# Just "throwing it out there"..



## toddre (Mar 1, 2004)

Not that I would ever do this.. , but does anyone offer carbon fiber "off the shelf"
seat and chainstays suitable for mountainbikes, particularly 29ers?
Again, not for any particular reason...


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Not that I know of.*

Let us know if you find something. I personally hate carbon rear end kits for road bikes - they're heavier than a decent steel rear end, they limit the geometry you can do, and you can't customize the brazeon setup. But that's just me - they're also a great way to sucker carbon-obsessed customers into throwing away money (to you) if that's something you're into.

-Walt



toddre said:


> Not that I would ever do this.. , but does anyone offer carbon fiber "off the shelf"
> seat and chainstays suitable for mountainbikes, particularly 29ers?
> Again, not for any particular reason...


----------



## toddre (Mar 1, 2004)

Walt said:


> Let us know if you find something. I personally hate carbon rear end kits for road bikes - they're heavier than a decent steel rear end, they limit the geometry you can do, and you can't customize the brazeon setup. But that's just me - they're also a great way to sucker carbon-obsessed customers into throwing away money (to you) if that's something you're into.
> 
> -Walt


My thoughts exactly... build them and sell them because "I can"..LOL
It still amazes me how many people get pissy when their carbon fiber rear ended road bikes weigh more than thelr full aluminum counter parts..


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

my dos centavos: YUCK. build something that will last. don't sell your soul to fashion. :nono: sticking to your guns and building your product image is what will keep you in the game. what will you warrenty it with when it breaks? steve.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*To clarify*

I think carbon is wicked when done right (ie Crumpton, BCD, Parlee, Calfee, etc). I think gluing a prefab carbon rear end into a steel front triangle is lame, and I doubt I'd do one for a customer.

My philosophy, generally speaking, is "if I wouldn't buy it and ride it, why would I try to sell it?" Hence no ti (too much $, environmental impact), no aluminum (won't last, don't like the ride), and no carbon prefab crap glued into a perfectly good front triangle.

I like the feeling of being able to honestly tell a customer "this is what I'd do if I were in your shoes".

-Walt


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

Walt said:


> I think carbon is wicked when done right (ie Crumpton, BCD, Parlee, Calfee, etc). I think gluing a prefab carbon rear end into a steel front triangle is lame, and I doubt I'd do one for a customer.
> 
> My philosophy, generally speaking, is "if I wouldn't buy it and ride it, why would I try to sell it?" Hence no ti (too much $, environmental impact), no aluminum (won't last, don't like the ride), and no carbon prefab crap glued into a perfectly good front triangle.
> 
> ...


i agree completely! steve.


----------



## toddre (Mar 1, 2004)

Walt said:


> I think carbon is wicked when done right (ie Crumpton, BCD, Parlee, Calfee, etc). I think gluing a prefab carbon rear end into a steel front triangle is lame, and I doubt I'd do one for a customer.
> 
> My philosophy, generally speaking, is "if I wouldn't buy it and ride it, why would I try to sell it?" Hence no ti (too much $, environmental impact), no aluminum (won't last, don't like the ride), and no carbon prefab crap glued into a perfectly good front triangle.
> 
> ...


I completely see what you are saying and agree 98% (2% of me would say "sell the people what they want..$$$)
Just throwing an idea out there to see what would happen.
I'm not even close to that point anyways.. :madman:


----------



## swift (Apr 3, 2007)

Walt said:


> I think carbon is wicked when done right (ie Crumpton, BCD, Parlee, Calfee, etc). I think gluing a prefab carbon rear end into a steel front triangle is lame, and I doubt I'd do one for a customer.
> 
> My philosophy, generally speaking, is "if I wouldn't buy it and ride it, why would I try to sell it?" Hence no ti (too much $, environmental impact), no aluminum (won't last, don't like the ride), and no carbon prefab crap glued into a perfectly good front triangle.
> 
> ...


Lame? Totally lame or just sort of lame? 

I'm a fan of carbon in limited applications. If you're a sponsored racer and money is no object, carbon rules. If you're spending your own, hard-earned money and want something that will last, choose carbon components wisely.

That said, I'm currently working on a road bike with carbon seatstays. I'd never use carbon in a chainstay as I feel it's too vulnerable there. I'd probably consider a carbon seat tube and maybe even a top tube depending on application. All that said, I think I'd only make these considerations for bikes I build for myself. I don't think I'd send anything like that out to a customer. So, I'm kinda with you but not 100%. 

If I uploaded the picture correctly, it shows my current project prior to paint and seatstay bonding. In this picture, I'm introducing the frame to one of it's soon-to-be wheels for the first time.  This bike will be for me.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*But why?*

Due to the extra attachment points and hardware, the carbon setup ends up heavier than a decent steel seatstay/bridge setup (I've weighed 'em head to head). And I don't buy the "carbon smooths everything out like magic!" thing, either. Or at least, not any more than steel rides smooth. So I just never saw the point.

But to each their own. I'm not saying that carbon rear ends are bad per se, I'm saying that since _I_ would never build one for myself or ride one, I don't see how I can honestly recommend such a setup to a customer.

-W



swift said:


> Lame? Totally lame or just sort of lame?
> 
> I'm a fan of carbon in limited applications. If you're a sponsored racer and money is no object, carbon rules. If you're spending your own, hard-earned money and want something that will last, choose carbon components wisely.
> 
> ...


