Steel is back

On 02/10/2007 21:12, Robert said,

Quoted message said:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

Not sure it had ever been away :-) My first "proper" MTB was an
Overbury's Pioneer (remember those? They had, wait for it, sloping top
tubes!!!), and now I ride an Orange P7 - they've been around for ages!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

On 02/10/2007 21:12, Robert said,

Quoted message said:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

Not sure it had ever been away :-) My first "proper" MTB was an
Overbury's Pioneer (remember those? They had, wait for it, sloping top
tubes!!!), and now I ride an Orange P7 - they've been around for ages!

I would agree I was merely quoting their headline...

--
Robert Maskill - G4PYR - Peterborough Cambridgeshire
MF Coastal Radio www.coastalradio.org.uk
Orton info community web site www.ortoninfo.co.uk
Nene Valley Railway Pictures www.nenevalley.ortoninfo.co.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel
--
Robert Maskill - G4PYR - Peterborough Cambridgeshire
MF Coastal Radio www.coastalradio.org.uk
Orton info community web site www.ortoninfo.co.uk
Nene Valley Railway Pictures www.nenevalley.ortoninfo.co.uk/

I wasn't aware that it had ever been away. Four out of five of my bikes are
steel framed and, should I ever purchase another bike, it's likely to be a
steel framed Audax or tourer hand made in the UK by the usual suspects.

Robert said:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

I didn't like the bit about vendor lock-in through non-standard
components. I hope enough people have the good sense to vote with
their wallets (see past the marketing hype) and keep the market open
for standard frame. forks, bottom brackets, etc.

Regards,

Duncan

Duncan Smith said:

On Oct 2, 9:12 pm, Robert <[email hidden]> wrote:
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

I didn't like the bit about vendor lock-in through non-standard
components. I hope enough people have the good sense to vote with
their wallets (see past the marketing hype) and keep the market open
for standard frame. forks, bottom brackets, etc.

<AOL> Me too </AOL>, but Shimano's domination of the component
industry is an alarming precedent.
Given the current enthusiasm for disposable bicyles, I wouldn't be
surprised if the industry goes this way. It's hard enough to get parts
already and I'm sure that it would suit many a bike shop to sell you a
new, unmaintainable bike every few years instead of having to carry a
stock of parts to keep your current bike rolling.
What's the design life of your bikes? Five years? twenty five? It
must be better for a manufacturer to sell you a new one every few
years than to sell you one bike and then leave it to the component
manufacturers to keep it going indefinitely.

Cheers,
W.

Quoted message said:

Duncan Smith said:

On Oct 2, 9:12 pm, Robert <[email hidden]> wrote:
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

Quoted message said:

I didn't like the bit about vendor lock-in through non-standard
components. I hope enough people have the good sense to vote with
their wallets (see past the marketing hype) and keep the market open
for standard frame. forks, bottom brackets, etc.

<AOL> Me too </AOL>, but Shimano's domination of the component
industry is an alarming precedent.
Given the current enthusiasm for disposable bicyles, I wouldn't be
surprised if the industry goes this way. It's hard enough to get parts
already and I'm sure that it would suit many a bike shop to sell you a
new, unmaintainable bike every few years instead of having to carry a
stock of parts to keep your current bike rolling.
What's the design life of your bikes? Five years? twenty five? It
must be better for a manufacturer to sell you a new one every few
years than to sell you one bike and then leave it to the component
manufacturers to keep it going indefinitely.

Cheers,
W.

Sounds like a worrying continuation of the trend of the big players to
maximize cost and minimize lifetime that started with the integrated
headset. This is just as bad, if not worse, manufacturers can choose
to abitrarily change the design slightly at whim and force you into
'upgrading' several expensive pieces of kit in one go that are
perfectly fine.

Put the right spin on it, and people will lap it up. I wonder how
these new integrated bottom brackets will be advertized - as working
in perfect synergy with the frame to give you that crucial race-
winning edge?

It's not such a stretch of the imagination to imagine a future where
'cycling as a service' materializes - you never actually own the bike
- just agree to handover a grands worth of subscription fees each year
to the manufacturer and they'll keep you up to date with all the
latest fads.

I just hope enough custom is diverted to keep the Chris Kings and On-
Ones of the world in business. I'm not a member, but do/should the
CTC lobby the manufacturers against such trends and practices?

Regards,

Duncan

Duncan Smith said:

I just hope enough custom is diverted to keep the Chris Kings and On-
Ones of the world in business. I'm not a member, but do/should the
CTC lobby the manufacturers against such trends and practices?

As far as I know it's not on the radar at the moment: it's not really
Big News and I suspect there's quite a lot of more pressing issues.

However, the organisation is ultimately beholden to its membership as
they pay for it, so if it does become a problem and enough people raise
it as one I imagine they would. Thus far, however, it doesn't seem to
be polluting the mainstream.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Robert said:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

<fx: Hangs on to Titanium bike>
Akshirley, I've got steel, aluminium and titanium. I seem to have a
need for carbon.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record sprint mongrel
Huissoon project bike (in bits, natch)

in message <[email hidden]>, Duncan

Smith (') said:

Robert said:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/10/interbike_steel

I didn't like the bit about vendor lock-in through non-standard
components. I hope enough people have the good sense to vote with
their wallets (see past the marketing hype) and keep the market open
for standard frame. forks, bottom brackets, etc.

Bollocks. That's the way to 'no technical innovation please'.

