from its ores, recycling aluminum from already produced products is much less expensive. That's what the industry observed many years ago and decided to go with aluminum. Besides, how many bicycles will the average cyclist purchase within an adult's lifetime? If steel is available, just one, or possibly even two. However, with aluminum, the number increases, due to it's fatigue issue. You do know that aluminum has that property, don't you? It has less to do with the way that the bicycle frame is constructed, than the material with which the bicycle is made.

    An aluminum bicycle is made of aluminum. Since aluminum is an element, it comes with certain specific properties. Having no fatigue limit, and being subject to material failure as a result of the lack of that limit, is just one of many salient features that aluminum possesses. Engineers and designers work together in order to conceal that particular weakness when it comes to aluminum. To that extent, construction is important when it comes to cycling and increasing the number of stress cycles require before material failure occurs. However, its failure will most inevitably occur! Not because of the way that it is designed, but despite the way in which it is designed! That's an integral property of aluminum, it suffers from fatigue, just from ordinary use. This is simply NOT the case with steel. If you keep steel dry and don't abuse it, it will last for centuries, performing the same routine duties, most reliably...

    Yes, steel has a "fatigue limit," but this irrelevant when it comes to bicycle frame life. There are two major reasons for this. First, bicycles, aircraft, etc, built with aluminum are designed such that normal fatigue should not cause a failure in a lifetime of use. That doesn't mean fatigue failure is impossible, as it depends upon the frame, how it is assembled, damage and a host of other factors. Second, although steel itself has a fatigue limit, steel frames almost certainly do not and have a finite lifespan just as aluminum frames do. Steel frames absolutely accumulate fatigue stress and do eventually fail from it. Yes, including notoriously overbuilt Surlys - I've heard of multiple Surly frames that eventually failed from fatigue. That's not because there's anything wrong with Surly frames, and they are certainly not dangerous. But a frame of joined metal tubing is absolutely subject to fatigue stress, no matter what it is made from.
    If a steel bicycle frame breaks or fractures, it will most likely do so at one of its weakest points, which would be at a weld joint. If this should occur, the joint can be quite easily welded again and resume its original strength. This welding feat, can be rarely achieved with aluminum. As previously stated, unless steel has suffered from either corrosion or abuse (in which case, its fatigue limit would be exceeded), it will perform indefinitely without any fatigue issues resulting from ordinary operation. The same applies to steel bicycle frames. Whenever steel does exhibit signs of failure, it will most assuredly be linked with some form of physical abuse within that specific area of damage.

    As for comfort, that's laughable. I've had a Surly LHT and a Surly Cross-Check, and they are great bikes, but not because they are comfortable; in fact, every Surly I've ever ridden rides like a brick. They are commodity frames built with thick-walled, extremely stiff tubing. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make a comfortable bike. If you think a Surly has the "magic ride of steel," it's only because you've never ridden a GOOD steel frame.
    It's common knowledge that for years steel was known to be much more comfortable than aluminum. However, due to much needed aluminum frame development in technology, engineers and designers have made aluminum frames more tolerable than whatever they were in the past. However, they just aren't as comfortable as steel, overall. In general, steel bicycles dampen road vibrations more so than aluminum frames do. The same can be applied to steel and aluminum forks too!

    "A couple of pounds," at typical bicycle weights, is a HUGE amount to gain or remove from a single component. Downplaying a roughly 10% difference to the total weight of a bicycle is being hugely disingenuous about the difference in weight that a steel frame can make.
    When one correctly evaluates the weight of a moving bicycle, one has to include both the weight of the bicycle and its cyclist. As long as the cyclist isn't racing, the weight of only two pounds is hardly noticeable.
    In terms of maintaining momentum, added weight actually works to the cyclist's advantage. Of course, on rough terrain and uphill climbs, the added weight becomes a burden. However, the cyclist could just as easily lose two pounds in order to compensate for the gained weight in steel. At any rate, the extra weight is more than compensated, when you can forgo the cost of a brand new bicycle, two decades later.
    Last edited by WestPablo; 06-15-14 at 12:30 PM.

  18. #18
    Senior Member grolby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BOSTON BABY
    Posts
    6,702
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    Have you been living under a rock or something?

    No. Steel remains by far the most popular material for bikes. It has been mostly replaced at the high end with aluminum and carbon fiber, but the majority of bikes out there are not high end.
    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    Besides, how many bicycles will the average cyclist purchase within an adult's lifetime? If steel is available, just one, or possibly even two. However, with aluminum, the number increases, due to it's fatigue issue. You do know that aluminum has that property, don't you? It has less to do with the way that the bicycle frame is constructed, than the material with which the bicycle is made.
    You're delusional. People usually don't replace bicycles because of frame failure, which is rare for any frame, and any enthusiast will own more than one or two bicycles in their lifetime. This has nothing to do with the frame material.

