"brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:20:44 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >> Let's not get too smug, dood.
> >>
> >> Remember that from where I'm coming from your just another wool
> >> jersey wearing Fred on a steel clunker with his beard stick
> >> through his helmet chin strap.
> >
> >And you're just a gullible, arrogant toerag. Does that make us
> >even?
>
> If it makes you feel better, sure.

LOL. Maybe someday you can buy a clue.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 1:23 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Oh, and BTW - you characterize those who reject conspicuous (and
> >silly) consumption as "Freds who dabble." That's at least as shallow
> >as the rest of your post.
>
> I'll chalk you up as to being a fred who dabbles and doesn't get it.

I dabble in consumption; although I fantasize that I know something
about it, I recognize that there are people whose experience with
and aptitude for it I will never be able to approach.

Ben

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:20:44 -0500, Tim McNamara
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Let's not get too smug, dood.
> > >>
> > >> Remember that from where I'm coming from your just another wool
> > >> jersey wearing Fred on a steel clunker with his beard stick
> > >> through his helmet chin strap.
> > >
> > >And you're just a gullible, arrogant toerag. Does that make us
> > >even?
> >
> > If it makes you feel better, sure.
>
> LOL. Maybe someday you can buy a clue.

I have one I can let go for an immodest outlay.

--
Michael Press

 

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> so what is underinformed misinformation that is intended to scare?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> after all, if it's such a dangerous material, where are the failures?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you have a fork failure?
>>>
>>> yes i did, a kestrel. it started cracking. still got me home
>>> though. and guess what, i don't ride kestrel any more. /and/ i test
>>> my forks with nakashima's squeeze test.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> why don't they outnumber failures for other materials?
>>>>
>>>> I never had a fork failure.
>>>
>>> outside of kestrel, neither have i. and the wheel-smashing incident
>>> i had over a year ago would almost certainly have bent a steel fork.
>>> the look carbon fork i have on that bike didn't blink and has been
>>> ridden most days ever since.
>>
>> So, what's that, only a 50% failure rate?
>
> what an incredibly twisted mind you have. no, it's 100% for kestrel -
> and i was foolish enough to try another thinking it was a one-off event,
> and that replacement started cracking too. all the others i have or
> have tried - merlin, bianchi, look, brc, reynolds, nashbar, nashbar and
> nashbar, have all been perfect.

Thanks for the update. So that's only 20%?

 

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> how about getting real? /you/ argue just for the sake of it - to
>>> hell with accuracy.
>>
>> How about not posting unless you have something to say?
>
> how about not being a *****? your stupid comment on "100% failure rate"
> for forks is /typical/ peter cole doing /exactly/ as above.

Er, that was 50%, now corrected to 20%. Your comment, not mine.

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> how about getting real? /you/ argue just for the sake of it - to
>>>> hell with accuracy.
>>>
>>> How about not posting unless you have something to say?
>>
>> how about not being a *****? your stupid comment on "100% failure
>> rate" for forks is /typical/ peter cole doing /exactly/ as above.
>
> Er, that was 50%, now corrected to 20%. Your comment, not mine.

er, no, it's 100% for kestrel. that is the /real/ moral of the story,
if you can see that far and want to direct your attention accurately.

 

[!Jones]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:15:08 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Yes, in fact, I do have some idea of that. It's not possible to live
>> without consuming resources... this does not mean that, because
>> feedlots are environmentally bad, I should eat veal three times a day.
>> Steel production isn't exactly an "earth friendly" industry, I'll
>> grant you... CF production is far worse for the slight weight savings
>> we get.
>
>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.

*I* didn't bring up aluminum and wouldn't use titanium for the same
reason I would stay away from CF. Carbon fiber has its applications;
OTOH, to build a bicycle frame out of it represents a fetish. The
cost of the frame in environmental terms is high and, in economic
terms, well beyond the means of the average wage earner.

Basically, I try to build my bikes such that I can ride anyplace in
the world and keep a straight face. I can bike across an
international border where I live, for example; a CF bicycle would
cost more than a modest home in that city... I'd be stared at on CF;
my '68 Paramount does not attract attention.

