Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Aluminum Is More Elastic Than Steel

Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Aluminum Is More Elastic Than Steel

Reply

Old 11-18-18, 01:01 AM
  #26  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,624

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1423 Post(s)
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post


No matter how well made the frame, aluminum has an indistinct fatigue limit. Used long enough, it will fail. Inevitable. Steel and titanium on the other hand have an endurance limit-- if they are exposed to cyclic stresses below the fatigue limit, they will last indefinitely.

So while framebuilding methods can make an aluminum frame as stiff or compliant as you'd like, at some point, it's going to fail.
Yeah but... an alloy fatigue limit of 500 million cycles? That's a lot of pedaling.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 01:23 AM
  #27  
DrIsotope 
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 5,851

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2947 Post(s)
I have no idea what they're using in their materials fatigue testing. Rod, bar, plate, Test Piece #7 , it wasn't specified. Though frames tend to fail at or near joints, not surprisingly-- and I doubt any aluminum frame would last even a hundred million cycles.

Though a few million starts to become a smaller number when blasting down a washboarded fire road at 25mph, with the frame absorbing multiple hits per second.

A buddy of mine races downhill MTB-- he chooses aluminum frames on purpose. Because he knows the frames will only last a couple of years (or crashes, whichever comes first) and the aluminum is much cheaper to replace than carbon.
__________________
DrIsotope is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 06:34 AM
  #28  
Lazyass
Senior Member
 
Lazyass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 8,183

Bikes: Vintage steel, aluminum, modern carbon disc, single speed, MTB's, the works

Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1908 Post(s)
The early aluminum frames like Vitus with small diameter tubes were well known for being too flexy. Some said that their bike would ghost shift when standing and climbing. Cannondale changed that and went with large tubes and reviews in the 80's said they were as smooth riding as steel if not more so. They even advertised that in their catalogs. I remember in 1988 or 89 a guy in the group I rode with bought a new Cannondale. He said on the first ride he had to pull over and see if he was losing air in the tires. I've had many aluminum bikes and I just never understood the whole deal with people saying they're too stiff. Tires and pressure have more to do with it than frame material. In the 90's I had a CAAD3 and all you hear about is those were the stiffest riding bikes of all time but that wasn't my experience. As long as you aren't running 20c tires at 120psi (like many of us were haha), then they're fine riding bikes.

If you rode a steel frame with fat tubes like aluminum bikes then your opinion of steel would change. There's a reason aluminum bikes don't look like the Vitus anymore.

Lazyass is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 10:47 AM
  #29  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,624

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1423 Post(s)
Originally Posted by ColonelSanders View Post
I have broken two aluminium frames due to fatigue(on the top tube, about an inch from where the top tube meets the seat tube), neither bike lasted 12 months.

I am 400lbs though.
Probably most problems can be accounted for by having simply replaced steel tubing with alloy tubes but sticking with the traditional steel bike design instead of utilizing a frame design that maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of the material used. For example, carrying the aluminum seat tube up above the top tube and stays, strengthened even more by an inner alloy seat post it seems to me would make sturdy enough junction to easily withstand 400 lbs.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 10:52 AM
  #30  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,624

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1423 Post(s)
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
I have no idea what they're using in their materials fatigue testing. Rod, bar, plate, Test Piece #7 , it wasn't specified. Though frames tend to fail at or near joints, not surprisingly-- and I doubt any aluminum frame would last even a hundred million cycles.

Though a few million starts to become a smaller number when blasting down a washboarded fire road at 25mph, with the frame absorbing multiple hits per second.

A buddy of mine races downhill MTB-- he chooses aluminum frames on purpose. Because he knows the frames will only last a couple of years (or crashes, whichever comes first) and the aluminum is much cheaper to replace than carbon.
Many offroad bikes have been fabricated with 6061 that have been subjected without fatigue issues to far more abuse than any road bike will ever receive. Even with a steel frame, when you consider that most of such bikes are using alloy handlebars, seat posts, stems, steerer tubes, saddle rails, wheel rims, brake handles and calipers... it's hard to give much credibility to fatigue concerns.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 11:33 AM
  #31  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,624

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1423 Post(s)
Concerning fatigue issues, to better optimize the use of the material, some reliable testing method was required--e.g.,


High cycle fatigue tests are generally conducted at frequencies greater than 1,000 Hz, making them unsuitable for bicycle testing. Low cycle fatigue failures on the other hand are failures that occur from 10 to 105 cycles. These cycles generally occur at a rate of 1 Hz or lower [24]. By the previous definition, the Horizontal Loading Durability Test is a low cycle fatigue test with a specified rate of 1 Hz. This test frequency is an accurate representation of the fatigue loading that a bicycle sees in real world conditions.

