Wurfitt?

Clive George said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not defending the bike under discussion, but another way to typify a
steel frame is to say that it is the material that is most reliable,
affordable, durable and covered by the longest warranty. The steel frame
of my roadster is covered by a 20 year guarantee, the same frame made
out of aluminum by the same (renowned) manufacturer is covered by a mere
2 year warranty. Again not everyone benefits from the weight saved by an
aluminum frame.

Read what he actually wrote : "hi-ten steel". There are many different sorts
of steel, and "hi-ten steel" is among the worst used to make bikes.

My roadster is specified only as "steel" frame, it is a mighty fine bike
for its type and purpose.

Quoted message said:

A decent alloy steel (cr-mo)

If by that you are referring to "Reynolds" steel that was used on
several of my former road bikes then my roadster frame is most certainly
not made from that type of steel.

Quoted message said:

won't have the same weight problems

Again, a higher weight isn't necessarily a problem.

--
Membrane

Mark Thompson

pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:

Our 7005 aluminium alloy bikes come with a lifetime
guarantee on the frame :-P

is that because they don't just crack but explode ... thus ending your
lifetime ?

Membrane wrote on 11/05/2007 00:29 +0100:

Quoted message said:

The steel frame
of my roadster is covered by a 20 year guarantee, the same frame made
out of aluminum by the same (renowned) manufacturer is covered by a mere
2 year warranty. Again not everyone benefits from the weight saved by an
aluminum frame.

The aluminium frame on my road bike has a lifetime guarantee. Plus in
the EFBe fatigue test of bicycle frames, half the aluminium frames and
half the carbon frames tested survived the complete test cycle. None of
the steel ones did.
http://www.damonrinard.com/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

in message <[email hidden]>, Membrane

(') said:

Clive George said:

won't have the same weight problems

Again, a higher weight isn't necessarily a problem.

Higher weight may not be a problem in parts of the Netherlands of Norfolk,
but for most people in most places higher weight is a big problem. People
who say it isn't fall into two camps:

(1) People who don't actually ride much;
(2) People who have never ridden a light bike.

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

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

Tony Raven said:

The aluminium frame on my road bike has a lifetime guarantee. Plus in
the EFBe fatigue test of bicycle frames, half the aluminium frames and
half the carbon frames tested survived the complete test cycle. None of
the steel ones did.
http://www.damonrinard.com/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

Not again please. This test with gross overloading favoures the stiffest
frame's. The results do not match conditions in real life.

But what do you expect of somebody who thinks that repeatedly running a
bike at 10 km/h into a brick wall is a normal occurrence. Why can't he
test automobiles 😉
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Tony Raven said:

The aluminium frame on my road bike has a lifetime guarantee.

It is good to learn that there are now aluminum frames that have such a
warranty, I presume that this is a light weight high end frame. On more
modest levels it is not what I'm seeing. Particularly when a bike model
comes in two variants, one aluminum frame and another steel frame,
usually the aluminum version is the more expensive and covered by a more
limited warranty.

Quoted message said:

Plus in
the EFBe fatigue test of bicycle frames, half the aluminium frames and
half the carbon frames tested survived the complete test cycle. None of
the steel ones did.
http://www.damonrinard.com/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

That test deals with high end light weight frames, it should not be used
as an argument against steel frames in general.

--
Membrane

Membrane said the following on 11/05/2007 00:29:

Quoted message said:

I'm not defending the bike under discussion, but another way to typify a
steel frame is to say that it is the material that is most reliable,
affordable, durable and covered by the longest warranty.

There's steel, and there's steel. My Orange P7 is steel, and it is a
lovely lightweight, springy bike. My Raleigh Randonneur is steel, and
that is a sturdy and durable bike with a reasonable weight. The bike in
the OP is steel, and the Forth Bridge is missing some of it's tubes :-)

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

Tony Raven said:

The aluminium frame on my road bike has a lifetime guarantee. Plus in
the EFBe fatigue test of bicycle frames, half the aluminium frames and
half the carbon frames tested survived the complete test cycle. None of
the steel ones did.
http://www.damonrinard.com/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

But it *is* the case that if you're touring in outer Mongolia and your
frame fails then after walking 100 miles to the nearest blacksmith he
probably can fix a steel frame but not aluminium. So there you have it,
a copper-bottomed, no arguments possible piece of reasoning why
aluminium frames are the Work Of Stan and you'd be mad to use one in the
UK. Or something...

