need help picking out a bike

in message <[email hidden]>,
Training Wheels

(') said:

Hi, my wife and i are wanting to start riding bikes for fun.. We dont
have knowledge about bikes.. we want to ride on roadsides and trails..
what kind of bikes should we be looking at? Does wal-mart🙂 have
good bikes? any help will be appreciated.. Thanks

As it happens I've just written a FAQ answer to this question, so you
can be the first to test it:
<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/jsp/Wiki?GoodCheap>

Please give feedback. Does this article answer your questions? What
particular questions does it not answer? Would you prefer it if it
recommended particular brands?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

Quoted message said:

As it happens I've just written a FAQ answer to this question, so you
can be the first to test it:
<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/jsp/Wiki?GoodCheap>

Please give feedback. Does this article answer your questions? What
particular questions does it not answer? Would you prefer it if it
recommended particular brands?

I can't say I agree with your opinion on high tensile steel. Ok its a
cheap material used on cheap bikes but that in itself does not make it
a bad frame. Its pretty obvious the manufacturers don't consider it a
bad frame either as most of them offer long generous guarantee's on
such frames like 15 years in the case of mine but sometimes you even
get a lifetime guarantee. If I'd got an aluminium bike from the same
manufacturer it would have been 12 months and 12 months seems to be
the norm on a lot of aluminium brand bikes. One things for sure its
still a strong frame as I've used mine when I've been as weighty as 26
stone. The failure rate on aluminium frames is far higher than steel
frames. The bike might not be super light but fitted with tons of
other stuff it comes to just under 16kg. Perhaps in its original state
it would be fairly close to 15kg or at least under 15.5kg. I don't
think this is ridiculously heavy. Plus its a comfortable bike and does
have oversized tubing. I'm not defending the quality of components
generally fitted to cheap bikes ( although some components like
shimano tourney gears can be found on bikes 3 or 4 times as much
including models made by respected companies like Edinburgh Cycles)
but I don't believe you have given a fair impression of high tensile
steel. It may not be as good as chromoly steel or have the performance
attributes of aluminium but its still got its plus points.

The impression your faq gives is that high tensile steel is the
weakest of all frame materials and the most likely to fail and that
the weight of the frame will be ridiculoulsy heavy when the reality is
its far less likely to fail than aluminium (hence the reason
manufacturers offer guarantees at least 15x as long as aluminium) and
the weight penalty may not be that bad. It seems to ride better than
aluminium at least for comfort.

Surely a high tensile frame is more an indication of a cheap bike
rather than a poor frame in itself.

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Wilson

(') said:

Quoted message said:

As it happens I've just written a FAQ answer to this question, so you
can be the first to test it:
<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/jsp/Wiki?GoodCheap>

Please give feedback. Does this article answer your questions? What
particular questions does it not answer? Would you prefer it if it
recommended particular brands?

I can't say I agree with your opinion on high tensile steel. Ok its a
cheap material used on cheap bikes but that in itself does not make it
a bad frame. Its pretty obvious the manufacturers don't consider it a
bad frame either as most of them offer long generous guarantee's on
such frames like 15 years in the case of mine but sometimes you even
get a lifetime guarantee. If I'd got an aluminium bike from the same
manufacturer it would have been 12 months and 12 months seems to be
the norm on a lot of aluminium brand bikes. One things for sure its
still a strong frame as I've used mine when I've been as weighty as 26
stone. The failure rate on aluminium frames is far higher than steel
frames.

Is it? How do you know? That's not what the available tests show, quite
the opposite; although, of course, as has been pointed out here
recently, the tests may not have tested for the right things.

Quoted message said:

The bike might not be super light but fitted with tons of
other stuff it comes to just under 16kg. Perhaps in its original state
it would be fairly close to 15kg or at least under 15.5kg. I don't
think this is ridiculously heavy.

But it is very substantially heavier than an aluminium frame of equal
strength and quality in the same price bracket, which is the point.

Quoted message said:

The impression your faq gives is that high tensile steel is the
weakest of all frame materials

It is. That's not opinion, it's just fact. The strength to weight ratio
of high tensile steel is lower than aluminium, lower than carbon
composite, lower than wood, even lower than paper.