Jones

 

[!Jones]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:15:08 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Have you ever heard the term: "conspicuous consumption"? Essentially,
it comes down to taking a perfectly healthful idea and turning it into
an obscene fetish. A person can do it with anything... it's not just
grossly expensive bicycles. Bicycles are fine, taken in moderation;
they make a great hobby. On the other hand, if your objective is to
see how much of your life's resources you can throw into one, then I
would suggest that you have crossed the line into that "conspicuous
consumption" idea I mentioned earlier.

Are you saving for your retirement? Social Security will probably go
belly-up soon and CF is a hideous investment.

Jones

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
!Jones <****@off.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:15:08 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, in fact, I do have some idea of that. It's not possible to
> >> live without consuming resources... this does not mean that,
> >> because feedlots are environmentally bad, I should eat veal three
> >> times a day. Steel production isn't exactly an "earth friendly"
> >> industry, I'll grant you... CF production is far worse for the
> >> slight weight savings we get.
> >
> >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.

I can't evaluate the accuracy of this article, which doesn't directly
shed light on the environmental and energy costs of carbon fiber
composite production. It's a bit cheerleady but here it is:

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0306-ornl.html

There is some interesting information about lowering the cost of CF
production through using renewable/recycled resources for precursor
fibers and carbonization, etc., here:

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111380.pdf

> *I* didn't bring up aluminum and wouldn't use titanium for the same
> reason I would stay away from CF. Carbon fiber has its applications;
> OTOH, to build a bicycle frame out of it represents a fetish. The
> cost of the frame in environmental terms is high and, in economic
> terms, well beyond the means of the average wage earner.

I did not have a lot of luck finding out much about the environmental
costs of CF and CF composite production. Do you have some citations to
consider?

The environmental costs of mining iron, aluminum and titanium ore is
large, the environmental cost of refinement of the ores into useable
materials is high, and the environmental cost of producing tubing and
actual bike production is fairly high. These costs vary somewhat with
steel being the cheapest and titanium being the highest. OTOH aluminum
is more easily recycled than the other metals.

> Basically, I try to build my bikes such that I can ride anyplace in
> the world and keep a straight face. I can bike across an
> international border where I live, for example; a CF bicycle would
> cost more than a modest home in that city... I'd be stared at on CF;
> my '68 Paramount does not attract attention.

It still boils down to whether the material us suitable for the
application. The issues of incidental damage causing catastrophic
failure, as well as the complexity of manufacturing frames, forks, etc.
have not yet been surmounted. They might be, at some point.

 

[!Jones]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:01:22 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The environmental costs of mining [and refining] titanium [et. al.] is
>large

Yes... and ****** was a bad person, but I didn't bring him up.

Similarly, I didn't mention titanium. But, you're right... you cannot
live without consuming resources. It's just that we cyclists tend to
tout our conservative life styles... is it really so?

Jones

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, !Jones
<****@off.com> wrote:

> *I* didn't bring up aluminum and wouldn't use titanium for the same
> reason I would stay away from CF. Carbon fiber has its applications;
> OTOH, to build a bicycle frame out of it represents a fetish. The
> cost of the frame in environmental terms is high and, in economic
> terms, well beyond the means of the average wage earner.
>
> Basically, I try to build my bikes such that I can ride anyplace in
> the world and keep a straight face. I can bike across an
> international border where I live, for example; a CF bicycle would
> cost more than a modest home in that city... I'd be stared at on CF;
> my '68 Paramount does not attract attention.
>
> Jones


That reasoning seems specious. What is more objectional: filling a
vacuum through materialism, i.e., conspicuous consumption, or blind
deference to others' sensibilities? Not to suggest you're engaging in
either though.

Consider that a steel Rivendell frame costs the same as many CF
counterparts; it's an equally extravagant purchase for the impoverished
predominating in the world. Does this frame also represent a fetish?

