"This is a theoretical plus but a practical big nothing" Truer words were never spoken, not only on this topic but many others as well. I gotta remember this next time we get ourselves all fizzed about (*insert topic here)*. Not to diminish the hours of entertainment and amusement we get from debating, but it's easy to lose perspective. A bike ride is always a good tonic.
dougP On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:45:08 PM UTC-7, grant wrote: > > Nothing's proprietary here. Related to that, about 25 years ago the Eddy > Merckx brochure listed specs for everything on the frames except head tube > angle, which was "proprietary." The same era Gios frames listed frame sizes > 48 thru 64, and every head and seat tube angle was 75 degrees. > A while back we showed the new SILVER tube specs on cardboard. Tubing wall > thicknesses matter at some level--if they're too thin, that's bad. It's > really hard to derive anything useful from them. How much less does a 100mm > length of 0.7 weigh than 0.8? Not much, and when you look at the meager > gains in weight savings and the significant (I'd say, not everybody would) > gains in strength, it's a good argument to go to 1.0, even. > The new SILVER tubeset, which I haven't said much about because bragging > about it makes it sound like I don't like normal butted tubes, and that's > far, far off---but the SILVER is a single-butted tube. The downtube is 1.1 > at the top end, has a long 70mm taper, and has an 0.8mm belly and no but > (is 0.8) at the oppo-end. > Somebody who doesn't get tubes would say single-butting is a short-cut. To > my way of thinking, it's super smart and better (but not dramatically). You > get 1.1 in the stressed area behind the head tube. The belly is 0.8, to > resist twisting (talking about it overemphasizes it) and dents (more > important if the bike falls over). THe 0.8 at the bb end is on the thin > side, but this is a super low-stress area. > The long butt on a long tube allows us to spec butt length according to > frame size. This is a theoretical plus but a practical big nothing--- It > would be easy to say, "We leave the butt long on big frames, cut it short > on smallies," but that doesn't account for light tallies or short stockies. > The controversial 2TT is a better way to upstrength the big frames, far > more effective than a thicker tube. More heavy too, but another 7oz or so, > I don't care. > I looked at the weight savings of long vs short butts, and it was like--a > fraction of an OUNCE. At that point, forget it. Leave 'em long. > > Sometimes people ask what BRAND of tube we use, and if I'm in a bad mood > (twice only in many years), I replied with "Tell me what you know about > Columbus SL vs Reynolds 531 vs Tange Prestige." Usually people know labels, > not metallurgy. All the tube makers make good tubes, but a good tube is no > guarantee of a good joint or frame. > > Years ago I'd have spend time on the spreadsheets, but I don't see the > point now. It's not laziness or close-to-the vestness, as much as supplying > numbers AS THOUGH they matter, AS THOUGH they are in and of themselves > tellling, Then people who don't know what they mean feel bad, and who > actually does know what they mean? > > 1.0mm sounds thick compared to 0,8mm, but it's still so thin. I like the > 1,1 butts. They make more theoretical sense to me, and in a butt that's so > short anyway (even our long ones), there's no time for it to get heavy. > > All the steel tube makers, I'm sure, list tube specs. I'm not sure they > tell you much. Is eight-tenths of a millimeter too fat for the center > portion of a downtube? I don't think so. > > On Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:06:44 PM UTC-7, Fullylugged wrote: >> >> They've published tube specs in the past (Ram for instance) but have >> drifted away from that. I think they want to think about the bike and the >> ride, not the tubing itself. >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Michael <john1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Anyone know? I am interested to see what the blue Sams from 2013 are. >>> Thanks for any info. >>> Also, Bleriots. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
