Reynolds MZM magesium tubing



"Randall Shimizu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
> (https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>
> I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
> tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
> magnesium frames....???


IIRC, there was a company called Kirk that produced a cast magnesium frame
back around 1990 called the Kirk Precision.

http://www.firstflightbikes.com/KirkPrecision.html

I think a Dutch team (TVM, Phil Anderson come to mind) rode them briefly
before returning to conventional materials/styles.
 
On 24 Oct 2004 16:41:10 -0700, [email protected] (Randall Shimizu)
wrote:

>Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
>(https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>
>I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
>tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
>magnesium frames....???


While Reynolds is a name that I would ordinarily trust, magnesium is a
material that I wouldn't. The tubing in question, however, is
described as a magnesium *alloy*, and depending upon the ratios of
metals used, could be good. The only bike frame of which I'm aware
that was pure magnesium was the Kirk precision, which used a casting
instead of tubes. It had problems with cracking, which is precisely
what I'd have expected.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:13:48 GMT, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 24 Oct 2004 16:41:10 -0700, [email protected] (Randall Shimizu)
>wrote:
>
>>Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
>>(https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>>
>>I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
>>tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
>>magnesium frames....???

>
>While Reynolds is a name that I would ordinarily trust, magnesium is a
>material that I wouldn't. The tubing in question, however, is
>described as a magnesium *alloy*, and depending upon the ratios of
>metals used, could be good. The only bike frame of which I'm aware
>that was pure magnesium was the Kirk precision, which used a casting
>instead of tubes. It had problems with cracking, which is precisely
>what I'd have expected.
>


More recently, Pinarello introduced a model in 2003 with magnesium
alloy main triangle tubes and chainstays. The current version is
profiled at
http://www.pinarello.com/eng/dogma_FP01_scheda.php


-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
http://www.businesscycles.com
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
-------------------------------
 
All I know is that it's incredibly hard to work with, not appreciably better
than scandium aluminum, extremely expensive, and corrosive unless properly
treated (see first generation magnesium stems from ITM and Easton). I think
it's all exotic sex appeal and nothing else.

Ride lugged steel.


"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On 24 Oct 2004 16:41:10 -0700, [email protected] (Randall Shimizu)
> wrote:
>
> >Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
> >(https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
> >
> >I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
> >tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
> >magnesium frames....???

>
> While Reynolds is a name that I would ordinarily trust, magnesium is a
> material that I wouldn't. The tubing in question, however, is
> described as a magnesium *alloy*, and depending upon the ratios of
> metals used, could be good. The only bike frame of which I'm aware
> that was pure magnesium was the Kirk precision, which used a casting
> instead of tubes. It had problems with cracking, which is precisely
> what I'd have expected.
>
>
> --
> Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
> Some gardening required to reply via email.
> Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2004 16:41:10 -0700, [email protected] (Randall Shimizu)
> wrote:
>
> >Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
> >(https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
> >
> >I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
> >tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
> >magnesium frames....???

>
> While Reynolds is a name that I would ordinarily trust, magnesium is a
> material that I wouldn't. The tubing in question, however, is
> described as a magnesium *alloy*, and depending upon the ratios of
> metals used, could be good. The only bike frame of which I'm aware
> that was pure magnesium was the Kirk precision, which used a casting
> instead of tubes. It had problems with cracking, which is precisely
> what I'd have expected.


The Pinarello Dogma is made from Dedacciai magnesium tubing; here's some
advertising hype:
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=39

On the Pinarello site, they have a breakdown of the alloys:
92-96% mag, 5.8-7.2% aluminum, .15-.5% manganese, .04-1.5% zinc and .45% of
something I can't read (could be "altro, whatever that is - perhaps
contaminents). It does take a bit of skill to weld the stuff properly, but
they say it is more resistant to denting than thin wall aluminum frames
(perhaps because it has a greater wall thickness). Cracking would certainly
be a fear, but corrosion would be the greater issue, with a resulting loss
of strength. I imagine Pinarello has gone to great lengths to sort that
issue out.

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:56:14 GMT, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The Pinarello Dogma is made from Dedacciai magnesium tubing; here's some
>advertising hype:
>http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=39
>
> On the Pinarello site, they have a breakdown of the alloys:
>92-96% mag, 5.8-7.2% aluminum, .15-.5% manganese, .04-1.5% zinc and .45% of
>something I can't read (could be "altro, whatever that is - perhaps
>contaminents). It does take a bit of skill to weld the stuff properly, but
>they say it is more resistant to denting than thin wall aluminum frames
>(perhaps because it has a greater wall thickness). Cracking would certainly
>be a fear, but corrosion would be the greater issue, with a resulting loss
>of strength. I imagine Pinarello has gone to great lengths to sort that
>issue out.


