Steel versus carbon

[Wurm]

One more.

You did hang them in the near-field reflection areas, right?

 

[Rick_G]

I am using the Svetlanta Winged "C" 6550s in the Paoli power amps and vintage Telefunken 12AX7s in the CJ. The reminder fo the CJ tubes are NOS Mullards.

DM4,
I really like Winged C's too. My favorite KT88's (up until I tried the Shuguang smooth-plates) were Winged C's. BTW, how do the Tele's compare to Mullard's in 12AX7's? I really like the warm sound of Mullard's, I've never tried Tele's.

Wurm,
You've got some hot stuff there too! I'm humbled by you two.

P.S. Do you guys go to the Tube Asylum board?
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tubes/bbs.html

 

[Zurichman]

Please tell me how it is that a bike can almost "jump out underneath you," espcially when you consider that human acceleration on a bike is so slow that there is virtually no difference at all in rates of acceleration based on bikes of different weights.

I always wondered where these magical bikes came from or where they were purchased.

Like I said earlier I could care less what bike anyone rides what I should have said the new age technology and a 5 year newer bike and a few lbs less made the bike more responsive than I was use to and yes the bike did move that much faster while standing on the pedals if you care to disagree go for it but if you don't think a couple of lbs. or newer technology makes a difference in accleleration or climbing apparantely you don't know too much about bikes.


Zman

 

[alienator]

Like I said earlier I could care less what bike anyone rides what I should have said the new age technology and a 5 year newer bike and a few lbs less made the bike more responsive than I was use to and yes the bike did move that much faster while standing on the pedals if you care to disagree go for it but if you don't think a couple of lbs. or newer technology makes a difference in accleleration or climbing apparantely you don't know too much about bikes.


Zman

Nah, I guess not. And all those physics equations that say that the acceleration difference is negligible.....dang.

Don't you hate it when good ol' science gets in the way of flighty and less than reliable human perception?

 

[alienator]

...AND the stuff that's the "best value" (or most affordable) is what I'd add to that.

Well, I did 71 miles on my 18.8 lb. steel pig yesterday, and with the many climbs here in the Adirondacks my avg. of 16.9 was not too shabby. No complaints from me or the bike.

Aha. We might agree on more than you might think. Any speed difference between my current 15 lb Moots Compact, my Paramount OS (one of the Waterford, handbuilt frames, thank you) in its 17.5lb state and its 19 lb state is due completely to the miles on my legs and how my legs feel. Acceleration difference between all three? Get real: if there's any difference it's human not mechanical.

As for ride differences, there are significant ride differences...BUT those are mostly due to fit. I don't believe my fit on the Paramount was ever right. I think I could have gone a cm smaller (57cm instead of 58cm), but fit philosophy has changed some over the years. The Moots just fits muy nice and the ride difference is subtle....evolutionary not revolutionary. A rash of skeleton altering accidents that happened after I had the Paramount made did change how I felt on the bike....I felt much worse after and could not get comfortable no matter how I varied things....but even before the spate of orthopedic bad luck, the Paramount was never that comfy.

Having ridden bikes made of all the materials--except Mg, UF6, and Unobtanium--I can say that none of the bikes displayed any material specific ride, performance, or whatever. Imagine that. Given that I've owned 3 chromo bikes, you'd think I'd have noticed that "magical" "steel is real" ride, but alas, I didn't. I figure that ride is as real as Santa Claus.

 

[Wurm]

Wurm,
You've got some hot stuff there too! I'm humbled by you two.

P.S. Do you guys go to the Tube Asylum board?
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tubes/bbs.html

Yeah, I get over to the Asylum once in awhile, but not that much any more. I hate the format - it's hard to find threads after a few days because they get buried down the list.

Tube rolling, now that can get mind boggling. After much experimentation, I've settled on the (ca. 1963) Mazda French chrome-plates for the 12AX7 inputs on the Baron, with JJ EL34 outputs. Since I had the WIMA mod done, I can use any 5881, KT-88, or EL34-type tube there is. Only output tubes I haven't tried in this amp yet are the big-assed KT-90/99's. A set of those would give me around 225 WPC in full-pentode mode, but the B&W's almost always sound best in 2/3 pentode-1/3 triode, so it would be about 170 WPC. As it is with the EL34's in 2/3P-1/3T, I get around 150 WPC. And being tube watts as you know...that's some fairly serious juice!

Then I've got the 300 watt RMS/600 watt peak of pure MOSFET power on the bass through the Stentor III from 34Hz on down. No crappy digital amps here, baybee!

The Modulus 3A has 2 Tungsram 6922's for line and 2 Ediswan 6922's for phono, both NOS from the 60's. Way, way nice, but they're getting worn now and replacements are nearly impossible to find.

 

[Wurm]

Any speed difference...is due completely to the miles on my legs and how my legs feel.

I think that's the case 98% of the time, alienator. My take on bike weight is that since I'm a clyde, I can't really take advantage of the lightest wheelsets and certain parts anyway. The stuff just wears out or breaks too quickly for me.

I haven't done a bike race in 2 years; I'm 45 and don't intend any more racing, so there's no point in blowing thousands on uber-light stuff. The small advantage that I might gain on climbs from a 2 or 3 lb. lighter bike can be made up for in other ways - aerodynamics somewhat, but mostly it's getting my ass on the bike and pedaling that does it. Mo' miles, not mo' stuff.

Cycling can be hard. People don't like to work hard. But if you want to go faster or increase endurance you have to make deposits to the "pain bank" (as Bob Roll once said). At some point, you can't spend your way out of the hard work that cycling requires if you want to get better.

As for ride differences, there are significant ride differences...BUT those are mostly due to fit....I can say that none of the bikes displayed any material specific ride, performance, or whatever. ...

I'd agree that it is fit mostly that helps a particular bike to feel best, except that tube thicknesses and shapes, etc. can also contribute. I think material also has a small part to play, but not nearly as much as some of us like to give it credit for.

I'm sure Rick_G and DM4 would agree: this debate is very similar to the "analog vs. digital" or "tubes vs. transistors" debates in audio-land.

 

[EoinC]

...there are actually quite a few pros that are riding 17lb + frames on the Pro Tour...

17lb + frames? Damn! How heavy are the complete bikes?

 

[alienator]

17lb + frames? Damn! How heavy are the complete bikes?

Unbelievably heavy, especially with the new, 2007 Shimano Dura Ace Depleted Uranium components. Apparently you haven't heard or read about heavy being the new black.

Hmmmmm...maybe I meant bikes not frames.......

 

[Xsmoker]

Well, I did 71 miles on my 18.8 lb. steel pig yesterday, and with the many climbs here in the Adirondacks my avg. of 16.9 was not too shabby. No complaints from me or the bike.

Hey, where exactly do you ride in the Adirondacks? Ever do the Keene hill? I love that one, stopping at the Cascades and watching climbers on the rock face is always fun.

 

[bulaboy]

For many years my main ride has been an old (steel) Bridgestone RB1. It was kind of a retro bike when it was new and that was 14 years ago. About 4 years ago I saw one year old (CF) Trek 5200 on sale at the LBS in my size so I bought it. Purely an impulsive decision. I kept trying to dial in my position on the Trek but it has never felt quite right. Last year I took the Trek in for a bike fitting. The guy really took his time, measured me, measured the bike, took video of me riding in the new position, tweaked things some more... It was a lengthy process. You know what? I still prefer to ride the Bridgestone.

Can't put my finger on exactly why. It just feels better and I can ride faster on it despite the fact that it is 7 pounds heavier.

 

[Wurm]

Hey, where exactly do you ride in the Adirondacks?

Generally, the counties within about 50 miles of the Albany area, plus S. Vermont and E. Mass, (Green and Berkshire Mts.).

 

[DM4]

Steel vs. Carbon
Tublar vs. Clincher
Alalog vs. Digital
Silicone vs. Saline
Coke vs. Pepsi
Mac vs. PC
Tubes vs. Transistors
Doggie vs. Missionary
Homer vs. Ned
...and on and on...I just can't take it anymore

Oh ****, I'm giving up. Just let me keep the red wine and women in tight sweaters...