However, having said all that, it's not my FAQ, it's the groups FAQ; if
people think it should be changed, change it.

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

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

Quoted message said:

Is it? How do you know? That's not what the available tests show, quite
the opposite; although, of course, as has been pointed out here
recently, the tests may not have tested for the right things.

What available tests? Generally aluminium bikes have lower weight
limits and offer short guarantees compared to steel. Can you find one
manufacturer who has a longer frame guarantee on aluminium compared to
steel as I can find you loads that offer long guarantees on steel
frames but only short guarantees on aluminium. Surely thats why
tourers are steel as you can load them up with a tons of luggage and
use them year on year without problems because of their great
strength..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bike might not be super light but fitted with tons of
other stuff it comes to just under 16kg. Perhaps in its original state
it would be fairly close to 15kg or at least under 15.5kg. I don't
think this is ridiculously heavy.

But it is very substantially heavier than an aluminium frame of equal
strength and quality in the same price bracket, which is the point.

Well of course for a start you don't get aluminium bikes at the same
price point as some of the steel bikes anyway. I'm not sure what
merits the wording 'substantial'. My bike is effectively about 15kg
which is about 33lbs. Is that really substantially heavier than a
similar rigid aluminium bike. Maybe it is as I honestly don't know but
a rough comparision by hand does indicate the steel bike is heavier
but it doesn't seem that much heavier than a similar aluminium bike.
Plus it has higher weight limits and frankly nicer ride quality. The
steel frame is obviously going to be stronger or more enduring or both
or you wouldn't have the difference in guarantee offered by the
manufacturer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The impression your faq gives is that high tensile steel is the
weakest of all frame materials

It is. That's not opinion, it's just fact. The strength to weight ratio
of high tensile steel is lower than aluminium, lower than carbon
composite, lower than wood, even lower than paper.

So effectively then the current generation of cars, motorbikes and
masses of other consumer products made of high tensile steel would be
stronger if made of paper or wood? It begs the question what are the
manufacturers thinking of then by offering long generous guarantees on
steel frame bikes like high tensile steel? It honestly seems like a
flawed argument to me as theres no way a manufacturer is going to
offer the more generous guarantee on a the lower priced item unless it
was more reliable and less likely to have problems.

I mean think about it, the manufacturer is offering a guarantee 15
times as long on a cheaper product where far less profit is earned in
the first place. He's not offering twice as long or even three times
as long but offering fifteen times as long and well past any
reasonable amount of guarantee you would expect on any item. That
manufacturer knows that frame is going to last and not be returned. He
couldn't afford to offer such a guarantee unless he knew the frame was
well over engineered for the job intended. If you go to some of the
taiwanese manufacturer sites and search them you should be able to
find info on aluminium frame failure rates and weight restrictions
suggested on aluminium frames. I couldn't find them using a normal
google search but if you flick about the taiwanese bike/industry sites
you will see info with regard frame failures as thats where I saw the
info previously. Obviously with almost all bikes especially aluminium
bikes being sourced from taiwan they have the most info regarding
this.

I fully admit though that there is no advantage at all to a high
tensile steel frame compared to a chromoly steel bike which will
probably be more comfortable and as strong plus a lot lighter but for
some a high tensile steel frame might have advantages over a aluminium
frame where overall strength, lifespan and ride quality may be
superior even if you have to endure a slightly heavier or possibly
much heavier frame.

Martin Wilson said:

Quoted message said:

Is it? How do you know? That's not what the available tests show,

quite

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the opposite; although, of course, as has been pointed out here
recently, the tests may not have tested for the right things.

What available tests? Generally aluminium bikes have lower weight
limits and offer short guarantees compared to steel. Can you find one
manufacturer who has a longer frame guarantee on aluminium compared

to

Quoted message said:

steel...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bike might not be super light... [but] ...I don't
think this is ridiculously heavy.

But it is very substantially heavier than an aluminium frame of

equal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

strength and quality in the same price bracket, which is the point.

Quoted message said:

Well of course for a start you don't get aluminium bikes at the same
price point as some of the steel bikes anyway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The impression your faq gives is that high tensile steel is the
weakest of all frame materials

It is. That's not opinion, it's just fact. The strength to weight

ratio

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of high tensile steel is lower than aluminium, lower than carbon
composite, lower than wood, even lower than paper.