----------



## toddre (Mar 1, 2004)

swift said:


> Lame? Totally lame or just sort of lame?
> 
> I'm a fan of carbon in limited applications. If you're a sponsored racer and money is no object, carbon rules. If you're spending your own, hard-earned money and want something that will last, choose carbon components wisely.
> 
> ...


What are you using for carbon tubes?


----------



## swift (Apr 3, 2007)

*Only because I can, I suppose*



Walt said:


> Due to the extra attachment points and hardware, the carbon setup ends up heavier than a decent steel seatstay/bridge setup (I've weighed 'em head to head). And I don't buy the "carbon smooths everything out like magic!" thing, either. Or at least, not any more than steel rides smooth. So I just never saw the point.
> 
> But to each their own. I'm not saying that carbon rear ends are bad per se, I'm saying that since _I_ would never build one for myself or ride one, I don't see how I can honestly recommend such a setup to a customer.
> 
> -W


I hear ya and tend to agree w/ regard to making customer recommendations.

This bike is for me, so I have the luxury of playing around with it a bit. I simply haven't done one before, so I'm curious and wanted to push my skillset a bit. I also liked the idea of a lugged frame, w/ a touch of carefully placed carbon in the mix. ...Kind of blending different eras, if you will and again, just my personal bike so I'm trying to make it a little unique. The hardware used to attach it is minimal and I'm pretty convinced the carbon seatstay bike will be lighter when completed, but I think it will be a nominal difference (guessing less than 100gram difference). Truthfully, I don't have an exact duplicate of that frame built in all steel, so my curiousity may force me to build one in order to get some accurate weight comparisons.

"Awe shucks, another frame to build. ...Oh well, R&D baby."

This will be a crescent moon and setting sun after paint. Missing from the photo is a star cutout on the ST lug to match. Good times.


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

Walt said:


> And I don't buy the "carbon smooths everything out like magic!" thing, either.
> 
> -W


basic physics: for every action there is an equal and oppisite reaction. force applied to any object in any way never just "goes away". material "damping" a ride - that's some of the most blantent marketing B.S. ever. steve.


----------



## swift (Apr 3, 2007)

toddre said:


> What are you using for carbon tubes?


Seatstay "link" kit w/ steel connectors from Nova cycles.

I believe Joe Bringheli has some carbon tube kits as well.

This pic shows test fitting the kit, sans the lower aluminum lugs used to attach to the dropouts.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

coconinocycles said:


> basic physics: for every action there is an equal and oppisite reaction. force applied to any object in any way never just "goes away". material "damping" a ride - that's some of the most blantent marketing B.S. ever. steve.


Are you saying that every material has the same ride characteristic?


----------



## swift (Apr 3, 2007)

coconinocycles said:


> basic physics: for every action there is an equal and oppisite reaction. force applied to any object in any way never just "goes away". material "damping" a ride - that's some of the most blantent marketing B.S. ever. steve.


True that on the physics front. The forces never "go away".

But...

Different materials deflect and rebound at different rates. ...Just sayin'.


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

swift said:


> Different materials deflect and rebound at different rates. ...Just sayin'.


so how's that gonna affect the longevity of the frame? your CF ss's, aluminum fixtures and your steel cs's are all different materials.........whadda ya think?  steve.


----------



## Smokebikes (Feb 2, 2008)

Steel *and* carbon, blasphemy (irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable).............just sayin.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

swift said:


> This will be a crescent moon and setting sun after paint. Missing from the photo is a star cutout on the ST lug to match. Good times.


Constructive critical concern:

Your setting sun cutout on the lower lug effectively removes all the structural benefits of the lug aft of the cutout. There's no way for the loads to make it past the tiny connections at the left/right of the cutout. This means that the only area responsible for attaching the top of the DT to the HT is that tiny area in front of your cutout. That just doesn't seem like enough for the long-term. Vertical loading puts a lot of tension at that point and a certain amount of surface area is needed for a safe joint.

I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't recommend being quite so aggressive with the cutouts.


----------



## RoyDean (Jul 2, 2007)

coconinocycles said:


> material "damping" a ride - that's some of the most blantent marketing B.S. ever. steve.


Strike a tuning fork in a vacuum.... will it vibrate forever? No, because of internal damping...

You may not agree with the marketing statements, but internal damping is real.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

Back to the OP, I remember seeing a guy at NAHBS that has some stellar stuff. He's an aerospace carbon guy branching into making carbon bike parts. I think Nick C. uses his rear ends. I chatted with him a bit and he was really nice and very well informed on the whole carbon front, also he actually tests his stuff. The company is Q-Frame/Multi-M Design and his name is Kyu "Q" Lee and is located at 810 Castro St. San Leandro, CA. 94577 (o)-510-352-2577 (c)-510-823-9011 and email is <[email protected]>


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

RoyDean said:


> Strike a tuning fork in a vacuum.... will it vibrate forever? No, because of internal damping...
> 
> You may not agree with the marketing statements, but internal damping is real.


what that has to do with riding bikes totally escapes me..........build bikes any way you want, and i'll build them mine. steve.


----------



## toddre (Mar 1, 2004)

themanmonkey said:


> Back to the OP, I remember seeing a guy at NAHBS that has some stellar stuff. He's an aerospace carbon guy branching into making carbon bike parts. I think Nick C. uses his rear ends. I chatted with him a bit and he was really nice and very well informed on the whole carbon front, also he actually tests his stuff. The company is Q-Frame/Multi-M Design and his name is Kyu "Q" Lee and is located at 810 Castro St. San Leandro, CA. 94577 (o)-510-352-2577 (c)-510-823-9011 and email is <[email protected]>


Awesome info..thanks...:thumbsup:


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Well, the Time and Reynolds carbon road seatstays plus bits that allow you to attach them to a frame have been ever so marginally lighter than the equivalent steel and even Titanium stays. That's only one reason to use them however, the other being their 'nicer' resonance and as RoyDean rightly points out, it's interstitial damping characteristics which my highly technical and sensitive arse believes to be true.

And in terms of joining dislike materials? Steve, that's exactly what you're doing when you're brazing something.


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

Thylacine said:


> And in terms of joining dislike materials? Steve, that's exactly what you're doing when you're brazing something.


no sh!t, sherlock. i'm refering to the tubing. not joining methods. i was refering to the different densities/longevities of the totally dissimilar materials. do you join tubes, or just mouse click the designs to someone who can? just curious. you seem to be on the forums allot, too much to be actually building frames. all those cf rear ends seem to be to me are bows to fashion and a way to try and skip the hard parts of building a frame. steve.


----------



## zazzboo (Apr 29, 2007)

coconinocycles said:


> so how's that gonna affect the longevity of the frame? your CF ss's, aluminum fixtures and your steel cs's are all different materials.........whadda ya think?  steve.


What's the warranty on your steel frames, Steve? Just curious.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

There's a very long history of joining dissimilar materials together. Cars, boats, aeroplanes, the frikken space shuttle, all joined using dissimilar materials.

Whadda ya think about those? Mass reliability issues?

It's really cool what you do and I like your ethos, but don't come here with a whole boatload of assumptions and opinions and then get all sooky when you get questioned on it.


----------



## ted wojcik (Mar 12, 2006)

*Carbon rear ends*

The negative comments about carbon rear ends bonded to a steel front end tells me you haven't ridden a frame made in this manner. I also do not agree with the fact that a carbon rear is heavier. I have made quite a few now and it is a nice combination. A carbon fork can be almost 50% lighter than a steel fork, so what would make you think that you can't save weight with a carbon rear end. The frame rides differently, does that make it bad? Give me a definition of good ride or bad ride. It is just as easy to make an all steel frame ride bad with a poor tubing choice. The life of a steel frame, if designed correctly is going to be dictated by corrosion issues more than almost anything else, so worrying about the life of a carbon rear doesn't make sense. Don't be so negative, give it a try.


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

zazzboo said:


> What's the warranty on your steel frames, Steve? Just curious.


it's flexible. if it's joinery, forever. if it's tubing, 5 yrs, and i'll still fix it for a reasonable price. ditto if you totally screw up and case a tree/boulder and it's toast. if it's a total wash from a garage/roof rack type incident, i'll stil give you a great deal on a replacement. there are alot of scenarios, and i'll work with the customer regaurdless. steve.


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

Thylacine said:


> There's a very long history of joining dissimilar materials together. Cars, boats, aeroplanes, the frikken space shuttle, all joined using dissimilar materials.
> 
> Whadda ya think about those? Mass reliability issues?
> 
> It's really cool what you do and I like your ethos, but don't come here with a whole boatload of assumptions and opinions and then get all sooky when you get questioned on it.


yes. all those have had recalls and catastrophic problems. the space shuttle? the tiles came unglued and the thing got spewed over greater north america! i'm sorry, but i just see this as ruining a good steel frame. there is no way the cf will last as long as the steel, and when it does wear out, the kit it was made with will probally be unavailible. sorry for being short earlier, got some bad family news and let it infiltrate my attitude. steve.


----------



## ted wojcik (Mar 12, 2006)

*Glue*

No problem, Steve. I just got done repairing a frame that has suffered a rusted seat tube. 6 years old and the owner admitted that the seat post and B.B. hadn't been out sense I put it together and he expected me to fix it under warranty. I have no patience for people who neglect their bikes/frames. I take a lot of care when I build it and I expect the owner to take reasonable care while owning it. I would not fix it for free.
I wouldn't use carbon on the chainstays of an off road frame, but I'm quite pleased by the mix on road frames. There is so much dialog about how important ride quality is, take a look at any pro peloton. Aluminum everywhere! We all know how that rides, but apparently that doesn't bother pro racers enough to go back to steel. Try to get a young roady to embrace steel as a frame material if it even has a rumor of weighing more. I think the lesson here is that it is the heart and legs that make the bike go and material has little to do with it. The soul of the frame is the builder and his/her skill in building. Be not afraid of trying new things and do your best with any discipline.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

I can't make any claims about ride quality improvements of carbon plug-in stays, but have spent a little time on nicer carbon frames and there is sure a big difference, although I can't say that I prefer the carbon.

If a stay assembly makes a difference in ride that the customer desires, they may not mind a small weight penalty. People also think it looks cool, so there is some value to that... I see a lot of custom builders sacrificing function for fashion.

Custom builders had better be open-minded about new materials because more and more customers will be asking for them. We all can't be retro-grouches.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

coconinocycles said:


> sorry for being short earlier, got some bad family news and let it infiltrate my attitude. steve.


Cool, maybe you can adjust your other post on that other forum then.

We're all on the same side here, just everyone has different experiences and opinions.


----------



## flyingsquirrelcycles (Dec 21, 2007)

I've got to agree. It is cool looking but you have made the effective area of the lug that takes the load and shrunk it to a very small area. Perhaps a larger lug on your next one that leaves room for decoration as well as strength. Again very cool just would make me nervous to ride it.



