Niobium Steel

[Larry]

Hey Biker Friends,

Does anyone have any experience with Niobium steel frames?
Is it really a step-up from the steel frames we already know.....
CSi steel,etc.
Any knowledge of this material would be appreciated.

Larry

[Brian Smith]

Larry, I'm not sure what you mean.
The last 2 years of CSis were made of Columbus Niobium steel. So have the CIIIs and CdAs. For the first year, Serotta had an exclusive on the Niobium alloy from Columbus. I'm not aware that anyone is claiming a particular ride based on the alloy. It's just a nice high strength steel, like many high strength steels, anyone who claims a ride quality based on an alloy alone is blowing something up your something. Or something. The CdA would ride nice if it was made from Man-Mo, but it's not, it's a thinner, lighter Niobium steel alloy. Other companies have since come out with stock Columbus tubeset "Spirit" frames. Serotta's tubes made from the Niobium alloy are made in an assortment of various dimensions specifically and only for us, but the particular ride and quality of the frames has more to do with the way Serotta specifys the tubing and designs the frame than it does with the way Columbus makes the alloy...

[Sandy]

Serotta does.

Oops! Brian beat me to the punch.


Steel Serotta Sandy

[Sandy]

Based on what you have just stated, I have a question. What is the advantage of the Niobium tubing other than weight savings?



Serotta Sandy

[vaxn8r]

Based on what you have just stated, I have a question. What is the advantage of the Niobium tubing other than weight savings?



Serotta Sandy
Same question, especially compared to say, what Serotta was using 10 years ago...like in the Atlanta.

[Larry]

Larry, I'm not sure what you mean.
The last 2 years of CSis were made of Columbus Niobium steel. So have the CIIIs and CdAs. For the first year, Serotta had an exclusive on the Niobium alloy from Columbus. I'm not aware that anyone is claiming a particular ride based on the alloy. It's just a nice high strength steel, like many high strength steels, anyone who claims a ride quality based on an alloy alone is blowing something up your something. Or something. The CdA would ride nice if it was made from Man-Mo, but it's not, it's a thinner, lighter Niobium steel alloy. Other companies have since come out with stock Columbus tubeset "Spirit" frames. Serotta's tubes made from the Niobium alloy are made in an assortment of various dimensions specifically and only for us, but the particular ride and quality of the frames has more to do with the way Serotta specifys the tubing and designs the frame than it does with the way Columbus makes the alloy...


Brian,

My Csi was built in 1998. I did not realize the most recent models were
Niobium.
Even my CSi was a bit of a mystery as far as materials were concerned.
I assumed it was most likely REynolds.

Larry

[97CSI]

The last 2 years of CSis were made of Columbus Niobium steel. So have the CIIIs and CdAs. The CdA would ride nice if it was made from Man-Mo, but it's not, it's a thinner, lighter Niobium steel alloy.In my experience, a true statement. My CdA was a very stiff frame and it was uncomfortable after about 35-40 miles. Started off with Ksyriums and switched to Open Pros, but still too stiff. Can't be contributed to just niobium alloyed steel, due to all the process variations in the tubing manufacturing and geometry of the frame. Good crit bike, but not for longer rides for me. YMMV. Here is a link to more than you ever wanted to know about niobium alloyed steels. http://www.cbmm.com.br/portug/sources/techlib/report/novos/pdfs/the_role2.pdf In the end, it is all about how it is processed. Molten stage, solid stage, drawing into tubing, anealling at various points along the way, and then put into a particular geometry by the frame builder. The fact that it has niobium is, as stated above, simply smoke. The same thing could be done with most any of the tubing regimes used today.

[marle]

Larry, I'm not sure what you mean.
The last 2 years of CSis were made of Columbus Niobium steel. So have the CIIIs and CdAs. For the first year, Serotta had an exclusive on the Niobium alloy from Columbus. I'm not aware that anyone is claiming a particular ride based on the alloy. It's just a nice high strength steel, like many high strength steels, anyone who claims a ride quality based on an alloy alone is blowing something up your something. Or something. The CdA would ride nice if it was made from Man-Mo, but it's not, it's a thinner, lighter Niobium steel alloy. Other companies have since come out with stock Columbus tubeset "Spirit" frames. Serotta's tubes made from the Niobium alloy are made in an assortment of various dimensions specifically and only for us, but the particular ride and quality of the frames has more to do with the way Serotta specifys the tubing and designs the frame than it does with the way Columbus makes the alloy...

Wow thanks for the insight on my 2004 CSI. You never really know how a bike will turn out. Plus you need a few thousand miles in the saddle to get what the builder was after. I think the CSI turned out to be one stiff hammer machine - a keeper :)

[Smiley]

When you all say STIFF , is that meant to be a good or bad thing. I have a Uniscasi Steel frame being painted this week and with a F3- 6.5 wound fork up front and 42.5 cm chainstays behind along with 25 mm wide Mich Pro Race II tires on the rig I really thing it will be a sweet ride, yet torsionally stiff bike. That I can really get in to .

[Korn Julio]

I have a 2004 custom CDA (Niobium tubes) and a recently acquired 2003(?) stock CSi with C4S tubing (non Niobium). My current pair of Mavic Cosmos' have been swapped between the two literally dozens of times so I can compare the CDA's and CSi's ride qualities, while taking the influence of the wheelset out of the equation.

And IMHO, my experience has been contrary to what other CSi owners on this forum have opined --- my CDA rides "as smooth as butter"; my CSi rides A LOT harsher --- ATMO.

One of these days I 'll sit down and write a more detailed review discussing the ride quality pluses and minuses of each frame - but none of them have anything to do with whether the tubes are made by Columbus, Reynolds, TruTemper or whoever.

[e-RICHIE]

One of these days I 'll sit down and write a more detailed review discussing the ride quality pluses and minuses of each frame - but none of them have anything to do with whether the tubes are made by Columbus, Reynolds, TruTemper or whoever.


cool. let 'em hear it in the cheap seats atmo.

[David Kirk]

One thing that seems to get lost in this deal is the fact that ALL steels have the same density. From the weakest-softest to the hardest-strongest - a given size chunk of steel will weigh the same.

Any weight difference in a bike frame comes from using less of it...........in this case that means thinner walls, smaller diameters (remember that two tubes with the same wall but different diameters will have a different weight - the smaller being lighter) or both.

With high strength steels the wall thicknesses can be thinner so the tube can be lighter. The catch is that the thickness of the tube is as thin as it can be made given current drawing technology.

Most all tubing companies make the tubes with a wall thickness tolerance of + or -10%. So when you get down to the .4mm wall tube and take the worst case senario of -10% you end up with a pretty darn thin wall.

So the drawing technology becomes the great equalizer and in effect determines the weight of a steel frame.



I hope that makes sense..........I haven't finished my coffee yet.

Dave

[dnovo]

They drink coffee out there in the boonies? I thought you guys just get high on life, no other stimulation necessary? Dave

[David Kirk]

Good morning David -

Good to hear from you. I hope all is well.

Dave

[Larry]

One thing that seems to get lost in this deal is the fact that ALL steels have the same density. From the weakest-softest to the hardest-strongest - a given size chunk of steel will weigh the same.

Any weight difference in a bike frame comes from using less of it...........in this case that means thinner walls, smaller diameters (remember that two tubes with the same wall but different diameters will have a different weight - the smaller being lighter) or both.

With high strength steels the wall thicknesses can be thinner so the tube can be lighter. The catch is that the thickness of the tube is as thin as it can be made given current drawing technology.

Most all tubing companies make the tubes with a wall thickness tolerance of + or -10%. So when you get down to the .4mm wall tube and take the worst case senario of -10% you end up with a pretty darn thin wall.

So the drawing technology becomes the great equalizer and in effect determines the weight of a steel frame.



I hope that makes sense..........I haven't finished my coffee yet.