Quoted message said:

So effectively then the current generation of cars, motorbikes and
masses of other consumer products made of high tensile steel would be
stronger if made of paper or wood? It begs the question what are the
manufacturers thinking of then by offering long generous guarantees

on

Quoted message said:

steel frame bikes like high tensile steel? It honestly seems like a
flawed argument to me as theres no way a manufacturer is going to
offer the more generous guarantee on a the lower priced item unless

it

Quoted message said:

was more reliable and less likely to have problems.

You are confusing the properties of a material with the properties of a
fabricated product. They are different things which means the faq is
not saying what you think it is. As an example: pieces of paper are
weak, metal is strong. Now mount a sheet of tin foil between two
clamps and also a ream of a4 paper so that each is held in mid-air
securely. No punch each one as hard as you can. Which structure was
stronger?

best wishes
james

best wishes
james

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Wilson

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Is it? How do you know? That's not what the available tests show,
quite the opposite; although, of course, as has been pointed out here
recently, the tests may not have tested for the right things.

What available tests?

Here: <URL:http://www.efbe.de/etour109.htm>

Note that

* All the steel frames failed (and these weren't cheap frames, they were
good ones)
* Both the titanium frames failed
* Half the aluminium frames survived
* One out of two carbon fibre frames survived

We've discussed at length not many weeks ago whether this was a fair
test, look it up on Google; some people feel it was not. But the fact
is no-one has posted any research that shows steel frames surviving
tests which broke aluminium ones.

Quoted message said:

Generally aluminium bikes have lower weight
limits and offer short guarantees compared to steel. Can you find one
manufacturer who has a longer frame guarantee on aluminium compared to
steel as I can find you loads that offer long guarantees on steel
frames but only short guarantees on aluminium.

My aluminium mountain bike is guaranteed for the period of my natural
life. However, its manufacturers (Cannondale) don't make steel bikes so
the comparison isn't possible.

Quoted message said:

Surely thats why
tourers are steel as you can load them up with a tons of luggage and
use them year on year without problems because of their great
strength..

Except, of course, that a high proportion of the good tourers are now
aluminium.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But it is very substantially heavier than an aluminium frame of equal
strength and quality in the same price bracket, which is the point.

Well of course for a start you don't get aluminium bikes at the same
price point as some of the steel bikes anyway. I'm not sure what
merits the wording 'substantial'. My bike is effectively about 15kg
which is about 33lbs. Is that really substantially heavier than a
similar rigid aluminium bike.

About 20% of total weight (50% of frame weight) for oversize-tubed bikes
in the same price bracket, at the bottom end of the market. Really good
steel frames are only about 10% heavier than aluminium frames of the
same quality.

Quoted message said:

Maybe it is as I honestly don't know but
a rough comparision by hand does indicate the steel bike is heavier
but it doesn't seem that much heavier than a similar aluminium bike.
Plus it has higher weight limits and frankly nicer ride quality. The
steel frame is obviously going to be stronger or more enduring or both
or you wouldn't have the difference in guarantee offered by the
manufacturer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The impression your faq gives is that high tensile steel is the
weakest of all frame materials

It is. That's not opinion, it's just fact. The strength to weight
ratio of high tensile steel is lower than aluminium, lower than carbon
composite, lower than wood, even lower than paper.

So effectively then the current generation of cars, motorbikes and
masses of other consumer products made of high tensile steel would be
stronger if made of paper or wood?

Yup, certainly. Why do you think there are so few small steel boats?

Quoted message said:

It begs the question what are the
manufacturers thinking of then by offering long generous guarantees on
steel frame bikes like high tensile steel?

They're thinking that those bikes aren't going to be ridden very often
or very far, I suspect. Although, to be fair, a steel frame with
oversize tubing is so massively over-strength for its purpose that
apart from weld failure or corrosion it's most unlikely to fail in
normal use.

Quoted message said:

I fully admit though that there is no advantage at all to a high
tensile steel frame compared to a chromoly steel bike which will
probably be more comfortable and as strong plus a lot lighter but for
some a high tensile steel frame might have advantages over a aluminium
frame where overall strength, lifespan and ride quality may be
superior even if you have to endure a slightly heavier or possibly
much heavier frame.