D.F.L. said:


> Constructive critical concern:
> 
> Your setting sun cutout on the lower lug effectively removes all the structural benefits of the lug aft of the cutout. There's no way for the loads to make it past the tiny connections at the left/right of the cutout. This means that the only area responsible for attaching the top of the DT to the HT is that tiny area in front of your cutout. That just doesn't seem like enough for the long-term. Vertical loading puts a lot of tension at that point and a certain amount of surface area is needed for a safe joint.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't recommend being quite so aggressive with the cutouts.


----------



## flyingsquirrelcycles (Dec 21, 2007)

True that! Any structure whether it be a bike or a bridge has different resonant frequencies. composite structures are great for changing the frequencies at which each mode occurs.

However just slapping a carbon rear end isn't going to make a magic ride. It is all in the engineering and as we all know bike companies like to replace real engineering with Hype. Company A might have gotten it right and then company B is always right there to follow and make their version to compete on the sales floor.

I have a felt B2 with carbon stays and a Felt S22 with aluminum stays. Excluding the stays and the fork they are identical. I have noticed no difference in the ride. However they have smallish stays with identical size and shape. My Trek Equinox has big beefy stays and it beats the hell out of me on the same routes as the two felts.



RoyDean said:


> Strike a tuning fork in a vacuum.... will it vibrate forever? No, because of internal damping...
> 
> You may not agree with the marketing statements, but internal damping is real.


----------



## toddre (Mar 1, 2004)

So back to my original question....
Does anyone make off the shelf tubes for these applications?
Also,Steve, I hope all ends up well with your family


----------



## SuspectDevice (Apr 12, 2004)

How about this one folks?

I'm currently building myself three identical geometry compact road frames. One full Easton Elite (including 16mm straight seat stays), one Elite with a plug in rear (EC90) and one with a Tange Ultimate Tubeset I've been hoarding.

Geometry on all of them is the same as the Giant TCR Advance that I recently acquired in a trade, and the same as a full 6061 aluminum TCR, which lives up the street.

If I throw the same wheels, saddle and seatpost on these bikes, I am pretty darn sure that what I'll find (as I've already done this experiment with the 2 Giants and my 853 bike..) is that the most noticeable improvement in damping or shock reduction, or whatever else pseudo-scientific term we want to use comes from seatpost selection, rim construction, and tires. As in WAY WAY WAY more significant than rear end construction. A well designed carbon post is a great way to improve comfort. The difference between the road noise you feel with a Thomson post v. an ec70 or 90 post is absolutely staggering. A really freaking poorly designed bike will have a noticably poor ride, no matter what the material. A well designed bike will be comfortable, stiff enough and durable, no matter what it's made of (cue Bamboo and Hemp)...

The take-away message is thus, and everyone here already knows it... It's not the material, it's how it's implemented.

Steel Fascists, come on down from the pulpit, buy some new weld rod, and build yourself a good aluminum bike. Then go ride it. Notice how it's about a pound lighter? Notice that the materials cost you at least a hundred dollars (if not hundreds less) than your favorite high-end steel? Notice that you didn't kill you cutting tools? How pleasant it was to bend, form and manipulate? How quickly you could cut it? The fact that you can miter a half dozen Alu frames in the time it takes to do one steel frame?

Now imagine if the US framebuilding community could pull their blinders off of lugs and silver long enough to realize that the _really_ good aluminum tubing isn't even available in this country without buying it a hundred tubes at a time... Think how much easier it would be to sell yourself if you were actually building bikes that made sense from a cost-benefit perspective, and not just a utilitarian, aesthetic, or ethical perspective?

Does it not peeve anyone else that all of the truly innovative products and ideas debut in Taipei and not at something like NAHBS? That there are tube mills in Asia that absolutely blow away the capabilites of True-Temper?

Because all of that bothers me. And bickering, dogmatism and infighting among the really freaking tiny cadre of people who design, build and market high-end bike product on a less than industrial scale domestically is just about the last thing that is going to change all that...

Happy Patriots Day


----------



## SuspectDevice (Apr 12, 2004)

toddre said:


> So back to my original question....
> Does anyone make off the shelf tubes for these applications?
> Also,Steve, I hope all ends up well with your family


Yes, they do. You'll need to make some lugs for the joinery, but call Edge. They'll have something for you.


----------



## swift (Apr 3, 2007)

D.F.L. said:


> Constructive critical concern:
> 
> Your setting sun cutout on the lower lug effectively removes all the structural benefits of the lug aft of the cutout. There's no way for the loads to make it past the tiny connections at the left/right of the cutout. This means that the only area responsible for attaching the top of the DT to the HT is that tiny area in front of your cutout. That just doesn't seem like enough for the long-term. Vertical loading puts a lot of tension at that point and a certain amount of surface area is needed for a safe joint.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't recommend being quite so aggressive with the cutouts.


Right on. I appreciate the feedback.
The miter's uber tight and it's not a mt. bike so shouldn't see a very hard life. I'm confident it will be up to the task at hand, without issue. That said, if it does happen to fail, I'll adjust the cutout as appropriate. ...R&D on the personal bike baby.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Great post!*

Want to clarify a couple of things that I originally said:

-I said I didn't believe in the "magical" damping properties of the carbon stays - meaning that I don't think that they _feel any different than steel_. I've ridden plenty of carbon bikes in my life, and they were just fine. Of course, I also broke them all.

