While I love AL, and I'm sure it's strong enough, I had to stand back and re thing once I saw a cut away of an AL frame. Thin... thin... thin... Made me cringe, and partially understand why people would assume failure is common.

That said, my next frame: steel.

just my 2 cents:

I say do steel, with skinnier tubing, track geometry, level top tube, short wheel base, tight clearance, and a straight fork...maybe some water bottle braze ons....but no cable routers for a rear brake.

William...

Thanks for the reply. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize. Like you said, it's all up to Thylacine to keep what he wants and chuck the rest. Speaking for myself, I really enjoy reading and learning about and experimenting with all things bicycle and am lucky enough to live in a city with lot's of builders and cool LBS's to talk to and learn from. Of course there's the net too (which is best used with some internal filtering I suppose). None of that however, makes me a bike designer/builder, but I do like to share the info I've collected with others because I only learn when someone else is willing to share their knowlege with me.... and I know your cool with that too.

Jim

PS my apologies for using the word "share" twice in this post ;-)

Jim,

No worries. I'm a dickhead, and everyone here will confirm it!

I wanted to see a knife fight

If you're ever in San Diego, let me take you to the trolley station, or better yet some other local places...

Thanks for the link. It's really interesting stuff and made me look at the situation alittle differently. At first I thought they were saying that AL was stonger than steel (fatigue-wise) which just isn't true but as I read further I saw:

The fact that aluminum and carbon frames in this test last longer than the steel frames is not in our estimate a question of the material, but the constructional expenditure. Not the material, but its skillful use gives the excursion. However, the manufacturers concentrate their constructional efforts in a logical way on frames with good potential for light weight construction - and those are made from aluminum or carbon, and only rarely (because of small rigidity) from titanium.

This is interesting because for all of the talk (and I've done this too) of which metal is better, the reality is that we don't ride 'metal', we ride bikes. It's metal+design+construction that is important and there seems to be a clear corollary between material and design/construction effort (at least at the higher end of the scale).

Thanks again for posting the link.

Jim

Jim,

I think I'd put it this way:

Aluminum is stronger than steel on a weight basis, but not as durable on a stress basis.

William "the UN of the metal world" Karstens

I'm talking TIG steel here, not Aluminium. I'll never make an Aluminium singlespeed or fixie, nor will I ever run off and go make them somewhere in the Pacific rim. I've done Aluminium and like it to an extent ( see my proto FS bike on the website ), but Aluminium has a finite fatigue life, doesn't have that 'zing', that springly feel that i like in all my non suspended bikes. More importantly, it doesn't satisfy my retro urges =]

Now, looking back through the posts, even on something supposedly simple like a fixie, people have different ideas on what's kosher and what's not. As price is always a factor, the more options there are, the more the price goes up. "I want a top tube that slopes towards the head tube, brake cable guides and fender mounts" or "I want chrome." means "This is no longer a stock frame" - it's the quandry of all custom builders....and a lot of them **** it up ( Think - Ibis ).

At this stage this is what I'm thinking -

• Seven stock sizes from 50 to 62
• Moderate geometry, like 73 degree head angles, higher BBs for pedalling 'round corners, clearance for 28c tires.
• the 4 colours as stated earlier - Espresso, Ivory, Orange and Khaki.
• No cable guides, but drilled for a rear brake. Might include some stick on guides for those that want to ghetto rig a rear brake.
• No fender mounts
• If you want extra braze-ons, they'll all be a cost option.
• Tubing will be Columbus Zona. All round tubes, no stupid shapes. Seat and top tubes will be traditional size, but down tube will be a little fatter. Stays will be MTB stays to accomodate that lovely stopping technique you guys love.
• $TBA

As for the Efbe tests, I'm going to keep my reply short. if you want further discussion go have a look at the roadie board.

The only two modern steel bikes they've tested are the Cervelo Renaissance and Super Prodigy - both passed with flying colours. Although hardly conslusive, I'd say it was a hint that MODERN steel bikes are light, strong and viable. It also says that processes, NOT MATERIALS are the key to a good bike. Heck, I've seen more broken Cannondales IRL than any other brand. I've seen a Principia with a down tube torn in half. I've seen a Colnago master still going strong after 20 years. You try to imitate reality in the lab, not the other way around, people have to keep that in mind.

that was a misunderstanding. I never suggested that you should use aluminium. my post
was just an answer to WKs post about aluminium.

No misunderstanding. I never suggested that you suggested I should use Aluminium.

And I never suggested AL either. I'll just step out of posting here, since... really, the input isn't needed from this angle.

Thylacine, I think you are headed the right direction. I want to second the vote on Molteni Orange. Please keep in mind that around these parts I'm known as an old retro grouch but your ideas strike a cord with me.

• subtle detailing, no large logos
• atypical colors
• columbus steel
• tight track geometry
• room for wider tires ( up to 32 or so) than typical track frames/forks