I appreciate everyone likes to feel that they've made the right
purchasing decision. But the overall strength is not going to be
superior, the ride quality difference will be marginal at best on
oversize unbutted tubes (again, good steel frames do tend to have
better ride quality than aluminium, but that's because good quality
steel frame tubes are very thin walled and made of very springy steel,
neither of which is true of cheap bikes). Lifespan may be an issue
because poorly made aluminium frames may develop cracks (which, in
aluminium frames, generally are not repairable) but it's not
particularly likely.

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

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

Quoted message said:

You are confusing the properties of a material with the properties of a
fabricated product. They are different things which means the faq is
not saying what you think it is. As an example: pieces of paper are
weak, metal is strong. Now mount a sheet of tin foil between two
clamps and also a ream of a4 paper so that each is held in mid-air
securely. No punch each one as hard as you can. Which structure was
stronger?

best wishes
james

I'm not sure who you are replying to, me or simon but I don't think
I'm confusing anything. I was just making the point that high tensile
steel is a pretty robust bicycle frame material and makes a very
dependable product with a long lifespan even if its not great in
performance terms compared to aluminium. However I got a reply stating
that high tensile steel was weaker than wood and paper and couldn't
see the point of this when related to bicycle frames.

Although I have read about bamboo bicycles previously so I do know
that wooden bicycle frames exist.

http://www.americanbamboo.org/GeneralInfoPages/BambooBicycle.html

Martin Wilson said:

Although I have read about bamboo bicycles previously so I do know
that wooden bicycle frames exist.

As with bikes, as with canoes, kayaks, yachts and aeroplanes. There's
no real problem with a wooden construction other than it is not suited
to mass production, needing careful selection of individual pieces and
working. With the right piece of wood you have an amazingly strong and
light natural carbon fibre composite.

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/

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Wilson

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Is it? How do you know? That's not what the available tests show,
quite the opposite; although, of course, as has been pointed out here
recently, the tests may not have tested for the right things.

What available tests?

Here: <URL:http://www.efbe.de/etour109.htm>

Note that

* All the steel frames failed (and these weren't cheap frames, they were
good ones)
* Both the titanium frames failed
* Half the aluminium frames survived
* One out of two carbon fibre frames survived

We've discussed at length not many weeks ago whether this was a fair
test, look it up on Google; some people feel it was not. But the fact
is no-one has posted any research that shows steel frames surviving
tests which broke aluminium ones.

I've had a look at that web page but unless I've got the wrong end of
the stick it seems to be comparing steel frames that have been made
very weak so they compete in lightness with aluminium frames.
Basically all the frames are high performance bike frames and not
everyday commuting type frames or other mainstream types. Again
perhaps I haven't read it fairly as I just skimmed through it and have
missed the point somehow.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Generally aluminium bikes have lower weight
limits and offer short guarantees compared to steel. Can you find one
manufacturer who has a longer frame guarantee on aluminium compared to
steel as I can find you loads that offer long guarantees on steel
frames but only short guarantees on aluminium.

My aluminium mountain bike is guaranteed for the period of my natural
life. However, its manufacturers (Cannondale) don't make steel bikes so
the comparison isn't possible.

Also Cannondale are absolute top end stuff and one of the few yank
firms that actually make all their frames themselves I believe to
maintain top end quality across the whole range. Just about every
other yank manufacturer like Kona, Specialized, Trek etc use fairly
generic taiwanese frames made by Merida and Giant plus others. So
firstly I would say the frames are top end anyway but even if they
were rubbish Cannondale would have no problem financing a frame
replacement or two occasionally as they have a very high price tag and
profit margin. My point is real dirt cheap manufacturers are willing
to guarantee their steel frames for a long time straight off because
they know they won't have to replace them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Surely thats why
tourers are steel as you can load them up with a tons of luggage and
use them year on year without problems because of their great
strength..

Except, of course, that a high proportion of the good tourers are now
aluminium.

