"brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:11:20 -0400, Doug Taylor
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> the retrogrouch crowd -
>>you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. -
>
> And Frank Krygowski and Jambo...

Wow, the strength of your belief in the beamboy and his technomumble lies in
this? That you think retrogrouches are after you?

Wow.

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Sep 11, 6:43 am, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
<huge snip>

> > (D. Taylor) For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> > ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> > missing the boat. And the point.
>
> Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. I admit it's hard
> not to comment on the irony of fat guys obsessed with shaving a pound or
> two off their bikes and paying handsomely for it, but that's not where
> the bulk of these threads have focused.

But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
and no epidemic of failures. I'm no expert on this, so I'll keep my
mouth mostly shut.

I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
frames to last like they used to. I broke a set of Al bars after
about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM **** on my Cannondale cross
bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
feel much better. Now throw in the RBT Chicken Little scenarios, and
I am quivering in fear at the LBS when I buy anything other than a
patch kit. Now, don't tell me Rema patch kits are failing
catastrophically! -- Jay Beattie.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 11, 1:55 pm, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 6:43 am, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> > things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> > simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. ...
>
> But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
> disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
> seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
> and no epidemic of failures....

I'm not sure about your statement "we [on r.b.t.] love our Chicken
Little scenarios." We love discussing technical matters, and we're
involved in an activity that relies on technology - and whose
manufacturers and magazines chase market share by hyping minuscule
improvements in that technology, never mentioning detriments. The
balance of advantages and (especially) disadvantages isn't going to
get discussed anywhere else. Are we supposed to not discuss? Are we
supposed to never mention the problems?

I think r.b.t. has a collection of contributors whose total depth and
breadth of technical expertise exceeds that of many bike and bike-
component companies. Yes, our judgment may differ from that of a
given company's. Our judgment may _certainly_ differ from that of the
"gee whiz" editors of the bike magazines, and that of their
technically untrained, gullible readers. But that doesn't mean we're
the ones that are wrong!

And incidentally, it seems a bit odd for an American lawyer to be
saying, in effect, "This design is fine, and nobody should complain
about it's failing. After all, lots of people have not been hurt by
it." I was under the impression that product liability worked a bit
differently!

> I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
> clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
> frames to last like they used to.

Exactly. Companies have been nibbling away at safety factors for many
years, largely because the market (driven by enthusiast magazines)
wants everything to be lighter and lighter - even if it's too light
for safety over a reasonable life span.

> I broke a set of Al bars after
> about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM **** on my Cannondale cross
> bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
> you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
> from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
> feel much better.

Your broken handlebar experience is evidence that the anti-stupid-
light stance of many r.b.t. engineers is _not_ a "chicken little"
phenomenon.

And by your apparent standards, if you can't demonstrate an "epidemic
of failures" of Cinelli bars, you have no reason to complain.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Jambo]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
> disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
> seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
> and no epidemic of failures. I'm no expert on this, so I'll keep my
> mouth mostly shut.

I see no relation between disc brakes and CF components. You may like
lumping totally unrelated things together and try to extract arguments from
one to the other, but that's just not logical.

> I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
> clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
> frames to last like they used to. I broke a set of Al bars after
> about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM **** on my Cannondale cross
> bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
> you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
> from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
> feel much better. Now throw in the RBT Chicken Little scenarios, and
> I am quivering in fear at the LBS when I buy anything other than a
> patch kit. Now, don't tell me Rema patch kits are failing
> catastrophically! -- Jay Beattie.

One of the biggest problems in rbt is the inability of many people to see
different levels of caution. It's either CF will fail like brittle glass,
or CF is indestructible. When it is flagged that CF has inherently low
damage tolerance, based on decades of experience and research in the
aerospace industry, those who have invested in CF components scream "chicken
little" because their CF components haven't failed yet. These same people
ignore the failures that have been documented in other fora (mtbr.com - with
pictures!).

Just like Al, just like metal, CF has specific requirements for structural
integrity, but the latter requirements are NOT THE SAME as for the former
two. You want to use CF, fine. You want to ignore CF characteristics that
indicate a disadvantage, fine. People like the faker beamboy continuously
bleating about how CF is risk free, and virtually indestructible does no one
any service.