Dave

Dave,

.44mm wall tube is darn thin........actually, really amazing that this can support a heavy rider. What you have said makes more sense, and this is the info I really needed to hear.
Thanks!

Larry

[PanTerra]

I have a 2004 custom CDA (Niobium tubes) and a recently acquired 2003(?) stock CSi with C4S tubing (non Niobium). My current pair of Mavic Cosmos' have been swapped between the two literally dozens of times so I can compare the CDA's and CSi's ride qualities, while taking the influence of the wheelset out of the equation.

And IMHO, my experience has been contrary to what other CSi owners on this forum have opined --- my CDA rides "as smooth as butter"; my CSi rides A LOT harsher --- ATMO.

One of these days I 'll sit down and write a more detailed review discussing the ride quality pluses and minuses of each frame - but none of them have anything to do with whether the tubes are made by Columbus, Reynolds, TruTemper or whoever.

Do you think the difference may also lie in the CDA's CS stays? My CSi has the C4S tubing and have nothing to compare it to. Serotta claimed it lightened the frame, but that was all I could gather frome the write-up, RUHRO.

[Sandy]

I still have the same question as I asked earlier in the thread. Other than weight, what are the advantages (if any) of Niobium? Or any other steel.


Steel Sandy

[e-RICHIE]

I still have the same question as I asked earlier in the thread. Other than weight, what are the advantages (if any) of Niobium? Or any other steel.


Steel Sandy



if the quality of the material is up-ed,
you can use less of it with no penalty.

imho.

[catulle]

if the quality of the material is up-ed,
you can use less of it with no penalty.

imho.

Isn�t that a tautology?

[e-RICHIE]

Isn�t that a tautology?


no. it's gnosticism yo.

[catulle]

no. it's gnosticism yo.
Ooops, sorry, I'll be right back, I just got a demiurge.

[e-RICHIE]

Ooops, sorry, I'll be right back, I just got a demiurge.


i had one yesterday. it took 3 weeks to get
an appointment with a licensed demiurgist.
but my skin is softer and tingly yo.

[catulle]

Phew, I hadn't had a demiurge in an Aeon.

[e-RICHIE]

Phew, I hadn't had a demiurge in an Aeon.

they recommend an annual demiurge after you hit 50 yo yo.

[catulle]

Yeah, that's what Dr. Pleroma and Mr. Bythos say.

[catulle]

they recommend an annual demiurge after you hit 50 yo yo.

By the way, I have a pretty good do-it-yourself booklet I can lend you. Once you learn how to do it it may be addictive, though. That's what Plato told me, anyway.

[Kirk Pacenti]

One thing that seems to get lost in this deal is the fact that ALL steels have the same density. From the weakest-softest to the hardest-strongest - a given size chunk of steel will weigh the same.

Any weight difference in a bike frame comes from using less of it...........in this case that means thinner walls, smaller diameters (remember that two tubes with the same wall but different diameters will have a different weight - the smaller being lighter) or both.

With high strength steels the wall thicknesses can be thinner so the tube can be lighter. The catch is that the thickness of the tube is as thin as it can be made given current drawing technology.

Most all tubing companies make the tubes with a wall thickness tolerance of + or -10%. So when you get down to the .4mm wall tube and take the worst case senario of -10% you end up with a pretty darn thin wall.

So the drawing technology becomes the great equalizer and in effect determines the weight of a steel frame.



I hope that makes sense..........I haven't finished my coffee yet.

Dave


FIRST; let me say that this post is not a sales pitch for Niobium! I will do my best to address the question about the Niobium material without violating any forum policies. Here goes:


Great post Dave. I would also like to add that since density is the same with all the common alloys used in steel bicycle tubes, stiffness is also the same (all else being equal: diameter, wall, butt length, etc.).

It's amazing to me how many people think that stiffness is somehow related to strength. What's more, the only good reason to use a strong(er) tube is so that you can make it lighter by using less material (thinner walls). If the diameter remains the same but the tube wall is reduced to save weight, you end up with a lighter but LESS STIFF frame! I can't tell you how many people I have met that believe their super alloyed steel frame is stiffer than a their plain cro-mo frame even though the diameters are the same and the frame weighs 3/4 pound less!

As to Niobium, I think it's a great material. Not so much for the alloy specifically, but rather the over-all quality of the tubes. Ben made a point of mentioning this in Vegas a couple years ago when Columbus had the SPIRIT Niobium seminar. He said (I am paraphrasing) "The [niobium] tubes we receive from Columbus today are of a higher quality than we have ever received; not only from Columbus, but from any tube maker."

I would strongly agree. I have built thousands of frames, using materials from all the major players. And I can honestly say [regardless of my affiliation with Columbus] that these current Columbus tubes are simply the best I have ever seen. The reason for this is that the tubes are 100% QC'd by hand. Fabrizio Aghito (Head Engineer at Columbus) described the process to me during a meal at the recent NAHBS show. I won't go into the details of it all, but suffice it to say that the process is extremely thorough.

Is Niobium the "be-all, end-all" for bicycle tubes? I don't think so. But, I do think you'd be hard pressed to find a better made tube in any material. If anyone has need of more detailed information on this material, please feel free to contact me off-list.

[e-RICHIE]

the folks from columbus were here in december and
they won me over - and back into their camp for the
first time since i left the brand over distribution issues
in the late 80s. imo, columbus is the best supplier of
tubes for the small builder, but not including those who
can't hit the 5'5" mark and/or go to their left lmao. if
sinatra needed tubing, he'd buy columbus.

[Sandy]

FIRST; let me say that this post is not a sales pitch for Niobium! I will do my best to address the question about the Niobium material without violating any forum policies. Here goes:


Great post Dave. I would also like to add that since density is the same with all the common alloys used in steel bicycle tubes, stiffness is also the same (all else being equal: diameter, wall, butt length, etc.).

It's amazing to me how many people think that stiffness is somehow related to strength. What's more, the only good reason to use a strong(er) tube is so that you can make it lighter by using less material (thinner walls). If the diameter remains the same but the tube wall is reduced to save weight, you end up with a lighter but LESS STIFF frame! I can't tell you how many people I have met that believe their super alloyed steel frame is stiffer than a their plain cro-mo frame even though the diameters are the same and the frame weighs 3/4 pound less!

As to Niobium, I think it's a great material. Not so much for the alloy specifically, but rather the over-all quality of the tubes. Ben made a point of mentioning this in Vegas a couple years ago when Columbus had the SPIRIT Niobium seminar. He said (I am paraphrasing) "The [niobium] tubes we receive from Columbus today are of a higher quality than we have ever received; not only from Columbus, but from any tube maker."

I would strongly agree. I have built thousands of frames, using materials from all the major players. And I can honestly say [regardless of my affiliation with Columbus] that these current Columbus tubes are simply the best I have ever seen. The reason for this is that the tubes are 100% QC'd by hand. Fabrizio Aghito (Head Engineer at Columbus) described the process to me during a meal at the recent NAHBS show. I won't go into the details of it all, but suffice it to say that the process is extremely thorough.

Is Niobium the "be-all, end-all" for bicycle tubes? I don't think so. But, I do think you'd be hard pressed to find a better made tube in any material. If anyone has need of more detailed information on this material, please feel free to contact me off-list.

Two questions please:

1. If the diameter is the same and the tube wall is reduced, then the stiffness is less. Why is that?

2. What makes the tubing of one bike stronger than another, tube diameter?


Serotta Sandy

[Climb01742]

FIRST; let me say that this post is not a sales pitch for Niobium! I will do my best to address the question about the Niobium material without violating any forum policies. Here goes:


Great post Dave. I would also like to add that since density is the same with all the common alloys used in steel bicycle tubes, stiffness is also the same (all else being equal: diameter, wall, butt length, etc.).