A fair point but after reading a few articles about tourers I was
given the impression that the best tourers were steel as they offered
a better ride quality, a sense of dependability and are more easily
repaired than aluminium. Perhaps that has changed now in which case I
concede the point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But it is very substantially heavier than an aluminium frame of equal
strength and quality in the same price bracket, which is the point.

Well of course for a start you don't get aluminium bikes at the same
price point as some of the steel bikes anyway. I'm not sure what
merits the wording 'substantial'. My bike is effectively about 15kg
which is about 33lbs. Is that really substantially heavier than a
similar rigid aluminium bike.

About 20% of total weight (50% of frame weight) for oversize-tubed bikes
in the same price bracket, at the bottom end of the market. Really good
steel frames are only about 10% heavier than aluminium frames of the
same quality.

Quoted message said:

Maybe it is as I honestly don't know but
a rough comparision by hand does indicate the steel bike is heavier
but it doesn't seem that much heavier than a similar aluminium bike.
Plus it has higher weight limits and frankly nicer ride quality. The
steel frame is obviously going to be stronger or more enduring or both
or you wouldn't have the difference in guarantee offered by the
manufacturer.

Quoted message said:

> The impression your faq gives is that high tensile steel is the
> weakest of all frame materials

It is. That's not opinion, it's just fact. The strength to weight
ratio of high tensile steel is lower than aluminium, lower than carbon
composite, lower than wood, even lower than paper.

So effectively then the current generation of cars, motorbikes and
masses of other consumer products made of high tensile steel would be
stronger if made of paper or wood?

Yup, certainly. Why do you think there are so few small steel boats?

Quoted message said:

It begs the question what are the
manufacturers thinking of then by offering long generous guarantees on
steel frame bikes like high tensile steel?

They're thinking that those bikes aren't going to be ridden very often
or very far, I suspect. Although, to be fair, a steel frame with
oversize tubing is so massively over-strength for its purpose that
apart from weld failure or corrosion it's most unlikely to fail in
normal use.

Of course the long guarantee for steel framed bikes is also for bikes
with thin tubing as well as oversized. It normally excludes steel
suspension bikes for obvious reasons but all rigid steel frames and
forks have the long guarantee. These steel framed bikes are ridden
just like any other type of bike and I assume this comment is some
sort of joke as their is no actual logic to it at all. Your argument
basically ignores the point about this long guarantee and that is my
crucial point in this argument that the manufacturers obviously know
which type of frame fails and therefore create guarantee's that
reflect this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I fully admit though that there is no advantage at all to a high
tensile steel frame compared to a chromoly steel bike which will
probably be more comfortable and as strong plus a lot lighter but for
some a high tensile steel frame might have advantages over a aluminium
frame where overall strength, lifespan and ride quality may be
superior even if you have to endure a slightly heavier or possibly
much heavier frame.

I appreciate everyone likes to feel that they've made the right
purchasing decision. But the overall strength is not going to be
superior, the ride quality difference will be marginal at best on
oversize unbutted tubes (again, good steel frames do tend to have
better ride quality than aluminium, but that's because good quality
steel frame tubes are very thin walled and made of very springy steel,
neither of which is true of cheap bikes). Lifespan may be an issue
because poorly made aluminium frames may develop cracks (which, in
aluminium frames, generally are not repairable) but it's not
particularly likely.

Nothing you have written seems to counter the simple fact that steel
frames are stronger and more durable than aluminium bikes at least
near the middle to bottom of bike pricing. Even if this does have a
weight/performance penalty. As you've not made one sensible reply to
why manufacturers offer long steel frame guarantees and short
aluminium guarantess I can only assume this is true. Perhaps there is
something I'm missing with regards why manufacturers would be so
generous with steel guarantees and I'm happy to concede the point once
someone can give me a logical explanation why they do this on their
cheaper products and not just one manufacturer but many.

As it stands your telling me that aluminium is as strong or stronger
but the manufacturers who surely know their own products far better
and get real feedback on quality and returns tell me that steel is
stronger and more durable because they offer long guarantees on steel
frames.

As I say I'm happy to concede aluminium is stronger I really don't
care myself as I have both steel and aluminium bikes. My only reason
for not agreeing with the general wisdom on this forum is that a
another major source of bike information (manufacturers) seems to
conflict with the views in this forum of steel bikes.

