RE: Debunking time again (Re: [CR]1962 Raleigh Gran Sport)

(Example: Production Builders:LeJeune)

From: "goodrichbikes" <>
To: "Michael Kone" <>, <>
Cc: <>
Subject: RE: Debunking time again (Re: [CR]1962 Raleigh Gran Sport)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:19:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>

I would like to weigh in now and attempt to clarify my earlier posting. This whole thing has spiraled way out of control. I know that I never said that tubing gauge or diameter didn't matter. Of course they do, although to what degree is open to debate. My original posting was in regard to ride quality i.e. how the frame feels while riding the bike. If one is to compare the ride of identical (in every dimension) frames using different tubing the ride will be absolutely identical. This of course means the tubing diameters, wall thickness and butt lengths are the same. The tubing can be Reynolds 531,725,753,853, True Temper and Columbus and the ride will be the same. What will be different is be the fatigue life of the frames. The stronger tubing in theory will produce a stronger frame. Some people will say "But I can feel the difference between SL and SP." Of course you can, they have different wall thickness which will affect the tubing stiffness. Regarding the stronger tubing creating a stronger frame I think is true but sometimes you run into the law of diminishing returns. By today's standard, we consider Reynolds 531 to be the weakest of all the butted tubing yet look at all of the 40 year old frames built with it. Many of these old frames are poorly constructed yet they are still just as road worthy as the day they were made. With this in mind, many of the "modern" steels have tensile strengths that are twice and three times that of 531. Does this mean that the modern steels will produce frames that will last 2 to 3 times as long as the 531 frames? Maybe but surely one can see my point about diminishing returns. Curt Goodrich (framebuilder that uses old and modern steels) Minneapolis, MN

-----Original Message----- From: []On Behalf Of Michael Kone Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:00 AM To: Cc: Subject: Re: Debunking time again (Re: [CR]1962 Raleigh Gran Sport)

Hi Brian,

Glad your entertained - but please don't hold off the urge to jump in forever - this idea that tubing and gauge doesn't matter is lunacy - something I know we've discussed in the past. I'm kinda getting a bit hammered here so any help would be appreciated.

Mike Kone - "going riding on my super nice Baylis that should have been built with all Columbus SP cause weight adds durability and the ride would be the same after all."

At 08:48 AM 6/2/02 -0700, Brian Baylis wrote:
>I've really enjoyed sitting on the sidelines for this discussion. I
>can't say I've read all of it but what I have read from every
>contributor has been informative and interesting in some way or another.
>I'm not going to join in at this point but it seems that you guys have
>done a good job of investigating the subtle points of frames and
>materials and have (or are about to, aren't you?) conclude that there is
>a lot more to frames than stiffness.
>Personally I'm quite fond of mixing tubes to get exactly what I want out
>of a bike. As we speak, a replica of an early sixties Masi Special track
>bike is under construction (full chrome frame no less!) which I have
>incorperated Reynolds 531 standard gauge main tubes and Columbus RECORD
>forks and stays (those are .05mm thick). This is a track pursuit style
>frame 51cm c-t. Ordinarily one would not chrome such tubing (the record
>stuff) but since I'm hand sanding and polishing it there is not the
>heavy metal removal nor the heat generated by traditional chrome shop
>methods. This bike is turning out looking like a piece of fine jewelery.
>Furthermore, I'm sure it will flex just right for it's purpose.
>Brian Baylis
>La Mesa, CA
>How long does it take for fingers to grow back??
>> Acutally this analysis is not correct - when the frame springs back all the
>> energy that went to move the frame one way moves it back the other - and
>> that movement is augmenting the pedal stroke - energy can't be wasted - it
>> has to be conserved (i.e go somewhere and steel just doesn't dissapate a
>> quanifiable amount of energy as heat from what I understand). Again, we do
>> "waste energy" from extra body movement, but a frame cannot absorb energy
>> in any relevent extent.
>> Many of the best riding quickest feeling bikes are very flexible - again,
>> it is having the right flex that is important.
>> Mike Kone in Boulder CO
>> At 12:14 AM 6/2/02 EDT, wrote:
>> >In a message dated 6/1/02 10:46:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> > writes:
>> >
>> ><< spring helps a bike accelerate - but so does
>> > stiffness perhaps - confused? Yes - it is confusing. Its all about the
>> > right balance for each rider. Need spring but not too much.
>> >
>> > Doesn't it take at least as much energy to "put the spring into the tube"
>> as
>> > the amount of spring that is returned? In other words, there's no free
>> >lunch.
>> > No mystic source of energy that automatically bends the tubes into a
>> tensed
>> > spring position, I think you have to supply the energy even if it springs
>> > back. ?? >>
>> >
>> >Energy spent bending the frame is energy not spent making the wheels go
>> >around. When the frame springs back, none of that energy goes into making
>> the
>> >wheels go around either. Frames that are too flexy "waste" energy. Stiffer
>> >frames are more efficient. If they're too stiff they feel "dead" and aren't
>> >really comfortable to ride. A frame is a spring. No spring maker uses HiTen,
>> >they use spring steel because it's better.
>> >Stevan Thomas
>> >Alameda, CA