Tom wrote:
>Now don't get me wrong, I think newer standard equipment like Ace and >Record is probably a bit less failure-prone than SR.
BobHoveyGa@aol.com wrote: I don't know... A lot of that stuff hasn't been around long enough to really tell (which would certainly explain the lack of pages).
Bob, 9-speed Ace has been around since 96 IIRC, and the new Record group rolled out in 1995, though there have been annual changes, as is now standard for Campy. Six or seven years is a long time. Under an elite/pro rider, a season or two is all that can be expected of this stuff, as was the case with NR/SR stuff.
BobHoveyGa@aol.com wrote: While I dearly love the old bikes, I also love new technology and the amazing strides that have been made in cycling componentry... but I have serious reservations about some of the compromises we make these days for weight and fashion.
Indeed, when you are talking about superlight handlebars and stems or wierdo pedals for example, I start to get nervous and hope that they are put in the trash after a hard season or two. But the basic "good stuff" the normal Ace and Record stuff, doesn't scare me in the least.
BobHoveyGa@aol.com wrote: I remember my college roommate, a competitive skier, telling me years ago that he replaced his fiberglass skis each season because every time you flexed them a few fibers would break and they'd get "soupy" over time... does carbon fiber behave this way as well? Failure may not be such a big deal with a carbon brake lever, since you have two, but what about a bike frame or crank?).
It is this soupyness that makes failure of composites less disasterous than failures of aluminum or even steel. As I understand it, the part is getting soupy because the fibers are delaminating, coming loose in the resin matrix. On an instinctive level I don't love the idea of carbon crankarms, but perhaps they are less likely to cause injury when they fail.
BobHoveyGa@aol.com wrote: Typically I think there's a lot to be said for the "old stuff". Besides being beautiful, it was for the most part quite durable... In spite of all the messages about crank failures, look at all the classic bikes that have survived and the great old components that are still available! Fewer "space age" materials and more robust construction improved their survival rate, the same way it has with classic cars (can you see one of today's plastic T-Birds lasting as long as one from the 50's, given the same standard of care?).
No, but I can see it lasting two or three times longer. Apply the maintenace schedule of the old T-bird to both cars and the new one will outlast old one in all respects. Apply the maintenace schedule of the new car to both and the old car will die a very early death. I really can't think of any aspect of durability in which the newer car won't be superior while also requiring less maintenance. And were talking about an American care here, forget about Japanese and German cars which are better still. If that car is plastic (which I take to mean plastic panels a la Saturn) I assure you that it will outlast old Detroit steel. If the new car is steel, it will still outlast the old steel thanks to vastly superior rust proofing. This doesn't make an old T-bird any less cool. They are certainly more exciting and desirable than the new ones, but no way are they superior in any relevant aspect of their engineering.
Tom Dalton wrote:
>I'd like to get a modern Al bike soon...
BobHoveyGa@aol.com wrote:
Danger, Will Robinson!!! Dang, if it's hard to monitor Al fatigue in a crank, how hard is it to keep track of under a coat of paint! Don't gimme no aluminum, or carbon frames... Steel, that's the ticket. If I won the lottery and could get any frame I wanted, it would problably be one of Richard's. I guess if you twisted my arm and MADE me buy a new factory frame, maybe it would be a Lightspeed or some other titanium frame (as long as it's not one of the painted ones ;)
I've never heard of a failure in an aluminum frame that caused rider injury. Though surely it has happened, it is typical that they start to creak and you look for a crack and find it. Are they as durable as steel? Only if you make the steel bike as light as the Al bike, at which point the steel bike will ride like crap and fail quickly. A good, resonable weight steel frame is a very practical choice, but for something exotic and very light, aluminum is the way to go. I own 6 steel and zero aluminum bikes. Currently the vast majority of top riders use aluminum or al/carbon bikes. While I have no illusions of a modern bike providing long-term value (durability) or making me faster, I would like know what a good modern bikes are all about. No sense living in denial. Besides, I'll probably get something from a big (boring) company that extends some kind of irrational (lifetime) warranty.
Tom Dalton
Bethlehem, PA (where Aluminum is a four letter word, but sadly steel is but a memory) Bob Hovey Columbus, GA
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes