What's The Deal with Titanium Chain Locks?



In article <A54Ue.12014$Cc5.10596@lakeread06>,
[email protected] says...
> IMKen wrote:
> > Titanium is not as hard as steel. It will cut with tools easily
> > available to a thief. It is strong on a strength to weight ration
> > only.
> > Russians build Nuclear Submarines from the stuff so you can see that
> > is not even rare.
>
> How many ended up at the bottom of the ocean?

Two, I believe (the Mike was Ti for sure). The rest were steel-hulled.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
In article <[email protected]>, jbuch@CUT_HERE.revealed.net
says...
> NYC XYZ wrote:
> > Hi, All:
> >
> > It occurred to me that a chain and lock made out of titanium would be
> > the lightest and strongest of all...but I don't seem to see any purely
> > titanium chain locks for sale, only "titanium reinforced" steel chain
> > locks.
> >
> > What's up with that? Surely there are those who would pay premium
> > dollar for a lightweight but extremely strong chain lock made of
> > titanium. If I understand things correctly, titanium should be
> > unbreakable, right? I mean, it's the stuff tank armor is made of! But
> > I read instead that ti locks aren't as strong as steel, actually!
> >
> > WTF?!
> >
> >
> > TIA!
> >
>
> Titanium makes a light knife, but it is quite poor in edge holding
> capability, unless it is titanium carbide coated.

Ti Nitride also makes a usable cutting edge. I'm not a metallurgist,
but I believe carbides and nitrides are technically ceramics rather than
alloys.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:

>Ti is stronger than steel by unit weight, but not by unit volume, so for
>the same tensile strength, it would be about the same diameter, but
>lighter. Ti, however, is also not particularly hard, which makes it
>vulnerable to hacksaws. Steel, OTOH, can be made case-hardened, which
>makes the outside resistant to hacksaws while keeping the inside
>malleable so the chain as a whole doesn't get brittle. Ti might be good
>as a towchain, though <ggg> - nice and light.

Actually, ti has a couple characteristics that might actually make it
a good choice for a bike lock. It can be a bear to cut through - it
tends to "smear" when cutting, though I don't know how much of an
impediment that would be to a hacksaw. The only ti I've ever
hacksawed through was a skewer, and I do remember being amazed at how
long it took (had it been steel, it would have been MUCH faster).

Depending on the alloy, it's capable of quite a bit of elongation
before it ruptures - that might make it more difficult to use a bottle
jack to "pop" a U-lock. But the ultimate strength would still be less
on a volume basis than hi-tensile steel, so it CAN break.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
I just put a file test to a piece of TI tubing in my desk. It filed like
butter, much like aluminum. I don't know what it's ability to be hardened
is. Perhaps it age/work hardens like aluminum or can be heat treated.
Think I will stick with high quality HT alloy steel locks. Need to learn
more about TI.

Ken


"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
>>Ti is stronger than steel by unit weight, but not by unit volume, so for
>>the same tensile strength, it would be about the same diameter, but
>>lighter. Ti, however, is also not particularly hard, which makes it
>>vulnerable to hacksaws. Steel, OTOH, can be made case-hardened, which
>>makes the outside resistant to hacksaws while keeping the inside
>>malleable so the chain as a whole doesn't get brittle. Ti might be good
>>as a towchain, though <ggg> - nice and light.
>
> Actually, ti has a couple characteristics that might actually make it
> a good choice for a bike lock. It can be a bear to cut through - it
> tends to "smear" when cutting, though I don't know how much of an
> impediment that would be to a hacksaw. The only ti I've ever
> hacksawed through was a skewer, and I do remember being amazed at how
> long it took (had it been steel, it would have been MUCH faster).
>
> Depending on the alloy, it's capable of quite a bit of elongation
> before it ruptures - that might make it more difficult to use a bottle
> jack to "pop" a U-lock. But the ultimate strength would still be less
> on a volume basis than hi-tensile steel, so it CAN break.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
 
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:15:01 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
wrote:

>Two, I believe (the Mike was Ti for sure). The rest were steel-hulled.

Wasn't the Kursk a Ti one?

Jasper
 
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:15:01 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Two, I believe (the Mike was Ti for sure). The rest were steel-hulled.
>
> Wasn't the Kursk a Ti one?




Dumbass -

Yep.

