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 get lost at the 4x.

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?

I'm waiting for the earth's rotation to slow down where it improves my climbing. :rolleyes:

F=ma

(force = my azz)

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.

Indeed it does, and not just for acceleration.
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

Agree you your and BD's assessment of the relative importance of light wheels. 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.

Same goes for me. On a 20 mile loop, there are only 4 corners that require any braking at all. I accelerate more from voluntary rest and drink stops than anything else. I'm sure that my experience is not typical since I live in an exceedingly low-population area; however, it seems to again validate the rule that your equipment should match your riding -- skill, fitness, terrain, traffic, etc., even withing disciplines like road training.

I would be happy with stainless steel chain ring bolts. Same goes for the wire clamping bolt on brakes.

Light wheels....I thought we were discussing the virtues Stainless Steel frames? Who's da Pirate?

The Italian factory that made RiGis , was already making Wheelchairs First, and they were likely already using Stainless steel for those.

I'm a sucker for Brooks saddles, and I've always liked Mavic so I got their best alloy road rims. I have a two piece crank but it can't be used as it won't allow for a proper chainline, and the Phil Wood BB is likely to hold up better anyway. For me its nice to have a light bike, but it seems just as much about the parts and brands to which I am partial.

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.http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=407735http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=407736

Aarrrrrr.....
Aye maytee,.... Eyh wos de lend lubber bilge rat dat storted et ahl:p:D

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.



http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=421685

Sharp bike. Do you have a track nearby so it gets its proper use?

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 find it odd that there doesn't seem to be any mention of stainless steel tubing used to manufacture bicycle frames in industry literature prior to the early 1970s introduction of the Swedish Crescent Mark XX bicycle with stainless Sandvik alloy frame tubing. I'd think that a bike frame made from stainless in 1929 would have been special enough to be noted somewhere in the contemporary literature. When I asked Roger Braun, the ebay seller of your bike, if any of the literature he had mentioned that the frame was stainless, he said there was nothing in the literature he had that discussed the frame material but that the person who had sold him the bike told him it was stainless steel.

What happened to the velodrome near Polo Park, that was constructed for the 1970[?] Pan-Am games?
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.

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

Apologies for drift. I'd love to see a photo of your 79' Mooney.

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

There were a number of SS T Birds and Continentals during, at least, the 1960's.

Regards,
J T

Whoa! Cool. I heard their 531 frames were not built that well..

I believe it's both. The raw material for 953 is Carpenter Technology Custom 455. Waterford bought the tubes from Reynolds already cold worked, butted, and aged. It is strong and hard delivered that way, so cutting and mitering the tubes is hard on tooling, but the alternative is for the framebuilder to age the frame at 950 degrees F for four hours and let it air cool after brazing it, and you run the risk of the frame warping during the aging process. I can email you the Carpenter 455 data sheet if you like; just send me a PM with your email address.

The 953 Waterford tubes are OS (28.6 TT and ST, 31.7 DT) and the 531 Paramount has imperial size tubes (25.4 TT, 28.6 ST and DT).

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

No; the seam is completely invisible. The weld is so homogenous that after drawing and butting the tubing, it is virtually seamless. As part of Reynolds' testing of the weld integrity and toughness of 953, round tubes of different diameters and wall thickness were subjected to "flattening" tests (from round to oval of less than 70% of the original diameter) without any sign of cracking along the seam, showing excellent fracture toughness.

Right. Stainless steels (>10% chromium in the alloy) have been around since before WW1, and oldy57's 1929 bike could have a stainless frame, but I'm skeptical. A steel mill would have to have produced thin walled stainless tubing suitable for bicycle frames prior to 1929 for it to be stainless, and none of the contemporary cycling journals or advertising that I've researched mentioned stainless tubing either from the major tubing manufacturers (like Reynolds which was heavily advertising their "HM" high manganese tubing at the time) or from framebuilders who would seemingly promote the availability of their frames built with stainless tubing.

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.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7...ps93a9355b.jpg

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.