    As for fatigue limit, you are willfully missing the point. Yes, steel has a fatigue limit below which stress cycles do not cause it to accumulate fatigue, and aluminum does not. But steel bicycle frames are not built with this limit in mind and are basically guaranteed to be too lightly built to have an infinite fatigue life.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    An aluminum bicycle is made of aluminum. Since aluminum is an element, it comes with certain specific properties. Having no fatigue limit, and being subject to material failure as a result of the lack of that limit, is just one of many salient features that aluminum possesses. Engineers and designers work together in order to conceal that particular weakness when it comes to aluminum. To that extent, construction is important when it comes to cycling and increasing the number of stress cycles require before material failure occurs. However, its failure will most inevitably occur! Not because of the way that it is designed, but despite the way in which it is designed! That's an integral property of aluminum, it suffers from fatigue, just from ordinary use. This is simply NOT the case with steel. If you keep steel dry and don't abuse it, it will last for centuries, performing the same routine duties, most reliably...
    Since you seem to be having a hard time grasping this point, I'll reiterate it: the stresses imposed on steel frames from normal riding exceed the fatigue limit of steel. A steel frame ridden enough will eventually suffer fatigue failure. This might take 100,000 miles of riding. It might take a million or ten million.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    If a steel bicycle frame breaks or fractures, it will most likely do so at one of its weakest points, which would be at a weld joint. If this should occur, the joint can be quite easily welded again and resume its original strength.
    Thin-walled tubular steel is extremely difficult to repair by welding, and the skill and equipment to do a good job at it are pretty much only found in framebuilding shops. Your typical welded steel repair is both weaker than the original joint AND incredibly ugly, and should be considered an emergency step only.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    As previously stated, unless steel has suffered from either corrosion or abuse (in which case, its fatigue limit would be exceeded), it will perform indefinitely without any fatigue issues resulting from ordinary operation. The same applies to steel bicycle frames. Whenever steel does exhibit signs of failure, it will most assuredly be linked with some form of physical abuse within that specific area of damage.
    As previously stated: wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    It's common knowledge that for years steel was known to be much more comfortable than aluminum. However, due to much needed aluminum frame development in technology, engineers and designers have made aluminum frames more tolerable than whatever they were in the past. However, they just aren't as comfortable as steel, overall. In general, steel bicycles dampen road vibrations more so than aluminum frames do. The same can be applied to steel and aluminum forks too!
    Your reliance on "common knowledge" is causing you to make a fool of yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPablo View Post
    When one correctly evaluates the weight of a moving bicycle, one has to include both the weight of the bicycle and its cyclist. As long as the cyclist isn't racing, the weight of only two pounds is hardly noticeable.
    Without getting too much into the issue of weight and whether or not it matters (it does, for more than just performance) - you're shifting the goalposts here. If you're saying the right way of evaluating the weight of a bicycle has to include the weight of the rider, why were you listing just bike weights from the Jamis catalogue? You don't have the intellectual honesty to admit when you've been called out - in evaluating just the structure of a pair of bicycle frames that do the same job, if one weighs one to two pounds more, that is a massive difference. 10% of the weight of a complete bike, and perhaps 50% or 100% considering just the frame.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,348
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is the Cross Check with disk brakes.

    Nice bike!

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,348
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    I love steel as well, and have a similar LeMond Poprad that I traded in my Surly Cross-Check for. I am just wondering why people love. Surly frames so passionately. IE you could buy this entire bike for half the price of a Surly and get 4130 a steel frame of the same quality: Save Up to 60% Off Touring Bikes | Commuting | Commuter Bikes | Motobecane Bikes - Gran Turismo for touring the country there is nothing better and the 2 frames may actually be welded at the same Taiwanese factory, from the same steel tubing.

    Or for an extra $100 ($800 total) get Reynolds 520: Save Up To 60% Off Pro Level Steel Road Bikes | Commuting | Commuter Bikes | Motobecane Gran Premio PRO
    Reynolds 520 IS Reynolds version of 4130 cromoly. The quality is comparable. Although you will pay more for a Surly.

  21. #21
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,559
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by grolby View Post
    You're delusional. People usually don't replace bicycles because of frame failure, which is rare for any frame, and any enthusiast will own more than one or two bicycles in their lifetime. This has nothing to do with the frame material.
    How do you know why people replace bicycles? They usually don't replace them just because they're old...And we're not restricting our discussion to just "enthusiasts" so you've randomly injected that irrelevant little tidbit of nonsense into the discussion for some erratic reason..Who knows?
    Most people who purchase bicycles, do so for recreational and health reasons. The sport enthusiast is indeed a minority. Therefore, to simply insert the "enthusiast" into some kind of nonexistent data pool is inane, to say the least. It's most certainly statistically absurd! To say that the number of bicycles purchased within a lifetime has nothing to do with frame material, is scientifically erroneous, due to the simple fact that all materials have different properties. Some are just plain inferior to others when it comes to both function and longevity, due to their inherent intensive properties.

    As for fatigue limit, you are willfully missing the point. Yes, steel has a fatigue limit below which stress cycles do not cause it to accumulate fatigue, and aluminum does not. But steel bicycle frames are not built with this limit in mind and are basically guaranteed to be too lightly built to have an infinite fatigue life.
    Are you kidding?