I've known many steel frames including old raleighs upto modern bikes
and they all offer long guarantees but when you look at a modern
aluminium bike of low to middle pricing you find the frame guarantee
is the same as the rest of the bike in being only one year generally.
Why don't manufacturers offer 15, 25 or lifetime guarantees on
aluminium frames generally? I mean the aluminium bikes are more
expensive and therefore more profitable. You'd expect them to offer
the long guarantee on their premium (aluminium) bikes and short
guarantees on their budget bikes (hi-ten steel) not the other way
round.

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Here: <URL:http://www.efbe.de/etour109.htm>

Note that

* All the steel frames failed (and these weren't cheap frames, they were
good ones)
* Both the titanium frames failed
* Half the aluminium frames survived
* One out of two carbon fibre frames survived

Ironically, the best-performing steel frame (Barellia) was also the
cheapest of the bunch by some way! Not a good advert for De Rosa,
either.

David E. Belcher

On 24/9/04 11:25 am, in article
[email hidden], "David E. Belcher"

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Here: <URL:http://www.efbe.de/etour109.htm>

Note that

* All the steel frames failed (and these weren't cheap frames, they were
good ones)
* Both the titanium frames failed
* Half the aluminium frames survived
* One out of two carbon fibre frames survived

Ironically, the best-performing steel frame (Barellia) was also the
cheapest of the bunch by some way! Not a good advert for De Rosa,
either.

One has to consider the three parameters: low cost, low weight, long life;
and then pick any two.

Low cost, low weight tend to not exist, but relatively low cost, low weight
doesn't last long.

A cheap steel frame will be heavy, but potentially long lasting given the
same degree of care.

From what I have seen, (and I don't yet own any aluminium bikes, except the
MTB frame I picked up from the tip by mistake), if you are after performance
and want a light frame, aluminium is better than steel for the same price
and weight.
If you want a custom frame and weight is not so much an option, then steel
will be easier to source and to maintain. The dimensions required will give
a steel frame a softer ride than the aluminium one.

Now, I am considering getting my steel frame (653) resprayed and a little
work done on it. Total cost would be about 150 pounds.
Instead I could just buy a new aluminium frame that would probably perform
as well and give the option for mudguards for winter riding. (I ride mainly
short 'audax style' rides for leisure, ie 30-70 miles but sometimes will do
a longer tour) Ribble have a great offer on for a winter/audax alu frame,
carbon forks, headset, mudguards for a mere 159 inc VAT which looks like a
very good deal.

All I have to do is to sell this to SWMBO as a cost saving, neglecting the
fact that my current wheels won't fit and I'll need to get a few other bits
(bars, mechs, levers, wheels etc.)

...d

Martin Wilson said:

profit margin. My point is real dirt cheap manufacturers are willing
to guarantee their steel frames for a long time straight off because
they know they won't have to replace them.

But not necessarily because they don't fail. If a gaspipe bike breaks
then most people will dump it in a skip, not go to the trouble of
cashing in their frame guarantee which needs the point of sale documents
they've thrown away in any case. So why make a guarantee? Because it's
good marketing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Surely thats why
tourers are steel as you can load them up with a tons of luggage and
use them year on year without problems because of their great
strength..

My freight bike, which carries a damn site more heavy weights than my
steel tourer, is aluminium...

Quoted message said:

A fair point but after reading a few articles about tourers I was
given the impression that the best tourers were steel as they offered
a better ride quality, a sense of dependability and are more easily
repaired than aluminium. Perhaps that has changed now in which case I
concede the point.

They are more easily repaired, but that's only an issue if they break.
Mostly tourers are steel because it's an /incredibly/ conservative
corner of the bike market, which is (by and large) quite a conservative
market to start with.
The ride quality thing is basically a myth AFAICT: I very much doubt
that most people can freehweel down a bumpy road and on the evidence
provided from that alone discern whether the frame underneath them is
steel or aluminium.

Quoted message said:

Of course the long guarantee for steel framed bikes is also for bikes
with thin tubing as well as oversized. It normally excludes steel
suspension bikes for obvious reasons but all rigid steel frames and
forks have the long guarantee.