Jacoubowsky still hasn't responded to the question: what do CF component
manufacturers tell him about CF inspection/damage assessment, and how are
those different for Al and metal? Could it be that CF requires more
careful, more conservative assessments than AL or metal? If so, why is
that?

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:43:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
> >> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
> >> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.
> >
> >If you truly think that, then you are really not reading the thread with
> >attention and comprehension.
> >
> >> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
> >> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
> >> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
> >> and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
> >> masses.
> >
> >Mike is generally very reasonable and has many years' experience in
> >riding, retailing and repairing bicycles. I usually enjoy his posts and
> >his viewpoint. jim beam, OTOH, shows little grasp of scientific method
> >but, I will agree, shows more than a little madness.
> >
> >> This is evident thread after thread.
> >
> >Indeed, but not in the way that you meant it.
> >
> >> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
> >> retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
> >> Reaction.
> >
> >If I lived anywhere near Mike's business, that would be something I
> >would explore, too. My impression is that Mike would be a standup guy
> >to do business with.
> >
> >> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.
> >
> >In this you are a fool.
>
> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>
> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
> merit of any kind.
>
> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.
>
> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
> electronic.
>
> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
> you get what you pay for.
>
> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> missing the boat. And the point.

The point is: who will pay to test the bicycling
industry's newest offering? I expect to be paid to
test new stuff.

Aluminum frames are good now. At first they were too
flexy. Then they hammered the rider into pulp. Now most
Al frames are good rides. Before Al frames became
ubiquitous, steel frames were being made that were
perfect. Perfect in that for their intended purpose
they had exactly the correct balance of trade-offs.
Manufacturers know how to build a proper Al frame
because of all the people who paid money to test them
for the manufacturers.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

someone with neither name or email address writes:

>> But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios
>> -- disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF --
>> which seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for
>> 20 years and no epidemic of failures. I'm no expert on this, so
>> I'll keep my mouth mostly shut.

> I see no relation between disc brakes and CF components. You may
> like lumping totally unrelated things together and try to extract
> arguments from one to the other, but that's just not logical.

>> I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has
>> become clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect
>> parts or frames to last like they used to. I broke a set of Al
>> bars after about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM **** on my
>> Cannondale cross bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my
>> 70's Cinelli bars -- you could use those for a framing hammer. I
>> don't know what to expect from products anymore, and the one-season
>> warranties don't make me feel much better. Now throw in the RBT
>> Chicken Little scenarios, and I am quivering in fear at the LBS
>> when I buy anything other than a patch kit. Now, don't tell me
>> Rema patch kits are failing catastrophically!

> One of the biggest problems in RBT is the inability of many people
> to see different levels of caution. It's either CF will fail like
> brittle glass, or CF is indestructible. When it is flagged that CF
> has inherently low damage tolerance, based on decades of experience
> and research in the aerospace industry, those who have invested in
> CF components scream "chicken little" because their CF components
> haven't failed yet. These same people ignore the failures that have
> been documented in other fora (mtbr.com - with pictures!).

> Just like Al, just like metal, CF has specific requirements for
> structural integrity, but the latter requirements are NOT THE SAME
> as for the former two. You want to use CF, fine. You want to
> ignore CF characteristics that indicate a disadvantage, fine.
> People like the faker beamboy continuously bleating about how CF is
> risk free, and virtually indestructible does no one any service.

> Jacoubowsky still hasn't responded to the question: what do CF
> component manufacturers tell him about CF inspection/damage
> assessment, and how are those different for Al and metal? Could it
> be that CF requires more careful, more conservative assessments than
> AL or metal? If so, why is that?

The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the rude
style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I hope that
those who have something to offer omit self righteous name calling and
four letter words. Such posts generally cancel opinions expressed and
degrade the level of discourse to trash.

Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty your own space.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Sep 11, 2:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:55 pm, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 6:43 am, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> > > things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> > > simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. ...
>
> > But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
> > disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
> > seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
> > and no epidemic of failures....
>
> I'm not sure about your statement "we [on r.b.t.] love our Chicken
> Little scenarios." We love discussing technical matters, and we're
> involved in an activity that relies on technology - and whose
> manufacturers and magazines chase market share by hyping minuscule
> improvements in that technology, never mentioning detriments. The
> balance of advantages and (especially) disadvantages isn't going to
> get discussed anywhere else. Are we supposed to not discuss? Are we
> supposed to never mention the problems?
>
> I think r.b.t. has a collection of contributors whose total depth and
> breadth of technical expertise exceeds that of many bike and bike-
> component companies. Yes, our judgment may differ from that of a
> given company's. Our judgment may _certainly_ differ from that of the
> "gee whiz" editors of the bike magazines, and that of their
> technically untrained, gullible readers. But that doesn't mean we're
> the ones that are wrong!
>
> And incidentally, it seems a bit odd for an American lawyer to be
> saying, in effect, "This design is fine, and nobody should complain
> about it's failing. After all, lots of people have not been hurt by
> it." I was under the impression that product liability worked a bit
> differently!
>
> > I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
> > clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
> > frames to last like they used to.
>
> Exactly. Companies have been nibbling away at safety factors for many
> years, largely because the market (driven by enthusiast magazines)
> wants everything to be lighter and lighter - even if it's too light
> for safety over a reasonable life span.
>
> > I broke a set of Al bars after
> > about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM **** on my Cannondale cross
> > bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
> > you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
> > from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
> > feel much better.
>
> Your broken handlebar experience is evidence that the anti-stupid-
> light stance of many r.b.t. engineers is _not_ a "chicken little"
> phenomenon.

Not really, Frank, because the group would tell me to dump the CF bars
on my racing bike and keep the Cinelli Al bars -- and the Al bars
broke after a short period of service. The CF bars are going strong
after more years of much harder service. They are also lighter and
more comfortable. (God knows after posting this they will explode on
the way home!)

I agree that stupid light is . . . stupid. But my Cinelli bars were
relatively heavy. I wish it were just a matter of lightness, because
then you could always pick the heavier of two products and be somewhat
sure that you were getting the "stronger" one. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>> electronic.
>
>Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and driven
>by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in other
>mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics, not bikes
>to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts the high-end
>less than mid & low-end.

I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
roughly contemporaneous. The evolution of bicycles may not follow
Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however, to
rbt retrogrouches.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be
> >> quite beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on
> >> the electronic.
> >
> >Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and
> >driven by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in
> >other mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics,
> >not bikes to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts
> >the high-end less than mid & low-end.
>
> I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
> example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
> roughly contemporaneous. The evolution of bicycles may not follow
> Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
> anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
> buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however,
> to rbt retrogrouches.

Sorry, Doug, but "newer is better" != intelligence. For that matter,
the formula "newer != progress" is also true. That CF has significant
drawbacks in this application just seems to escape your notice.

 

[jim beam]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-09-11, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> !Jones wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
>>>>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
>>>>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
>>>>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
>>>>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
> [...]
>> i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
>> production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
>> convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
>> process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.
>
> They use a lot of energy but see the original point about toxic waste,
> which IMO is a more pressing concern than CO2 or energy.
>
> Of all the steel and aluminium produced how much goes into bike frames
> anyway? I've probably consumed more of each of those materials in the
> form of soda cans in my lifetime.
>
> [...]
>>> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
>>> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
>>> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
>>> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
>>> can afford.
>> i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
>> all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
>> here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
>> price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
>> "have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
>> personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
>> need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
>> rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
>> /begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
>> the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.
>
> I suspect they can afford these CF bikes but there's a certain pride
> (and deserved respect) that comes from keeping a good old steel bike
> going for 35 years or riding 300,000 miles.

but some of those old steel bikes are a shimmy nightmare because they
use skinny tube that's not torsionally stiff. /much/ better to go with
a modern frame with big tube and therefore much better torsional stiffness.


>
> With that may come a sneaking repressed desire to try one of the new
> gleaming CF machines. This may be the true source of the retrogrouchism.
>
> My advice is buy the new bike but keep the old one anyway.

yeah, hang if on the wall of the den as art. rust-proof it first. then
ride the new one.

