The combined age of these three frames with different tubing is 85 years -- the three of them give me tremendous enjoyment! http://www.flickr.com/photos/46647848@N02/
On Feb 10, 5:11 am, newenglandbike <matthiasbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > There's a new blog post on the Rivendell site, about the tubing used > on the AHH frames. It is advertised as dry reading- but personally > I found it very interesting, maybe b/c like many here, I am a total > bike nut. I think it's great that Grant decided to post it, even > though he is wont to omit such details, being that he feels the brand > of tubing used to build a frame is mostly unimportant. > > But I just wanted to play devil's advocate here, WRT the main point of > the post: > > I think Grant's analogy to the guy (who's getting a new wing added to > his house) asking about the kind of wood a building contractor uses is > flawed, because if a guy is paying really good money to a really well- > respected home-building contractor, he's probably absolutely concerned > about the kind of wood being used. I wouldn't know because I've > never had a wing added to a house, but if I were going to, and I were > going to hire the best contractor I could, I'd doubtless want to know > what kind of lumber or other materials the builder planned to use, > because I know that not all lumber is equal. Tools, maybe not... I > probably woudn't care about the tools the builder uses- but that is > definitely not the same as materials. I don't have to live with the > tools the contractor uses, only he does. I would just have to live > with the finished product. > > That being said I am aware that, among quality bicycle tube > manufacturers, there is negligible difference in quality, and > honestly, I don't really care too much about whether it's Tange, True > Temper or Reynolds. However, if they were all the same, why would > the respective manufacturers bother to brand their tubes at all? Of > course they want to be proud of the quality of their tubes vs. the > other guy's, and they want their tubes to be in demand. So, the > question is, who do the tubing companies need to advertise to- the > builder, or the rider? I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say > that the rider of the bicycle, who may spend decades or a lifetime > with a bicycle, is probably in a better position to worry about the > quality of the tubes than the builder. The builder may braze the > tubes together and certainly would be concerned about how easy the > tubes are to work with, but ultimately the builder is done with the > tubes as soon as the bike is out the door. The rider, on the other > hand, gets to spend potentially quite a long time with a bike, > recocheting over frost-heaves, being ambushed by stealth potholes on a > rainy night, locking it to crowded bike racks, etc. > > If Grant's philosophy is taken to the extreme, then maybe most bicycle > makers should leave off decals from their bikes too? I mean, among > established, well-respected sellers of bicycle frames, there's > negligible difference in bicycle quality right? In fact, you could > say the same about frame geometry too- it's not important, because > within a certain range of numbers, most well made bicycles are going > to ride well enough. OK I'm definitlely going way overboard here, > but only to try to make a point. > > Anyway, stepping away from the topic of tubing brands, and moving to > tubing specs: > > If I'm buying a bike frame, new or used, I do feel that knowing the > wall thicknesses used in the tubes is important. Not because of > 'ride quality' per se, but because I have dented a fair number of > bicycle frames in my day, and even inadvertenly rearranged the > geometry on some, in what I would call reasonably normal use, and I > really hate when that happens. One of the many reasons I bought my > Bombadil was because it was advertised as having straight-gauge > tubes. I have an old centurion with Tange #5 plain-gauge tubes > too. I love that. I also have a really great touring bike that > also has straight-gauge tubes, and if it did not, the TT would > *definitely* have three distinct dents on it (if not worse) from a > large boulder near Thunder Bay in Ontario, but instead it only has > three paint gouges. As an aside: I remember a few years ago in > the BMX world, Standard Byke Co. was the king. They were very vocal > about the True Temper Platinum OX tubing used in their frames, which > were built at Waterford at the time, and their frames were known for > being far lighter than anything else on the market, yet just as > strong- and at that time, there were some seriously overbuilt frames > out there. > > It seems that the adoption of hyper-light aluminum and carbon fiber > frame materials in the past few decades has pushed steel specs on > normal, non-racing bike frames to its limits in terms of lightness, > unfortunately at the expense of durability. One of the things I > like about companies like Rivendell and Surly (and a lot of other new > companies) is that they use decently durable tubes on their bikes, > whereas it seems like much of the steel market is at either the > extreme of .049" wall high-tensile steel super heavy, or the opposite > extreme of .7/.4/.7mm superlight OS steel tubes. > > Anyway, apologies for the rambling post but I really enjoy reading > Grant's more thought-provoking writings on bike stuff, and this latest > one really got me thinking. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