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/

Paul Boyd said:

Membrane said the following on 11/05/2007 00:29:

Quoted message said:

I'm not defending the bike under discussion, but another way to typify a
steel frame is to say that it is the material that is most reliable,
affordable, durable and covered by the longest warranty.

There's steel, and there's steel. My Orange P7 is steel, and it is a
lovely lightweight, springy bike. My Raleigh Randonneur is steel, and
that is a sturdy and durable bike with a reasonable weight. The bike in
the OP is steel, and the Forth Bridge is missing some of it's tubes :-)

The Forth Bridge used the finest steel then available. It's only been
just over 100 years, so it could well still be better than this. And
it's the wrong colour!

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/

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Membrane

(') said:

Clive George said:

won't have the same weight problems

Again, a higher weight isn't necessarily a problem.

Higher weight may not be a problem in parts of the Netherlands of Norfolk,
but for most people in most places higher weight is a big problem. People
who say it isn't fall into two camps:

(1) People who don't actually ride much;
(2) People who have never ridden a light bike.

Hmmmm, I guess that makes me a figment of my own imagination, or
something...

All else being equal lighter is better, yes, but all else quite often
isn't. My current tourer is considerably heavier than my old one was.
I gave the old one away, haven't regretted it.

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/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The aluminium frame on my road bike has a lifetime guarantee.

Quoted message said:

I presume that this is a light weight high end frame.

The aluminium alloy frames I mentioned start at £200 - for the whole bike.

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Again, a higher weight isn't necessarily a problem.

Higher weight may not be a problem in parts of the Netherlands of Norfolk,
but for most people in most places higher weight is a big problem. People
who say it isn't fall into two camps:

(1) People who don't actually ride much;
(2) People who have never ridden a light bike.

I currently have two bikes, a heavy (23kg) Roadster and a by comparison
lightweight Hybrid (13kg). I have owned and extensively ridden light
weight road bikes in the past.

For me its all about utility, for getting around Dublin city (which is
moderately hilly) I exclusively use the Roadster. Although I don't like
the more heavy going nature of the Roadster, its mudguards, Nexus hub
gears, roller brakes, chain guard, load carrier, integrated lighting,
and robustness are more important to me for use in the city during all
weather conditions. Its the sort of bike I can jump on without having to
change clothes, its comfortable and there's no risk of trouser legs
becoming soiled.

I use my Hybrid for leisure/fitness rides in the mountains, for that
usage I have no need for the features of my Roadster. I change into
cycling gear before going out, and I choose to go out in decent weather
only. On that bike I certainly appreciate the lower weight, and its
generally easier going nature.

--
Membrane

Membrane said:

For me its all about utility, for getting around Dublin city (which is
moderately hilly) I exclusively use the Roadster.

Dublin hilly? It might not be as pancake level as, say, Berlin, but
between Dalkey and Howth there is no hill worth the name.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
[email hidden] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

Brendan Halpin said:

Dublin hilly? It might not be as pancake level as, say, Berlin, but
between Dalkey and Howth there is no hill worth the name.

Fair enough. The terrain in Dublin (within the M50 excluding Howth and
Dalkey) rises to > 100m of elevation, that's enough to make weight an
issue.

--
Membrane

In article <[email hidden]>,
Mark Thompson <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> writes:
|> > The steel
|> > frame of my roadster is covered by a 20 year guarantee, the same frame
|> > made out of aluminum by the same (renowned) manufacturer is covered by
|> > a mere 2 year warranty.
|>
|> 20 years? Pah! Our 7005 aluminium alloy bikes come with a lifetime
|> guarantee on the frame :-P

I.e. it's guaranteed until it fails.

|> And as Clive hinted at, the better cromoly steel is lovely stuff, while hi-
|> ten steel is more akin to a combination of depleted uranium and cheese.

"Hi-ten" is a nonsense term, as is as likely to be applied to mild steel
as anything else. Now, that IS a durable material - not light, but much
less likely to fail than anything else, and easily repairable if it does.

But, as usual, the material is not normally the cause of failure - the
construction is.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
|> in message <[email hidden]>, Membrane
|> ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:
|>
|> > Again, a higher weight isn't necessarily a problem.
|>
|> Higher weight may not be a problem in parts of the Netherlands of Norfolk,
|> but for most people in most places higher weight is a big problem. People
|> who say it isn't fall into two camps:
|>
|> (1) People who don't actually ride much;
|> (2) People who have never ridden a light bike.

Twaddle. I have done both, including long distances in hilly conditions
(relative to my inherent abilities). 60 miles over north Cornwall,
for a person in his 50s with significantly impaired lung function?

For competition or cyclocross, it makes a hell of a difference. For
more normal use (recreation or transport), it varies between making
damn-all difference in the flatter parts of the country to a small
difference in the hillier parts. And, as always, the difference is
relative to the weight of the rider.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
|> in message <[email hidden]>, Membrane
|> ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:
|>
|> > Again, a higher weight isn't necessarily a problem.
|>
|> Higher weight may not be a problem in parts of the Netherlands of Norfolk,
|> but for most people in most places higher weight is a big problem. People
|> who say it isn't fall into two camps:
|>
|> (1) People who don't actually ride much;
|> (2) People who have never ridden a light bike.

Twaddle. I have done both, including long distances in hilly conditions
(relative to my inherent abilities). 60 miles over north Cornwall,
for a person in his 50s with significantly impaired lung function?

For competition or cyclocross, it makes a hell of a difference. For
more normal use (recreation or transport), it varies between making
damn-all difference in the flatter parts of the country to a small
difference in the hillier parts. And, as always, the difference is
relative to the weight of the rider.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

It's all in the mindset. When you are first racing low weight and cool
looks (which can easily be measured so MUST be important 😉) is very
significant. Later, when the pile of expensive broken parts has grown,
you have scared yourself [censored] with too flexible frames and you've
got a nice collection of 'if I wouldn't have had a mechanical in that
race' moments, reliabilty enters the picture

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Membrane said:

Fair enough. The terrain in Dublin (within the M50 excluding Howth and
Dalkey) rises to > 100m of elevation, that's enough to make weight an
issue.

Dundee has more relief than that, and I use it *all*, and still selected
a 20 Kg bike given a 4 figure budget. I've got the gears, I've got the
muscles and cardiovascular backup, I don't have the pressing sense of
urgency, I very much like my comfy seat and full suspension and
built-to-last tank engineering. YMMV.

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/

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Fair enough. The terrain in Dublin (within the M50 excluding Howth and
Dalkey) rises to > 100m of elevation, that's enough to make weight an
issue.

Dundee has more relief than that, and I use it *all*, and still selected
a 20 Kg bike given a 4 figure budget. I've got the gears, I've got the
muscles and cardiovascular backup, I don't have the pressing sense of
urgency, I very much like my comfy seat and full suspension and
built-to-last tank engineering. YMMV.

I agree (read back a few messages), except I can't stand suspension on a
bike that is used on the road.

To be clear, I do agree with Simon that weight is an issue on anything
except really flat terrain, but certain bike types have features that
inevitably add weight to a bike, and there's nothing wrong with
prioritizing these features over the weight drawback.

Every bike is a compromise, its about choosing the right bike for the
task.

--
Membrane

Membrane said:

I agree (read back a few messages), except I can't stand suspension on a
bike that is used on the road.

Typically the case that people complaining about suspension on the road
have never used suspension properly designed and implemented
specifically *for* the road. In such cases the machines are not only
more comfortable but more efficient over rougher roads, and cornering at
speed on potholed ruins masquerading as back-roads is rather less
"interesting" in a Good Way.
Perhaps try a Moulton, Birdy, or Streetmachine and see what you think of
it then.

Quoted message said:

To be clear, I do agree with Simon that weight is an issue on anything
except really flat terrain, but certain bike types have features that
inevitably add weight to a bike, and there's nothing wrong with
prioritizing these features over the weight drawback.

Every bike is a compromise, its about choosing the right bike for the
task.

Indeed. Or put another way, weight is an issue but not necessarily a
big one. Certainly not a deal-breaker for me.

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/