Steel/Aluminium

[John Staines]

You have the nerve to say I'm unoriginal? Jesus, Mary and Jose! Pot, kettle, black me old china.

Your like a broken record...same old material, Jose...very bland. **yawn**

I would say it does have something to do with me when I have to read your narky, self infatuated,
look at me I'm so clever replies to other peoples posts.

I'll give you a hint, cos I have a soft spot for ya, if you want to argue with someone who "you"
think is talking utter rubbish then could I suggest you do it privately? Then the rest of us don't
have to watch you berate someone with your superior, almost Spock like, intellect.

I'm sure your a really nice person under all that bravado. I still like you.

Cheerio

John


Jose Rizal wrote:
>
> John Staines:
>
> > I see your still being a prize tool Jose. Do you go out of your way to upset people or is it
> > just a natural talent you have?
>
> Very original. But that's "you're", not "your". For someone who touts a university address, one
> has to ask whether the youth of Adelaide have any chance at all.
>
> Perhaps being in the same class of posters as Mario and Dave, you take it upon yourself to be
> upset by posts which have nothing to do with you. But on the other hand, if you're also one who
> transplants a thread from one newsgroup to another just so you can reply with rubbish, then I
> understand your identification with Dave.
>
> > Bring back Super Mario I say! )
>
> Why, this is such a surprising statement from you...
>
> > Best wishes
> >
> > John

 

[Suzy Jackson]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2003 20:33:32 GMT Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote:
> >John Staines:
> >
> >> I see __your__ still being a prize tool Jose. Do you go out of your way
to
> >> upset people or is it just a natural talent you have?
> >
> >Very original. But that's "you're", not "your". For someone who touts a university address, one
> >has to ask whether the youth of Adelaide have any chance at all.
> >
>
> Good thing you're not teaching!
>
> "you're" is a contraction of "you are". "Go out of you are way" is not really what he was
> saying, is it.

I hate to be a nasty cow (actually I quite enjoy being a nasty cow, but that's beside the point) but
I suspect the "your" that Jose was referring to was the first. I've taken the liberty of
highlighting it.

In this context, "I see you are still being..." makes perfect sense, whereas "I see
your..." doesn't.

Regards,

Suzy (Grammar Nazi) Jackson
--
---
Suzy Jackson [email protected] http://www.suzyj.net

 

[Stu]

>Note - grammar flames are usually more dangerous to the flamer than the target.
yeap l can think of a fine example lol

 

[Jose Rizal]

Zebee Johnstone:

> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2003 20:33:32 GMT Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote:
> >John Staines:
> >
> >> I see your still being a prize tool Jose. Do you go out of your way to upset people or is it
> >> just a natural talent you have?
> >
> >Very original. But that's "you're", not "your". For someone who touts a university address, one
> >has to ask whether the youth of Adelaide have any chance at all.
> >
>
> Good thing you're not teaching!

You might take that statement on board.

> "you're" is a contraction of "you are".

Very good. Now why did you have to ruin it by:

>"Go out of you are way" is not really what he was saying, is it.

A question mark should be at the end of that sentence, not a full stop.

"You're" should have been used in the first sentence of Staines' post, as in "I see *you're* still
being a prize tool...".

> Note - grammar flames are usually more dangerous to the flamer than the target.

As you clearly demonstrate.

> Zebee
> - inserting compulsory missspelling

 

[Jose Rizal]

John Staines:

> You have the nerve to say I'm unoriginal? Jesus, Mary and Jose! Pot, kettle, black me old china.
>
> Your like a broken record...same old material, Jose...very bland. **yawn**

That's "You're", not "Your". You do have a problem with that particular word, don't you, despite
repeated references to your error?

> I would say it does have something to do with me when I have to read your narky, self infatuated,
> look at me I'm so clever replies to other peoples posts.

Apostrophe missing on "peoples".

You have to read my posts? Who holds a gun to your head?

On the other hand, if you have no trouble reading inane and obnoxious posts from characters like
Super Mario, and indeed call for a return of that poster, what does that tell everyone about the
value of your opinions?