It's amazing to me how many people think that stiffness is somehow related to strength. What's more, the only good reason to use a strong(er) tube is so that you can make it lighter by using less material (thinner walls). If the diameter remains the same but the tube wall is reduced to save weight, you end up with a lighter but LESS STIFF frame! I can't tell you how many people I have met that believe their super alloyed steel frame is stiffer than a their plain cro-mo frame even though the diameters are the same and the frame weighs 3/4 pound less!

As to Niobium, I think it's a great material. Not so much for the alloy specifically, but rather the over-all quality of the tubes. Ben made a point of mentioning this in Vegas a couple years ago when Columbus had the SPIRIT Niobium seminar. He said (I am paraphrasing) "The [niobium] tubes we receive from Columbus today are of a higher quality than we have ever received; not only from Columbus, but from any tube maker."

I would strongly agree. I have built thousands of frames, using materials from all the major players. And I can honestly say [regardless of my affiliation with Columbus] that these current Columbus tubes are simply the best I have ever seen. The reason for this is that the tubes are 100% QC'd by hand. Fabrizio Aghito (Head Engineer at Columbus) described the process to me during a meal at the recent NAHBS show. I won't go into the details of it all, but suffice it to say that the process is extremely thorough.

Is Niobium the "be-all, end-all" for bicycle tubes? I don't think so. But, I do think you'd be hard pressed to find a better made tube in any material. If anyone has need of more detailed information on this material, please feel free to contact me off-list.

kirk, thank you for rescuing this thread by posting useful, insightful information that was actually about the topic.

[marle]

Stiff is GOOD :beer:

[e-RICHIE]

Two questions please:

1. If the diameter is the same and the tube wall is reduced, then the stiffness is less. Why is that?

2. What makes the tubing of one bike stronger than another, tube diameter?


Serotta Sandy

1) because there is less material.
2) all things being equal, yes, increasing o.d. will make
the tube a stronger "unit".

remember - you don't "feel" the tube wall or the butt transition
or the lug or the tig bead. you "feel" the sum total of the care
with which it's all assembled into a rationally (one would hope...)
designed bicycle. to wit, i don't even think you "feel" the frame
seperately; you feel the sum total of all of the components chosen
for a particular frame's assembly, and you also "feel" the condition
in which that particular sum total has been maintained wrt mechanical
wear. i.e., the cable and chain stretch, tire tread wear, loss of spoke
tension, loose springs on pedal/cleat interfaces, etcetera.

trying to discern what's what based on what a particular tube is made
of, its guage, o.d., if it's heat treated or not; these are impossibly
arcane nuances that may be seperated out in lab-like situations but
mean far less in the real world.

[Sandy]

Thanks for the answers and explanation of them.


Strong Stiff Sachs Serotta Sandy

[Climb01742]

1) because there is less material.
2) all things being equal, yes, increasing o.d. will make
the tube a stronger "unit".

remember - you "feel" the tube wall or the butt transition
or the lug or the tig bead. you "feel" the sum total of the
care with which it's all assembled into a rationally (one would
hope...) designed bicycle. to wit, i don't even think you "feel"
the frame seperately; you feel the sum total of all of the
components chosen for a particular frame's assembly, and
you also "feel" the condition in which that particular sum total
has been maintained wrt mechanical wear. i.e., the cable
and chain stretch, tire tread wear, loss of spoke tension,
loose springs on pedal/cleat interfaces, etcetera.

trying to discern what's what based on what a particular
tube is made of, its guage, o.d., if it's heat treated or not;
these are impossibly arcane nuance that may be seperated
out in lab-like situations but mean far less in the real world.

when someone like columbus works on a new tubing, what are they hoping to accomplish? is it something about the actual nature of the steel itself, or is it about the way the steel can be shaped? i'm not sure i know the right words to ask the question intelligently. tubes have two "properties": there is the molecular structure of the steel itself; and then there is how the steel is shaped, i.e. diameter, butting, ovalization, etc. true? if so, when someone like columbus works on a new tubing, what are they tweaking? thanks!

[e-RICHIE]

Thanks for the answers and explanation of them.


Strong Stiff Sachs Serotta Sandy


i'm catching up on the tech talk via a correspondance course.
today's u.s. mail contained an intro to stiffness primer that i
read over a nice hummus and sauerkraut based lunch.

[Larry]

I need to start a new thread on FORKS......steel vs. carbon.

Better yet..............Campy vs. Shimano.........I think I'll have Italian food tonight!!!!!!

[e-RICHIE]

when someone like columbus works on a new tubing, what are they hoping to accomplish? is it something about the actual nature of the steel itself, or is it about the way the steel can be shaped? i'm not sure i know the right words to ask the question intelligently. tubes have two "properties": there is the molecular structure of the steel itself; and then there is how the steel is shaped, i.e. diameter, butting, ovalization, etc. true? if so, when someone like columbus works on a new tubing, what are they tweaking? thanks!


i think the honest is is that it's all market based. the sun set on
nearly all of the ferrous-based sales a decade ago. there is little
reason for a company to throw a ton of resources at steel today
because so few people use it - in the scheme of things, that is.
so - to answer your question: columbus is interested in its own
history too, and realizes that the framebuilders made the firm what
it is, and it cannot completely foresake that connection, even
though it's not a rainmaker. regardless, sometimes a market leader
has to go against a trend simply to jumpstart a new one, or revive
one that used to be a cash cow. i think columbus realizes that there's
a zeitgeist-issimo going down in north america since its ground zero
for the best steel frames still being made (pockets of northern italy
and osaka notwithstanding), and they want to serve that niche.
why would they tweak or innovate something that they've proven
works so well -though unchanged - for the past __ decades? there
is only one reason: weight. the quality of the ferrous material
is now high enough that the total weight of a frame made from
steel can be low enough to matter to a 21st century consumer.
this is not a slam against other brands, but imo, nearly all attempts
at lowering the overall weight of a steel frame made in recent years
has been at the expense of some reliability and some longevity.
from my discussions with the columbus folks, they are ready to
supply steel that will do all that steel is known to do - and not have
any of the liabilities that are associated with the mad rush others brands
have faced in trying to stay au courant* in the face of declining steel
sales.


* a french term i got in my home-schooling course.

[Climb01742]

i think the honest is is that it's all market based. the sun set on
nearly all of the ferrous-based sales a decade ago. there is little
reason for a company to throw a ton of resources at steel today
because so few people use it - in the scheme of things, that is.
so - to answer your question: columbus is interested in its own
history too, and realizes that the framebuilders made the firm what
it is, and it cannot completely foresake that connection, even
though it's not a rainmaker. regardless, sometimes a market leader
has to go against a trend simply to jumpstart a new one, or revive
one that used to be a cash cow. i think columbus realizes that there's
a zeitgeist-issimo going down in north america since its ground zero
for the best steel frames still being made (pockets of northern italy
and osaka notwithstanding), and they want to serve that niche.
why would they tweak or innovate something that they've proven
works so well -though unchanged - for the past __ decades? there
is only one reason: weight. the quality of the ferrous material
is now high enough that the total weight of a frame made from
steel can be low enough to matter to a 21st century consumer.
this is not a slam against other brands, but imo, nearly all attempts
at lowering the overall weight of a steel frame made in recent years
has been at the expense of some reliability and some longevity.
from my discussions with the columbus folks, they are ready to
supply steel that will do all that steel is known to do - and not have
any of the liabilities that are associated with the mad rush others brands
have faced in trying to stay au courant* in the face of declining steel
sales.


* a french term i got in my home-schooling course.

that home-schooling is really paying off! to deal with weight, i'm guessing they_somehow_make the steel "stronger" so that it can be drawn thinner, yes? what is that_somehow_? do they change the "mix" of elements in the steel? change how it is phsyically drawn? do some kind of heat- or other-treating? i get how thinner walls lightens steels, but how do they "tweak" the steel to allow it to be thinner yet still strong? as always, merci.