My old steel framed tourer had a 2 year frame guarantee. It broke after
7 years, fortunately for me EBC saw fit to replace it FOC anyway.

Quoted message said:

just like any other type of bike and I assume this comment is some
sort of joke as their is no actual logic to it at all. Your argument
basically ignores the point about this long guarantee and that is my
crucial point in this argument that the manufacturers obviously know
which type of frame fails and therefore create guarantee's that
reflect this.

As I've pointed out, guarantees on cheap bikes are more about marketing
than replacement policies.

Quoted message said:

Nothing you have written seems to counter the simple fact that steel
frames are stronger and more durable than aluminium bikes at least
near the middle to bottom of bike pricing.

But that ignores the fact that what's going to go isn't the frame tubing
but one of the welds. It is certainly true that steel is much easier to
weld than aluminium, which is a good reason to avoid cheap aluminium
frames, but you're getting far too hung up on the frame material itself
as opposed to the joins between the bits.

Quoted message said:

weight/performance penalty. As you've not made one sensible reply to
why manufacturers offer long steel frame guarantees and short
aluminium guarantess I can only assume this is true.

As Simon has pointed out, he has an Al bike with a lifetime guarantee
and I had a steel frame bike with a short one. Or put another way, your
statement isn't as universally true as you make out.

And guarantee is not purely related to expected life, it is at least in
part to do with marketing. "I know this only costs fourpence, but it
must be good, it has a 25 year frame guarantee!" may well precede
getting shut into a garage because it's an awful bike. As we've
previously been over, cheap bikes are not actually ridden much in
relation to their sales, whereas higher up the scale they more often are.

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/

On 24/9/04 11:56 am, in article [email hidden], "Peter

Clinch said:

The ride quality thing is basically a myth AFAICT: I very much doubt
that most people can freehweel down a bumpy road and on the evidence
provided from that alone discern whether the frame underneath them is
steel or aluminium.

In such a 'static' test, yes. I find that my road bike is a bit too flexible
for my liking, despite being a small frame and a 'stiff' tube set. It seems
to flex sufficiently to give some brake rub in the lowest gears when honking
up a hill.

Maybe I should go for a new bike and save the old one for the winter turbo
(that I also should get...)

...d

David Martin said:

In such a 'static' test, yes. I find that my road bike is a bit too flexible
for my liking, despite being a small frame and a 'stiff' tube set. It seems
to flex sufficiently to give some brake rub in the lowest gears when honking
up a hill.

Valid stuff, though I'm really thinking of the fairly oft-heard lines
that seem to suggest a steel frame might as well be a mattress while
riding Al is like being on an upturned jackhammer.
Yes, Al is stiffer but basically the differences between a metal bar and
a slightly stiffer metal bar is going to be pretty hard for someone to
discern just by sitting on it, especially given all the other variables
available on a bike.

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/

On 24/9/04 12:15 pm, in article [email hidden], "Peter

Clinch said:

David Martin said:

In such a 'static' test, yes. I find that my road bike is a bit too flexible
for my liking, despite being a small frame and a 'stiff' tube set. It seems
to flex sufficiently to give some brake rub in the lowest gears when honking
up a hill.

Valid stuff, though I'm really thinking of the fairly oft-heard lines
that seem to suggest a steel frame might as well be a mattress while
riding Al is like being on an upturned jackhammer.

The trick is to put bigger tyres on teh steel frame and solid tyres on the
Al one. Definitely a harsh ride then ;-)

Quoted message said:

Yes, Al is stiffer but basically the differences between a metal bar and
a slightly stiffer metal bar is going to be pretty hard for someone to
discern just by sitting on it, especially given all the other variables
available on a bike.

<handwave>There might be a case in respect of the vibrational frequencies
generated when riding being propagated by an alu frame design but not by a
steel one..</handwave>. That would be noticeable and is not immediately
obvious by comparing one very stiff thing to another very stiff thing.

...d

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

Quoted message said:

The ride quality thing is basically a myth AFAICT: I very much doubt
that most people can freehweel down a bumpy road and on the evidence
provided from that alone discern whether the frame underneath them is
steel or aluminium.