> I'll give you a hint, cos I have a soft spot for ya, if you want to argue with someone who "you"
> think is talking utter rubbish then could I suggest you do it privately?

I counter-suggest that this newsgroup is a public forum, and if you don't want to see arguments over
topics, then go back to re-reading Super Mario's posts for your thrills, in the privacy of your own
computer terminal. Google is good for that.

> Then the rest of us don't have to watch you berate someone with your superior, almost Spock like,
> intellect.

Flattery will not improve your grammar.

> I'm sure your a really nice person under all that bravado. I still like you.
>
> Cheerio
>
> John

 

[John Staines]

Jose,

I don't have a problem with arguements or discussion but what I do have a problem with are people
who argue by berating the other person...which you are inclined to do.

As for the Super Mario remark....I'm surprised...couldn't you see the sarcasm in the comment? You
must have missed it when you were picking mine and everyone elses grammar to bits.

Hope you have a great weekend Jose )

Your mate

John

Jose Rizal wrote:
>
> John Staines:
>
> > You have the nerve to say I'm unoriginal? Jesus, Mary and Jose! Pot, kettle, black me old china.
> >
> > Your like a broken record...same old material, Jose...very bland. **yawn**
>
> That's "You're", not "Your". You do have a problem with that particular word, don't you, despite
> repeated references to your error?

> > I would say it does have something to do with me when I have to read your narky, self
> > infatuated, look at me I'm so clever replies to other peoples posts.
>
> Apostrophe missing on "peoples".
>
> You have to read my posts? Who holds a gun to your head?
>
> On the other hand, if you have no trouble reading inane and obnoxious posts from characters like
> Super Mario, and indeed call for a return of that poster, what does that tell everyone about the
> value of your opinions?
>
> > I'll give you a hint, cos I have a soft spot for ya, if you want to argue with someone who "you"
> > think is talking utter rubbish then could I suggest you do it privately?
>
> I counter-suggest that this newsgroup is a public forum, and if you don't want to see arguments
> over topics, then go back to re-reading Super Mario's posts for your thrills, in the privacy of
> your own computer terminal. Google is good for that.
>
> > Then the rest of us don't have to watch you berate someone with your superior, almost Spock
> > like, intellect.
>
> Flattery will not improve your grammar.
>
> > I'm sure your a really nice person under all that bravado. I still like you.
> >
> > Cheerio
> >
> > John

 

[Paul J]

Come on guys!

Get a grip. What was the original post?

Thanks?

 

[John Staines]

Aye alright Paul.....you have a point. )

It was starting to look abit like hand bangs at 3 paces.

Cheers

John

Paul J wrote:
>
> Come on guys!
>
> Get a grip. What was the original post?
>
> Thanks?

 

[trembler50]

To come back to the original post, and at the expense of sounding a tad affluent, I have 2 steel framed and 3 aluminium framed bikes.

They are all different and I use each depending on how I feel.

I would take issue with the earlier poster who said you could not tell.

In my opinion, aluminium is stiffer and steel is more comfortable.

 

[Chester1]

While I've always had steel, people do say you feel every bump on aluminium. Bit like straight forks which are supposed to give the same type of of jarring ride. I do know I get a pretty good ride on steel, except for the deep potholes.

Anyway, at least steel stands up to the knocks. I always worry that aluminium will crack or bend or cop dents, whereas steel will withstand these bumps. Pity about the rust though.

 

[Mike]

trembler50 wrote:

> In my opinion, aluminium is stiffer and steel is more comfortable.

Oh dear, not all this **** again. As usual, Sheldon Brown explains all:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

As it happens, aluminium is much less stiff, which is why they make the tube diameter bigger to
compensate. Why do people keep confusing material properties with frame properties? A frame is as
stiff or flexible as its designed, no matter what the material.

As for the curved forks, thats all about rake and steering, and nothing whatsoever to do with
suspension.

Please stop spreading myths. Have I been trolled?