-I also dislike the plug/play carbon stuff because it's _one size fits all_. I've been told by folks who sell the stuff that the carbon seatstays are ok for "riders up to 350 pounds". Now, if it's that beefy, why would I use it for a 95 pound woman? I'd be much more inclined to build something with these if they were sold in at least slightly different configurations.

-Things may have changed since a few years ago, but when I last weighed a carbon seatstay kit with full hardware/lugs, the weight was a wash with a .6mm set of seatstays and a brake bridge (steel). My suspicion is that aluminum stays (this is borne out by weighing off the shelf aluminum frames, or it was as of a few years ago) would be somewhat lighter. So at best, it's a costly way to accomplish nothing much, IMO.

-I don't disagree that aluminum is a great frame material, but there is just not much call for it from custom bicycle customers. To a greater extent than you might realize, the customers determine the market, not the builders. If I got lots of requests for aluminum bikes, I'd build 'em (I've ridden lots of aluminum frames in the past and liked them just fine), but I don't. Heck, that's why I dropped $4k on my Dynasty - so that I could do aluminum stuff. Like it or not, there is a widespread perception that "custom" means steel or titanium. I can't say whether that would change if more builders offered aluminum bikes, but I know a few who do, and they probably build 1 aluminum frame for every 20 steel ones. It might also be a function of the fact that mass-produced aluminum frames are so commonplace (and mass produced steel is relatively rare). There's a cachet of scarcity at work, perhaps.

-Where are you buying aluminum tubes? The last time I bought a *decent* aluminum tubeset, it ran about $150. Comparable to a decent steel tubeset (comparing plain vanillia 7005 to heat treated cromoly, which seems fair to me... scandium-->OX platinum would be a fair comparison as well)

Great conversation, sorry about the derailing of the original topic Todd. That seems to happen a lot here.

-Walt


SuspectDevice said:


> How about this one folks?
> 
> I'm currently building myself three identical geometry compact road frames. One full Easton Elite (including 16mm straight seat stays), one Elite with a plug in rear (EC90) and one with a Tange Ultimate Tubeset I've been hoarding.
> 
> ...


----------



## swift (Apr 3, 2007)

coconinocycles said:


> so how's that gonna affect the longevity of the frame? your CF ss's, aluminum fixtures and your steel cs's are all different materials.........whadda ya think?  steve.


This is a tough one to answer. Since it's my frame and I can build a replacement anytime I want, there's a big part of me that doesn't really care. If it fails, It fails. I need more art on my walls anyway. 

Of course if I were to build a given frame for someone else, longevity is near the top of my list. Riding this frame will give me a 'frame' (He. He.) of reference for the materials in use and I can adjust any of my customer recommendations as appropriate.

FWIW, I'm a big fan of retro construction techniques but I'm not a "retro-grouch". I like to blend the perceived "beauty" of older techniques with some of the benefits of modern materials. I think all frame materials have their unique application niche' and none are the "magic bullet" of cycling. ...Just different. :thumbsup:


----------



## toddre (Mar 1, 2004)

Walt said:


> Great conversation, sorry about the derailing of the original topic Todd. That seems to happen a lot here.
> 
> -Walt


No, this ended up being pretty interesting. Everyone has their own opinion on what works and what doesn't, and nobody's right or wrong (except for those Ti guys..jeeesh.. )
These are just ideas and questions I come up with while I'm out riding.


----------



## Live Wire (Aug 27, 2007)

SuspectDevice said:


> Steel Fascists, come on down from the pulpit, ]


I liked that one:thumbsup:

I'm asking this not to make a point, but because I've always assumed it was true:
Doesn't the need for post-weld heat treatment of aluminum and it's resultant cost pretty much negate any $ saved for the raw materials?

Chauncey "steel fascist" Matthews


----------



## SuspectDevice (Apr 12, 2004)

Live Wire said:


> I liked that one:thumbsup:
> 
> I'm asking this not to make a point, but because I've always assumed it was true:
> Doesn't the need for post-weld heat treatment of aluminum and it's resultant cost pretty much negate any $ saved for the raw materials?
> ...


7005 just needs simple aging. A few hours at 250f will get that accomplished. Or, you can actually naturally age the frame if you aren't in a hurry. Just let it hang out for a month...

Scandium... Well, believe it or not you can get creative, and age that during powdercoat. Not exactly recommended, but some folks do it...

6061- Welding anneals it to T-0, so yes, solution heattreat, alignment and then, aging (+ post Age align) is required. If you are building in larger batches, or at least heat treating in larger batches, it's not too bad. You get charged for oven time more than per-unit, and some of them ovens are big enough to drive a bus into! That is if you have a local heat-treat facility that is large enough to handle bike frames.... There are only 2 or 3 here in the Northeast that can.


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

Thylacine said:


> Cool, maybe you can adjust your other post on that other forum then.
> 
> We're all on the same side here, just everyone has different experiences and opinions.


who does make your frames? it's not meant as a barb. ahrens are made by rock lobster and camino fab.........someone else welds speedvagens........i buy my dropouts from paragon........it's ok to acknowledge the food chain. one of your ex-suppliers contacted me and told me he built frames for you and i was impressed by the pedigree. mikey @ spookey is very up front with his manufactuers.
steve.


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

Live Wire said:


> I liked that one:thumbsup:
> 
> I'm asking this not to make a point, but because I've always assumed it was true:
> Doesn't the need for post-weld heat treatment of aluminum and it's resultant cost pretty much negate any $ saved for the raw materials?
> ...


i'll join the church! can our sacrament be steel shavings and tecate? steve.


