age of the disposable frame.

[Ted Bennett]

> My main interest is racing and to me the bike is just a tool I use for racing not an end in
> itself. I like updating the tools I use every now and then, after all frame materials have got
> quite a bit lighter over the last 5 to 10 years, drivetrains have been upgraded from 8 speed to 10
> speed, gear shifting has become a lot easier with Ergo/STI etc.

Perhaps you would care to explain how steel, aluminum and titanium are lighter now than 5 or 10
years ago. If you meant to say that frames are lighter than years past, it's only because they use
less material, and have shorter lives as a result.

Drivetrains are better, though.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:54:40 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]> may have said:

>there are frames as you describe, but there are also plenty of frames that will last a long,
>long time. The frame warranty should give you a good indicator of how long you should expect the
>frame to last.

Or, in some cases, of how long the maker or vendor will last, in an inverted manner...

A product's warranty is only valid as long as the maker remains viable or reachable to honor it. A
"lifetime warranty" is often limited by the lifetime of the vendor, not the user. Look at the tools
in any flea market for obvious examples.

I will note by way of additional example that a model of RST suspension fork was recalled in the US
several years ago. The importer of that time, RST USA, is now out of business, so the recall will no
longer cause the fork to be replaced for free even though the actual manufacturer is apparently
still in business.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

 

[Kinkycowboy]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:41:40 GMT, Ted Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> My main interest is racing and to me the bike is just a tool I use for racing not an end in
>> itself. I like updating the tools I use every now and then, after all frame materials have got
>> quite a bit lighter over the last 5 to 10 years, drivetrains have been upgraded from 8 speed to
>> 10 speed, gear shifting has become a lot easier with Ergo/STI etc.
>
>Perhaps you would care to explain how steel, aluminum and titanium are lighter now than 5 or 10
>years ago. If you meant to say that frames are lighter than years past, it's only because they use
>less material, and have shorter lives as a result.

Technically, it might be possible to use less material without reducing lifespan by using one or
both of these methods;

1: Improve the frame design so that the material is more uniformly stressed

2: Improve the material by altering the alloy composition, heat treatment, mechanical formation
or all three

Of course, this is what tube and frame makers have been busy doing for the whole history of the
bicycle, and progress continues.

Kinky Cowboy

*Your milage may vary Batteries not included May contain traces of nuts.

 

[Jeff Jones]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> #2: Using alternative materials, whether they be aluminum, carbon or ti,
> the 35-50k mileage figure is not difficult to accomplish, if that's what
the
> designers are after.
>
Good point. I've had a GT ZR 3000 for the best part of three years, and it must be getting close to
the 80,000 km mark now, and it has been ridden over some pretty crappy roads (lots of Belgian
cobbles). And it hasn't broken anywhere yet.

But I should also point out that this is my fourth GT because the first three failed in various
places after maybe a year or two The good thing is that I only paid for the first one, because
the rest were covered by warranty!

I've also had a few steel frames, but I don't think I got more mileage out of them than my current
GT. The steel frames broke in the seat stays/dropouts generally.

cheers, Jeff

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Perhaps you would care to explain how steel, aluminum and titanium are lighter now than 5 or 10
> years ago. If you meant to say that frames are lighter than years past, it's only because they use
> less material, and have shorter lives as a result.

They may have less material, but they're often better engineered. Even being engineered at all is a
huge improvement. I'd trust a new Trek OCLV over an 80s Italian steel racing frame any day. The
whole myth about "frames going soft" got started because racers used to replace their frames every
year, for fear they'd break from fatigue -- nothing to do with going soft.

> Drivetrains are better, though.

They're certainly easier to use. More durable? I think not...

Matt O.

 

[Donald Gillies]

"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> writes:

>"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> #2: Using alternative materials, whether they be aluminum, carbon or ti,
>> the 35-50k mileage figure is not difficult to accomplish, if that's what
>the
>> designers are after.
>>
>Good point. I've had a GT ZR 3000 for the best part of three years, and it must be getting close to
>the 80,000 km mark now, and it has been ridden over some pretty crappy roads (lots of Belgian
>cobbles). And it hasn't broken anywhere yet.

Where do people get their mileage estimates ?? If you rode a bike for 80,000 km in 3 years, that
means that you ride about 80 km every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of
the year, every year of the decade - 50 mi per day ?? Even if you are a pro who is training, i
think that number is unrealistic ... Or did you ride 80,000 km in 3 _metric_ years, which would
be 1000 days/ea ?

- Don Gillies San Diego, CA

 

[Top Sirloin]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:19:47 -0500, "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote:

>As a counterexample, however, Cannondale has had some problems with their aluminum frames. In 1993
>I had a mid-80's Cannondale touring frame that developed a crack at the seatpost binder (BTW: this
>problem was eliminated in later designs). Cannondale replaced the frame with zero hassle, and I was
>quite impressed with their commitment to service. As long as the manufacturers are willing to work
>with you, I don't think there's much to worry about.

I'm going to nominate the CAAD3 as one of the strongest aluminum frames period.

Has anyone ever broken one minus crash damage?

