Reynolds MZM magesium tubing

In article <[email protected]>,
Werehatrack <[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?
>
> 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.

While it's true that mag will burn as you describe, I think that pieces
of any substantial size aren't that easy to get ignited. Much more likely
to ignite when it's in a powdery form, or small shavings, like from a lathe
or end mill cut. A few years ago, a guy in a machine shop in the Redwood
City (Calif.) area was making a fine cut on a mag part he was doing - only
problem was that he decided to do it with the coolant off. Oops. He
basically burned his boss's CNC lathe to the ground. Having a class D
extinguisher handy is a good idea.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

May I suggest one of you guys try doing a search on Mg alloy .. you might find some answers to most of your questions ..

 

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

I think lightness is the primary advantage
(https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/compproperties.html).
Magnesium is significantly lighter than Titanium or other metals. Now
magnesium not learly as strong. So this begs the question is it strong
enough for normal use. But since the UCI instituted min weight rules
it may nullify the benefits.

> 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 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.

While the material itself is certainly a factor, castings are brittle
by nature, typically. I would suspect that many materials would crack
as a bike frame casting.


Michael J. Klein [email protected]
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

 

Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[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.

From my experience, I consider the Reynolds to be the most trusted
name bicycle tubing. Years ago TI held the record for the largest drop
forging ever produced. Reynolds produced double butted titanium, which
everyone in the industry said was impossible.. As for magnesium frames
I think it's a matter of determining application suitablilty and
proper welding techniques.

 

In the current issue of Bicycling magazine they havea write up on the
2005 Pinarello Dogma frame with a proprietary oversized bottom bracket
shell. One of the benefits Pinarello/Bicycling gives for using
magnesium instead of aluminum is you can have a frame weight equal to
light weight aluminum but use thicker tubes since magnesium is less
dense than aluminum. Thicker walls with the same weight results in
increased stiffness, more difficult to dent, etc., etc.


Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.

 

Tom Sherman wrote:

> Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>> Dave Stallard wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>>
>>> 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.
>

Yes, while being fed plenty of pure oxygen.

Dave Lehnen

 

And the answer: marketing makes money. Scandium, it seems, didn't create
enough fanfare.


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

 

Curtis-<< So based on all the comments, it kind of begs the question, "Why?"
>><BR><BR>

'For selling'...like lots of bicycle gizmos these days. VERY little today makes
the bicycle better, IMO. I think the last time something actually made things
better was lever mounted shifting, road triples, 110mm bolt duameters, clipless
pedals...

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

Randall-<< I think lightness is the primary advantage >><BR><BR>

In the Paketa, it weighs about what every other aluminum frameset that won't
break wqeighs, about 3 pounds.

Like has been written, any material can be light but not necessarily durable
and useable.

It seems like a $50 answer to a $10 question.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

Randall Shimizu wrote:
> Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<o9hon05umsp6371n5fjng[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.
>
> From my experience, I consider the Reynolds to be the most trusted
> name bicycle tubing. Years ago TI held the record for the largest
drop
> forging ever produced. Reynolds produced double butted titanium,
which
> everyone in the industry said was impossible.. As for magnesium
frames
> I think it's a matter of determining application suitablilty and
> proper welding techniques.

This is true. In the late 80s/early 90s, there was a UK company called
Kirk Precision that came out with a "magnesium" frame. Not only was it
ugly, think bridge truss, but just about every single one of them
broke! Here's a pic of one in a museum (where it belongs!):

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

I would put the Kirk in the same category as the Teledyne titan (first
ti bike), Exxon Graftek/Graphite (first carbon) and Lambert steel, with
the first aluminum fork (aka death fork)

All of them were britte and dangerous! For more pics, see here:
http://www.firstflightbikes.com/vintage.htm

 

[email protected] (Randall Shimizu) 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....???

When magnesium and aluminum are alloyed the resulting alloy has most
of the best properties of both.

I wouldn't much worry about the tubing as much as the fact that it
would probably require a great deal more skill to weld.

 

[email protected] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Randall Shimizu) 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....???
>
> When magnesium and aluminum are alloyed the resulting alloy has most
> of the best properties of both.
>
> I wouldn't much worry about the tubing as much as the fact that it
> would probably require a great deal more skill to weld.

Given the strength of magnesium as compared to other materials I think
there is a lot to ponder. Also remember that the figures on the
Reynolds site are for their own tubing.................

 

"Randall Shimizu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (Randall Shimizu) 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....???
>>
>> When magnesium and aluminum are alloyed the resulting alloy has most
>> of the best properties of both.
>>
>> I wouldn't much worry about the tubing as much as the fact that it
>> would probably require a great deal more skill to weld.
>
> Given the strength of magnesium as compared to other materials I think
> there is a lot to ponder. Also remember that the figures on the
> Reynolds site are for their own tubing.

Randall, you don't get something for nothing - the ultimate strength of the
magnesium/aluminum tubing isn't greatly effected but the yield strength is.
This generally indicates that the tubing tends to fracture rather than bend.

 

magnesium: a curious duck!
it corrodes, doesn't paint well, hard to work with, not as 'strong' as
Aluminum,
heavier than Aluminum, uh.... burns lika expletive deleted! good for
touring greenland.
now IF! yawl happen to own a mag mine then...

 

"Dave Lehnen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > Lou Holtman wrote:
> >
> >> Dave Stallard wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >
>
> Yes, while being fed plenty of pure oxygen.

Steel wool burns nicely without any special help.

Anyway, a big lump of magnesium, like a bike frame, is pretty hard to heat
up enough to burn: good heat conductivity, lots of surface area to radiate
the heat away. F1 car wheels are (sometimes) magnesium alloys, they burn
occasionally, but it takes a catastrophic flat tyre from high speed to do
it: and that's a significant percentage of the KE of a heavy car doing
>100kph going into heating the magnesium. You're not going to do that on a
bike, short of trying for the bike speed record and stacking, in which case
you'll be watching your magnesium bike burn from the other side of the
pearly gates anyway.

Peter

 

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Randall Shimizu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > [email protected] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Randall Shimizu) 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....???
> >>
> >> When magnesium and aluminum are alloyed the resulting alloy has most
> >> of the best properties of both.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't much worry about the tubing as much as the fact that it
> >> would probably require a great deal more skill to weld.
> >
> > Given the strength of magnesium as compared to other materials I think
> > there is a lot to ponder. Also remember that the figures on the
> > Reynolds site are for their own tubing.
>
> Randall, you don't get something for nothing - the ultimate strength of the
> magnesium/aluminum tubing isn't greatly effected but the yield strength is.
> This generally indicates that the tubing tends to fracture rather than bend.

I think we will have to wait until some frames are produced using
Reynolds MZM tubing. I am still waiting for some figures on the
composistion of the tubing It will be interesting when Easton comes
out with their metal matrix tubing........

 

"g.daniels" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> magnesium: a curious duck!
> it corrodes, doesn't paint well, hard to work with, not as 'strong' as
> Aluminum,
> heavier than Aluminum, uh.... burns lika expletive deleted! good for
> touring greenland.
> now IF! yawl happen to own a mag mine then...

One of the most common performance alloys of aluminum and magnesium is
Electron. If you look it up you'll find that it is superior to most other
aluminum alloys in just about every regard.

 

>"g.daniels" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> magnesium: a curious duck!
>> it corrodes, doesn't paint well, hard to work with, not as 'strong' as
>> Aluminum,
>> heavier than Aluminum,

This is backwards. Magnesium is less dense than aluminum.

BTW, one of the most common ways of "mining" magnesium is to separate
it from sea water.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney [email protected]
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------