[e-RICHIE]

that home-schooling is really paying off! to deal with weight, i'm guessing they_somehow_make the steel "stronger" so that it can be drawn thinner, yes? what is that_somehow_? do they change the "mix" of elements in the steel? change how it is phsyically drawn? do some kind of heat- or other-treating? i get how thinner walls lightens steels, but how do they "tweak" the steel to allow it to be thinner yet still strong? as always, merci.

they most likely tweak that last .00004% of the
last .772% of the metalurgical makeup. to be honest,
how they do it is of no interest to me. it's not a bicycle
or even a framebuilder related pursuit imo, it's geek
engineer pursuit. nothing wrong with that. i think the
bicycle framebuilder is concerned that he can trust a
vendor. period. i know i have lost faith in vendors over
the years due to situations that would make your hair
curl, and i've seen you without a hat, so it's no mean feat
yo. the small bits that materials folks do to get the stuff
i use to market is normally so science-based that i have
no way to interpret it. i simply trust, or i don't. the rest
of it is intuition. i know some want to know about trace
elements and guys in labs pouring stuff into beekers that
somehow end up at the steel mill. that's a universe away
from my own private hoboken imho.

[wanderingwheel]

Two questions please:

1. If the diameter is the same and the tube wall is reduced, then the stiffness is less. Why is that?

2. What makes the tubing of one bike stronger than another, tube diameter?


Serotta Sandy

Short answers:
1. Stiffness is directly related to the tube diameter cubed times the thickness.
2. Material, tube cross sectional area, and tube section modulus (diameter squared times thickness).

Long answers:
1. According to beam theory, there are two things that determine the stiffness of a tube: modulus of elasticity and section moment of inertia. Modulus of elasticity is a material property and is roughly equal for all steels used in bicycles, 30,000 ksi. Similarly all aluminums are about the same, 11,000 ksi, as are all titaniums, 15,000 ksi. The section moment of inertia is a function of only the shape of the tube. For a thin wall tube, the section modulus is approximately Pi*D^3*t/8. Therefore reducing the wall thickness (t) will reduce the stiffness of the tube by a porportional amount. However, changing the tube diameter (D) has a much greater effect on the stiffness.

2. Strength is a material property and varies greatly depending on the material and its alloying agents. Steel can vary from 30,000 psi for plain carbon steel all the way to 500,000 psi for 18Ni maraging steel. If you keep the tube geometries the same but increase the material strength, you're bike will be stronger, but it kind of defeats the purpose of using the stronger and more expensive material. The stronger the material, the less you need in order to build a safe frame. Depending on the expected load, you can reduce either the tube cross sectional area or the section modulus (Pi*D^2*t/4) so that the new bike with the stronger material ends up being just as strong but lighter than the original bike.

[wanderingwheel]

that home-schooling is really paying off! to deal with weight, i'm guessing they_somehow_make the steel "stronger" so that it can be drawn thinner, yes? what is that_somehow_? do they change the "mix" of elements in the steel? change how it is phsyically drawn? do some kind of heat- or other-treating? i get how thinner walls lightens steels, but how do they "tweak" the steel to allow it to be thinner yet still strong? as always, merci.

To change the strength of steel, first they change the amount of carbon added to the iron. Next they start adding various alloying elements (chrome, nickel, vanadium, molybdenum, manganese, silicon, etc.) and vary the amounts. Lastly, they change the manufacturing process by using different heat treatments and possibly also cold working the steel.

[spincycle]

I wrote this while Kirk and e-richie were responding but I thought it still might be useful. Now I see that wanderingwheel has just described the mysteries of section modulus and some cool metallurgy stuff as well. Oh well here goes anyway. This shouldn't conflict with what's gone before.

There are two material properties and one geometrical property that define how a material behaves when placed under a load. The two material proerties are strength (yield strength for this discussion) and Young's Modulus. The geometrical property (or the shape of the tube) is called section modulus.

Let's define the material properties first:

Yield strength: typically defined as the stress a material can withstand without permanent deformation in (force/unit area) or in english units lbf/in2 (psi). This is somewhat simplified for the sake of this discussion. Tubing is selected so that it never reaches or exceeds yield. If you exceed the yield strength your frame is bent.

Young's Modulus: In solid mechanics, Young's modulus (also known as the modulus of elasticity, elastic modulus or tensile modulus) is a measure of the stiffness of a given material. It is expressed in lbf/in2 (psi). By the way all steel has the same modulus of elasticity.

The sectional or geometric property is defined below:

Section modulus: Which is stiffness from shape or geometry; unlike modulus of elasticity, it has nothing to do with the material.

Actually section modulus is an aspect of moment of inertia which is a function of a shape's cross-sectional area in combination with its height.

For an example of section modulus and its influence on stiffness we can take a common wooden yardstick and perform the following experiment. This is actually safe to do at home! :) Take the yard stick and lay it flat on a table with half of it overhanging the table edge. Try and make it deflect. Pretty easy to do isn't it? Now place the yard stick on edge and try the same thing. Much harder to deflect it right? Now we didn't change the material or the cross section. All we did was change the orientation of the height of the cross section relative to the neutral axis (center of the cross secion for our discussion here). The section modulus of the yard stick laying flat is much smaller than when the yard stick is on edge. That's what section modulus does.

In frame design with a given steel type the only way to influence frame stiffness (for this example we'll say the overall dimensions of the frame are the same, only tube diameter and cross section will change) is to manipulate the tube diameters and cross section. That's because the designer is using the influence of section modulus to refine the ride properties.

So how does the strength of the steel enter into the equation? Since all steel has the same modulus of elasticity then it�s the influence of yield strength that governs. If you have a stronger material you can use less of it to build a structure that will carry the same load. So let�s see what happens when you use a stronger steel. To do this let�s assume we have a Reynolds 531 frame on hand. Now through the wonders of metallurgy we have Niobium or any modern tube set available. We could build a Niobium frame just like the 531 frame using tubing that is the same cross section and dimensions (this is artificial because you wouldn�t do this in reality and it�s not available, it�s just to demonstrate a point). The Niobium frame set would feel identical. It would have the same stiffness and weight but it would operate at the given loading at a lower percent of yield stress. What have we done? We�ve built a frame that does not take advantage of the superior yield strength of Niobium and it's heavier than it should be.

Now let�s take the same frame and decrease the wall thicknesses to get rid of the extra weight since we are using stronger (but not stiffer steel). This time we decreased the wall thickness and kept the outside diameter the same. Now our frame is lighter, just as capable of carrying the same load as 531 but now we have a problem. Our new frame made of stronger steel is more flexible than the 531 frame. That�s because we decreased the section modulus of the tube sets by making the wall thickness smaller.

Let�s try a third frame and maybe we can get it right this time. Now we are going to take advantage of our higher yield strength steel and redesign the frame with thin wall tubing that�s also larger in diameter. This time we end up with a frame that is just as stiff as the original 531 frame, just as capable of carrying the same load and it�s lighter. We took advantage of the fact that by increasing the section modulus by increasing the diameter of the tubing we were able to use thinner walls because our Niobium is stronger.

In summary, all steels have the same stiffness as defined by the modulus of elasticity. For a given type of steel the feel of the frame has everything to do with the cross section of the selected tubes. That�s why the great frame builders that frequent this forum will select different tube sets for different folks. They need to consider the overall size of the person plus their weight. That�s why a 58cm frame for one customer could have significantly different tubing than the next guy in line who also needs a 58cm frame but happens to outweigh the first guy by 40 pounds.

Hope this helped and didn't confuse anyone.