 

[Powerful Pete]

Oh ****, I'm giving up. Just let me keep the red wine and women in tight sweaters...

You are a great, great man.

 

[Xsmoker]

Steel vs. Carbon
Tublar vs. Clincher
Alalog vs. Digital
Silicone vs. Saline
Coke vs. Pepsi
Mac vs. PC
Tubes vs. Transistors
Doggie vs. Missionary
Homer vs. Ned
...and on and on...I just can't take it anymore

Oh ****, I'm giving up. Just let me keep the red wine and women in tight sweaters...

You forgot Straight Gauge vs Double Butted, a real classic.........

 

[Eldron]

Oh, you're going to bring science into the matter? Then please, using accepted methods, prove just how superior CF is to other frame materials. Note that as in science, the repsonsibility for proving a wild claim is that of the person making the wild claim....so have at it. And good luck.

You make claims about CF that are dodgy and pointless:

1. Great strength to weight ratio: and so what? Steel also exhibits a great strength to weight ratio. More important that than this ratio, though, is how the material is actually employed in the frame. As such, steel, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, et al all exceed very well their performance parameters.

2. Light weight: again, so what? The supposed "light weight" advantage is as specious as the advantage of low rotational moment of inertia. When the numbers are crunched--and if you have difficulty crunching the numbers, go to Analytic Cycling, put numbers in their models, and see how little light weight matters when it comes to performance. Their models, by the way, have been verified by independent models done by MarkMcM at Weight Weenies, ScienceIsCool, myself, and others with actual scientific and engineering backgrounds.

And exactly how do you mean lighter? Is it's specific weight less? And what particular CF composite are you referring to? You are aware, aren't you, that they're not all the same, right?

And exactly lighter than what? Only an idiot would make a frame of steel and then turn around and use the exact same tubing dimensions, angles....all the same dimensions and parameters with the only difference being that instead of steel, CF is used. So is that the scenario you're talking about?

Just so you have a bit more knowledge to work with...especially compared to the very small resources that you seem to be using now....there are actually quite a few pros that are riding 17lb + frames on the Pro Tour. Hmmmm. Imagine that. These same pros can choose lighter frame options from their sponsors, yet they continue, at times, to use frames whose massive (and ain't 17lbs just massive?) weights must be keeping them off the podium....

3. Corrosion? Fatigue? You're kidding, right? I hope you're not going to pull out the old saw about how steel rusts......The unavoidable fact is that such concerns are not concerns to people that take very minimal care of their bikes. And if people can't even take minimal care of their bikes, then even the most hardy material won't protect them against their own ignorance. Alunimum may have the dodgiest fatigue characteristics, but that rarely is a problem for aluminum bikes. It really only becomes a problem when a rear dropout is bent, and for that reason, most Al bikes come w/ replaceable dropouts. Magnesium corrodes more easily than the other materials, yet pre-coating the magnesium bits effectively protects them for as long as the owner needs. CF also has its own issues. Material failures can be difficult to detect; CF generally does poorly in impact testing, especially in very localized impacts which are likely to only dent a metal tube. CF requires that owners pay more attention to their bike, potential damage, and etc. And if a guy or gal can't look after a steel bike well enough to keep it from rusting, then they're certainly not going to be able to look after a CF bike well enough to know when damage has been done or to known when more intense structural analysis is needed.

4.Exactly what range in a given CF parts vibration spectrum is the CF particularly good at damping? You might want to answer this carefully since it is known by people working in various disciplines that CF's response to certain vibrational spectra is very BAD for certain applications. Or maybe your generalization is just that: a really, stupid, generalization.

5. Stiffer means "which transmits more of my energy into forward motion..." Really? How? So you are going to allege that a force delivered to the pedal such that said force has components that aren't parallel to the vector defining the direction of motion...that such a force wouldn't exist on stiffer frame? Hmmmm. So is it the rider or the material generating the forces that don't act parallel to the direction of travel? Hmmm. That seems to violate everything that I learned in Newtonian Mechanics. That seems to violate much of what I learned in Engineering Dynamics...... Please, explain how your new science works.

