carbon vs TI vs Al vs steel . . . ?

[Kbh]

You're missing the point here. If a post doesn't contain the level of technical authority that you
prefer, ignore it and move on, or perhaps provide your own insight into the topic. My OP was perhaps
useless. Your reply was rude. You demand that every statement be backed up by lengthy technical
detail, whereas I only expect that posters to this newsgroup suppress their juvenile desire to act
like jerks to others in a public forum.

> > > The reaction to "steel is real" is nothing to do with the r.b.t lexicon or the language that
> > > is involved.
> > >
> > > As you said in an earlier post:
> > >
> > > "[steel is real is] a common saying that succinctly reflects the opinion that steel is the
> > > best material for bike frames."
> > >
> > > This is an unsupported assertion, that many here find rather controversial.
> > >
> > > Seeing as this is the "rec.bicycles.tech" newsgroup, not "rec.bicycles.unsupported-assertion",
> > > it's a bit ingenuous of you to express surprise and annoyance when people take you to task for
> > > making such claims with no hard data or credible analysis to back them up.
> > >
> > > FYI, I can't find a word that rhymes with aluminium, (or aluminum) but carbon rhymes with a
> > > couple, as does titanium.
> >
>
> Opinions are fine things. If you were to say that in my opinion, steel is the best all round
> material for bike frame construction, that's fine by me.
>
> But you didn't.
>
> "Steel is real", not "IMHO, steel is real".
>
> > ..and I don't care, because in my opinion those materials are inferior
to
> > steel in the constrcution of bike frames and therefore don't deserve a
> slick
> > rhyming moniker.
>
> If you can't prove it via data or analysis, your opinions are baseless prejudice, and as such,
> worthless.
>
> Are you sure you should be *reading* a .tech newsgroup, let alone
*posting*
> in one?
>
> >
> > ...and an assertion and an opinion are two different things
>
> In your earlier posting you asserted that steel is the supreme material for bike frame
> construction. Now you're expressing the opinion that this is so. This is progress, at least.
>
> >... do you write for the New York Times?
>
> No. I have a few moral scruples.
>
> Best,
>
> Tim.
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/03

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:41:49 GMT, "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You're missing the point here. If a post doesn't contain the level of technical authority that you
>prefer, ignore it and move on, or perhaps provide your own insight into the topic. My OP was
>perhaps useless. Your reply was rude. You demand that every statement be backed up by lengthy
>technical detail, whereas I only expect that posters to this newsgroup suppress their juvenile
>desire to act like jerks to others in a public forum.

Saying "Steel is real" without any explanation or backup is rude, arrogant, insulting, and highly
juvenile behaviour. You got called on it. Stop making it worse for yourself.

Jasper

 

[Lewdvig]

I have tried pretty much every material and my theory is that a well made frame, in any material, is
a good ride.

A poorly thought out aluminum or titanium frame is not any better than a well made steel frame.

Generally, the more expensive the material the less likely you are to get a dud. A lot of thought
goes into a carbon frame, but anyone can weld together some steel pipes. That is probably why 6061
alum and cromo have relatively lower reputations. Having said that, I would rather have a Scapin,
Steelman, Bontrager or Waterford/Gunnar cromo frame than a generic Columbus Airplane frame.

My latest ride is a 15-20 year old GIOS Torino Professional. It has a very nice ride and should last
another 15 years.

"Jasper Janssen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:41:49 GMT, "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You're missing the point here. If a post doesn't contain the level of technical authority that
> >you prefer, ignore it and move on, or perhaps provide your own insight into the topic. My OP was
> >perhaps useless. Your reply was rude. You demand that every statement be backed up by lengthy
> >technical detail, whereas I only expect that posters to this newsgroup suppress their juvenile
> >desire to act like jerks to others in a public forum.
>
> Saying "Steel is real" without any explanation or backup is rude, arrogant, insulting, and highly
> juvenile behaviour. You got called on it. Stop making it worse for yourself.
>
> Jasper