So, to get real world feedback, the testing is looking at frequencies of 1 /sec instead of 1,000 cycles per second.

https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/A...Bike_Frame.pdf

While fatigue is an issue, it can be addressed and must be if we also wish to enjoy the benefits that the material's advantages can provide.

The research concluded as follows:


The group was able to optimize the bike frame which resulted in a predicted fatigue life that is approximately 3,500,000 cycles compared to 490,000 for the original frame The group recommends that future work be done to investigate 6013-T6 aluminum. The group also recommends extending the weld between the top and down tubes and increasing the thickness of the down tube. The FEA methodology and physical frame testing rig described in this report could be used to investigate these modifications to determine their effectiveness in a future project.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 11:34 AM
  #32  
DrIsotope 
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 5,851

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2947 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Many offroad bikes have been fabricated with 6061 that have been subjected without fatigue issues to far more abuse than any road bike will ever receive. Even with a steel frame, when you consider that most of such bikes are using alloy handlebars, seat posts, stems, steerer tubes, saddle rails, wheel rims, brake handles and calipers... it's hard to give much credibility to fatigue concerns.
Once again, you're trying to introduce your opinion as fact. I'm not talking about failure rate, I'm talking about (and here it is again) the fact that the failure point of aluminum is indistinct. At some impossible to determine point, an aluminum frame will fail. That is the nature of aluminum as a material. By the nature of that material, the failure stress point gets lower and lower as the part is subjected to more stress cycles-- until eventually, just a bump or bang, no matter how small, will trigger that failure point. No one can ever say when that will happen.

So to say there's no reason to give credibility to fatigue concerns... sure, fine. I don't have to ride your bike, so I'm 100% cool with your assessment. I don't ride aluminum frames because every one I've ridden has been harsh. Well, that and I broke my first one in 25 months.
__________________
DrIsotope is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 11:41 AM
  #33  
Dean V
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,170
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Comparing the modulus of elasticity, alloy is springier than steel. With the advent of downward sloping top tubes, we see a lot of road bike frames that significantly depart for the lines of vintage steel road bikes. My guess is, a modern road bike with a lot of exposed aluminum setback seat post probably provides as much road compliance as the traditional steel road bike with a short alloy or even CF seat post.
I would agree with you.
Also I would say that fatigue life shouldn't be a factor in the frame buying decision.
Any good quality frame should last a long time regardless of material.
Dean V is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 12:00 PM
  #34  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,624

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1423 Post(s)
Just swaging it as a laymen but based on the numbers above, improving cycles from ~500k to 3.5M cycles, it seems to me you'd have an alloy frame that might not survive 10 century rides to a frame that's surviving ~4,000 century rides, especially if you consider that manufacturers did improve designs since the above testing by improving downtube shapes and sizes and frame-welding, aging and heat treating techniques.

Once talking about that kind of longevity, corrosion probably will be as big factor as fatigue when comparing the durability of steel vs. aluminum bicycle frames.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 12:19 PM
  #35  
Racing Dan
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,091
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 635 Post(s)
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
Once again, you're trying to introduce your opinion as fact. I'm not talking about failure rate, I'm talking about (and here it is again) the fact that the failure point of aluminum is indistinct. At some impossible to determine point, an aluminum frame will fail. That is the nature of aluminum as a material. By the nature of that material, the failure stress point gets lower and lower as the part is subjected to more stress cycles-- until eventually, just a bump or bang, no matter how small, will trigger that failure point. No one can ever say when that will happen.

So to say there's no reason to give credibility to fatigue concerns... sure, fine. I don't have to ride your bike, so I'm 100% cool with your assessment. I don't ride aluminum frames because every one I've ridden has been harsh. Well, that and I broke my first one in 25 months.
Sure, but that imply your alloy handlebar, crank, stem, rims, ect will also fail at some indistinct point. > Good luck with your all steel "safety bike" ;-)
Racing Dan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 12:20 PM
  #36  
mstateglfr
Senior Member
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 7,392

Bikes: '87 Miyata 912, '87 Schwinn Prelude, '90 Fuji Saratoga, Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara/Centurion Ironman, '18 Diamondback Syncr, '18 handmade steel roadbike

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2493 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Racing Dan View Post
Im well aware some claim it doesn't happen. Except it does. Im sure you can build a steel bike that lasts forever and Im sure some do, but definitely not all of them. In that sense they are no different than alloy or what ever else you can think of.
so what 'goes soft' on a steel frame? The tubes? The lugs? The silver braze? The brass braze?
all of it?

genuinely curious since i haven't seen it documented what goes 'soft'.
mstateglfr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 12:25 PM
  #37  
Racing Dan
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,091
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 635 Post(s)
I dont know what the mechanism is, but I do know (some) old steel frames become soft. Both I and a few friends have discarded frames for that reason.
Racing Dan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 12:48 PM
  #38  
Jack Tone
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Frame test: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/...tigue_test.htm

