Do aluminum frames wear out?

On 24 Mar 2004 10:42:25 -0800, [email hidden] (Chris

Hansen) said:

Hello,

I've talked to two people who have said aluminum frames
wear out. One said that after about 8 years they kind of go
"dead" and lose the feel they once had. Another talked
about how he broke the bottom bracket out of an old
aluminum frame.

Does anyone know anything about this? If you plan to keep a
bike for longer than 10 years is it better not to get
aluminum?

Just one data point; my Vitus 992 (purchased new in 1992) is
still going strong after at least 50,000 miles.

Oh yes, one more data point; my Trek 1400 is over fifteen
years old and although ridden less than the 992, is still
going strong. I've even been riding with a 130mm hub in the
126mm rear triangle for the past four years or so.

In fairness (and to appease the "steel is real" crowd) my
1966 PX10E is still very much a rideable bike. It hasn't
"gone soft" yet. ;-)

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net
home.earthlink.net~jeverett3Open ↗

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:14:45 +1100, "DRS" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell <[email hidden]> wrote in
message [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:40:14 -0500, Curtis L. Russell <curtis@the-md-

russells.org said:

I've seen bamboo frames and rims, but I think we're
basically talking about steel, aluminum/aluminium and
carbon fiber or whatever the material is technically.

Guess I forgot Titanium. But I'm still leaving out pasta.

Even if it's al dente?

Frame would still be pretty noodly on the descents.

-Luigi

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:40:14 -0500, Curtis L. Russell <curtis@the-md-

russells.org said:

I've seen bamboo frames and rims, but I think we're
basically talking about steel, aluminum/aluminium and
carbon fiber or whatever the material is technically.

Guess I forgot Titanium. But I'm still leaving out pasta.

If you had a pasta frame, and you started to bonk, at least
you could eat the bike.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
home.earthlink.netWelcome.htmOpen ↗
See the books I've set free at: bookcrossing.comCpeterskyOpen ↗

Benjamin Lewis said:

You're seriously claiming that the material has *nothing*
to do with longevity? So a bicycle made of pasta would last
just as long as a bicycle made of steel, all other things
being equal?

Not if I had anything to do with it.
--
Rick Onanian

Mark Lee said:

As they usually break within the year, it's hard to say
how they'll feel after 8.

That's not hard at all to say. If the frame's not broken,
it will feel the same as the first day it was ridden. If
it is broken, it doesn't matter how it feels. It will be
scrap metal.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA bike.terrymorse.combike.terrymorse.comOpen ↗

"Methuselah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Likewise, if you can pedal hard enough, long enough, it
probably does not matter what something weighs.

accelleration, a bit, on the flat rolling resistance, a bit.

I sometimes ride a (steel) tandem solo, and its not
dead slow.

Fabrizio Mazzoleni said:

"Dane Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As to the frame material, as long as you don't buy
something stupid-light, it shouldn't be a problem. But
don't go out and buy a 2.5 lb aluminum & faery dust frame
with drillium/unobtainium components and then complain
that it breaks in two years.

Quoted message said:

Don't worry about that.

Quoted message said:

Today top-end AL frames are all way overbuilt.

Quoted message said:

Take De Rosa's Merak frame, it's built with Dedacciai V107
hydroformed aluminum tubing but weighs in at 1.25kg.
That's giving up to much on today's top carb frames. This
thing will still be around next season, which by then the
frame design will be out of date.

Quoted message said:

I've asked Cristiano DeRosa several times to shave the
mass of that frame down to a more reasonable 968 grams.

It's good to hear you're working your connnections to get
yourself set up for the racing season. Are you riding
something with decent Italian parts like this <
tinyurl.com32locOpen ↗ > ? Or have you patched over
relations with Shimano, and they're making you ride that
heavy Dura-Ace stuff?

Non-tiny url:

weightweenies.starbike.comarticles.phpOpen ↗

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r
g Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter
S. Thompson

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Wcn8c.84338$Cb.1107287@attbi_s51...

Quoted message said:

Steel frames fail all the time.

True.

Quoted message said:

It's a mistake to think material has anything to do with
longevity.

False. Someone pointed out the obvious case: build the bike
with cardboard tubes. Some materials are better suited to a
long-lasting bike frame than others.

Obviously frame design, weld quality, etc. have a lot to do
with longevity, but that doesn't mean that material doesn't.

Back to common, practical frame materials:
1. Titanium frames fail less frequently than aluminum
frames.

2. My impression is steel frames do too (excluding low-end
frames). I've certainly had better luck with steel.

3. If the steel frame does fail, it should be easy to
repair. Often not true for aluminum. The steel frame
could last your lifetime. My first aluminum frame
lasted less than 3 years.

Longevity isn't everything. Both my frames now are aluminum.
If one fails, it can be replaced. They're still light,
rigid, and affordable, whether permanent or not.

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's a mistake to think material has anything to do with
longevity.

False. Someone pointed out the obvious case: build the
bike with cardboard tubes. Some materials are better
suited to a long-lasting bike frame than others.

You're confusing strength with fatigue.

It's not too hard to build a steel frame with very short
service life or an aluminum one with a very long one.
Engineering is all about trade-offs.

"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, aluminum alloys do not have an
endurance limit. No matter how low the stress you apply,
if you bend things back and forth enough times, the
aluminum part will fatigue - someday. Eventually.

The question is, when? The lower the stress (just as with
steel) the longer the fatigue will take. Keep the stress
down low enough, and your bike frame may fatigue while
your great-grandchild is riding it in an antique parade,
but not before then.

To expand a bit on this--

What most people don't appreciate is just how non-linear
fatigue is. With common aluminum alloys like those used in
bikes, reducing the stress 20% will increase the cycles to
failure from 10^5 to 10^9, or a factor of 10,000. This is
literally changing the lifetime from a year to 10 millennia.

This is somewhat misleading, since it is the "weakest link"
that lets go first, so a badly designed joint, a poor weld,
a surface flaw, or residual manufacturing stresses usually
cause a failure long before the intrinsic material
characteristics would predict. This is true in any material.
The perfect frame would have no weak link, and failures
would occur randomly on any part of it after a predictable
number of stress cycles (set by amount of material) . Of
course it would be impossible in practice since everybody
stresses a frame somewhat differently.

From a purely fatigue POV, the best frame is the one that
has no unnecessary material, so stresses have been carefully
calculated and manufacturing processes are tightly
controlled, so that the minimum amount of material is used.
Since fatigue is so non-linear, the weight penalty paid to
move the predicted (material) failure point out to
*effective* infinity is small. Cheaper frames cover non-
optimal designs and manufacturing processes with over-use of
material (or not). "Light, cheap, durable -- pick any 2",
applies to any material.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:50:36 GMT, Dane Jackson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Non-tiny url:
weightweenies.starbike.comarticles.phpOpen ↗

When it's that short, there's no point to using tinyurl.
--
Rick Onanian

Dane Jackson said:

weightweenies.starbike.comarticles.phpOpen ↗

I'm not sure what's the point in a bike like this. Aluminium
bolts on the stem seem so dangerous, that I doubt anybody
actually rides this bike seriously. How long do carbon fibre
chainrings last?

If the bike is not supposed to be ridden, I'm sure you could
shave another kilogram or two. Four spokes should hold the
hub pretty much in the center of the rim and a downtube is
not needed either.

-as

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Kevan Smith
Since aluminum is not as good as steel, riding an aluminum
bike is dangerous, therefore one should wear a helmet to
save one's life!

Woohoooo!

--
[email hidden]
A very small object - Its center.
25

We better add the leather jacket and matching chaps. (Road rash is a real [censored]!)

Curtis L. Russell said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

You're seriously claiming that the material has *nothing*
to do with longevity? So a bicycle made of pasta would
last just as long as a bicycle made of steel, all other
things being equal?

This is bogus. Virtually all conversations, even on
Usenet, recognize that there is a relevant range. We're
not talking about pasta because most of us aren't
sophomoric debaters. We're talking about the relevant
range, which would include the common materials used in
bicycle frame construction.

And for all these materials, the longevity of the bicycle
will be exactly the same, as long as, say, their strength
is the same?

What does a material have to do to qualify to be in
your "relevant range"? Why is it that inside this
range, longevity is a fixed quantity, but it varies
outside the range?

Yes, I understand that their are other more important
factors that determine longevity, but that doesn't stop the
material from being a factor at all.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.
-- Walt Kelly

Peter Cole said:

Cheaper frames cover non-optimal designs and manufacturing
processes with over-use of material (or not). "Light,
cheap, durable -- pick any 2", applies to any material.

Interestingly, years ago I was having a metal shop fabricate
large welded sheet metal-over- frame structures from 11 G.
Aluminum (5053H13, IIRC). The metal fabricator offered to
make an equivalent structure from stainless steel more
cheaply. He could go down two gages because of the
difference in yeild and tensile, and stainless was much
faster and easier to heliarc, and have a comparable weight.

Antti Salonen said:

Dane Jackson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weightweenies.starbike.comarticles.phpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what's the point in a bike like this.
Aluminium bolts on the stem seem so dangerous, that I
doubt anybody actually rides this bike seriously. How long
do carbon fibre chainrings last?

You have to realize that these people are basically insane.
Luckily it's the fairly harmless-to-society type of
dementia. Kind of like the man who believes he can fish
better if the fish don't see him. So he disguises himself as
an Elm tree.

Basically they're harmless eccentrics. Instead of muttering
about the Trilateral commission *fnord* using the Boy Scouts
through the S.M.O.F. to overthrow *fnord* the Gnomes of
Zurich, they mutter about weights of components and nod
sagely at each other about how *rough* Ultegra action is
compared to Dura-Ace. Then they'll expound on the wonders of
8/12 spoke wheelsets and how much faster they go with the
Record hubs and 18mm tires.

Quoted message said:

If the bike is not supposed to be ridden, I'm sure you
could shave another kilogram or two. Four spokes should
hold the hub pretty much in the center of the rim and a
downtube is not needed either.

Did you realize that that was not the *lightest* bike on
that site?

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
Come, muse, let us sing of rats! -- From a poem by James
Grainger, 1721-1767

Rick Onanian said:

Dane Jackson said:

Non-tiny url:
weightweenies.starbike.comarticles.phpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

When it's that short, there's no point to using tinyurl.

Truuuue... And? [1]

[1] I was fiddling with the formatting, and it seemed like a
good idea at the time. [2]
[2] Are you really arguing about coherency in a post
addressed to the Fab One ?

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
Unseen University had never admitted women, muttering
something about problems with the plumbing, but the real
reason was an unspoken dread that if women were allowed to
mess around with magic they would probably be embarrassingly
good at it ... -- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"

"Benjamin Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

And for all these materials, the longevity of the bicycle
will be exactly the same, as long as, say, their strength
is the same?

The issue at hand wasn't so much strength as fatigue, which
is (loosely) the tendency of a material to crack when
repeatedly loaded. Strength is also not a simple, single
parameter, materials like concrete have good strength in
compressive loads, but much lower in tension. Steel,
aluminum, CF, and titanium all have very good strength to
weight. Other materials might not, so a bike strong enough
to ride might be much heavier.

"Dane Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

It's good to hear you're working your connnections to get
yourself set up for the racing season. Are you riding
something with decent Italian parts like this <
tinyurl.com32locOpen ↗ > ? Or have you patched over
relations with Shimano, and they're making you ride that
heavy Dura-Ace stuff?

That's a nice little bike for climbing, but Fabrizio was
talking with some of the guys over on team ONCE last
summer and they weren't happy about the handling or fit
with those things.

When you've come up through the system like Fab a bike
becomes just a tool, you get a few new ones each season and
make the best of it.

Those people over in those china type countries will never
make a bike with soul such as Ernesto Colnago or Fausto
Pinarello do.

And stay away from Shimano stuff.

Peter Cole said:

"Benjamin Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

And for all these materials, the longevity of the bicycle
will be exactly the same, as long as, say, their strength
is the same?

The issue at hand wasn't so much strength as fatigue,
which is (loosely) the tendency of a material to crack
when repeatedly loaded. Strength is also not a simple,
single parameter, materials like concrete have good
strength in compressive loads, but much lower in tension.
Steel, aluminum, CF, and titanium all have very good
strength to weight. Other materials might not, so a bike
strong enough to ride might be much heavier.

I'm aware of all this. I don't think you understood my
question. I was asking if bicycles made from these various
materials will all have exactly the same fatigue life, as
you originally claimed. I'm contending that although it may
be possible to build bikes with all these materials that
have "acceptable" fatigue lives, that does not mean that
material is not a factor.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.
-- Walt Kelly