View Single Post
Old 07-10-20, 01:20 PM
  #184  
63rickert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 813 Post(s)
Liked 180 Times in 134 Posts
[QUOTE=elcruxio;21580060]. Though we've been discussing chromo which is the weakest bike steel and 6061 aluminum which is the baseline bike aluminum. Take reynolds 853 or higher grade and suddenly you have alloys which blow 6061 aluminum out of the water. Take 953 and you have a material that absolutely crushes even 7000-series aluminum in strength to weight with a corrosion resistance of 6000 series aluminum (7000- series is actually surprisingly prone to corrosion). And that's just Reynolds.

Thank you for this. In nearly all these discussions the bikes being discussed are mass market stuff. Fine details of materials performance are simply buried beneath the compromises and hurry that come with bulk commodity production. If any of this made any difference to anyone they would be buying 853 and better, and getting that frame from someone who knew what to do with it.

A cheap frame rides like a cheap frame. Material makes no difference.

To address just a few of the nonsensical remarks in this thread. Carbon frames have been on the market since 1975. Exxon Graftek frames. Carbon is emphatically available from a plethora of custom builders. Trek OCLV frames had amazingly high failure rate. Strong riders broke two and three a season. Drove bike shops crazy because Trek would replace frames, would not cover costs of parts transfers. And for year after year same failures, no changes. Well, just a few, but could go on forever. What people believe, firmly and fervently believe, is mostly just marketing. Since the source (marketing) was alway garbage, the beliefs are garbage.

If you want to know about bikes, ride a lot of different bikes. Emphasis on the word different. What comes from the big brands is all the same mush.
63rickert is offline  
Likes For 63rickert: