Jerry and all,
Linda bought a TREK 2500 around 1990 from Mike Jacoubowski at Chain Reaction Bikes in Redwoods City, CA. (Mike raced as a youth in the 1970s and still has some CR-correct bikes, but loves his CF TREKS, BTW.) The TREK 2500 frame, which featured CF tubes glued into aluminum alloy lugs, came with only one set of bottle cage mounts, and Linda wanted two for long rides. Mike obliged her by epoxying another set of bottle cage mounts on, apparently with TREK's knowledge and blessing. So adding such things to a CF frame is certainly doable. I imagine that one could epoxy similar fittings onto a Ti or aluminum or bamboo frame tube as well.
I think a major drawback to touring or other long-distance riding on a CF, Ti, or aluminum frame is the scarcity of qualified frame repair persons and facilities along the way. Almost any decent welder at a gas station or farm--or even a jeweler--can accomplish a workable repair on a steel frame, even if it does not come out looking like Bruce Gordon or Brian Bayliss did the work. Finding someone who can properly repair aerospace titanium or aluminum, not to mention carbon fiber, is extremely difficult outside of just a few high-tech urban centers.
This is not to say that a properly designed and spec'd Ti, aluminum, or carbon fiber frame could not be built. Regardless of the materials used, a touring frame needs to be stronger, stiffer, and more durable than a lightweight racing frame built for the same individual. And a sturdier, more "crash-proof" CF or aluminum frame could certainly be designed: the finished bike just would not weigh 15 pounds like its race-tested brethren (and sistren) once it was properly stiffened and reinforced. And clamping racks, brackets, lights, and other mounts is mechanically far more risky with thinner aluminum or carbon frame tubes--just as it probably is for the thin-walled high-performance steels that Waterford and others use.
The yield strengths and failure properties of the materials are different, too: an aluminum alloy frame cannot be re-bent and straightened like a steel frame. Neither can a carbon frame, which would tend to shatter when it fails. (Steel is breakable, too, but its failures tend not to be as sudden or as catastrophic.)
I like steel (and especially lugged 531 DB steel) because:
1) I grew up riding steel bikes (Schwinn Sting-Ray, Phillips 3-speed, Bianchi 10-speed, etc...), and riding steel bikes reminds me of the youthful abandon that I still look to replicate when I'm flying downhill on my Eisentraut at 40-plus MPH.
2) I had a great time riding steel-framed bikes all through college and beyond, when I was in the best shape of my life. I was riding today's antiques--but they were "state of the art" back then...
3) Steel bikes feel "alive: and "lively," like nothing else. (I could ride my relatively comfy TREK 2000/1500 all day long on a century ride, but it felt "dull and lifeless," just like they say in the shampoo commercials. No dynamic feedback, no sense of "springiness." Deadly....
It is precisely because cycling is such a central part of my psyche and my life that I can spend lots of time thinking or writing about bikes, just as I really enjoy riding them--no matter what the frames or components are made of or how much they "click," I am a passionate bike advocate at meetings in the City of Alameda's Council Chambers because I ride all over the island every week, and I love reading about the love affairs you have with your bikes and the heartfelt descriptions like Paul Williams' "Friday Night Reflections." on riding his various bikes while commuting all year long in Ottawa.
Like Sara Gibson says, "Ride yer friggin' bicycle..." That's what it's all about.
Jon Spangler Alameda, CA USA
On Feb 8, 2009, at 12:00 PM, <classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org>
<classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org> wrote:
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 11:55:03 -0800
> From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: [CR] Non-steel Touring/commuting bikes
> To: John Betmanis <johnb@oxford.net>, John Wood <braxton72@gmail.com>
> Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Message-ID: <233766.32279.qm@web82204.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> One of my points about the failure of bicycles, as practical
> vehicles, to advance much in the more than 60 years since the last
> Technical Trials in 1949 is that the non-steel frames, especially
> carbon fibre, are rarely built to accomodate the practical faetures
> you mention. Other than that one-off, or at least very limited
> production, carbon randonneur reviewed in Bicycle Quaterly, has
> anyone ever seen a touring/commuting/town bike with a carbon fibre
> frame? Part of this is marketing, as the manufacturers, or more
> properly marketers, who are rarely the same, push racing frames
> even at price points where few of the bikes will ever get raced.