 

[Nick Payne]

Use a chocolate frame instead. You won't feel the bumps and you can eat it when you get a
hunger flat.

"Chester1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While I've always had steel, people do say you feel every bump on aluminium. Bit like straight
> forks which are supposed to give the same type of of jarring ride. I do know I get a pretty good
> ride on steel, except for the deep potholes.
>
> Anyway, at least steel stands up to the knocks. I always worry that aluminium will crack or bend
> or cop dents, whereas steel will withstand these bumps. Pity about the rust though.

 

[trembler50]

Aluminium is stiffer and feels slightly so, hence can be a bit more jarring, but sometimes that can be what is required, i.e. when wanting to go faster.

One of my Cannondales is now over 10 years old and undented, the original paint got a bit chipped for 7 years and then I got it resprayed (and its a mountain bike). So I have no complaints about alu.

 

[Mike]

trembler50 wrote:
> Aluminium is stiffer and feels slightly so,

********. Steel has an elastic modulus _three_times_ higher. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> trembler50 wrote:
> > Aluminium is stiffer and feels slightly so,
>
> ********. Steel has an elastic modulus _three_times_ higher. You couldn't be more wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong (pretty likely I've got it ****-about, as I'm no engineer) but doesn't this
mean that steel is more elastic, flexing then returning to the original shape. Surely this means
that aluminium is *stiffer*, but of course more prone to permanent bending or fatigue failure?

Just a question, as I said I'm no expert, just clarifying my own ideas.

Cheers Peter

 

[John Retchford]

"Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Correct me if I'm wrong (pretty likely I've got it ****-about, as I'm no engineer) but doesn't
> this mean that steel is more elastic, flexing then returning to the original shape. Surely this
> means that aluminium is *stiffer*, but of course more prone to permanent bending or fatigue
failure?
>
> Just a question, as I said I'm no expert, just clarifying my own ideas.
>
Elastic modulus and stiffness are measures of how much a piece of material extends when loaded,
provided it remains elastic i.e. it returns to its original size and shape after the load is
removed. Steel is about three times stiffer than aluminium. Strength is a measure of how much force
is required to permanently change the shape of something (yield strength) or to break something
(ultimate strength). Different steels (alloys of iron) and aluminium alloys have very different
strengths, but the strongest steels are very much stronger than the strongest aluminium alloys.
However the stiffness of the respective materials changes very little with changes in strength.
Think of stiffness and strength separately.

When materials are made into products like tubes or bicycle frames, the stiffness of the product is
a function of the stiffness of the material, but also of the shape and design of the product. Take a
piece of thin steel rod a metre long. You can easily flex it in your hands. Now make it into a metre
long tube and it will feel very stiff. The material (and its modulus) have remained the same, but
the product feels very different. The designer can, within wide limits, make a bicycle frame as
stiff as desired by selection of material and diameter and wall thickness of tubes (for frames made
of tubes). If the material is aluminium alloy the wall thickness and/or the wall thickness will need
to be increased relative to steel to achieve the same frame stiffness and make up for the less stiff
material. But this is not a problem because the aluminium alloy will be only about a third of the
density of steel and a bigger volume of the stuff can be used. The designer will be looking for his
desired combination of strength, stiffness, lifetime and cost.

All practical bicycle frames are very stiff vertically. I doubt if the rider could notice any
vertical deflection at all. It would be totally swamped by the deflection of the tyres, the saddle,
the bar tape and your backside.

John Retchford

 

[Gemma Kernich]

"Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > trembler50 wrote:
> > > Aluminium is stiffer and feels slightly so,
> >
> > ********. Steel has an elastic modulus _three_times_ higher. You couldn't be more wrong.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong (pretty likely I've got it ****-about, as I'm no engineer) but doesn't
> this mean that steel is more elastic, flexing then returning to the original shape. Surely this
> means that aluminium is *stiffer*, but of course more prone to permanent bending or fatigue
failure?
>
> Just a question, as I said I'm no expert, just clarifying my own ideas.