----------



## ted wojcik (Mar 12, 2006)

*Aluminum*

Tensile strength of 6061 post weld heat treated about 65,000 psi. Air hardening steels after welding, about 240,000. psi. Fatigue life of weldable aluminum, unpredictable. Steel and titanium if frequency of cycles and amplitude are kept below a given level are infinitesimal.
How many aluminum springs have you seen?


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

ted wojcik said:


> Tensile strength of 6061 post weld heat treated about 65,000 psi. Air hardening steels after welding, about 240,000. psi. Fatigue life of weldable aluminum, unpredictable. Steel and titanium if frequency of cycles and amplitude are kept below a given level are infinitesimal.
> How many aluminum springs have you seen?


+1. steve.


----------



## SuspectDevice (Apr 12, 2004)

Ted,
You compensate for tensile strength with wall thickness and tube diameter... Steel and Aluminum are both great materials when used properly. An aluminum frame designed for a long life span will last just as long as a steel frame, if not longer, and it's still going to be lighter than an equivalent steel frame for the same application...
It's not just welding tubes together anymore man, it's design...


----------



## ted wojcik (Mar 12, 2006)

*Strength to weight*

Strength to weight ratios dispute that. To provide a reasonable life for aluminum frames, the design must keep flex to a minimum, remember fatigue life? Therefore a stiff non compliant ride as compared to steel and Ti. Also, when aluminum has a failure, it is more often than not, catastrophic. I want everyone to know that reads this, I have and do make aluminum frames, but I will not sell them to retail customers. I really doubt that there is an aluminum frame that will compete with an air hardening steel frame on strength and fatigue life and be lighter. When I consider all the elements of building custom frames, in my opinion, steel and Ti are hard to beat. 27 years and 2500+ frames tells me so. I have a family connection to MPI , Metallurgical Processes Inc., in New Britain, Ct., one of the largest heat treating facilities in New England so when I want to verify data, I let their lab do it, not some tubing supplier's brochure. It is obvious that aluminum is here to stay as a frame material, but I choose not to sell frames made with it,


----------



## compositepro (Jun 21, 2007)

coconinocycles said:


> i agree completely! steve.


like me suggesting how to build a steel frame


----------



## TacoMan (Apr 18, 2007)

I completely agree with Ted on the strength to weight ratios. I have seen too many aluminum bikes designed like a steel bike and fail. With aluminum you HAVE to prevent flex or it WILL break over time. The extra weight to prevent flex ends up being equal in weight with steel. Except of course the steel frame will flex more, but its material properties can handle it.

I would only do a carbon frame if the entire frame is one piece. For that you will need molds and a pressurized autoclave oven. Then you can wrap and align the fibers at all the junctions in a manner to distribute the load. Gluing a tube into a lug is just not going to evenly distribute loads. 

For carbon fiber beauty, take a look at the front A-arms on the current F-1 cars.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

TacoMan said:


> I have seen too many aluminum bikes designed like a steel bike and fail.


When? Back in 1980?

These days, even a run-of-the mill Taiwanese producer can pump out a 1200g 7005 frame that is very well designed with the material in mind.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

TacoMan said:


> I I would only do a carbon frame if the entire frame is one piece. For that you will need molds and a pressurized autoclave oven. Then you can wrap and align the fibers at all the junctions in a manner to distribute the load. Gluing a tube into a lug is just not going to evenly distribute loads.
> 
> For carbon fiber beauty, take a look at the front A-arms on the current F-1 cars.


I think every single small/custom framebuilder that does carbon would disagree with you - Calfee, Crumpton, Parlee, Serotta. Every one of these builders uses some kind of tube/lug construction method.

As an aside, how can you justify a lugged steel bike and not a lugged carbon bike? Similar construction methods, similar cost but the steel bike will weigh about 2 pounds more.


----------



## swift (Apr 3, 2007)

playpunk said:


> As an aside, how can you justify a lugged steel bike and not a lugged carbon bike? Similar construction methods, similar cost but the steel bike will weigh about 2 pounds more.


Where are you getting the 2lb figure from? If the only difference is the frame, that seems like an awfully high number, unless both frames are X-tra X-tra large or something.

Even still; 2lbs is a very small percentage of any given rider/bicycle package. In my case, it adds up to <1% of the total weight I'm pedalling around.

Ultimately, I believe "horses for courses" is justification enough. Kind of like running your dirt jump bike in the Tour-De-France, sometimes a given material is just not the right tool for the job. That said, there are virtues in all building materials and think there is room for everyone around the table. Just don't feed pie to the diabetic or turkey to the vegetarian. ...Ambiguous enough?


----------



## SuspectDevice (Apr 12, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> When? Back in 1980?
> 
> These days, even a run-of-the mill Taiwanese producer can pump out a 1200g 7005 frame that is very well designed with the material in mind.


Indeed they can. And if all these crumudgeons want to keep their jobs without sniffing glue, they might want to think about hopping on the bandwagon.... If ya know what I mean...


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Anyway, to the OP :

No, there isn't any off-the-shelf carbon rear end kits worth their salt. Deda does have one but it's ugly and not disc specific, and I haven't seen one at all for 29ers. There probably is some available from some Pacific Rim supplier, but I haven't found one I like that is for sale to plebs like us. Topkey has some, but won't sell them.