Every serious improvement to bicycle technology started out as someone's
proprietary innovation. It takes market leaders to create new standards.

We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor. Larger
diameter headset bearings also increase the rigidity and reliability of
the bearing, and the handling of the bike - but you can only get them
as 'proprietary' systems, since there is as yet no standard.

Cannondale/SRAM's new monoblade epicyclic transmission is
similarly 'proprietary' at this stage. But it's also very clearly the
right way to go for a huge category of bikes. Sooner or later we will
have 'standard' parts which are in concept at least very similar. In
general I think that what Cannondale and Nicolai are doing with bicycles
is defining what the 'conventional standard bike' of twenty years hence
will be like.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
;; knowledge increaseth sorrow.." - Ecclesiastes 1:18

On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor.

Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

In article <[email hidden]>, Ben C
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor.

Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

He's saying that the current situation is an uncomfortable compromise,
and the real solution is larger bottom bracket shells, but until the
manufacturers bite the bullet we have to put up with it.

Ben C said the following on 06/10/2007 10:20:

Quoted message said:

Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

AIUI, increased Q factor is a bad thing because it pushes the feet
further apart. Good designs will minimise this, but as Simon says, the
right answer is to have a bigger bearing in a bigger shell.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Ben C
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor.

Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

He's saying that the current situation is an uncomfortable compromise,
and the real solution is larger bottom bracket shells, but until the
manufacturers bite the bullet we have to put up with it.

I understand. I missed the sense of "we need larger bottom bracket
shells".

Isn't the reason for larger diameter bearings larger diameter axles? And
why do we need those... something to do with making them out of
aluminium and square tapers coming loose for some riders?

in message <[email hidden]>, Ben C

(') said:

On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter
bearings for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current
generation shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q
factor.

Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

No, it's a bad thing. Which why people like Cannondale are using larger
diameter - 'non standard' - bottom bracket shells which the new larger
bearings fit inside, so that they can reduce the Q measurement.

Don't get me wrong - standards are on the whole a good thing. But where
standards hold back positive development, they aren't a good thing. They
certainly aren't things to get religious about.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

in message <[email hidden]>, Ben C

(') said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Ben C
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On 2007-10-05, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter
> bearings for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current
> generation shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q
> factor.

Are you saying increased Q factor is a good thing?

He's saying that the current situation is an uncomfortable compromise,
and the real solution is larger bottom bracket shells, but until the
manufacturers bite the bullet we have to put up with it.

I understand. I missed the sense of "we need larger bottom bracket
shells".

Isn't the reason for larger diameter bearings larger diameter axles? And
why do we need those...

They're lighter. If they're larger, you can make them hollow. And as a side
benefit they're also more rigid, allowing you to transmit more power.

You know, once upon a time the 'ordinary bicycle' was standard. That's why
it's called 'ordinary'. If people took the attitude of 'standard is always
right', we wouldn't have ever developed safety bicycles, or gears, or
brakes, or...

Is that /really/ what you want?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

In article said:

We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter bearings
for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current generation
shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases Q factor. Larger
diameter headset bearings also increase the rigidity and reliability of
the bearing, and the handling of the bike - but you can only get them
as 'proprietary' systems, since there is as yet no standard.

Cannondale are at least trying to get BB30 adopted as an industry standard,
rather than saying "it's ours, we patented it, no-one else can copy it".
(Though the basic idea of "bigger bearings should go in a bigger housing"
is probably too obvious even for an often dodgy patent system, I expect
there's some detail than could be used to make exact compatibility hard
if they tried.)
And the counter-argument is that most of us don't need larger bearings,
there are thirty year old bikes with bearings that work fine, however
much other areas have moved on.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Ben C
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I understand. I missed the sense of "we need larger bottom bracket
shells".

Isn't the reason for larger diameter bearings larger diameter axles? And
why do we need those...

They're lighter. If they're larger, you can make them hollow. And as a side
benefit they're also more rigid, allowing you to transmit more power.

You know, once upon a time the 'ordinary bicycle' was standard. That's why
it's called 'ordinary'. If people took the attitude of 'standard is always
right', we wouldn't have ever developed safety bicycles, or gears, or
brakes, or...

Is that /really/ what you want?

Not at all. Of course you do want to be able to get a replacement BB
that fits easily etc., but eventually things settle down and you end up
with a new standard anyway.

I don't miss steel rims, cotterpins, or cup-and-cone BBs.

Quoting Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Ben C

Quoted message said:

I understand. I missed the sense of "we need larger bottom bracket
shells".

Of course we've _got_ a perfectly good existing standard for same.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't the reason for larger diameter bearings larger diameter axles? And
why do we need those...

.... because the square taper's size is such that even made out of solid
steel they break every now and then, especially under heavy riders.

Quoted message said:

They're lighter. If they're larger, you can make them hollow. And as a side
benefit they're also more rigid, allowing you to transmit more power.

Right, because hysteresis losses in a square taper were _really_
significant.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Second Chedday, September - a weekend.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

We need larger bottom bracket shells. We're using larger diameter
bearings for our bottom brackets, and they don't fit in our current
generation shells, so we're putting them outboard which increases
Q factor.

While I agree that a change to the bottom bracket shell standard is the next
logical step, Shimano and Campagnolo both claim that Q-factor hasn't changed
with the adoption of outboard bearings. For emphasis, some of the current
Campag cranks have the Q-factor printed on the crank face near the pedal
eye.

James Thomson