Agree on all those points but would also would add the economic and environmental impact of a frame material choice. Elon Musk's differentiation between stainless steel and CFRP certainly highlighted the complete comparison of cost-effectiveness between those two from sourcing, fabrication and performance of the end-item.
Grant wrote of this (steel, aluminum and Titanium) in the 1994 Bridgestone catalog, starting on page 51: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1994/index.htm Again from Rivendell (didn't find a date): https://www.rivbike.com/pages/frame-materials There're lots of "halo" choices when you begin to examine material environmental impacts. They seem to just put a different reward on unchanged consumer behavior. Trading my twelve year old car, driven less than 7500 miles annually, for a hybrid is an example. I'd gain esteem of many I don't know and escape consequences a new hybrid without bearing the real consequences for retiring my old car while still operating as new while extracting the materials and manufacturing expense of a (complex) new one. Continuing to use my existing car at the low rate my cycling allows seems much more responsible, even if I don't earn kudos in parking lots with convenient "Hybrids Only" spaces. No gain from more complex and impactful material choices warrants my use of them above or beyond steel. I am surprised by the switch and pitch mentality propagated in the mainstream market. Riders don't seem to perceive value in a frames, they talk about new bikes like complete units and don't seem to hesitate in complete replacement. I'll be near 20 years on my main non-commuting bike's frame when it's replacement comes on line. I feel responsible for my material waste in this category just as I do about household waste at the curb on trash day. Andy Cheatham Pittsburgh On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 3:57:19 PM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > Doug, > > Welcome to the group! I think you’re new here? Diving into the deep end > with this! Grin. “Not sure it matters much if a CF or aluminum frame breaks > vs steel getting all bent up, severe crashing is bad either way. I think > RBW can do a good job promoting their offerings as versatile and unique > without making statements that are opinion at best and easily disproved at > worst...” > > The differences in fatigue and failure rates between CF, AL, and steel are > science, not opinion. Grant has described that while CF tests strong one > directionally (not laterally, so never ding your CF bike on a post, tree, > or rock!), than invisibly fatigues quickly with use. The facts are the CF > fails without warning and those failures can be catastrophic; steel bends > and may remain rideable after an impact that visibly causes damage. > > With abandon, > Patrick -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