Peter, You've got it the wrong way around. Steel is a stiffer material. ie. If you made an aluminium
frame the same diameter tubing thickness as an old reynolds 531 frame, it would be as bendly and
noodly as hell (and then break). Fatigue failure is another matter alltogether....

The **** about x material frames being stiffer than y material frames is just as correct as saying
that frames 'go soft and wear out. It's all in the design....

Gemma

 

[Ollie]

As John said, steel is stiffer, but the shape of the tubing makes more of a difference than the
stiffness of the material. I'm not sure why, but aluminium tubing is, by necesity, made from thicker
and thus stiffer than steel, so a steel frameed bike will be lofter. I think its because the
strength will alow for thinner walls for a lighter bike, but the thinner walls require a larger
diameter to maintain strength, anyway the thin tubing of a steel frame will make the bike more
comfortable over long rides on a road bikes with high preasure tires and hard saddles, but not over
short rides, and I would assume it would make less differnce if you had less air in the tires,
though I might be mistaken on that point. Ollie "John Retchford"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Correct me if I'm wrong (pretty likely I've got it ****-about, as I'm no engineer) but doesn't
> > this mean that steel is more elastic, flexing then returning to the original shape. Surely this
> > means that aluminium is *stiffer*, but of course more prone to permanent bending or fatigue
> failure?
> >
> > Just a question, as I said I'm no expert, just clarifying my own ideas.
> >
> Elastic modulus and stiffness are measures of how much a piece of material extends when loaded,
> provided it remains elastic i.e. it returns to its original size and shape after the load is
> removed. Steel is about three times stiffer than aluminium. Strength is a measure of how much
> force is required to permanently change the shape of something (yield strength) or
to
> break something (ultimate strength). Different steels (alloys of iron)
and
> aluminium alloys have very different strengths, but the strongest steels
are
> very much stronger than the strongest aluminium alloys. However the stiffness of the respective
> materials changes very little with changes in strength. Think of stiffness and strength
> separately.
>
> When materials are made into products like tubes or bicycle frames, the stiffness of the product
> is a function of the stiffness of the material,
but
> also of the shape and design of the product. Take a piece of thin steel
rod
> a metre long. You can easily flex it in your hands. Now make it into a metre long tube and it will
> feel very stiff. The material (and its
modulus)
> have remained the same, but the product feels very different. The
designer
> can, within wide limits, make a bicycle frame as stiff as desired by selection of material and
> diameter and wall thickness of tubes (for frames made of tubes). If the material is aluminium
> alloy the wall thickness and/or the wall thickness will need to be increased relative to steel to
> achieve the same frame stiffness and make up for the less stiff material. But this is not a
> problem because the aluminium alloy will be only about a third of the density of steel and a
> bigger volume of the stuff can be
used.
> The designer will be looking for his desired combination of strength, stiffness, lifetime
> and cost.
>
> All practical bicycle frames are very stiff vertically. I doubt if the rider could notice any
> vertical deflection at all. It would be totally swamped by the deflection of the tyres, the
> saddle, the bar tape and your backside.
>
> John Retchford

 

[Mike]

Ollie wrote:
> anyway the thin tubing of a steel frame will make the bike more comfortable over long rides on a
> road bikes with high preasure tires and hard saddles,

No, not even then. Complete myth. The frame is designed to be effectively completely rigid, (in the
vertical frame anyway). John explained it well, but Sheldon Brown's site has more.

 

[Andrew Swan]

> As for the curved forks, thats all about rake and steering, and nothing whatsoever to do with
> suspension.

Surely a straight fork would have different ride characteristics to a curved fork, all other things
being equal? With a straight fork, any road shock would be transmitted directly up the fork to the
head tube, whereas a curved fork would have some (admittedly limited) scope for absorbing some of
the shock by flexing? Otherwise why would the majority of forks have curves in them when it would be
simpler and use less material to make them straight? It can't be just about the rake of the steering
axis, as that could be adjusted simply by the frame builder changing the angle of the head tube.

&roo