I wanted to add a point or two in support of treating frames. Originally the focus of the discussion was on the observance that not many frames rust out and treating was unnecessary. My real concern is the incremental damage of any significant rust. Quality frames are critically designed structures. That means that only reasonable reserves of extra material are allowed for deterioration through use, minor accidents, material flaws etc. Any rust cuts into the safety margin of the design and increases the possibility of failure- Why let it get started or continue? Actual failure may be rare but increased failure risk is a certainty in a frame with internal corrosion.
Another point is that this goes double for plated frames, frames subject to moisture or salt, and frames stored in chemical environments. I have looked at or bought bikes with very strange, light corrosion that I think is from prolonged exposure to chlorine or solvents in their storage environment. Some environments near refineries and such are toxic to bicycles let alone humans! Also condensation inside the tubes occurs any time the temperature is dropped below the dew point. For fine frames or even mediocre ones, Framesaver is the best insurance against hidden corrosion.
At 12:46 AM 8/25/01 EDT, OROBOYZ@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/24/01 1:19:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Dale, I'm not easy having this conversation through the keyboard but
>'haven't been able to hook up w/ you to have a more personal chat and explain
>my position. I hope this is not taken the wrong way or as a negative but an
>observation of some of the views expressed on C.R. regarding the issue;to
>treat a frame internally or not.
> I didn't think the preservation of steel frames would be looked at as a
>bad or a suspect thing. Frame Saver came about out of frustration. I was
>seeing a lot of frames that came into my shop with internal rust problems,
>rust dust and flakes in the bb. festering rust at vent holes, and musical
>seat stays and fork blades. In talking with other builders, painters, and
>tech writers like Jim Langley at BICYCLING, Alan Cote' At BICYCLE GUIDE I
>knew I wasn't alone. I felt something needed to be done.
> The process of treating is cheap and easy. It can do a frame no harm, only
>good. Its very satisfying to know you've done the right thing for your frame
>instead of playing russian roulette with its future. .
> I've subscribed to Wooden Boat for years now, and have two older boats
>that I care for. The thinking in W.B. circles is that WHILE YOU HAVE ONE OF
>THE CLASSICS IN YOUR POSSESSION, YOU ARE NO MORE THAN A CUSTODIAN OR STEWARD,
>ENTRUSTED WITH THE BOATS CARE AND WELL BEING!!!! Your OBLIGATION to the boat
>is to give it all the care you can and pass it on to the next generation in
>the best condition possible! This is an honorable position to take and one we
>classic bike folks should adopt if we haven't already. Preservation and
>collecting should go hand in hand.
> I'll be the first to admit that not all frames will rust out from the
>inside, but why would anyone want to take the chance? Adding an application
>of F. S. ( or whatever you feel is best) is so easy it would seem like a no
>brainer, like an aspirin a day to prevent heart problems. To think its
>unimportant or not necessary baffles me.
> People look to us people for guidance and I feel we need to encourage
>them to do as much as they can to care for these frames, sending a mixed
>signal isn't' good enough.If we look at this from the preservationists point
>of view every one of these frames should be treated. The writer who said
>they'd only seen 5 frames rust through sounded like it was no big deal, but
>what if the 5 included Douglas R. Rooke's Sachs, Allan Schaeffers Hetchins,
>my '38 Urago, Jeff Groman's early Paramount, or one of your favorites. Would
>be a real shame if the product was available and for what ever reason we
>choose not to use it................Some custodians we turned out to be.
> Its been said that F.S. is the same as, Boeshield, LPS3, WD40, Wax-Oyl
>(what ever that is). ITS NOT! Frame Saver was developed for me by a lab that
>makes formulations for industry and the military. If one were to spray each
>one of these out on a surface they could see for themselves that they don't
>look, smell, or run the same,(Brian B. says they don't even taste the same??)
>and yet F.S.is supposed to be the same as each of these different appearing
>formulations?????One doesn't need to be a chemist to see they're not the
>same, any one of them.
> The toxicity issue, WD40 contains petroleum distillates, motor oil carries
>a skin cancer warning, paint remover bought at True Value hardware to strip
>the dresser has cancer, poisonous warnings, oven cleaner is awful
>stuff......but we use them all........ with caution! They over state the
>warnings to scare the hell out of us so we'll be careful with the stuff......
>F.S. is no different.
> I'm sure I sound overly defensive here, but being in the frame building,
>repairing and repainting business for 28 years I've seen many problems that
>could have been avoided with proper care. I can't believe the to do or not to
>do issue is debated at all. If we view this as preservationists first,
>collectors second, there is only one answer.
> Peter Weigle
>cycles de ORO, Inc.
>1410 Mill Street
>Greensboro, North Carolina
><A HREF="http://www.classicrendezvous.com/main.htm">Classic Rendezvous</A>