There is a noticeable difference in ride quality between my Alu racer
and steel fixer, but while I'd like to attribute it soley to the
material, there are many differences between the two including tyres,
spoke lacing style, frame geometry etc.

I wonder if anyone has tried to standardise a frame in both steel and
aluminium to allow this to be tested.

Jon

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Wilson

(') said:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Surely thats why
tourers are steel as you can load them up with a tons of luggage and
use them year on year without problems because of their great
strength..

Except, of course, that a high proportion of the good tourers are now
aluminium.

A fair point but after reading a few articles about tourers I was
given the impression that the best tourers were steel as they offered
a better ride quality, a sense of dependability and are more easily
repaired than aluminium. Perhaps that has changed now in which case I
concede the point.

Well, I'll happily concede that good steel frames do tend to be
substantially more compliant (i.e. better ride quality) than aluminium
ones (although the new frames which are basically aluminium but have
carbon composite seat stays are said to be good), and that steel is
*much* easier to repair than aluminium.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're thinking that those bikes aren't going to be ridden very often
or very far, I suspect. Although, to be fair, a steel frame with
oversize tubing is so massively over-strength for its purpose that
apart from weld failure or corrosion it's most unlikely to fail in
normal use.

Of course the long guarantee for steel framed bikes is also for bikes
with thin tubing as well as oversized. It normally excludes steel
suspension bikes for obvious reasons but all rigid steel frames and
forks have the long guarantee. These steel framed bikes are ridden
just like any other type of bike and I assume this comment is some
sort of joke as their is no actual logic to it at all.

I take issue with this. Most bikes which are sold in the UK see only a
few tens of miles in their whole lives. Of bikes which are used
regularly, a very high proportion are moderately to very expensive
machines. Indeed I think there's probably a pretty close correlation
between how expensive a bike is and how often it's ridden. But many
more very cheap bikes are sold than moderately priced bikes. So a much
higher proportion of very cheap bikes must be mouldering in the backs
of peoples' sheds than of moderately expensive bikes.

Therefore, people selling cheap bikes in the UK can put what guarantees
they like on them, because only a very small proportion of their
products will ever actually be used very much, and they can afford to
absorb guarantee claims on that very small proportion.

Quoted message said:

Nothing you have written seems to counter the simple fact that steel
frames are stronger and more durable than aluminium bikes at least
near the middle to bottom of bike pricing.

That is not a 'fact', it's a belief, and on the evidence which is
available I believe it is a mistaken one.

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

Error 1109: There is no message for this error

Quoted message said:

One has to consider the three parameters: low cost, low weight, long life;
and then pick any two.

Low cost, low weight tend to not exist, but relatively low cost, low weight
doesn't last long.

A cheap steel frame will be heavy, but potentially long lasting given the
same degree of care.

From what I have seen, (and I don't yet own any aluminium bikes, except the
MTB frame I picked up from the tip by mistake), if you are after performance
and want a light frame, aluminium is better than steel for the same price
and weight.
If you want a custom frame and weight is not so much an option, then steel
will be easier to source and to maintain. The dimensions required will give
a steel frame a softer ride than the aluminium one.

thats basically what I've come to realise. I suppose from now on I
will look to the frame guarantee on the bike in question if new. If
all they are willing to offer is 1 year on the frame you can be pretty
sure they aren't that confident in the product. 2 years is a bit iffy
too but anything above to me is a sign of reasonable quality. This
basically eliminates low price aluminium frames only as all the steel
rigid frames I've seen have fairly long guarantees even on ultra cheap
bikes. You have to exclude suspension frames though as many top brands
don't seem to offer much guarantee on them either although lots of top
brands do. I suppose because of the pivot or shock and the fact that a
suspension bike is more likely to get abused with jumps etc.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Well, I'll happily concede that good steel frames do tend to be
substantially more compliant (i.e. better ride quality) than aluminium

I wouldn't completely agree that compliance = ride quality. I have a 531
frame (Falcon) that I consider too wobbly to have proper finesse. As well
as high torsional complince, the longtitudinal complince (I don't know the
proper term - put the front brake on hard and rock the bike fore and aft)
is also noticeably high.

Stiffer frames may be sharper but faster recovery gives other dividends. I
am comparing it to other steel frames as well as alu btw.