 

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:43:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Like every "discussion" in this n.g, the opinions break down to two
>>>> sides: the set-in-their-ways retrogrouches on the one, and the
>>>> open-to-change modernists on the other. It's as simple as that.
>>> If you truly think that, then you are really not reading the thread with
>>> attention and comprehension.
>>>
>>>> My money's with Jacoubowsky and beam. Mike is the voice of reason
>>>> supported by years of experience. Beam is the cantankerous mad
>>>> scientist whose correct thinking sadly is often obscured by his blunt
>>>> and indiscrete mode of expression, which inflames the uninformed
>>>> masses.
>>> Mike is generally very reasonable and has many years' experience in
>>> riding, retailing and repairing bicycles. I usually enjoy his posts and
>>> his viewpoint. jim beam, OTOH, shows little grasp of scientific method
>>> but, I will agree, shows more than a little madness.
>>>
>>>> This is evident thread after thread.
>>> Indeed, but not in the way that you meant it.
>>>
>>>> Bottom line: If I EVER would think of buying a bike from any of the
>>>> retailers in this n.g, the first I would think of would be Chain
>>>> Reaction.
>>> If I lived anywhere near Mike's business, that would be something I
>>> would explore, too. My impression is that Mike would be a standup guy
>>> to do business with.
>>>
>>>> And I'll take beam's view of bicycle science / engineering.
>>> In this you are a fool.
>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>
>> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
>> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
>> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
>> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
>> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
>> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
>> merit of any kind.
>>
>> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
>> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
>> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.
>>
>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>> electronic.
>>
>> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
>> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
>> you get what you pay for.
>>
>> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
>> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
>> missing the boat. And the point.
>
> The point is: who will pay to test the bicycling
> industry's newest offering? I expect to be paid to
> test new stuff.
>
> Aluminum frames are good now. At first they were too
> flexy. Then they hammered the rider into pulp. Now most
> Al frames are good rides. Before Al frames became
> ubiquitous, steel frames were being made that were
> perfect. Perfect in that for their intended purpose
> they had exactly the correct balance of trade-offs.
> Manufacturers know how to build a proper Al frame
> because of all the people who paid money to test them
> for the manufacturers.
>
but the same principle applies to cars, planes, boats, motorcycles,
computers, guns, sewing machines, even low-tech stuff like an ax. it
applies to anything manufactured. it's called "evolution".

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Doug Taylor wrote:
>
>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>
> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the drawbacks
> not quite so obvious.

but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
mentality that seems to be so endemic. after all, if it's such a
dangerous material, where are the failures? why don't they outnumber
failures for other materials?


>
>
>> In thread after thread, virtually ANY development in bicycle design or
>> technology - carbon fiber as a material for parts, disc brakes on
>> mountain bikes, full suspension on mountain bikes, new spoke lacing
>> patterns for wheels, integrated headsets (and now bottom bracket with
>> the 2008 Madone), etc. etc. - is viewed by the retrogrouch crowd -
>> you, Ozark, Chisolm, etc. - purely as a "marketing ploy" without
>> merit of any kind.
>
> This is also an overstatement. It makes sense to look at all of these
> developments with some skepticism, after all, bicycles are an old
> technology with a history of hype. The claimed benefits of innovations
> are well known because they are advertised and promoted, the drawbacks
> are often less recognized. Most innovations have context sensitivity --
> good for some, no benefit or actually bad for others.
>
>
>
>> I am not saying - and don't quote me out of conterxt - that markeitng
>> ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
>> junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.
>>
>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>> electronic.
>
> Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and driven
> by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in other
> mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics, not bikes
> to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts the high-end
> less than mid & low-end.
>
>
>> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
>> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
>> you get what you pay for.
>
> Well, you don't -- not in the sense that there's a linear relation
> between price and weight. There is a knee in the curve. Where its
> properties can be exploited (e.g. frames & forks) CF can enable
> significant weight savings. In other commonly sold applications, its use
> is not nearly so advantageous (posts, bars). No material is perfect, and
> the hype around CF "5x stronger than steel!" is misleading, and
> important safety issues are not given the same air time.
>
> Besides the material science issues, there are the quality
> control/economic issues with the material. CF fabrication is inherently
> labor intensive. As it becomes fashionable, corners will be cut. There's
> a difference between someone buying a Madone at a dealer & having it
> serviced vs generic mail order CF and DIY maintenance.
>
>
>> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
>> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
>> missing the boat. And the point.
>
> Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. I admit it's hard
> not to comment on the irony of fat guys obsessed with shaving a pound or
> two off their bikes and paying handsomely for it, but that's not where
> the bulk of these threads have focused.
>
> Personally, I'd rather have a robotic-made powder coated aluminum frame
> with "toothpaste" welds. I like stiff frames, don't care about
> aesthetics or an extra pound. I'll just recycle it when it's done. I
> like standard parts because I usually do a fair amount of
> replacement/swapping around. I don't think that makes me a Luddite,
> frugal and pragmatic, OK.