More perversely, many of my financially well to do -- at least more so
than me! -- non cycling friends are astounded that one would pay more
than a few hundred dollars for a bicycle. Through their eyes, and I
suspect those of the needy as well, my bike, a Jamis Nova -- hardly a
fetishist's dream! -- is an overindulgence. They would both have me on
an X-mart POS. I don't submit to their misconceptions on the matter.

And yet I continue to ride everywhere with a straight face -- make that
a smiling face! -- as I see others on CF, Al, etc... bikes do --
regardless of the sentiments of others. Good for them.

Whether you rode across that border near your home on a Seven or an
X-mart bicycle the material effect on those you pass, those whose
houses cost as much as your bike, would be the same in either case:
zero. One may salve the conscience by buying a cheap X-mart bike but if
the destitute are no better off it's ultimately a self-serving, empty
gesture.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
!Jones <****@off.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:01:22 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The environmental costs of mining [and refining] titanium [et. al.]
> >is large
>
> Yes... and ****** was a bad person, but I didn't bring him up.
>
> Similarly, I didn't mention titanium. But, you're right... you
> cannot live without consuming resources. It's just that we cyclists
> tend to tout our conservative life styles... is it really so?

The environmental cost of owning and operating a bicycle is a tiny
fraction of that of owning and operating a car. That really is so. It
takes something like 70 barrels of oil to make a car. It takes more
barrels of oil to get it to the dealer. It takes more barrels of oil to
operate it for its service life. A car is really quite extravagant in
the consumption of energy. And then there are the toxic processes in
producing components and fluids and the like, such as antifreeze.

Bikes take a tiny fraction of that toll in manufacture and in operation.
On the other hand, the environmental cost of owning and operating a
bicycle is much higher than that of walking. So, whether our
"lifestyle" is environmentally conservative depends on the alternative
being compared.

All a part of life in a relativistic universe.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <160920070042088473%[email protected]>,
Luke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Consider that a steel Rivendell frame costs the same as many CF
> counterparts; it's an equally extravagant purchase for the
> impoverished predominating in the world. Does this frame also
> represent a fetish?

As a Rivendell owner since 1996 (when the frames cost half of what they
cost now), I'd have to say that the obvious answer to that question is
"yes." Rivendell owners do tend to "fetishize" their bikes.

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Tim
McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <160920070042088473%[email protected]>,
> Luke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Consider that a steel Rivendell frame costs the same as many CF
> > counterparts; it's an equally extravagant purchase for the
> > impoverished predominating in the world. Does this frame also
> > represent a fetish?
>
> As a Rivendell owner since 1996 (when the frames cost half of what they
> cost now), I'd have to say that the obvious answer to that question is
> "yes."

Well I defer to your experience in the matter. But I suspect that your
bike has been an enjoyable companion over many miles and so it has some
practical value. ;-)

> Rivendell owners do tend to "fetishize" their bikes.

That's what I was getting at.

The frame is not the culprit nor is its price. One can obsess about
anything whether it's an exotic plastic bike or a woman (flesh and
blood type not plastic!). I'd love a Rambouillet and if I owned one it
wouldn't be serving as a symbol of adoration, hanging on a wall. I'd be
riding it.

If a bike be CF and expensive nothing inheres in those facts that mark
it as an object of fetish.

Now a latex love suit...

 

[!Jones]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:42:08 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Luke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Consider that a steel Rivendell frame costs the same as many CF
>counterparts; [...] Does this frame also represent a fetish?

One can take *anything* and create a fetish. By the same token, the
exotic materials and careful attention to detail have their place;
thus, in a different context, the same item may well be quite
reasonable. So, my response would be... perhaps, perhaps not.

I enjoy restoring old tandem bicycles; can I turn that hobby into a
fetish? Absolutely, I can; moreover, my wife believes that I do...
sometimes. "One man's pleasure is another's poison."

Jones

 

[!Jones]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:25:40 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

>Bikes take a tiny fraction of that toll in manufacture and in operation.
>On the other hand, the environmental cost of owning and operating a
>bicycle is much higher than that of walking. So, whether our
>"lifestyle" is environmentally conservative depends on the alternative
>being compared.

[...]

Very well. I see nothing with which I would disagree herein.