Perhaps, though it's also possible that they are figuring that the
frames will not get enough flexing in use for cracking to be a
problem, and they may just be making naive assumptions about the
long-term properties of the material and its coatings when it comes to
corrosion. Personally, I would not want to trust a mag alloy in which
that element was the predominant component. I think we'll just have
to wait and see what happens, though; perhaps these will yield better
results than have been seen in other Mg applications. I'm not sure
that I'd bet my own money on the longevity of them, though, in either
direction.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:

> Perhaps, though it's also possible that they are figuring that the
> frames will not get enough flexing in use for cracking to be a
> problem, and they may just be making naive assumptions about the
> long-term properties of the material and its coatings when it comes to
> corrosion. Personally, I would not want to trust a mag alloy in which
> that element was the predominant component. I think we'll just have
> to wait and see what happens, though; perhaps these will yield better
> results than have been seen in other Mg applications. I'm not sure
> that I'd bet my own money on the longevity of them, though, in either
> direction.


Those are good points, and pretty much mirror my thoughts on these
frames. Particularly the longevity part (I'm riding a ten year old titanium
frame).

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Oct 2004 16:41:10 -0700, [email protected] (Randall Shimizu)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
> > >(https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
> > >
> > >I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
> > >tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
> > >magnesium frames....???

> >
> > While Reynolds is a name that I would ordinarily trust, magnesium is a
> > material that I wouldn't. The tubing in question, however, is
> > described as a magnesium *alloy*, and depending upon the ratios of
> > metals used, could be good. The only bike frame of which I'm aware
> > that was pure magnesium was the Kirk precision, which used a casting
> > instead of tubes. It had problems with cracking, which is precisely
> > what I'd have expected.

>
> The Pinarello Dogma is made from Dedacciai magnesium tubing; here's

some
> advertising hype:
> http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=39
>
> On the Pinarello site, they have a breakdown of the alloys:
> 92-96% mag, 5.8-7.2% aluminum, .15-.5% manganese, .04-1.5% zinc and .45%

of
> something I can't read (could be "altro, whatever that is - perhaps
> contaminents).


I'd go for 'others'.

Peter
 
Randall-<< I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
magnesium frames....??? >><BR><BR>

Local guy here is importing 'Paketa' magnesium welded frames and in spite of
the marketing hype about the ability to 'absorb' vibration, it sure seems like
an expensive aluminum frameset, altho with magnesium tubes.

These made in Russia BTW.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
 
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:23:43 GMT, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Those are good points, and pretty much mirror my thoughts on these
>frames. Particularly the longevity part (I'm riding a ten year old titanium
>frame).


So based on all the comments, it kind of begs the question, "Why?"
What would motivate Reynolds to sell a frame set that only a very few
framebuilders could do right and fewer probably would want to?
Lighter? A belief that some cyclists will purchase anything that
sounds cool in enough numbers to make the effort worthwhile?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:43:00 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:23:43 GMT, Howard Kveck
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Those are good points, and pretty much mirror my thoughts on these
>>frames. Particularly the longevity part (I'm riding a ten year old titanium
>>frame).

>
>So based on all the comments, it kind of begs the question, "Why?"
>What would motivate Reynolds to sell a frame set that only a very few
>framebuilders could do right and fewer probably would want to?
>Lighter? A belief that some cyclists will purchase anything that
>sounds cool in enough numbers to make the effort worthwhile?


One of the most enduring forces in the marketplace is "'New' will
always sell", which, allied with "Sooner or later, everything is new
again", periodically causes old failures to be resurrected, dusted
off, given a new name and touted as The Latest Thing yet again.
Sometimes the problems (if they were tech rather than marketing
mistakes) have genuinely been solved in the interim. Sometimes they
haven't. Sometimes new ones creep in instead, so that while the old
issues have been dealt with, the new ones still cause trouble. I
don't know which of the above will characterize the Reynolds magnesium
tubes. Their reputation for being right is awfully good; it seems
likely that if anyone is going to produce a non-troublesome magnesium
tube, it would be them. That, by itself, isn't enough to fully
convince me that these tubes are either trustworthy or likely to make
a splash in the marketplace, but I could be wrong.

As for the difficulties in working with magnesium, the welders who did
my alloy work years ago reported that in reality, the problems with
magnesium were not that hard to deal with. It could be a challenge to
find rod or wire of a compatible alloy, and shrinkage was a real
issue, but largely it was just a matter of selecting the right
equipment and learning the correct technique, as is true for a lot of
other metals. The real question is whether there is both enough
demand to justify the change, and enough improvement in this alloy to
make the result durable. Both of those questions are as yet
unanswered.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
Randall Shimizu wrote:

> Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
> (https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>
> I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
> tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
> magnesium frames....???


Pardon my naive question, but doesn't magnesium burn?

Dave
 
Dave Stallard wrote:
> Randall Shimizu wrote:
>
>> Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
>> (https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>>
>> I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
>> tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
>> magnesium frames....???

>
>
> Pardon my naive question, but doesn't magnesium burn?
>
> Dave


Yes, but aluminium and carbon burn too.

Lou
 
In Message-id: <[email protected]>
Lou Holtman [email protected] noted

>> Pardon my naive question, but doesn't magnesium burn?
>>
>> Dave

>
>Yes, but aluminium and carbon burn too.


Aluminum in powdered form is a primary constituent of many pyrotechnics.
Carbon is more interesting. In its solid form it is extremely resistant to
heat.
For example you will not get carbon fiber to burn under any normal scenario and
it can actually be used as a refractory material.