There's certainly demand there so it would be good if someone made one. If anyone has any info from Q-Frame/Multi-M Design, please post it here, or even better, get them to pop in and tell us all about their products.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

Thylacine said:


> There's certainly demand there so it would be good if someone made one. If anyone has any info from Q-Frame/Multi-M Design, please post it here, or even better, get them to pop in and tell us all about their products.


I gave all his contact info at the beginning of the tread. I think Nick Crumpton uses some of his stuff, so drop him a line. When I talked to the guy at NAHBS he seemed interested in making damn near anything.


----------



## ted wojcik (Mar 12, 2006)

*Materials in general*

The truth lies here; none of the materials has a clearcut advantage or it would become illegal in competition. The governing bodies of cycling competition have declared bike racing to be a competition of athletes, not equipment. If one of the materials has an indisputable advantage it would be declared illegal. If you are happy with offshore mass produced commodities, ride on brother. One thing that will never go out of style is quality and an appreciation of craftsmanship. Small boutique frame shops will be around a long time. The advantage of a custom frame made to your measure by a craftsman with alignment standards about 10 times the J.I.S. standard are still in demand and will be for a long time. As I have said before some people like lite beer, others prefer the craft brews.


----------



## SuspectDevice (Apr 12, 2004)

And other people prefer Trappist Beers. That's where Ted and Richard Sachs fit in? 


(you guys still have comedy up on the seacoast, right?)


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

Not a builder - but I gotta chime in on Walt's statement about what his customers come to him for (steel) which is a good counterpoint to where Mickey is going with many of his comments pertaining to the properties and cost associated with aluminum.

Spooky Bikes and guys like Walt, Ted, Cocnino, others are two different things. Spooky is a small company producing various framesets in stock sizes (with maybe a custom option for customers), whereas Walt, Ted, Coconino and others are small one or two person shops building primarily custom frames for individual customers (vs. having small batches of frames in stock/inventory). I suspect the majority of their customers come to them seeking out a steel frame (why would they want to try and talk that person out of something that the customer truly wants?) not aluminum. So for their business it doesn't make a ton of sense in my eyes to focus on other materials, with the probably infrequent customer or two who might come to Ted and seek out a steel/carbon road or CX frame or something along those lines. For full suspension requests, these guys can do one of two things. Outsource a rear triangle from say Ventana, Risse, Lenzsport etc. and then build a custom front triangle in steel, or do something like Walt does with his FS 29ers and build a solid single pivot with steel tubing.

If someone wants something custom in AL - well there are places for those folks to turn as well. Spooky perhaps, 3-D racing perhaps (who does the AL Spookys right?), Carl Strong (he does steel, AL, and Ti right?), etc. etc.

In my mind, just like the different wheelsizes, the more options for frame material the better! Bring em all on and let the customer decide what they want and who they want to buy from/have them build them the frame they desire. 

More is better in my eyes. 

It would suck if the only option out there was AL, or just carbon fibre, or just steel, wouldn't it? It would make bike riding/building kinda boring and then what would all of us bike geeks do with our time?


----------



## heeler (Feb 13, 2004)

Rock Lobster does some bad @$$ AL work.


----------



## TacoMan (Apr 18, 2007)

Thylacine said:


> When? Back in 1980? These days, even a run-of-the mill Taiwanese producer can pump out a 1200g 7005 frame that is very well designed with the material in mind.


Here is one example http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=399887 broke in pieces because the seat tube had bending forces that caused flex and fatigue. Would not have broke on a steel bike.



> I think every single small/custom framebuilder that does carbon would disagree with you - Calfee, Crumpton, Parlee, Serotta. Every one of these builders uses some kind of tube/lug construction method.
> 
> As an aside, how can you justify a lugged steel bike and not a lugged carbon bike? Similar construction methods, similar cost but the steel bike will weigh about 2 pounds more.


Using carbon tubes with lugs is just an easy way to do it, not the best way. You would never find lugged CF tubes on F-1 A-arms or even bike cranks.

Going from a steel/alum lug to a CF tube by overlapping them is not the ideal way to transition stress. You have to use overlap and increase the tube wall thickness, which is not very efficient. Having an all carbon frame with seamless transitions will be stronger and lighter. Just because others use lugs does not make it the best way. I'm not putting down CF tubes, only pointing out there are better ways to utilize the material.

With steel lugs and steel tubes you are not transitioning from one type of material to another.


----------



## SuspectDevice (Apr 12, 2004)

On-One said:


> Rock Lobster does some bad @$$ AL work.


And Paul has the last remaining stock of Scandium MTB tubes in North America...!


----------



## heeler (Feb 13, 2004)

and the last bontrager tube-sets....where does this guy get off, eh!?


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

TacoMan said:


> Here is one example - http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=399887 - broke in pieces because the seat tube had bending forces that caused flex and fatigue. Would not have broke on a steel bike.


There are many examples of seat tubes in Aluminium similarly loaded that don't often fail ie: most 4-bar designs. Early incarnations of Turners and Ellsworth et al failled there to, but now they don't. The reason is good design and clearly not material choice as they are still made of Aluminium.



TacoMan said:


> Using carbon tubes with lugs is just an easy way to do it, not the best way. You would never find lugged CF tubes on F-1 A-arms or even bike cranks.


Untrue. Many F1 cars have A-Arms that are carbon with Titanium ends. This allows for more precise pivot locations, post machining for superior alignment, plus the ability to modify these locations without having to pop for a whole new mould.