 

[Peter Cole]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>>> electronic.
>> Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and driven
>> by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in other
>> mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics, not bikes
>> to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts the high-end
>> less than mid & low-end.
>
> I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
> example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
> roughly contemporaneous.

How much "evolution" has there been in non solid state electronics?
Outside of large scale integrated circuits, there has been almost none
even in solid state electronics. I commonly see the exact same discrete
components in current consumer goods that I designed with 30 years ago.


> The evolution of bicycles may not follow
> Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
> anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
> buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however, to
> rbt retrogrouches.

No need to get insulting.

 

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>
>> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the
>> drawbacks not quite so obvious.
>
> but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
> afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
> mentality that seems to be so endemic.

"Can't afford it"? C'mon. "Poison the well"? Sheesh.

> after all, if it's such a
> dangerous material, where are the failures?

Didn't you have a fork failure?

> why don't they outnumber
> failures for other materials?

I never had a fork failure.

 

[Peter Cole]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>> Your broken handlebar experience is evidence that the anti-stupid-
>> light stance of many r.b.t. engineers is _not_ a "chicken little"
>> phenomenon.
>
> Not really, Frank, because the group would tell me to dump the CF bars
> on my racing bike and keep the Cinelli Al bars -- and the Al bars
> broke after a short period of service. The CF bars are going strong
> after more years of much harder service. They are also lighter and
> more comfortable. (God knows after posting this they will explode on
> the way home!)
>
> I agree that stupid light is . . . stupid. But my Cinelli bars were
> relatively heavy. I wish it were just a matter of lightness, because
> then you could always pick the heavier of two products and be somewhat
> sure that you were getting the "stronger" one. -- Jay Beattie.

CF is at its most advantageous for highly shaped parts with joints --
because it can be molded to shape and eliminate the joints. This gives
the most bang-for-buck to frames & forks. I don't worry much about frame
failures, but am a bit more cautious about forks. Bars and posts to me
are about the worst places for CF, you don't gain (lose) much in weight
and you really have to be careful about over clamping and gouging.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 11, 10:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
> > On 2007-09-11, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> !Jones wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
> >>>>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
> >>>>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
> >>>>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
> >>>>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
> > [...]
> >> i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
> >> production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
> >> convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
> >> process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.
>
> > They use a lot of energy but see the original point about toxic waste,
> > which IMO is a more pressing concern than CO2 or energy.
>
> > Of all the steel and aluminium produced how much goes into bike frames
> > anyway? I've probably consumed more of each of those materials in the
> > form of soda cans in my lifetime.
>
> > [...]
> >>> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
> >>> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
> >>> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
> >>> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
> >>> can afford.
> >> i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
> >> all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
> >> here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
> >> price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
> >> "have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
> >> personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
> >> need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
> >> rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
> >> /begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
> >> the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.
>
> > I suspect they can afford these CF bikes but there's a certain pride
> > (and deserved respect) that comes from keeping a good old steel bike
> > going for 35 years or riding 300,000 miles.
>
> but some of those old steel bikes are a shimmy nightmare because they
> use skinny tube that's not torsionally stiff.