Tell us, please, exactly where it is that your vast scientific and engineering knowledge come from....you know the knowledge with which you can make such extraordinary claims. If you're an engineer, then it's certainly valid for people to question your skills when you insist on using the applicability of CF in an aerospace application as proof, justification, or whatever for the use of CF in a bicycle. What's really bad about such "justifications" is that you never actually get around to making specific proofs, calculations, or demonstrations of how for a given set of criteria, CF would trump steel, Al, Mg, or Ti .

Then, because you can't make such proofs, you quickly retreat a few steps and say...."That's why I ride carbon and you ride steel & alu/carbon. It's the individuals choice..." Totally laughable.

Please have another look at calfee's white paper... This time read the fine print below the graphs.

Steel has a "great" (is that a scientific term?) strength to weight ratio does it? Carbon's is 6 times as "great" as 4130 Cro-Moly... Maybe only 3 or 4 times "greater" than more advanced steels...

I used your Analytical Cyclist website - it proved to me that a 500g saving on their 8%, 5000m climb would get you up 8 seconds faster. Let's multiple that a few times for each climb in a mountain stage of the tour and you'd easily have a minute+. Thanks!

In terms of your stiffness rant - please get a carbon tube and a steel tube the same length and dangle a weight off the end - I know which one would deflect less.

Also please thank your sources for their input - namely the "quite a few pros using 17lbs plus frames" and the "the people working in various disciplines". What happened to your statement "the pros use only what they're given - they have no choice" - now suddenly they're choosing their bikes when it supports your view?

Tell you what - you ride your steel - I'll ride my carbon.

 

[Wurm]

Didn't Lance ride a disguised Litespeed Blade in the '99 or '00 TdF TT's? Well, that was back when Ti was pretty popular as the materiel du jour. Now it's CF. Let's see how many different types (T700, High Modulus, etc.) and lay-ups the gearheads can come up with before we get bored with CF too.

Maybe next month it's Mg...or Be (if they can somehow make it less toxic and less $$). For others, it's the new Reynolds 953 stainless steel.

Way too much importance being put on frame material. Well, there's just so much one can do with a bike to keep things interesting.

 

[DM4]

Be aware of one thing. Just because something is marketed as "new and improved" does not mean it is.

Manufacturers need to continually have new products on the market to stay in business. While it is true that many products are improved over time with research and development, this is not always true. Even when this is true it does not invalidate the earlier or alternate version of the product. If the product serves the purpose for its intended use then it is of no consequence if it is not current or the technology du Jour.

I suspect I am faster on my steel frame than many others who are riding carbon frames. I have ridden carbon frames and was not impressed enough to feel they made any significant advantage. I like the feel of my steel frames, enough so that I have ordered another (DeRosa Corum). I can appreciate that others like frames constructed of other materials. This is why Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors.

I am sure those that denigrate steel, titanium and aluminum in favor of carbon will be the first to pooh-pooh carbon as soon as nanotubes become the next frame material.

I have vaccuum tubes warming up, so let me get back to the red wine and the women in tight sweaters (I know, I know; one track mind).

 

[Eldron]

I have vaccuum tubes warming up, so let me get back to the red wine and the women in tight sweaters (I know, I know; one track mind).

Did someone say carbon nanotubes? Merida and some others are already making them (Eldron wipes the drool from his mouth...)

Alas you are quite right - not on the steel issues of course but on the tight sweaters and red wine...

Being a steel addict I automatically imagine you as a 50 something male with a long beard and a cupboard full of wool jerseys (cos lycra just isn't better damnit!!!) but today this puppy dog will concede and agree that more time should be spent on wine, women and song!

And with that I have to add - South African women and South African wine are both better than american ;-)

 

[jhuskey]

Did someone say carbon nanotubes? Merida and some others are already making them (Eldron wipes the drool from his mouth...)

Alas you are quite right - not on the steel issues of course but on the tight sweaters and red wine...

Being a steel addict I automatically imagine you as a 50 something male with a long beard and a cupboard full of wool jerseys (cos lycra just isn't better damnit!!!) but today this puppy dog will concede and agree that more time should be spent on wine, women and song!

And with that I have to add - South African women and South African wine are both better than american ;-)

South African wine