[e-RICHIE]

<snipped> Depending on the expected load, you can reduce either the tube cross sectional area or the section modulus (Pi*D^2*t/4) so that the new bike with the stronger material ends up being just as strong but lighter than the original bike.



ya' see...
that's the conundrum. everyone thinks it's cooler to have a
lighter bicycle, even though the frame - which is stationary
weight - is the key part of the gestalt-a-thon. stationary
weight simply is not that important if the difference between
the extremes is only a pound or so. however...
if everybody's bicycles are lighter than they were a year or
a generation ago, the playing field remains level. so - where
is the consumer left? he can brag about his 16 pound bicycle,
but will its low weight come at the expense of shelf life?
imo, yes. does that lower shelf life matter? apparently not.
i'm often amazed that folks would buy lighter and lighter
parts/bicycles so as to reduce the effort it takes to propel
them, yet these same folks do not ride more as a result,
they simply complete the ride faster. that being the case,
doesn't it negate the very reason most of us ride in the
first place - exercise? perhaps aalow a humerous jab at the
race to make lighter and lighter bicycles: soon, they'll be so
light, pedaling really will be effortless, and bicycle riding
will have fewer and fewer of the beneficial side effects
that it once had. shut me up atmo.

[Brian Smith]

Two questions please:

1. If the diameter is the same and the tube wall is reduced, then the stiffness is less. Why is that?

2. What makes the tubing of one bike stronger than another, tube diameter?


Serotta Sandy

Sandy -
Your previous question: Other than weight, is there an advantage to Niobium (tm) tubing?

The reason to use the Niobium STEEL alloy is that it is of an atypically high strength. The advantage of using it, or another maker's atypically high strength STEEL alloy, is that you can specify less of it to be used in the frame, which can either mean that it is stronger for the same amount of weight, or that it is lighter for the same strength. Via the extra strength, a frame tubing designer and specifyer gains more design freedom, notably to "go lighter" than they otherwise could.

1. Visualize a hollow tube and a solid bar of the same diameter. The solid bar should be very imaginably more rigid than the thin-walled tube. The same applies to smaller increments of wall thickness change to a smaller but real degree.

2. This might be the wrong question to ask. The resulting and complete strength of a BICYCLE FRAME(set) comes not only from the strength of it's alloy or even tubing, but also from its design and fabrication qualities. As a pretty intangible quantity, (does anyone mentally carry around a numerical quantification of their current fork's STRENGTH? It isn't a simply measured quantity for the rider.) strength can be a vaguely applied marketing term (buy our new frame, it's made of XXX,000 psi spacealloy compared to our competitor's YY,000 psi plumbing surplus, and by the way did we mention it's under 900 grams?) Which metric is easier for people to grab hold of?

When E-Ritchie posts that he is not interested in how a tubing vendor gets there tubing to the strength that they claim, I hope nobody thinks that he is being an ignoramus. Excepting Serotta, I don't know of a single custom frame company or individual maker that performs a semi-scientific stength test of new materials. Certainly I haven't visited even a majority of them, but I think it is quite the small minority who do it. For most folks it really comes down to trust between the frame maker and the material vendor.

Here's a neat thing about Serotta:
Serotta says that, and I'm paraphrasing, if someone is asking about how much a frame weighs, then they are probably really meaning to ask: is this frame going to save me energy over the course of the ride, in order that I can do it faster or easier or both.
Extending that, and I'm partially fabricating, if someone is asking how strong a particular frame component's material is, they are probably really meaning to ask: is this a frame that is safe, durable, and made from "top shelf" quality stuff? Just as we don't publish weights, we don't publish graphs of material properties, yadda yadda yadda.


Back to the topic, the Columbus niobium (tm) alloy STEEL is top quality stuff, not only in strength, but in workability, straightness, concentricity, etc. We're using it now for the third year. That another company is now presumably marketing their product based on the fact that it's made of it probably says a lot about what else you are or aren't getting from them in that product. It's great stuff, but it is not the frame. The frame is the frame.* The CdA is more than "a niobium (tm) frame." It's a Serotta.


*heard somewhere online before... :)

[e-RICHIE]

That another company is now presumably marketing their product based on the fact that it's made of it probably says a lot about what else you are or aren't getting from them in that product. It's great stuff, but it is not the frame. The frame is the frame.


the frame is the frame. hmm.

[catulle]

I could imagine a few reasons why Serotta doesn�t publish the weight of their frames/bicycles, but it�d be interesting to know what are their reasons for not doing so. Thank you.

[saab2000]

I think the reason they don't publish their weight is because they don't feel it is the most important characteristic of their bikes. They are certainly competitive. And the new and unaffordable Meivici is certainly buildable to 15 lbs.

I am sure my CIII with no special light parts will be in the 18-19 lb range and that is fine with me. I feel not 1 bit faster on my 'light' Merckx Majestic Ti, which is weighing in at around 17 lbs than on my 21 lb Grandis.

[Smiley]

A BIG part of why I am buying my Uniscasi Steel project is because of the Colorado Concept tubes and Nobium Steel . Thanks to Brother Brian Smith who imparted lots of LOVE upon my frame when brazing it. Its going to be very sweeeet :)

Next week it may ship , thats 4 weeks for those of you who are keeping count :)

[taz-t]

i'm often amazed that folks would buy lighter and lighter
parts/bicycles so as to reduce the effort it takes to propel
them, yet these same folks do not ride more as a result,
they simply complete the ride faster. that being the case,
doesn't it negate the very reason most of us ride in the
first place - exercise? perhaps aalow a humerous jab at the
race to make lighter and lighter bicycles: soon, they'll be so
light, pedaling really will be effortless, and bicycle riding
will have fewer and fewer of the beneficial side effects
that it once had. shut me up atmo.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Catch22_cover.jpg

- taz

[Climb01742]

to all who responded with such detailed, in-depth answers, thank you. wanderingwheel, spincycle and brian, you gave my brain quite a workout, which i appreciate. it's cool to know some of the physics behind the sensations. thanks for taking the time.

[Sandy]

Agreed. I kept reading some of them over and over to try to understand the concepts given. The knowedge exhibited on the forum is really amazing. THANKS to those who were so willing to enlighten us.


One of the humble students,


Sandy

[spincycle]

Sandy and Climb,

You are most welcome. Happy to help. :banana:

[roadie7]

This discussion was fascinaating and enlightening. Now that Reynolds has a new steel, 951, have the experts here read anything about it? So far, I've read that Redline has made a commuter bike (single speed) with it and Independent Fabrications is working on a prototype. How does this new steel stack up against the comments here?

[soulspinner]

ya' see...
that's the conundrum. everyone thinks it's cooler to have a
lighter bicycle, even though the frame - which is stationary
weight - is the key part of the gestalt-a-thon. stationary
weight simply is not that important if the difference between
the extremes is only a pound or so. however...
if everybody's bicycles are lighter than they were a year or
a generation ago, the playing field remains level. so - where
is the consumer left? he can brag about his 16 pound bicycle,
but will its low weight come at the expense of shelf life?
imo, yes. does that lower shelf life matter? apparently not.
i'm often amazed that folks would buy lighter and lighter
parts/bicycles so as to reduce the effort it takes to propel
them, yet these same folks do not ride more as a result,
they simply complete the ride faster. that being the case,
doesn't it negate the very reason most of us ride in the
first place - exercise? perhaps aalow a humerous jab at the
race to make lighter and lighter bicycles: soon, they'll be so
light, pedaling really will be effortless, and bicycle riding
will have fewer and fewer of the beneficial side effects
that it once had. shut me up atmo.
This is exacly why I dont go lighter than my 17 pound 12 ounce bike(complete). Am I using it for racing? Not in twenty years. It does not matter if I am a few seconds faster and thousands lighter in the wallet. Ride more, eat less, save cash.

[97CSI]

When you all say STIFF , is that meant to be a good or bad thing. I have a Uniscasi Steel frame being painted this week and with a F3- 6.5 wound fork up front and 42.5 cm chainstays behind along with 25 mm wide Mich Pro Race II tires on the rig I really thing it will be a sweet ride, yet torsionally stiff bike. That I can really get in to.When I say 'stiff', I am saying 'too stiff for me'. Most of my rides tend to be in the 35+ mile range and I would feel beat-up when I would get off the bike. That is too stiff. Don't have the problem with my current rides. Stiff? Good if I was riding crits. But, I'm not, so was a problem for me. That is why I stated that YMMV. :D All depends on the individual and what he/she/other wants.