    That's the most scientifically baseless statement you've made thus far! What do you mean " steel bicycle frames...are basically guaranteed to be too lightly built to have an infinite fatigue life."?

    There is no way possible for a fatigue limit to be built into or taken away from a material, simply by design. That is an inherent consequence of the material itself, physically derived from its intensive molecular or elemental properties.

    OTOH, an object can be deliberately built to fail, but that has nothing to do with the definition of fatigue limit or fatigue life.
    Since you seem to be having a hard time grasping this point, I'll reiterate it: the stresses imposed on steel frames from normal riding exceed the fatigue limit of steel. A steel frame ridden enough will eventually suffer fatigue failure. This might take 100,000 miles of riding. It might take a million or ten million.
    No. Once again, you're just making totally scientifically baseless statements that have absolutely no historical foundation at all. It's quite obvious that you are completely ignorant about the topic upon which were discussing. Again, steel is restricted to no finite number of stress cycles that would cause it any fatigue, as long as its fatigue limit has not been exceeded. Normal wear and tear will not cause steel to fatigue, unlike aluminum. OTOH, poor construction can cause a bicycle to fail. I think this is what you're attempting to state here. However, you obviously lack the intellectual fortitude to successfully express whatever your trying to state succinctly, and that's why you're miserably failing to do so. I shouldn't have to build sentences for someone who's clearly clueless about practically everything they're attempting to state.

    Thin-walled tubular steel is extremely difficult to repair by welding, and the skill and equipment to do a good job at it are pretty much only found in framebuilding shops. Your typical welded steel repair is both weaker than the original joint AND incredibly ugly, and should be considered an emergency step only.
    Well, I do agree that it should only be an emergency fix, if stranded. Otherwise, if done professionally, a steel "tig" can be made just as strong as the original weld.

    Without getting too much into the issue of weight and whether or not it matters (it does, for more than just performance) - you're shifting the goalposts here. If you're saying the right way of evaluating the weight of a bicycle has to include the weight of the rider, why were you listing just bike weights from the Jamis catalogue? You don't have the intellectual honesty to admit when you've been called out - in evaluating just the structure of a pair of bicycle frames that do the same job, if one weighs one to two pounds more, that is a massive difference. 10% of the weight of a complete bike, and perhaps 50% or 100% considering just the frame.
    Again, your position here concerning weight is completely idiotic. A filled water bottle can weigh close to a couple of pounds. Obviously, not worth the time discussing....
    Last edited by WestPablo; 06-15-14 at 03:07 PM.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Kopsis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    411
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by grolby View Post
    As for fatigue limit, you are willfully missing the point. Yes, steel has a fatigue limit below which stress cycles do not cause it to accumulate fatigue, and aluminum does not. But steel bicycle frames are not built with this limit in mind and are basically guaranteed to be too lightly built to have an infinite fatigue life.
    Ok, gotta set the facts straight on this fatigue limit stuff. Fatigue Limit (as defined by ASTM) is the amount of stress (typically measured in ksi or MPa) that is guaranteed to cause failure after a large number of cycles. Iron alloys and Aluminum alloys both have fatigue limits. For steel the limit is about half the tensile strength, for most Aluminum it's about 0.4 times the tensile strength.

    What folks are really talking about is "endurance limit" -- the stress at which a material can take an unlimited number of cycles. Research has shown that no such limit exists for steel or Aluminum ... enough cycles at any level will cause failure in both materials. However, because there is a "knee" in the Fatigue Limit curve for steel and no such behavior for Aluminum, steel can withstand many orders of magnitude more cycles at low stress than Aluminum. Of course all of this is for "smooth" samples. As soon as you notch, bend, double/triple butt or weld, all this theoretical Fatigue Limit stuff goes out the window.

    Bottom line is that very few frames of any material will ever fail due to the material's inherent Fatigue Limit. And since you can make a comfortable frame out of any material and you can make a brutal bone shaker out of any material, the "qualities" of a frame all boil down to design.

  23. #23
    Randomhead
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,388
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It seems to me that the discussion in this thread is getting too heated, and a couple of people need to back off or I'm going to start deleting posts and getting it back on topic.

    Material wars are so '90s anyway. What next, carbon esplodes?

  24. #24
    Fresh Garbage hairnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,720
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by catonec View Post
    pretty serious headtube stack going on there.
    Ah yes, I get this comment a lot. I am grateful for the long steer tube. It's the 64cm and I want the bar to be just below the saddle, although I just replaced them stem so I could have less steerer.




    To get this thread back on track, let's talk tire fit. I fit a 2.35" 29er tire on my front! It has next to no clearance on the fork legs but this means I can use some other narrower 29er tires.





    Last edited by hairnet; 06-15-14 at 08:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrodzilla View Post
    I'd rather ride a greasy bowling ball than one of those things.
    Bikerowave
    My Bikes

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Congrats! My Daughters new Straggler is so cool, I want one for myself!

    My daughters graduation present is so cool, I've been thinking about a Straggler as my all around bike too!
    Check hers out!
    image.jpg

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •