Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> wrote: At 8:55 AM -0800 1/21/08, Tom Dalton wrote:
>Jan wrote:
>
>So that brings up the question of when aluminum bikes and parts
>became reliable. By the mid-1930s, they certainly were almost totally
>reliable. Aluminum frames still had a higher failure rate than steel,
>but probably not much higher than many modern materials.
>
>Jan,
>
>You're the last person I'd expect to possibly spread misinformation
>without some solid facts for backup. Which modern frame materials
>are you suggesting would have failure rates comparable to 1930s
>aluminum bike frames? Ti, CF, Al? While you say "many" modern
>materials (there really are only 4, generally speaking) I would have
>to assume that you're talking about CF, because Ti, for all it's
>shortcomings, is generally accepted as pretty durable, and to
>characterize modern Al as only slightly more reliable than Al bikes
>from 7 decades ago... well, that seems like a huge reach. Then
>again, I trust you have some solid data to add.
>
>My uneducated guess is that if 1930's AL frames were not failing at
>extremely high rates, it was because they were not being used.
>
>Tom Dalton
>Bethlehem, PA, USA
Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> wrote Failure rates are hard to quantify, because, as you say, they make sense only when related to the mileage ridden. And those numbers are not available. So I am sorry if you consider any talk about failure rates misinformation.
Tom Dalton wrote: Jan, I said, "to POSSIBLY spread misinfiormation," which means that I think what you are saying MIGHT be incorrect. As such, I invited you to support your assertion that, "Aluminum frames still had a higher failure rate than steel, but probably not much higher than many modern materials," which you have sorta-kind-maybe-possibly done a teenie bit.
Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> wrote I was basing my observation on anecdotal evidence, and I was mostly talking about carbon fiber. I know a bike shop that has a nice collection of failed carbon seatposts, failed carbon forks and more.
Tom Dalton wrote: There is an enormous amount of this crap being used. I worked on a $700 Trek yesterday that had a CF post and a CF fork. $700, new, and it also had STI, dual pivot brakes that looked just like 7700s, an OS bar/stem... this cheap CF stuff breaks, I'm sure, just like cheap Taiwan Al and steel crap did 10-20 years ago. Shops didn't collect failed parts back then. There was less of a mission by retrogrouches to discredit all that is new, as I remember. On the other end of the spectrum is a set of insane performance "requirements," that lead consumer-cum-racers to accept some compromises at the high end. But then there is a whole lot of stuff in the middle that isn't cheap and isn't stupid-exotic-light that is, well, hard to imagine being just a little more reliable than any cutting-edge alloy bike from the 1930s.
Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> wrote I talked to another shop who told me the number of broken aluminum frames he has sent back to a major American maker under warranty, and that number was impressive, too.
Tom Dalton wrote: Why would you not say the name of the maker and the number your source cited? You're just a tease ;-) !!!!! I asked for actual data, and the closest thing you have to a fact is some sort of secret? Do you really think Trek or Cannondale is going to bust your chops for libel?
Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> wrote: After years of titanium alloy bottom bracket spindles failing, the material now appears to be used only in more suitable applications.
Tom Dalton wrote: Ti BBs are a lot more common now than they were when Campy was forging their bad image. But, we were talking about frames... I think we're in agreement that Ti frames from the last couple of decades are pretty solid.
Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> wrote What is the fourth modern material you mentioned?
Tom Dalton wrote: Steel. It's still being used. Some of those frames fail too, when you push the limits to achieve lighter weight. My point was that you spoke of "Many" modern materials compared to which 1930's alloy bikes might have had failure rates "not much haigher. There aren't even "many" materials out there, period, unless we split it out by alloy/heat treatment/fiber type/weave/etc, at which point I'd say we'd be looking a a small number of modern culprits, and a lot of reliable choices... and that won't help your argument. The genreal pattern is that the materails are getting better and more reliable, possibly with the very cheap and they very exotic being left as the probelm areas.
Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> wrote In the 1930s, there were two important makers of aluminum frames in France: Caminargent and Barra. Caminargent frames were bolted together, and tube replacement was easy. I have not heard of failures, but none of the riders I have interviewed liked the ride. They said it was too flexible. Barra brazed his frames from aluminum, and there were some failures, usually early in the frame's life. Several Barra frames were ridden in the Tour de France in the 1940s. Many riders liked them a lot, and they rode them hard. Yet a lot of these frames have survived intact. So the failure rates were higher than good steel frames, but not so high that nobody bought them, or that the maker went out of business. (Barra made thousands of aluminum frames over a 20-year period.)
Tom Dalton wrote: Are you saying that several were ridden in the Tour and a lot of THOSE survived intact? My guess is that the surviving Barras were typically purchased by the well-to-do, barely ridden, and stuck in a closet, just like those well-preserved Herses and Singers. I'd love to see a few examples of Barras that were known to have been raced for a significant part of a season.
Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> wrote My initial point was that many 1930s aluminum alloy parts appear to have been reliable - not 100% (but what is?), but reliable enough to find widespread acceptance. The 1930s also appear to have been the time when aluminum alloys first saw widespread use in high-end bicycles.
Tom Dalton wrote: I don't dispute this point. I just think that it is over-reaching to speculate that some modern materials have failure rates just a little better than 1930's AL frames. There's no data or anecdotal anything to support this. The only thing I know about the Caminargent frames is what I've heard, anecdotal stuff, which is that they very often broke.
Here's the thing... let's just set aside Ti and Steel, since we both know that these materials CAN be very robust and they can also be pretty damn fragile, if you give them a chance, and I hope that we'll also garee that sometimes you need to give them that chance to optomize performance at the expense of durability. Let's just look at AL and CF. With AL it just seems nutty to suggest that the very first AL bikes from the 1930s were anywhere near as reliable as they are now. Absent some very solid data to support this, we can only look at the fact that aluminum bikes have enjoyed an enormous amount of refinement since welded OS bikes like Kleins first appeared. That general pattern is the one that has worked. Cannodale popularized it, and now it's just how AL bikes are made. Now that a zillion of them have been made, and thousands of different engineers have contributed to the development of alloys, tube maunfature, welding, and heat treatment methods, do you really think that they are just a little more reliable than 1930's Barras and Caminargents? Geez, last I recall Klein was doing a 1,000,000,000 mile warranty and Cannondale was lifetime. Not that they aren't doing some math. They know some will break and they know some will go unridden. But, if they were as reliable as a 1930's bolted-together first attempt, that warranty would have driven Klein and Cannondale under years ago.
As for CF, well, it's harder to compare 1930's AL to modern CF than it is to compare 1930's AL to modern AL. It's pretty easy to say "of course we're better at using AL,' as I did above. But, I have to say that it seems to me that CF, viewed as the whole of what's being sold right now, is not that far off the mark in terms of reliability when compared to AL. Just unsupported specualtion here, but I really don't think Trek would be using CF frames, and particularly forks, on mass market bikes if they weren't very reliable. We're talking about a company that puts not one, but two, huge warning stickers on their bikes just to remind folks to use a helmet and lights. I really, really, really can't imagine the same company ever selling a bolted-together or brazed Dural frame, no matter what a performer it might be.
I'm all for nostalgia, I just think we need to keep some perspective. Without real data, often requested and never available, we need to apply a bit of reason to our hindsight.
Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA USA
140 Lakeside Ave #C Seattle WA 98122 http://www.bikequarterly.com --
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.