> This results in tire clearance which makes use of mudguards or
> practical tires impossible. This appears to be the result of
> complete contempt of the marketers for their customers, in that
> they seem to think the public is so shallow and stupid that if they
> provided sensible clearance, not only would the public not
> appreciate the practicality, but it would actually diminish the
> bike's image with the public. I like to think they are wrong,
> although I'm sure there are some buyers who regard anything
> practical as uncool.
>
> So while carbon bike geometry could easily be made suitable for
> practical bikes, there are some other issues with non-steel
> materials for practical frames. One of the advantages of steel is
> that it is easy to braze onto a steel frame all sorts of fittings
> for shifters, front derailleurs, cable stops, cable guides, racks,
> mudguards, dynamos, etc. With other materials, AFAIK, brazing
> really doesn't work. My few Al frames, all On Topic racing bikes,
> don't have many fittings, but the ones they do have, like cable
> housing guides or cable stops, seem to be attached by drilling the
> frame to receive a small pin attached to the fitting , which is
> then epoxied into place. Since the old Al frames were usually the
> same tube OD as steel, the tube wall was quite thick, and so
> drilling the tubes for fitting wasn't a problem. The newer Al
> frames tend to have much thinner walls, so I'm not sure if one can
> drill those for fittings without the risk of a local failure.
> Maybe it is possible to just epoxy fittings to the tube without
> drilling it. Anyone have an Al bike with several fittings who can
> tell me how the fittings are attached? Ti frames also typically
> have few fittings, and I assume fittings might be welded using the
> same welding methods used to join the frame tubes. Can anyone tell
> me if this is the case? On carbon fibre, I don't have a clue how
> one would go about attaching small fittings. It might be possible
> to mold some into the frame, but I'd imagine incorporating a lot of
> small fittings would tremendously complicate the frame fabrication
> and increase the cost proportionally. Also, I understand that that
> carbon fibre is very strong when loaded consistent with the
> direction in which the fibres are oriented, but virtually worthless
> in regard to other loads, as we have all seen from carbon Formula I
> suspension members shattering like glass from a side impact that a
> steel suspension member would have
> scoffed at. Not to mention Carbon frames in the TdF breaking in
> half when they hit a tree of a road sign. So it would seem an
> impossible task to orient the fibres in a small fitting properly to
> bear the load applied to the fitting, especially if that is in a
> different direction from the loads applied to the frame. I'd
> imagine that the only practical way to provide a large number of
> fittings on a carbon frame is to clamp them on. This might happen
> in two ways. Either the frame manufactures could design fittings
> clamped to the frame that provide the same eyelets and such that
> would be brazed to a steel touring frame, or they could leave it to
> equipment manufacturers, OEM or aftermarket, to make clamps for
> racks, mudguards, etc. that fit the diameter and shape of the
> carbon frame tubes. I will have to study the photos in the Bicycle
> Quarterly more carefully to see how the carbon randonneur Jan
> reviewed dealt ith attachment of components to the frame.
>
> I'm sure it is possible to make a suitable touring/commuting bike
> from any of the current materials, but no one seems to be
> interested in doing so except for bikes which are pretty much
> adaptations of mountain bikes, and those seem to be either aluminum
> or even steel, almost never carbon or Ti. It seems the marketers
> can't be bothered to deal with what should be solvable issues like
> how to attach racks and mudguards, and prefer to just continue to
> sell racing bikes to people with absolutely no real need for such a
> thing. That's why I still believe Jan's call to reestablish
> something like the Technical Trials makes sense. I like to believe
> that if the public were made aware of the practical features that
> can be provided on bikes they would begin to demand them. And I
> think a well publicized competition along the lines of the
> Technical Trials would assist in that.
>
> Of course, I have to recognize there is some question as to whether
> a carbon or Ti, or even an Al, touring frame would be On Topic
> here, even if they began to be produced. Clearly a Barra or
> Camintargent from the 30's or 40's would be On Topic, and maybe if
> someone were to make an Al randonnuer of design very similar to
> those machines, it might be considered KOF. But the Omnipotent
> Listmeister might ban a more modern Al tourer, even if equipped
> with Nitto Steel racks and randonneur bars, B&M dynamo lights and
> Giles Berthoud bags. And AFAIK, no oone ever made a carbon or Ti
> touring bike before 1983, so maybe there is no way for those to
> qualify as KOF. I'd like to know if the Dale considers the carbon
> randonneur in Bicycle Quarterly KOF or just Off Topic.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, Texas, USA
>
Jon Spangler
Writer/Editor
Linda Hudson Writing
510-864-0370/FAX 864-2144
MOBILE 510-846-5356
hudsonspangler@earthlink.net