> Remember also that
> modern race bikes can be at the weight limit and still have
> features such as
> power meters, a feature a lot of pros would not want to
> give up.
Power meters? ?
I'm cleaning out my CR closet, and can't say I was aware of this "power meters" feature on "modern race bikes." What is it? Is(was) there an equivalent practice amongst the classic era? That is to say, what's the best ye olde way to meter my power if my cr-on-topic bike doesn't(didn't) come equipped with a "power meter?"
Joe Starck
Madison, Wisconsin USA
> From: Jim Merz <jameshmerz@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CR] Gimme something metalurgico-scientifico
> To: "Harry Travis" <travis.harry@gmail.com>
> Cc: bsandel@verizon.net, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org, "Dave Porter" <frogeye@porterscustom.com>
> Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010, 2:27 PM
> While it may be possible to build a
> sub 15lb. bike using steel for the frame
> I can assure you it would not compare on several points.
> Let me say first of
> all this feat would not be possible without using carbon
> fiber in key spots
> including the front fork. So if you have to use carbon why
> not use it to
> advantage for the whole frame? The problem with steel for a
> front line race
> bike is that the stiffness is not going to be correct when
> built with super
> light tubing, and along with this it will not be strong
> enough. I also have
> my doubts about the weight you claim can be achieved.
> Remember also that
> modern race bikes can be at the weight limit and still have
> features such as
> power meters, a feature a lot of pros would not want to
> give up. I have been
> retired for almost 3 years now, but before that worked with
> top pro teams
> and have some idea of what I am taking about. The top
> riders I dealt with
> typically want very stiff frames. Most of the top riders we
> supplied bikes
> for had heavier frames than what are sold to the public.
> Not for strength,
> but stiffness. They would not accept the stiffness of a
> very light steel
> frame no matter how much you paid them to ride it. This is
> not marketing
> hype.
>
> I find this whole thing of not appreciating the latest
> bikes by some of you
> guys odd. I know bikes are marketed, they have been all
> along including the
> period this list is all about. It has been and still is
> very difficult to
> make a bicycle company that can develop great bikes and
> stay in business. I
> am not a marketing guy, but I my opinion it takes at least
> 50% of the
> development budget to market a bike/component. I spent my
> whole career
> developing highly technical bicycles and parts. In order to
> bring these to
> the end customers marketing is required. It was part of my
> job to give
> marketing guys angles to work with. This is not
> compromising my or the
> bicycles integrity, but is allowing the bike to evolve
> based on real
> benefits. The biggest problem with steel frames is even if
> the claims you
> made are true how do you sell this? It is easy for others
> to simply make the
> same thing and there goes all the effort. Steel bikes are
> too easy for
> companies or even one man shops to make. If they are so
> good why don't you
> yourself market them properly? I say good luck on that.
>
> I had an idea to end this debate. How about we take a steel
> frame like you
> are talking about and I will get the test lab to run it
> through the tests
> that current frames have to pass. The problem with this
> is:
>
> 1) Any builder that supplies the frame is not going to be
> super keen on
> seeing a poor result.
>
> 2) How is the cost going to be dealt with?
>
> I may be able to get this testing done, but how to deal
> with these 2
> issues?
>
> Jim Merz
> Big Sur CA
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Harry Travis <travis.harry@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > The problem isn't about scientific method but about
> language and
> > specification -- on the can-against-forehead
> experiment. It is, after all,
> > highly repeatable. <grin>
> >
> > Producing fully kitted steel bikes close to the 15lb
> weight minimum is
> > accomplished quite handily. It is up to the tube-set
> makers (and
> > steel-framebuilders, or an association of them?) to
> sponsor successful
> > racing teams to use them to demonstrate steel is not
> dead for racing.
> >
> > That 15lb minimum did give metal framebuilders and
> tube-set makers a
> > reprieve. What use have they made of it?
> >
> > Harry Travis
> > Pine Barrens of NJ
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Dave Porter <frogeye@porterscustom.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > ..well not very scientific but I do notice
> that when comparing CF to
> > > steel,
> > > they often tout how the ride quality is on par
> with steel.. NOT.. anyway,
> > > on
> > > a more distressing note; I recently had a
> conversation with one of the
> > > writers from BRAIN magazine (Bicycle Retailer and
> Industry News) about
> > > their
> > > lack of coverage of steel frames. The response
> from him was "Steel is
> > dead
> > > to racing"
> > > I find this alarming that this perception
> has crept into our industry.
> > The
> > > problem lies in that if enough consumers believe
> this then the
> > manufactures
> > > of the exciting new steel products will not
> continue to produce raw
> > > materials. That is very very unfortunate if it
> happens.
> > > IMO.
> > > DaveP
> > >
> > > frogeye@porterscustom.com
> > >
> > > Porter Customs 2909 Arno NE
> > > Albuquerque, NM USA 87107
> > > 505-352-1378
> > > 1954 BN2 1959 AN5
> > > Porter Custom Bicycles
> > >
> > > cars:
> > > http://www.britishcarforum.com/
> > > gallery:
> > >
> > http://picasaweb.google.com/
> > >
> > > blog: http://porterbikes.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: bsandel@verizon.net
> [mailto:bsandel@verizon.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:54 AM
> > > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > > Subject: Re: [CR] Gimme something
> metalurgico-scientifico
> > >
> > > Chris Chance had a series of two-sided posters
> with different Fat Chance
> > > owners on one side and a highly non-scientific
> metalurgical screed on the
> > > other in which he recommended, as a way to assess
> the merits of steel vs.
> > > aluminum, taking the 'animal house' test.
> The copy was something along
> > the
> > > lines of "take an aluminum can and bang it into
> your forehead hard enough
> > > to
> > > crush it. Now do the same with a steel
> can. When you regain
> > consciousness
> > > consider which material you'd rather trust your
> life to..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Ben Sandel, freezing his tuchus off on his ride
> into work this AM in
> > > Harrisonburg VA.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 10/28/10, Putman, Clyde wrote:
> > >
> > > > One of our promotional tools was a
> > > > length of Graftek tubing and a length of
> steel tubing.
> > > > Whack the steel on a counter edge and you
> see a dent.
> > > > Whack the Graftek tube on the counter edge
> and you see no
> > > > dent.
> > > > Just don't let the customer look INSIDE the
> tube lest he
> > > > see that the inner aluminum tube actually
> DID dent and pull
> > > > away from the graphite wrap for a major loss
> on strength.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bill Holland -- and perhaps other titanium frame
> makers? -- would do the
> > > same kinda "promotion," when comparing steel to
> titanium. Ding on the
> > steel
> > > tube, not on the titanium tube.
> > >
> > > What's the counter-argument to this dingbat test,
> in the example of steel
> > > vs
> > > titanium? Gimme something
> metalurgico-scientifico, which I know some of
> > you
> > > can gimme, and then mebbe gimme something
> religio-steelisrealio, which I
> > > know all 1900+ of youse can gimme!
> > >
> > > Joe Starck
> > > Via Arona 19
> > > Masidon, Wisconsin USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harry Travis