I've had my old Cannondale (version 1?) for about 25 years. I guess I should start worrying about it in another 25.
Jack Tone is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 12:55 PM
  #39  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,617
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 325 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Racing Dan View Post
Sure, but for whatever reason, steel frames tend to go soft with use.
Subject: Frames "going soft" by Jobst Brandt
Trakhak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 01:13 PM
  #40  
Racing Dan
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,091
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 635 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Trakhak View Post
And you can find at least 100 articles claiming carbon fibre have near limitless fatigue life as well. Does that mean all carbon fibre frames last forever? No.
Racing Dan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 01:30 PM
  #41  
Campag4life
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,487
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1134 Post(s)
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
Once again, you're trying to introduce your opinion as fact. I'm not talking about failure rate, I'm talking about (and here it is again) the fact that the failure point of aluminum is indistinct. At some impossible to determine point, an aluminum frame will fail. That is the nature of aluminum as a material. By the nature of that material, the failure stress point gets lower and lower as the part is subjected to more stress cycles-- until eventually, just a bump or bang, no matter how small, will trigger that failure point. No one can ever say when that will happen.

So to say there's no reason to give credibility to fatigue concerns... sure, fine. I don't have to ride your bike, so I'm 100% cool with your assessment. I don't ride aluminum frames because every one I've ridden has been harsh. Well, that and I broke my first one in 25 months.
No airplane rides for you...lol.
Flat earther? Just curious.

Don't tell Shimano, I hate it when those Al crank arms fly off and Al wheels fail precipitously. Glad it only happened to you...lol.

Don't put the wammy on us.

And guys, watch out for Al ladders. That last step is a duessy. Also start wearing a hard hat around the house. Those gutters can fall causing imminent death.
Campag4life is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 01:40 PM
  #42  
JohnDThompson 
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 19,867

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1481 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Racing Dan View Post
Sure, but for whatever reason, steel frames tend to go soft with use.
I think that's more a rationalization for buying a new bike than an actual physical change in the frame itself.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 01:49 PM
  #43  
Racing Dan
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,091
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 635 Post(s)
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
I think that's more a rationalization for buying a new bike than an actual physical change in the frame itself.
Why do you believe that? To me its weird ppl have such trouble believing a steel frame can alter properties with use. Im sure all of you are perfectly willing to acknowledge steel frames can and do crack on occasion. Do you really believe such frames are exactly the same up until the very moment they fail. Of course not.
Racing Dan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 01:54 PM
  #44  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,624

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1423 Post(s)
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
so what 'goes soft' on a steel frame? The tubes? The lugs? The silver braze? The brass braze?
all of it?

genuinely curious since i haven't seen it documented what goes 'soft'.
I smooshed the top/head tube butt in a front end collision-- that was the end of my old Panasonic cromo frame. My Trek frame was pretty corroded when I gave it away. I split the bottom of the head tube on a Scandium frame. I was worried about the seat post clamp arrangement on my CF frame the entire time I owned it. That leaves a lot of other bikes I've ridden over the years including both steel and aluminum frame MTBs that never had any kind of frame issues, including my first alloy road bike which I'm using now... tapered head tube and shaped top and down tubes and... it seems pretty bulletproof to me.

The only issues I've had over the years is a comfortable seat-- being a steel bike didn't help. I don't have that issue on my alloy road bike and that's with a 25mm rear tire.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 02:03 PM
  #45  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,468

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 114 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4826 Post(s)
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
At some impossible to determine point, an aluminum frame will fail. That is the nature of aluminum as a material. .
Actually That is your opinion. Not every aluminum frame fails ... and given sufficient time Every frame will fail. There is no rust--proof steel.

Fact is, for Most riders, Al frames are lifetime frames. For most riders All bike frames (except maybe wood or bamboo, never looked at those much) are lifetime frames. There are always a few anecdotes about frame breaking ... steel, Al, CF, if you read enough posts here you will realize that Every frame is death waiting to grab you, and no frame material is safe. There are one or two people who have had unexpected, unexplained, catastrophic failures with Every type of frame.

Of course, there are millions of people worldwide who have never broken a frame, even during collisions. There are people (like myself) riding 35-year-old Al frames which show no signs of weakness ... and probably never will.

I realize, people who are afraid of ghosts get irritated when no one else gets afraid---they think that people are demeaning them.by refusing to fear ghosts they have never seen. This is not the case. if you have seen a ghost, and live in fear, that is fine.

I have never seen a ghost, and I cannot logically fear what I have no reason to fear.

I have steel, CF, and Al bikes and ride all of them without fear of catastrophic failure. You do what you do. Everything is fine.