What the hell are you talking about? I rode skinny tubed steel bikes
for a long time. I still ride a steel bike along with a Ti bike.
Still no shimmy problems.

Andres

/much/ better to go with
> a modern frame with big tube and therefore much better torsional stiffness.
>

>
> > With that may come a sneaking repressed desire to try one of the new
> > gleaming CF machines. This may be the true source of the retrogrouchism.
>
> > My advice is buy the new bike but keep the old one anyway.
>
> yeah, hang if on the wall of the den as art. rust-proof it first. then
> ride the new one.

 

[_]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:38:35 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>>>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>>>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>>>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>>
>>> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the
>>> drawbacks not quite so obvious.
>>
>> but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
>> afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
>> mentality that seems to be so endemic.
>
> "Can't afford it"? C'mon. "Poison the well"? Sheesh.
>
>> after all, if it's such a
>> dangerous material, where are the failures?
>
> Didn't you have a fork failure?
>
>> why don't they outnumber
>> failures for other materials?
>
> I never had a fork failure.

Peter, this is the guy that was trying to tell all and sundy that cut
threads on brake bolts were a disaster waiting to happen - despite the fact
that failures due to cut threads on brake bolts don't happen (jim beam did
try to give us an example, but as Sheldon Brown delicately pointed out,
that was a blatant lie^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ extremely parsimonious with
the truth).

 

[Tom Nakashima]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't worry much about frame failures, but am a bit more cautious about
> forks

There are cautions when there are voids in the CF with forks, that said
there is a difference when the front wheel is in place, where it might not
be as noticeable when riding on the road.

John Slawta of LandShark Bicycles would do a simple test by
grabbing the fork blades with one hand (with the wheel removed)
and gently squeezing them towards eachother. If there is a failure, you'll
know. He's actually cracked a few new ones by using this method, and believe
it or not, one fork that was already in service.
It might be a good idea to perform this simple task on occasions.
btw: I still ride the steel fork.
-tom

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:09:33 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Sorry, Doug, but "newer is better" != intelligence. For that matter,
>the formula "newer != progress" is also true. That CF has significant
>drawbacks in this application just seems to escape your notice.

It did not. While we're on the subject, did my post above escape your
notice?:

I am not saying - and don't quote me out of context - that marketing
ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient overpriced
junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible public.

But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
electronic.

Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
you get what you pay for.

For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a marketing
ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
missing the boat. And the point.

There are those cyclists who legitimately not only want, but require
the state of the art. They are called racers. I used to be one (and
the older I get, the better I used to be . My observations of that
group as well as cohorts who still ride damn hard a few days a week,
old age notwithstanding, shows that:

All carbon fiber forks are ubiquitous. Lighter, stronger, stiffer. And
it was a scant 2 or 3 years ago the retros cautioned against carbon
steerers.

Almost as ubiquitous are carbon cranks, handlebars, and seatposts.

The Campy guys/girls have carbon brake calipers, shifters and rear
derailleurs.,

Carbon frames will take over in another season or two as aluminum and
titanium ones are retired to rain bikes (steel is already gone). Right
now I'd say it's about 50-50.

A sub 17 lb. bike can be built for the price an 18 or 19 lb bike cost
2 or 3 years ago. 15 and 16 lb bikes abound because strong and stiff
and light enough carbon frames are available if you have the bucks to
get into that range, and want or "need" to.

Deny it, ignore it, resist it all you want. It's progress to me. It's
my hobby. I ride road and off road, long slow distance and
hammerfest.; I like to buy new parts; I like to build new bikes every
2 or 3 years, and I bet don't spend any more than the golf crowd does
with their $400 apiece golf clubs they keep replacing and buying. And
both the road and the woods don't have green fees.

The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.

 

[Jambo]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> someone with neither name or email address writes:
> The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the rude
> style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I hope that
> those who have something to offer omit self righteous name calling and
> four letter words. Such posts generally cancel opinions expressed and
> degrade the level of discourse to trash.
>
> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
> opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty your own space.

The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the difference
between the two types of response, and are perceptive enough to do so. I
suspect many others have the same perception

However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through
insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly,
allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with
impunity. There's