In the early days, GP wrote copiously in readers and catalogs about the tubing specs: thickness, butt lengths, belly dent resistance, external butting, etc. - and all with their dimensions given, not just the "a bit more here and there." He wrote like he was talking with adults, and I liked the challenge of learning the meaning of concepts, names and numbers that at first were way over my head.
I think the issue with stating the manufacturer and property of materials is the implied accusation he senses that a lower number is less good or a less famous name is less good. We're not privy to the original note that sparked it off, but I enjoyed reading about GP's thought processes in spec'ing tubes in today's internet post as much as I did in print way back when. The reason to not use a hardened seat tube was worth the admission on its own. Roger On Feb 10, 7:24 am, Eric Norris <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard Sachs hasn't used tubing decals for more than 20 years. I don't know > what kind of tubing he used for my frame--it just works, and marvelously so. > > —Eric Nwww.campyonly.com > > On Feb 10, 2011, at 6:11 AM, newenglandbike <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