Anyway, back OT. Found the photo of the Multi-M carbon parts from NAMBLA :


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

TacoMan said:



> Here is one example http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=399887 broke in pieces because the seat tube had bending forces that caused flex and fatigue. Would not have broke on a steel bike.


Wrong. 
I have seen a steel bike fail at the same point, the suspension pivot on the seat tube.

It is not what material but how the material is used.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

shiggy said:


> Wrong.
> It is not what material but how the material is used.


As one of your co-workers would say, "Ding, ding, ding we have a weenier."


----------



## TacoMan (Apr 18, 2007)

Thylacine,
Almost all carbon fiber structures will have metal inserts at connection points, that is standard practice. What is not common is to glue straight lengths of tube into lugs that creates an abrupt transition. A sculpted transition made up from wrapping fiber is a much better joining method, whether you use a mold and wrap the whole frame or you wrap over straight tubes.


shiggy,
The point is you MUST reduce flex on aluminum frames because yielding is accumulative and will lead to failure. Steel frames can be built to flex and live forever.


----------



## SuspectDevice (Apr 12, 2004)

TacoMan said:


> Thylacine,
> 
> The point is you MUST reduce flex on aluminum frames because yielding is accumulative and will lead to failure. Steel frames can be built to flex and live forever.












You should tell that to all the people with 9 year old 4.4 pound Ibis Ripley's...


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

TacoMan said:


> shiggy,
> The point is you MUST reduce flex on aluminum frames because yielding is accumulative and will lead to failure. Steel frames can be built to flex and live forever.


you had implied that the frame had failed simply because is was made of aluminum and that if it had been build with steel it could not have broken.

My point is that any material could be used for the basic design but the properties of the material selected need to be considered to have a reliable bike. You can under build or over build with any material.

You also seem to have a misconception of steel's basic properties. While it does have a much longer fatigue life than aluminum, it still fails when over stressed. Hardly a "live forever" metal.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

TacoMan said:


> Almost all carbon fiber structures will have metal inserts at connection points, that is standard practice.


Who is this standard practice with? That is 15+ year old tech. 95% of the carbon builders out there are using either monocoque or tube-to-tube with carbon lay-up reinforcement in the joints. Carbon has come a long way in a short time. The last 4-5 years have seen vast improvements trickle down to the bike industry from aerospace.

A couple years ago I was very anti-CF bikes and had owned 3-4 over the years. I got a Scott CR-1 demo to ride for a month and that started to turn things around for me. A bunch of listening and reading and chatting with folks like Nick Crumpton and I'm on board. I may not build with the stuff, but I know what it can do and know it has a great future for building bikes.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

Unsubscribe.


----------



## compositepro (Jun 21, 2007)

themanmonkey said:


> Who is this standard practice with? That is 15+ year old tech. 95% of the carbon builders out there are using either monocoque or tube-to-tube with carbon lay-up reinforcement in the joints. Carbon has come a long way in a short time. The last 4-5 years have seen vast improvements trickle down to the bike industry from aerospace.
> 
> A couple years ago I was very anti-CF bikes and had owned 3-4 over the years. I got a Scott CR-1 demo to ride for a month and that started to turn things around for me. A bunch of listening and reading and chatting with folks like Nick Crumpton and I'm on board. I may not build with the stuff, but I know what it can do and know it has a great future for building bikes.


Carbon has always been there the problem was it was done badly by so called experts in the early years

the technology we have now,is no where near even the very tip of the iceberg as far as composites goes

it comes down to acceptance and the hype houses arent helping with their ******** solutions


----------



## TacoMan (Apr 18, 2007)

shiggy said:


> you had implied that the frame had failed simply because is was made of aluminum and that if it had been build with steel it could not have broken.
> 
> My point is that any material could be used for the basic design but the properties of the material selected need to be considered to have a reliable bike. You can under build or over build with any material.
> 
> You also seem to have a misconception of steel's basic properties. While it does have a much longer fatigue life than aluminum, it still fails when over stressed. Hardly a "live forever" metal.


Steel will live forever if you keep stress roughly 50% of the yield. Aluminum will not live very long at 50% yield, you really need to keep it at 10% of yield.

I will stand by my prediction that the frame in the link would not have broken if it was made from steel, or it would have lived a lot longer.



> Who is this standard practice with? That is 15+ year old tech. 95% of the carbon builders out there are using either monocoque or tube-to-tube with carbon lay-up reinforcement in the joints.


When threaded connections and precision bores are required, inserts are normally used, more so with hand lay-up, less so with heat-cured high pressure molds done in an autoclave (because it can achieve higher strength parts). These inserts are placed into the mold during lay-up and fully covered or wrapped. I'm not talking about tube end fittings bonded in place. Monocoque racecar tubs will have inserts where the suspension points bolt-on, but as technology increases, F-1 teams are using less inserts and building with all carbon.

To take full advantage of carbon fiber on a bike frame, a hand wrapped, molded shape is going to be more efficient than trying to duplicate a steel tube frame using carbon tubes.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

compositepro said:


> Carbon has always been there the problem was it was done badly by so called experts in the early years
> 
> the technology we have now,is no where near even the very tip of the iceberg as far as composites goes


Any heads up on tech coming down the pipe? I've wanted to believe in the future of composite materials in the bicycle industry since my first CF tubed Giant 980(?) in '91ish. It seems like a lot of stuff that comes from the outside that looks good in theory doesn't work out very well in reality. I remember the Aermet days and GT's experiments with thermoplastics as just a couple examples.

I think there is a place for all these various materials in bicycle manufacturing.


----------

