Re: [CR]Re: When did aluminum become reliable?

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing)

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:48:27 -0600 (CST)
From: <smwillis@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: When did aluminum become reliable?
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>, Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net>


If I may add a part here. It would be hard to use the information of "broken aluminum frames he has sent back to a major American maker under warranty" as a good guide line I would guess there are a lot more aluminum frames on the road now then at about any other time in history. I would also say a lot of the frame I see are also MTB frames and that would not be fair to compare with the past because I do not think there was much of that going on at the time. From what I have seen in the quality of both steel and aluminum in the modern bike it is not much of a comparison with really old bikes. Even though I like the older bike much more then what is made today that includes my old Alan frame.
>From: Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net>
>Date: 2008/01/21 Mon AM 11:34:04 CST
>To: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>, Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>Subject: [CR]Re: When did aluminum become reliable?
>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
>
>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.
>
>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.
>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. After years of titanium alloy bottom
>bracket spindles failing, the material now appears to be used only in
>more suitable applications. What is the fourth modern material you
>mentioned?
>
>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.)
>
>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.
>
>Jan Heine
>Editor
>Bicycle Quarterly
>140 Lakeside Ave #C
>Seattle WA 98122
>www.bikequarterly.com
>--
>_______________________________________________

Stevn Willis
The Bike Stand
1778 East 2nd Street
Scotch Plains NJ 07076
thebikestand.com
908-322-330