[e-RICHIE]

When I say 'stiff', I am saying 'too stiff for me'. Most of my rides tend to be in the 35+ mile range and I would feel beat-up when I would get off the bike. That is too stiff. Don't have the problem with my current rides. Stiff? Good if I was riding crits. But, I'm not, so was a problem for me. That is why I stated that YMMV. :D All depends on the individual and what he/she/other wants.


wouldn't that issue be more tethered to frame
design? if you're getting beat up and aren't
comfortable, i don't think it's a materials-based
problem - and i don't think "stiff" is the word
i'd pick to describe your situation. the ride is
harsh and the frame design is such that it doesn't
allow you to finish the ride or go further.
i'd go so far to say that "stiff" is not a word i'd want
to use to describe a crit bike (whatever they are) either.
if the bike is uncomfortable for either 10 or 110 miles,
it doesn't matter whether it's an ms ride or somerville,
something is wrong with the bike, and it's not the
material. i only mention this to stay on topic.

[97CSI]

Whatever it is. Harsh, stiff, pick your term (unless I'm violating the bicycling definition of 'stiff'). And, also stated in my original post in this thread that it is much more than 'niobium' alloyed steel. As you state, is geometry of the frame, tube diameter, wheels, tires, saddle, seatpost, etc., etc. And, very heavily depends on the rider. Harsh/stiff for me is double-century comfortable for others. I'm not knocking the CdA (or any other bike). CdA has beautiful craftsmanship and terrific looking bike. Just didn't work for me. Too harsh.

[e-RICHIE]

Whatever it is. Harsh, stiff, pick your term (unless I'm violating the bicycling definition of 'stiff'). And, also stated in my original post in this thread that it is much more than 'niobium' alloyed steel. As you state, is geometry of the frame, tube diameter, wheels, tires, saddle, seatpost, etc., etc. And, very heavily depends on the rider. Harsh/stiff for me is double-century comfortable for others. I'm not knocking the CdA (or any other bike). CdA has beautiful craftsmanship and terrific looking bike. Just didn't work for me. Too harsh.


my point was that i don't associate any of these issues with "material".

[News Man]

wouldn't that issue be more tethered to frame
design? if you're getting beat up and aren't
comfortable, i don't think it's a materials-based
problem - and i don't think "stiff" is the word
i'd pick to describe your situation. the ride is
harsh and the frame design is such that it doesn't
allow you to finish the ride or go further.
i'd go so far to say that "stiff" is not a word i'd want
to use to describe a crit bike (whatever they are) either.
if the bike is uncomfortable for either 10 or 110 miles,
it doesn't matter whether it's an ms ride or somerville,
something is wrong with the bike, and it's not the
material. i only mention this to stay on topic.

So true! Frame design is THE most important factor in my considerations when buying a bicycle.

[97CSI]

e-RICHIE - Are you saying that one of your frames built from the tubeset that you currently use and one built using a niobium-steel tubeset that are otherwise identical would not have a noticeable ride difference?

[e-RICHIE]

e-RICHIE - Are you saying that one of your frames built from the tubeset that you currently use and one built using a niobium-steel tubeset that are otherwise identical would not have a noticeable ride difference?


yes - except that i'd expect a net weight difference*.
keep in mind and don't lose track of this datapoint:
niobium is the material, not the pipe. the columbus
sets can be produced in varying guages and diameters
in order to appease market demands. saying a frame
is made of it means as little as saying that a frame
is made out of 531 or tange prestige. these are materials
too, not tube sets.


*assuming i used less of it to make a frame.

[97CSI]

I would guess that you are substantially correct. Perhaps a finely tuned pro would notice something different. But the rest of us would likely not.

[e-RICHIE]

I would guess that you are substantially correct. Perhaps a finely tuned pro would notice something different. But the rest of us would likely not.


i doubt it. pros are paid athletes, not equipment
geeks. they know what you know - if the design
is irrational, they can't efficiently push the bicycle
down the road. that is all that matters. your 35
miles rides are no different than theirs, except
yours are shorter and they get paid!

[David Kirk]

i doubt it. pros are paid athletes, not equipment
geeks. they know what you know - if the design
is irrational, they can't efficiently push the bicycle
down the road. that is all that matters. your 35
miles rides are no different than theirs, except
yours are shorter and they get paid!

I wish I had something better to say than "word". But I don't so..........WORD!

Dave

[97CSI]

i doubt it. pros are paid athletes, not equipment
geeks. they know what you know - if the design
is irrational, they can't efficiently push the bicycle
down the road. that is all that matters. your 35
miles rides are no different than theirs, except
yours are shorter and they get paid!

LOL - leave it to us 'posers' to be the equipment geeks! :)

[e-RICHIE]

LOL - leave it to us 'posers' to be the equipment geeks! :)



actually - i didn't intend for that qualification to have questionable connotations.

[97CSI]

actually - i didn't intend for that qualification to have questionable connotations.Not sure what you mean by 'questionable connotations'. We 'non-pro' riders buy what we like/can afford and have a great time with it. That makes us posers. Excepted, of course, are those who can actually keep up with Chris Wherry in Philadelphia and other races. Or at least make their living racing bicycles. Record/DA gear doesn't make one a better/faster rider.....but it is nice to have. Think you are taking 'poser' too seriously. We are all posers at some level.

[spincycle]

"This discussion was fascinaating and enlightening. Now that Reynolds has a new steel, 951, have the experts here read anything about it? So far, I've read that Redline has made a commuter bike (single speed) with it and Independent Fabrications is working on a prototype. How does this new steel stack up against the comments here?"

roadie7,

I don't know what the differences between Niobium and the new Reynolds 951 are but steel is steel and material is immaterial. :) I stole the material is immaterial from e-richie. :banana: The main point of my Niobium versus Reynolds 531 post was that the new steels have higher yield strengths than the old steels. You could substitute any modern steel for Niobium and come to the same conclusion. They all have the same modulus of elasticity so no steel is less or more compliant than the next. Section modulus is what counts and that's determined by outside diameter, inside diameter and how they are butted. All of that is independent of the material properties (assuming you're talking steel to steel comparison). The new steels let you get the same performance with less material to a point. Hope this helps.

[e-RICHIE]

Not sure what you mean by 'questionable connotations'. We 'non-pro' riders buy what we like/can afford and have a great time with it. That makes us posers. Excepted, of course, are those who can actually keep up with Chris Wherry in Philadelphia and other races. Or at least make their living racing bicycles. Record/DA gear doesn't make one a better/faster rider.....but it is nice to have. Think you are taking 'poser' too seriously. We are all posers at some level.


what i meant was - i think - was that calling somone
a pro doesn't mean than know anything more about
equipment than someone else who uses it regularly,
but has a day job. i was implying that you should
give yourself (we should give 'ourselves'...) more
credit and not assume that you/we know less than
someone who is paid to race. they may likely know
volumes more wrt training, but when it comes to
"stuff", they don't have a leg up on you/us.

[e-RICHIE]

I don't know what the differences between Niobium and the new Reynolds 951 are but steel is steel and material is immaterial. :) I stole the material is immaterial from e-richie. :banana: The main point of my Niobium versus Reynolds 531 post was that the new steels have higher yield strengths than the old steels. You could substitute any modern steel for Niobium and come to the same conclusion. They all have the same modulus of elasticity so no steel is less or more compliant than the next. Section modulus is what counts and that's determined by outside diameter, inside diameter and how they are butted. All of that is independent of the material properties (assuming you're talking steel to steel comparison). The new steels let you get the same performance with less material to a point. Hope this helps.


the latest iterations of well-made steels are finally a
version that combines high strength and lower weight
without have a penalty wrt elongation. imo, most of the
late 80s and the subsequent 15 years saw a rush to
offer lower weight sets needing major league finnessing
(did i spell that right?) like heat treatments, etcetera, and
the net result was pipe after pipe that was overly brittle.
getting the elongation factor correct and still keep the
weight low/strength high is the only way to go.

[djg]

Not sure what you mean by 'questionable connotations'. We 'non-pro' riders buy what we like/can afford and have a great time with it. That makes us posers. Excepted, of course, are those who can actually keep up with Chris Wherry in Philadelphia and other races. Or at least make their living racing bicycles. Record/DA gear doesn't make one a better/faster rider.....but it is nice to have. Think you are taking 'poser' too seriously. We are all posers at some level.

I cannot believe that I am doing this ...

I suppose there are quite a few private and semi-private definitions of "poser"/"poseur"/"effin poser" around and I don't suppose it much matters how you choose to use the term or not. Still, I think most folks have in mind something of a b/s artist or minor social fraud using equipment or kit (or, for that matter, a car or a suit) to create or bolster a false impression of accomplishments or skills that don't exist. I may be suffering all sorts of delusions, but I'm not stupid enough to think that the neighbors will mistake me for a guy named Dekker or another guy named Dekker just because I hop on an orange Nag. In fact, I suspect that the neighbors don't know that Rabobank sponsors ... you get the drift.

[bigbill]

what i meant was - i think - was that calling somone
a pro doesn't mean than know anything more about
equipment than someone else who uses it regularly,
but has a day job. i was implying that you should
give yourself (we should give 'ourselves'...) more
credit and not assume that you/we know less than
someone who is paid to race. they may likely know
volumes more wrt training, but when it comes to
"stuff", they don't have a leg up on you/us.

I once had Greg Oravetz as a house guest for a long weekend when I lived in South Carolina. Our bikes where almost identical in setup (framesize, stem lenth, etc) and after a slight seatpost adjustment we swapped bikes and took off on a 60 mile spin the day after a crit. He was riding for Coors Light and had a Serotta and I had a Litespeed Classic. I noticed that the Serotta handled well and was stiffer than my litespeed, but the component setup was terrible. He had campy ergo stuff but the right lever was actually a Sachs (campy) but didn't work well at all with the campy rear. He had taken second place the day before on this same bike. His comments about my bike were that it was a little slow in the turns but other than that he couldn't tell much difference. I could. I guess it is more about the engine. I was happy to get my bike back with it's adjusted and matched drivetrain. A year later I got to do the same thing with Declan Lonergan and his DeRosa Primato (Saab Team), that was a sweet ride.

[David Kirk]

I once had Greg Oravetz as a house guest for a long weekend when I lived in South Carolina. Our bikes where almost identical in setup (framesize, stem lenth, etc) and after a slight seatpost adjustment we swapped bikes and took off on a 60 mile spin the day after a crit. He was riding for Coors Light and had a Serotta and I had a Litespeed Classic. I noticed that the Serotta handled well and was stiffer than my litespeed, but the component setup was terrible. He had campy ergo stuff but the right lever was actually a Sachs (campy) but didn't work well at all with the campy rear. He had taken second place the day before on this same bike. His comments about my bike were that it was a little slow in the turns but other than that he couldn't tell much difference. I could. I guess it is more about the engine. I was happy to get my bike back with it's adjusted and matched drivetrain. A year later I got to do the same thing with Declan Lonergan and his DeRosa Primato (Saab Team), that was a sweet ride.

Being able to hold your heart rate at 200bpm for 6 hours doesn't automatically make you good at picking out handling traits. Nor does it make you a good wrench.

And this is coming from the guy who build his frame.

Dave

[Chris]

Having had a part in running a "professional" cycling team (Sharper Image/Mathis Brothers) for a year, and knowing several professional cyclists through my work as a sport psychologist, I can tell you that 95% of those guys just want a bike that works. They have little knowledge of or interest in the nuances that go into material selection or design. They need something that is reliable, functional, and competitive. I would say that the majority of people on this forum know far more and put much more consideration into the building process and quality of frames than the majority of the sub-30 year old professional athletes who use bicycles as the tools to their trade. You certainly have exceptions, but again, those with whom I have worked are more interested in a bike where they can get the right position, than one built with Starship or Niobium or bamboo for that matter.

[e-RICHIE]

Having had a part in running a "professional" cycling team (Sharper Image/Mathis Brothers) for a year, and knowing several professional cyclists through my work as a sport psychologist, I can tell you that 95% of those guys just want a bike that works. They have little knowledge of or interest in the nuances that go into material selection or design. They need something that is reliable, functional, and competitive. I would say that the majority of people on this forum know far more and put much more consideration into the building process and quality of frames than the majority of the sub-30 year old professional athletes who use bicycles as the tools to their trade. You certainly have exceptions, but again, those with whom I have worked are more interested in a bike where they can get the right position, than one built with Starship or Niobium or bamboo for that matter.


i feel this atmo.

[bigbill]

Being able to hold your heart rate at 200bpm for 6 hours doesn't automatically make you good at picking out handling traits. Nor does it make you a good wrench.

And this is coming from the guy who build his frame.

Dave

The fact that the top tube had a big dent from a past crash and the bike was still straight says alot about the design and build. I am experiencing steel bike lust lately, the bad thing is that I am being transferred to Italy next year and don't want to buy a frame and have the government ship it overseas. I also have the issue of justifying a new frame when I ride a Pegoretti now and have a MX Leader frame sitting in the corner of the room.

[Larry]

I just saw a beautifully finished fillet-brazed Griffen at the Bike Mart.
It is a Niobium frameset......very distinctive paint job and the finish
at the joints looks superb. I will test ride it soon. Beautiful flame finish.
Excellent detail in the workmanship.

[saab2000]

I am experiencing steel bike lust lately, the bad thing is that I am being transferred to Italy next year and don't want to buy a frame and have the government ship it overseas.

This is a bad thing how? I returned from living 2 miles from the Italian border about 2 years ago and am quite uncertain whether or not I made the right choice.

If I were offered a good job in Italy I would have my 2-minute notice on my bosse's desk in 5 minutes.

[bigbill]

This is a bad thing how? I returned from living 2 miles from the Italian border about 2 years ago and am quite uncertain whether or not I made the right choice.

If I were offered a good job in Italy I would have my 2-minute notice on my bosse's desk in 5 minutes.

It has more to do with shipping a frame with my household goods. If it gets damaged, I would never be able to recover the cost to replace it. I will put the merckx Mx frame in storage and just take the Pego, Soma commuter, and the Fisher 29r. I will probably wait until I return to the US in late 2008 to buy a new custom steel. The bad part right now is that there is a Yamaguchi quality custom builder out here in Oahu who could build me a nice steel frame and fork. I am just wary of shipping it with the gov.

[saab2000]

Have it shipped privately. I understand your concern, but if something is really well packed it should not be a problem.

One word - two bikes max. Less storage space there. If you disassemble your bike you ought to be able to pack it really well. Anyway, I don't know your situation so I cannot really make an educated comment.

Enjoy Italy. It is a really nice place full of the most beautiful people on the planet.

[PanTerra]

I just saw a beautifully finished fillet-brazed Griffen at the Bike Mart.
It is a Niobium frameset......very distinctive paint job and the finish
at the joints looks superb. I will test ride it soon. Beautiful flame finish.
Excellent detail in the workmanship.

Larry,

Is that the orange one?

[Larry]

Larry,

Is that the orange one?

Hi Steve,

No....it is not the orange Griffin.
This one has my name on a card attached to it.
It is a distinctive deep red with black flames on the top tube.
Go inside the door near the pedals glass cabinet. It is the door that leads back to the service area. The bike is parked there for now.
She is a beauty and weighs in at 16 pounds 4 ounces......and it has the latest and greatest in componentry.
I find it to be of superior workmanship compared to the line-up of
Colnagos in the store for demo rides. Really.....it is not even close!!!!