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

 

[Donald Gillies]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> writes:

> I'd trust a new Trek OCLV over an 80s Italian steel racing frame any day. The whole myth about
> "frames going soft" got started because racers used to replace their frames every year, for fear
> they'd break from fatigue -- nothing to do with going soft.

I think that people still do this with their Italian Fiat cars ... do they go soft ??

- DOn

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > there are frames as you describe, but there are also plenty of
frames that
> > will last a long, long time. The frame warranty should give you a
good
> > indicator of how long you should expect the frame to last.
>
> No it won't. Lifetime warranties have always been rather bogus, and not just on bicycles. You will
> incur significant expense if your frame breaks. You don't get a new bike, you get a new frame, and
> the expense of moving the components over (if they are actually usable on the new frame) is
> considerable. Or you can get a discount (off MSRP) on a new bike from the same manufacturer.
>
> A steel bicycle will last several decades. An aluminum bicycle would
be
> unlikely to last that long due to metal fatigue.

It depends on tube choice, fabrication and a number of other variables. I am sure there are plenty
of people who are still riding around on their 1976 Kleins. I have a Cannondale from 1986 with 100K
or more miles on it. These frames have a fatigue life that is shorter than steel, but still decades
long. And as for steel, I have broken a number of steel frames for various reasons. Although steel
has a longer fatigue life, it is still subject to over-cooking at the joints and a lot of other
fabrication problems that may lead to an early death.

There also is nothing bogus about lifetime warranties. I would gladly dismantle my bike and get a
new frame (or a discount) than get nothing at all. Imagine being the owner of a C40 that breaks two
years after purchase. No warranty. All you have is an expensive lamp base. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Gwhite]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> "Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > Drivetrains are better, though.
>
> They're certainly easier to use. More durable? I think not...

Individual cogs are about the same, but there are more of them so the new cassette as a whole will
last longer. Sleeveless chains aren't more durable than sleeved chains, but that wasn't the reason
they were developed. (The original promise of the black sedis was it was cheap enough to throw away,
rather then clean, which sounds good to me. That promise has been forsaken given that it's hard to
find a $5-6 sleeveless chain.)

Rear derailleurs are probably better now. The parallelogram pins used to always get more easily worn
with the old derailleurs. Indexing won't tolerate that -- the new r-ders are better. I suppose front
ders are about the same.

 

[Jeff Jones]

"Donald Gillies" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> writes:
>
> >Good point. I've had a GT ZR 3000 for the best part of three years, and
it
> >must be getting close to the 80,000 km mark now, and it has been ridden
over
> >some pretty crappy roads (lots of Belgian cobbles). And it hasn't broken anywhere yet.
>
> Where do people get their mileage estimates ?? If you rode a bike for 80,000 km in 3 years, that
> means that you ride about 80 km every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the
> year, every year of the decade - 50 mi per day ?? Even if you are a pro who is training, i think
> that number is unrealistic ... Or did you ride 80,000 km in 3 _metric_ years, which would be 1000
> days/ea ?
>
Never heard of a metric year, but riding 80 km a day sounds about right. I typically ride 500-700 km
a week, and keep a log of every day's ride. I can email you powertap files if you want. Given that I
have to take the odd week off now and again when work makes it impossible to ride, I end up with
about 30,000 km a year. I'm not a pro, but I race when I can (once a week when there are no grand
tours/classics/other silly events on) and given that there are no grades in Belgium I need the
kilometres to keep fit And I just enjoy riding too. I also get around the problem of winter by
going back home to Australia for 2-3 months each year (but it's possible to ride through winter in
Belgium unless it snows heavily).

I've ridden a bike since 1989, and even in the first few years I would do 20,000+ km. Now (on
average) I train much faster, and regularly with a bunch, so the kilometres tick by. I
work..er...rather long hours too, but you might not believe me if I told you how much. As for sleep,
that gets sacrificed in the name of work and riding. Speaking of which...

cheers, Jeff

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Donald Gillies" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I'd trust a new Trek OCLV over an 80s Italian steel racing frame any day. The whole myth about
> > "frames going soft" got started because racers used to replace their frames every year, for fear
> > they'd break from fatigue -- nothing to do with going soft.
>
> I think that people still do this with their Italian Fiat cars ... do they go soft ??

No, they turn to dust...

Matt O.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> >Good point. I've had a GT ZR 3000 for the best part of three years, and
it
> >must be getting close to the 80,000 km mark now, and it has been ridden
over
> >some pretty crappy roads (lots of Belgian cobbles). And it hasn't broken anywhere yet.
>
> Where do people get their mileage estimates ?? If you rode a bike for 80,000 km in 3 years, that
> means that you ride about 80 km every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the
> year, every year of the decade - 50 mi per day ?? Even if you are a pro who is training, i think
> that number is unrealistic ... Or did you ride 80,000 km in 3 _metric_ years, which would be 1000
> days/ea ?

Yes, that *is* pretty impressive mileage, isn't it? In the case of the mileages I quoted for our
customers with various bikes, the distances have been covered over a far greater time, and they're
(the long-distance guys and gals) generally the type that document their yearly mileage.

