In article <
[email protected]>,
Stellite <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Gotta love this "Steel is Real" ****.
>
> If everyone believed in that we'd still be riding trains instead of planes.
A lot of people ride trains, and prefer to ride them over planes. Modern trains use plenty
of aluminum.
>
> Luckily there is still logic in frame builders. There is a reason why Aluminum, Titanium and
> Carbon are used in aircraft. It is because they have a much higher strength to weight ratio than
> steel does. Steel is a very consistent material and is very predictable. It ages slowly which
> causes softening in the long term. It is easy to weld which is it's[sic] biggest advantage in
> frame building. You have to be a real idiot welder to screw up steel welding.
You just lost most of your credibility. Steel going soft? Never.
> Ti/Alum are much tougher to weld but can be made into shapes much larger tubes retaining the low
> weight and can be made stronger and stiffer. 99% of the DH bike frames are made of aluminum for
> many reasons. The biggest two are that the design makes the frame stronger than the material and
> the other one is that after a few seasons the frame will let go anyway. A steel frame will not
> fair[sic] any better. In fact one of the longest lasting frames in DH racing was a Turner DHR
> which lasted a whole 3 years of pro racing.
>
> It is pointless to waste the money on Ti and Carbon for a SH frame as long term strength is not
> an issue. However, on a road bike that you may want to keep for a lifetime a Carbon or Ti frame
> would be more logical than Steel. Aluminum is also more logical than steel just for the
> corrosion aspect.
>
> By the way most frames aren't painted on the inside and water does get inside the tubes, so Rust
> is inevitable unless you can get inside your frames tubing and soak it in an acid quench or etch
> then sand to remove all the rust. Very expensive process and not worth it.
I think that you are overstating the corrosion problem. Many of us have or have seen steel frames
that with no/little care last many years with only surface rust inside and no compromising of the
structure.
> Carbon and Ti do not rust and Aluminum will not corrode anytime soon so they have a huge advantage
> over steel. Carbon can be made to that classic look of the old thin tube steel frames many of the
> Steel is Real guys like, which I also like by the way.
>
> I think it's safe to say that any old time racer who would have a choice in what to use, would use
> whatever technology allows him to have an edge. Alum/Ti and Carbon road bikes rule because they
> are modern materials which are more efficient than steel.
>
> Check out this link and look at the frame failures. The only frames that didn't fail were Carbon
> and Aluminum. The steel frames all failed as did some Alum frames. However, steel was
> consistenly failing under 100,000 cycles. Sounds like a good enough reason for me to go with
> Aluminum over steel.
>
>
http://www.bikeworx.net/Road%20Bikes.htm
It's not very convincing to me. Those load cycles are considerably greater than most frames would
ever be subjected to, in real life usage patterns.
Steel remains an economical material, and fine bicycles continue to be constructed from it. Your
characterization of it as on its way out, is premature in my opinion.
And no, not all my bikes have steel frames.
--
Ted Bennett Portland OR