Nice stuff, but doesn't do a lot of good when the liquid fueled torpedo
goes off inside the hull.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
> >Ti is stronger than steel by unit weight, but not by unit volume, so for
> >the same tensile strength, it would be about the same diameter, but
> >lighter. Ti, however, is also not particularly hard, which makes it
> >vulnerable to hacksaws. Steel, OTOH, can be made case-hardened, which
> >makes the outside resistant to hacksaws while keeping the inside
> >malleable so the chain as a whole doesn't get brittle. Ti might be good
> >as a towchain, though <ggg> - nice and light.
>
> Actually, ti has a couple characteristics that might actually make it
> a good choice for a bike lock. It can be a bear to cut through - it
> tends to "smear" when cutting, though I don't know how much of an
> impediment that would be to a hacksaw. The only ti I've ever
> hacksawed through was a skewer, and I do remember being amazed at how
> long it took (had it been steel, it would have been MUCH faster).

Titanium is very prone to galling in any abrasive or surface-to-surface
contact, and that includes cutting or drilling it . That's why it makes a lousy
bearing suface. You can cut down on the galling with proper cutting speed (which
will be slow) and copious lubrication. It also tends to do what I think of as
localized case hardening when being cut or drilled (particularly at the wrong
surface speed - i.e. too fast) and that tends to overheat the cutting tool,
which then loses its edge. Running a hacksaw through a piece of cp or grade 2
titanium isn't that bad as long as there is a good amount of proper lubricant.
But it's a different story when you're cutting a piece of 6al4v or 3al2.5v.
Those alloys are much tougher than the other ones I mentioned. I'd still rather
machine 6-4.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Actually, ti has a couple characteristics that might actually make it
> a good choice for a bike lock.



Dumbass -

Ya, right. (cough cough cough)

If you really think so, maybe you should develop a ti lock. The market
is yours for the taking.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:38:09 -0700, NYC XYZ wrote:


>> What's up with that? Surely there are those who would pay premium
>> dollar for a lightweight but extremely strong chain lock made of
>> titanium. If I understand things correctly, titanium should be
>> unbreakable, right? I mean, it's the stuff tank armor is made of!
>

For my $400 bike, I'll pay $50 for a lock to keep it safe.

For my $4,000 bike, I don't use a lock.

Lee
 
David Kerber wrote:
>
> The main military applications for Ti are where weight is vital and they
> can put up with the cost, such as certain pieces of aircraft structures.
> Most of an aircraft structure, though, is made of aluminum. The
> Russians use it for some submarine pressure hulls, because the weight
> savings means they can put more stuff in a physically smaller hull.
> They also have about 90% of the world's Ti reserves, so it's a lot
> cheaper for them than for the rest of the world.



Dumbass -

Actually, it's not "a lot" cheaper for them. It's perhaps a tiny bit
cheaper.

Titanium is a very abundant element, the 4th most abundant on earth.
Since the Russians have so much of it, they may have a slight refining
advantage, but not much of one since there's so much of it worldwide.

Most of the cost of refining titanium ore is in the form of energy.
Energy is a commodity. The Soviet Communists were able to spend
outrageous amounts of energy developing titanium hulled subs, but the
Russians are in a free market economy now and they can't afford it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On 10 Sep 2005 11:10:35 -0700, "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Actually, it's not "a lot" cheaper for them. It's perhaps a tiny bit
>cheaper.
>
>Titanium is a very abundant element, the 4th most abundant on earth.
>Since the Russians have so much of it, they may have a slight refining
>advantage, but not much of one since there's so much of it worldwide.

If you start off with ore that's say, 10 times higher in Ti content, don't
you get correspondingly better energy usage?

Jasper
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"IMKen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I just put a file test to a piece of TI tubing in my desk. It filed like
> butter, much like aluminum. I don't know what it's ability to be hardened
> is. Perhaps it age/work hardens like aluminum or can be heat treated.
> Think I will stick with high quality HT alloy steel locks. Need to learn
> more about TI.
>
> Ken

Well, the file test doesn't give any real indication of how hard to cut or
work titanium is. It certainly does not work like aluminum. Butter? Not even
close. You can use tools with geometry appropriate to cutting titanium to cut
aluminum, although they are not optimal for that, because aluminum is a very
forgiving material. You cannot, however, use tools with geometry appropriate for
cutting aluminum to cut titanium - at least not for very long. It doesn't age or
harden like aluminum (its stability is one of the strong points of the
material), nor does it heat treat like steel (you can't case harden it). Steel
is a much better material for locks..