Larry

[97CSI]

It has more to do with shipping a frame with my household goods. I am just wary of shipping it with the gov.Get a case and ship it on the airline with you. Generally no additional cost on international flights. And you won't have to wait for your household gear to arrive to start riding. If you are into good music listening there are some great stereo gear (electronics and speakers) manufacturers in Italy. Seem to mostly be located up around Milan (wonder if La Scala has any impact on that?). Wonderful country to ride in from everyone I know whose ever had the pleasure of doing so.

[PanTerra]

Hi Steve,

No....it is not the orange Griffin.
This one has my name on a card attached to it.
It is a distinctive deep red with black flames on the top tube.
Go inside the door near the pedals glass cabinet. It is the door that leads back to the service area. The bike is parked there for now.
She is a beauty and weighs in at 16 pounds 4 ounces......and it has the latest and greatest in componentry.
I find it to be of superior workmanship compared to the line-up of
Colnagos in the store for demo rides. Really.....it is not even close!!!!

Larry

Whoa!, you got that red one I really liked that was hanging by the old changing rooms? Aww man, be glad it was too small for me.

[Larry]

Whoa!, you got that red one I really liked that was hanging by the old changing rooms? Aww man, be glad it was too small for me.
No.....it was not that frame either.
This one is already owned and built by the owner of Griffen. It does not look like the typical Griffen....Ceramic Metal Matrix whatever.
This one is already built up with Campy Record and Campy Hyperon(?)
wheels with Zero Gravity brakes.
It is fillet-brazed Niobium......it even says Niobium on the seatstays.
It is very smooth, flowing, and seamless looking at the joints.
I am becoming more and more attracted to this kind of steel joining method,
even over our beautiful lugged CSi models.

Ask Drew or Justin......they will show you this gem.
It might be the most striking bike in the shop.

DK does an awesome fillet-brazed frame, also. Does Southwest fly to Bozeman?? We will discuss this soon Steve. ROADTRIP maybe.

Larry

[catulle]

Being able to hold your heart rate at 200bpm for 6 hours doesn't automatically make you good at picking out handling traits. Nor does it make you a good wrench.

And this is coming from the guy who build his frame.

Dave

Same with car and motorcycle racers. The few who care and know about the machines they ride are unique and quite special.

[e-RICHIE]

Same with car and motorcycle racers. The few who care and know about the machines they ride are unique and quite special.


too few to even get a minion atmo.

[1centaur]

"Being able to hold your heart rate at 200bpm for 6 hours doesn't automatically make you good at picking out handling traits."

I figured that out from reading Boardman and Wust reviews.

[bigbill]

Get a case and ship it on the airline with you. Generally no additional cost on international flights. And you won't have to wait for your household gear to arrive to start riding. If you are into good music listening there are some great stereo gear (electronics and speakers) manufacturers in Italy. Seem to mostly be located up around Milan (wonder if La Scala has any impact on that?). Wonderful country to ride in from everyone I know whose ever had the pleasure of doing so.

I have a travel case and plan on flying my Pego in that and UPSing the commuter a week or so before I leave Hawaii. It is going to be a while before the car shows up and I can accomplish almost anything on my commuter if I use panniers. The family won't move for another 6 weeks or so. I want another steel frame to build up over a period of time. I have definate plans on what I want on my frame and I may just have to collect the parts and get the frame when I return to the US. I just have to get over my lust although if I ordered a RS right now, I could possibly get it sometime in late 08. That is a thought.

[PanTerra]

No.....it was not that frame either.
This one is already owned and built by the owner of Griffen. It does not look like the typical Griffen....Ceramic Metal Matrix whatever.
This one is already built up with Campy Record and Campy Hyperon(?)
wheels with Zero Gravity brakes.
It is fillet-brazed Niobium......it even says Niobium on the seatstays.
It is very smooth, flowing, and seamless looking at the joints.
I am becoming more and more attracted to this kind of steel joining method,
even over our beautiful lugged CSi models.

Ask Drew or Justin......they will show you this gem.
It might be the most striking bike in the shop.

DK does an awesome fillet-brazed frame, also. Does Southwest fly to Bozeman?? We will discuss this soon Steve. ROADTRIP maybe.

Larry

I saw it, sure is pretty. Geees it's light.

[Larry]

I saw it, sure is pretty. Geees it's light.
Steve,

Yes....it is really light at 16 pounds, 4 ounces.
But.....it has the absolute iightest components you can imagine.
Zero Gravity Brakes are really light
Carbon Crank Set
Light and sweet wheels
Carbon bars, stem etc.
IMHO the price is out-of-line and out-of-control......period. (for frame
and fork.)

Man...........you got the best deal on the planet with your CSi!!!!!!!
Never part with this frame. Several pros have encouraged me to never
sell my old trusty CSi.
Best regards,
Larry

[The Spider]

tell us about these wheels? (Light and Sweet ���)

they could be perfect for Jan in the winter months!

[Larry]

The Spider,

They appeared to be Campy Hyperon (sp?)
They looked like an all carbon wheel with carbon hubs.
Yes.....they would climb like a rocket!
Really......the bike was outfitted with all superlight parts.

[PanTerra]

..

[PanTerra]

tell us about these wheels? (Light and Sweet ���)

they could be perfect for Jan in the winter months!

IIRC, these L&S wheels are handbuilt in a little log cabin in Vermont, in the heart of New Englands maple syrup region. :p

[The Spider]

The Spider,

They appeared to be Campy Hyperon (sp?)
They looked like an all carbon wheel with carbon hubs.
Yes.....they would climb like a rocket!
Really......the bike was outfitted with all superlight parts.

you see a lot of bikes where money is spent on frame and components and the wheels don't match (guilty as charged but making amends asap) looks like the theme has been kept through, nice to see.

Zero gravity brakes are impressive for there performance as well as light weight I find.

[William]

A good discussion on tubes with some really good info thrown in:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=4979



William

[Kirk Pacenti]

Here is some basic info on Niobium doped tubes.

http://www.bikelugs.com/niobium.pdf

[Marcusaurelius]

Hey Biker Friends,

Does anyone have any experience with Niobium steel frames?
Is it really a step-up from the steel frames we already know.....
CSi steel,etc.
Any knowledge of this material would be appreciated.

Larry

I started to move away from columbus tubes several years ago. The problem with their new tubesets is they dented much too easily. I once picked up a frame built with Foco and you could feel the top tube give with just finger pressure. The same case could be said of Dedaccia EOM. Very fragile stuff. Reynolds 853 however is not nearly so fragile and does not dent easily.

Niobium is now found in the columbus spirit tubeset. I suspect it follows the columbus recent tradition of thin, fragile tubes.

[TorelliTom]

What is the difference between Columbus Ultrafoco, and Spirit? I see the wall thicknesses are the same, is it the Niobium factor? One has it and one doesn't? I just picked up an Ultrafoco frame and yes, it feels fairly fragile..but I can't wait to ride it :)

[97CSI]

All the ultra-thin high-strength steels are the same in this respect. Just depends on how thin it is drawn down. My '02 Scapin seems light but my '05 seems like tissue paper. Hope it is stronger than it looks/feels.

[93KgBike]

:banana:This is such an important thread for those of us that continue to buy, ride and race on steel. Thanks so much to Kirk Pacenti, Dave Kirk, spincycle, 97csi and all the other folks that have added on.

Although my daily commuter runs around 400lbs loaded, I dream about long climbs on my sub 20lb steel.

Great stuff to put my mind in the dreamy place. Really needed that today.

:banana:

[djg21]

Hey Biker Friends,

Does anyone have any experience with Niobium steel frames?
Is it really a step-up from the steel frames we already know.....
CSi steel,etc.
Any knowledge of this material would be appreciated.

Larry

My friend Tony Mezzatesta, recently departed, often put “NBI” frame stickers on the frames he built. When I asked, he told me that “NBI” stood for Nothing But Initials. I thought that was great.