But maybe, try to understand, that when you try to "prove" that riding bicycles is exceedingly dangerous, to a bunch of people who have been riding a lot, all their lives ... we haven't seen the ghost, so we cannot share your fears of it.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 02:23 PM
  #46  
mstateglfr
Senior Member
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 7,392

Bikes: '87 Miyata 912, '87 Schwinn Prelude, '90 Fuji Saratoga, Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara/Centurion Ironman, '18 Diamondback Syncr, '18 handmade steel roadbike

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2493 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
I smooshed the top/head tube butt in a front end collision-- that was the end of my old Panasonic cromo frame. My Trek frame was pretty corroded when I gave it away. I split the bottom of the head tube on a Scandium frame. I was worried about the seat post clamp arrangement on my CF frame the entire time I owned it. That leaves a lot of other bikes I've ridden over the years including both steel and aluminum frame MTBs that never had any kind of frame issues, including my first alloy road bike which I'm using now... tapered head tube and shaped top and down tubes and... it seems pretty bulletproof to me.

The only issues I've had over the years is a comfortable seat-- being a steel bike didn't help. I don't have that issue on my alloy road bike and that's with a 25mm rear tire.
ok...not sure why thos was posted in response to my question to Dan, but it's been noted.

but hey- I'm also still confused as to the point of this thread too, so don't mind me.
mstateglfr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 02:25 PM
  #47  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,617
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 325 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Racing Dan View Post
To me its weird ppl have such trouble believing a steel frame can alter properties with use. Im sure all of you are perfectly willing to acknowledge steel frames can and do crack on occasion. Do you really believe such frames are exactly the same up until the very moment they fail. Of course not.
From the Jobst Brandt piece that I linked to in my earlier post:

If these ideas [about steel frames softening with use] have been widely disproven, I'd appreciate knowing how. I've read all six parts of the FAQ and did not see it mentioned.

[Brandt's reply] The reason this was not in the FAQ may be that the whole subject is so preposterous to engineers, metallurgists, and physicists that they, the people who might explain it, are generally not inclined to bother discussing whether "the moon is made of green cheese" or not.
Trakhak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 02:39 PM
  #48  
Racing Dan
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,091
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 635 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Trakhak View Post
From the Jobst Brandt piece that I linked to in my earlier post:

If these ideas [about steel frames softening with use] have been widely disproven, I'd appreciate knowing how. I've read all six parts of the FAQ and did not see it mentioned.

[Brandt's reply] The reason this was not in the FAQ may be that the whole subject is so preposterous to engineers, metallurgists, and physicists that they, the people who might explain it, are generally not inclined to bother discussing whether "the moon is made of green cheese" or not.
But if the concept is "preposterous" then Im sure Mr Brandt can explain us why some steel frames crack without being crashed? (That even happens so Ti frames) That should be impossible if the unspoken presumption that the frame is never subjected to stresses beyond the fatigue limit, is true. Sorry, but clearly Mr Brandt failed to account for reality.
Racing Dan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 02:43 PM
  #49  
DrIsotope 
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 5,851

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2947 Post(s)
The fundamental disconnect here appears that many in this thread are taking it upon themselves to argue against basic scientific fact. You're substituting random, confirmation-bias based conjecture in place of fact. The chance of failure based on material alone is higher for aluminum, based on the physical nature of the material. That is inarguable. What "you've seen yourself" is utterly meaningless.

A bicycle is not an airplane, a bicycle is not a ladder. Given enough time and enough duty cycles, everything made out of aluminum will reach a failure point. This point could come after your lifetime. It could come on Thursday. Saying "Oh, it's been same for <insert number of years> it should be fine for <insert number of years>" is wrong far beyond what is the basic logical fallacy that previous outcomes indicate future events. The physical nature of things is not subject to your opinions. "...shows no sign of weakness." Really? Are you paying any attention to the words you're putting forth?

I've also never once trended toward, or even hinted toward the idea of "fear of catastrophic failure." It makes absolutely no difference how long you've been riding, or what you do in your private time when you think about ghosts. Feel free to conflate fear and phobia. I don't care. You think that a delicate mixture of opinion and anecdotal evidence will somehow change the behavior of the physical world.

Lastly, catastrophic failure doesn't have anything to do with danger or harm to the user. If a seatstay or a chainstay or a downtube cracks/splits, the frame is ruined and the failure has been catastrophic.
__________________
DrIsotope is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-18, 02:49 PM
  #50  
McBTC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,624

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1423 Post(s)
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
ok...not sure why thos was posted in response to my question to Dan, but it's been noted.

but hey- I'm also still confused as to the point of this thread too, so don't mind me.
True, true... about, 'what does soft,' I didn't answer-- if anyone can but... my guess is that it's a weight-related perception. Depending on the size of the frame and the amount of butting, your steel frame can be ridden and never raise an issue but put 30 lbs. on the rear (say, going on a tour or maybe just put on a few pounds around the middle over the years), that steel frame can take on some 'whippy' characteristics that never existed before. Just a guess.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service