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On 9 Sep 2005 20:58:42 -0700, "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:15:01 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Two, I believe (the Mike was Ti for sure). The rest were steel-hulled.
>>
>> Wasn't the Kursk a Ti one?

>Dumbass -

?

>Yep.
>
>Nice stuff, but doesn't do a lot of good when the liquid fueled torpedo
>goes off inside the hull.

That wasn't my point, and you know it.


Jasper
 
> It occurred to me that a chain and lock made out of titanium would be
> the lightest and strongest of all...but I don't seem to see any purely
> titanium chain locks for sale, only "titanium reinforced" steel chain
> locks.
>
> What's up with that? Surely there are those who would pay premium
> dollar for a lightweight but extremely strong chain lock made of
> titanium. If I understand things correctly, titanium should be
> unbreakable, right? I mean, it's the stuff tank armor is made of! But
> I read instead that ti locks aren't as strong as steel, actually!
>
> WTF?!

what a bunch of dumbasses! y'all are being _logical_, failing the
real value of it being _Ti_. (that's it, it's Ti, dumbasses!)
think of the cachet you'll have when you lock your bike at Starbucks
using a Ti lock & chain. (at least until Trek comes out with the
'MeDrone' CF lock & chain.)


....for everything else, there's Mastercard.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>> It occurred to me that a chain and lock made out of titanium would be
>> the lightest and strongest of all...but I don't seem to see any
>> purely titanium chain locks for sale, only "titanium reinforced"
>> steel chain locks.
>>
>> What's up with that? Surely there are those who would pay premium
>> dollar for a lightweight but extremely strong chain lock made of
>> titanium. If I understand things correctly, titanium should be
>> unbreakable, right? I mean, it's the stuff tank armor is made of!
>> But I read instead that ti locks aren't as strong as steel, actually!
>>
>> WTF?!
>
> what a bunch of dumbasses! y'all are being _logical_, failing the
> real value of it being _Ti_. (that's it, it's Ti, dumbasses!)
> think of the cachet you'll have when you lock your bike at Starbucks
> using a Ti lock & chain. (at least until Trek comes out with the
> 'MeDrone' CF lock & chain.)
>
>
> ...for everything else, there's Mastercard.

Hey there bc_cletta... meet g.daniels!

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
 
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2005 11:10:35 -0700, "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, it's not "a lot" cheaper for them. It's perhaps a tiny bit
> >cheaper.
> >
> >Titanium is a very abundant element, the 4th most abundant on earth.
> >Since the Russians have so much of it, they may have a slight refining
> >advantage, but not much of one since there's so much of it worldwide.
>
> If you start off with ore that's say, 10 times higher in Ti content, don't
> you get correspondingly better energy usage?



Dumbass -

It doesn't really matter, it's still a commodity.

Why is that relevant? The Russians now participate in the free market.
Any titanium used for building subs could also be sold on the
international market. So it costs the same for them or for us.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2005 11:10:35 -0700, "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, it's not "a lot" cheaper for them. It's perhaps a tiny bit
> >cheaper.
> >
> >Titanium is a very abundant element, the 4th most abundant on earth.
> >Since the Russians have so much of it, they may have a slight refining
> >advantage, but not much of one since there's so much of it worldwide.
>
> If you start off with ore that's say, 10 times higher in Ti content, don't
> you get correspondingly better energy usage?



Dumbass -

It doesn't really matter, it's still a commodity.

Why is that relevant? The Russians now participate in the free market.
Any titanium used for building subs could also be sold on the
international market. So it costs the same for them or for us.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:15:01 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Two, I believe (the Mike was Ti for sure). The rest were steel-hulled.
>
> Wasn't the Kursk a Ti one?

Yes; the Kursk was the Mike class (U.S. designation) which went down.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2005 20:58:42 -0700, "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Dumbass -
>
>
> ?

Jasper - This is crossposted. "Kurgan" is using r.b.racing, you are
using r.b.tech. They are two different worlds. In r.b.racing, being
called Dumbass is a badge of honor. Be proud.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
 
"Jim Bianchi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:48:57 -0400, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:

> It should be noted that the old Soviet Union possessed the largest
> workable supply of titanium ore in the world. So much so that they could
> easily afford to use it for submarine hulls as well as whole aircraft
> fuselages

Um, the Soviet Union didn't have the same kind of budget constraints that we
do...or at least did until BushJr came along.

Lee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back