I *wish* I could ride 80km every single day... (maybe if I wasn't married with kids, didn't work or
own a business, and never posted to usenet...)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

 

[Mike Latondress]

Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> I'm going to nominate the CAAD3 as one of the strongest aluminum frames period.
>
> Has anyone ever broken one minus crash damage?
>
Fab has one, ask him.

 

[Steven M. Schar]

news[email protected]...
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> > A steel bicycle will last several decades. An aluminum bicycle would be unlikely to last that
> > long due to metal fatigue.
>
> You mean steel does not suffer from metal fatigue ?

Sure it does, but not nearly to the extent of aluminum.

http://www.merlinbike.com/english/tech/res_flex_fatigue.html http://www.spectrum-cycles.com/62.htm
http://www.vanguardtitanium.com/titanium.htm
http://www.cartecaybikes.com/Articles/framematerials.htm
http://www2.sjsu.edu/orgs/asmtms/artcle/steel.htm http://circlecitybicycles.com/bframmat.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Donald Munro wrote:
>
>> My main interest is racing and to me the bike is just a tool I use for racing not an end in
>> itself. I like updating the tools I use every now and then, after all frame materials have got
>> quite a bit lighter over the last 5 to 10 years, drivetrains have been upgraded from 8 speed to
>> 10 speed, gear shifting has become a lot easier with Ergo/STI etc.

Ted Bennett wrote:
> Perhaps you would care to explain how steel, aluminum and titanium are lighter now than 5 or 10
> years ago. If you meant to say that frames are lighter than years past, it's only because they use
> less material, and have shorter lives as a result.

The aluminium alloys have become stronger allowing the use of less material in the construction of a
frame (compare the Cannondale CAAD7 to the early Cannondale CAAD versions for example).

 

[Jeff Jones]

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I *wish* I could ride 80km every single day... (maybe if I wasn't married with kids, didn't work
> or own a business, and never posted to usenet...)
>
Let's see: married, work full time, high mileage - pick two

Jeff

 

[Rik O'Shea]

[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> jazzy-<< As the last of the LeMond steel is being snapped up by sentimentalists at your LBS, we
> have entered the age of the disposable frame. Beer can bikes that might last 2 years at most, now
> are the only choice. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> NOT the only choice. We sell as much steel as anything and there are many steel manufacturers and
> distributors still in existence and quite healthy-
>
> Torelli, Nobilette, Waterford, even Merckx is selling a Corsa and MXLeader, plus many others.
>
> Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

I recall reading an interview with the great Sean Kelly (the world's ranked #1 pro racer for most of
the eighties). Kelly said that at the start of his career the pro's would effectively get one bike
that would last the complete season - generally only replacing it if crashed (although they had
specialist bikes for time-trials and grand Tours). They would use this bike under the most extreme
cycling conditions - Paris Roubaix, Tour of Flanders, Leige-Baston-Leige etc. In the course of
season they would easily rack up in excess of 30,000 KM.

Between '89 and '91 during the early season's intense classics, Kelly rode a Concorde frame made of
Columbus SLX. This weighed (5.84 lb frame+fork) (4.3 lb frame only).

Kelly constrasted that with todays pro racing scene where frames are replaced even when they get a
slight scratch in the paint work.

Typically now a racer frame will weigh 3lb (2.2 scandium frame + 0.82 lb carbon fork).

As regards durability todays racing frames just dont compare with the frames from the eighties and
early nineties. Racers are effectively forced to buy the latest and lightest frames to be
competitive. You have to ask who really benefits from this ? And the answer is the bicycle industry.

Initilly I was sceptical about the UCI decision to put a weight limit on a racing bike - thinking it
was a regressive step. I've now revised my opinion on this and wish it had been done sooner before
lighweight mania (at the expense of durability)went into the stratosphere.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> I *wish* I could ride 80km every single day... (maybe if I wasn't married with kids, didn't work
>> or own a business, and never posted to usenet...)

Jeff Jones wrote:
> Let's see: married, work full time, high mileage - pick two

Make that work flexitime and it becomes a bit easier as long

problem when it comes to getting enough sleep, but you can always learn how to fake a headache )

 

[Matt O'Toole]

news[email protected]...

> The aluminium alloys have become stronger allowing the use of less material in the construction of
> a frame (compare the Cannondale CAAD7 to the early Cannondale CAAD versions for example).

Maybe, but I also think they're just building lighter frames, strength/durability be damned. Look at
it this way -- most bikes, even fancy ones, don't get used much. Customers who rack up
frame-breaking miles are really quite few and far between. So hand out a few new frames now and
then, and you're still way ahead (as long as you don't get sued when someone gets hurt, but that's
what insurance is for). Yeah, that's cynical, but businesspeople can be just that cynical.

However, I don't want to implicate Cannondale here. Companies like Trek and Cannondale probably do
their own in-house engineering, as well as manufacturing. So they can safely tweak things a little
harder, because they control the process from beginning to end. Other makers rely on pre-engineered
tubes, which must have a bigger safety margin (ie, more material and weight) to allow for
manufacturing variances.

Matt O.