"Ian Smith" <[email protected]
> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Pete Jones <[email protected]
> > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:46:45 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]
> > >On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Pete Jones <[email protected]
> > >
> > >> Is frame weight not relevant? In order to make the aluminium frames as durable you'd have to
> > >> increase the weight.....which defeats the object of using aluminium in the first place
> > >Have you found teh german fatigue test of frames on the web?
> > Do you think they're relevant to real world riding?
> Yes. As I said, it's a well thought out test. The loading regime applied looks to be pretty good
> one to examine the real world performance of frames in controlled conditions.
> regards, Ian SMith
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|
isn't alumium just notoriously hard to weld, and steel really easy....
therefore the chance of an aluminium frame breaking (which from examples shown to me seems to only
happen around the welds), is gonna be higher
and also if mass produced aluminium frame are on the market the quality of the weld is going to be
less, and possibly make the frame more liable to break around the weld....
i remember the original Klein Attitude frames, which were £2500 before Terk bought them, with
massive tubes and welds, which were filed down to make the join nice and smooth.... and the Pace
frames using box section alumium tubes (£800 for frame alone)....do these ever break?