DR
 
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:36:24 -0400, Dave Stallard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Randall Shimizu wrote:
>
>> Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
>> (https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>>
>> I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
>> tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
>> magnesium frames....???

>
>Pardon my naive question, but doesn't magnesium burn?
>
> Dave


Dear Dave,

Yes, magnesium burns, as the little campfire-starter sticks
that you scrape with a knife demonstrate, but no, it's not a
problem for bicycles.

Wooden wagons burn more easily, but that wasn't really a
problem (outside of Hollywood).

Just as a wooden wagon takes an enormous amount of heat to
start burning, so does a bicycle-sized chunk of magnesium
take more heat to ignite than is likely to be available.

Try to set a modest chunk of kindling on fire with a
cigarette lighter, and you'll see the problem. Plenty of
heat and lots of oxygen are needed, which is what happens on
a tiny scale with the magnesium campfire-starters--the tiny
shaving absorbs all the friction of the steel knife blade
and momentarily ignites, with a flame hot enough to start
the wooden tinder that you'd better have ready, which turn
is enough to set a few twigs blazing, which in turn might
get a branch lit, and eventually enough heat builds up to
cause an actual log to burn.

Unless a puff of wind puts it all out, or the wood is too
damp.

In any case, notice that the stick of magnesium that you
scrape with a knife never bursts into flames itself--only a
thin, tiny shaving with a huge surface to mass ratio will
ignite.

Around the middle of this page, you'll find a situation in
which magnesium parts tended to catch fire and kill people:

http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b29.html

But a B-29 engine that blows a valve puts out a little more
heat and has a little more forced-draft than even Lance.

Carl Fogel
 
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:36:24 -0400, Dave Stallard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Randall Shimizu wrote:
>
>> Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
>> (https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>>
>> I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
>> tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
>> magnesium frames....???

>
>Pardon my naive question, but doesn't magnesium burn?


Yes. So does iron, under the right conditions, but magnesium in
nearly any physical dimension can be ignited and sustain combustion in
normal atmosphere. It is, hoever, extraordinarily unlikely that a
bike frame made of magnesium would get ignited in anything that would
be considered normal, or even highly unusual but plausible, use.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:10:20 -0600, [email protected]
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:36:24 -0400, Dave Stallard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Randall Shimizu wrote:
>>
>>> Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
>>> (https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>>>
>>> I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
>>> tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
>>> magnesium frames....???

>>
>>Pardon my naive question, but doesn't magnesium burn?
>>
>> Dave

>
>Dear Dave,
>
>Yes, magnesium burns, as the little campfire-starter sticks
>that you scrape with a knife demonstrate, but no, it's not a
>problem for bicycles.
>
>Wooden wagons burn more easily, but that wasn't really a
>problem (outside of Hollywood).
>
>Just as a wooden wagon takes an enormous amount of heat to
>start burning, so does a bicycle-sized chunk of magnesium
>take more heat to ignite than is likely to be available.
>
>Try to set a modest chunk of kindling on fire with a
>cigarette lighter, and you'll see the problem. Plenty of
>heat and lots of oxygen are needed, which is what happens on
>a tiny scale with the magnesium campfire-starters--the tiny
>shaving absorbs all the friction of the steel knife blade
>and momentarily ignites, with a flame hot enough to start
>the wooden tinder that you'd better have ready, which turn
>is enough to set a few twigs blazing, which in turn might
>get a branch lit, and eventually enough heat builds up to
>cause an actual log to burn.
>
>Unless a puff of wind puts it all out, or the wood is too
>damp.
>
>In any case, notice that the stick of magnesium that you
>scrape with a knife never bursts into flames itself--only a
>thin, tiny shaving with a huge surface to mass ratio will
>ignite.
>
>Around the middle of this page, you'll find a situation in
>which magnesium parts tended to catch fire and kill people:
>
>http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b29.html
>
>But a B-29 engine that blows a valve puts out a little more
>heat and has a little more forced-draft than even Lance.
>
>Carl Fogel


As usual, a little browsing straightens out mistakes.

The campfire starter rods work by first collecting some
shavings and then using a sparking striker to ignite them,
not by the blade scraping the magnesium rod itself.

For solid bulk magnesium, the ignition temperature is around
850 F. Thin strips with lots of surface area can be lit to
burn like a slow fuse. Here's a link:

http://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/012/

The most interesting example was an antique magnesium
photography strip--light it for a a steady bright light
instead of a flash.

Carl Fogel
 
Lou Holtman wrote:

> Dave Stallard wrote:
>
>> Randall Shimizu wrote:
>>
>>> Reynolds MZM magesium tubing
>>> (https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/magnesium.html)
>>>
>>> I noticed recently that Reynolds is now producing a MZM magnesium
>>> tubing. Has anyone had any experience or technical knowledge of
>>> magnesium frames....???

>>
>>
>>
>> Pardon my naive question, but doesn't magnesium burn?
>>
>> Dave

>
>
> Yes, but aluminium and carbon burn too.


As does iron/steel, as anyone who has ever used a cutting torch knows.

--
Tom Sherman
 

Similar threads