MarkThailand

I tried posting this question in the Road Cycling thread and it was suggested that I should come here. I hope it is not because I was asking a dumb or obvious question. I have tried searching the forum but only got general ideas or very specific details relating to vintage steel bikes.

So, here goes...

I am currently in discussions with Anderson, Independent Fabrication, and Waterford about a custom steel sport touring / club ride bike. This is to add to my current non-carbon stable. My Lynskey Helix OS is for crazy, club rides that take on various aspects of crits. I have done centuries on it as well but I feel that I have to be alert and ready for the whole ride because it has a more aggressive geometry. My Lynskey R330 is my general all-around bike for my weekend solo 60 mile training rides. Centuries on the R330 are more relaxing but slower than on the Helix OS because the geometry is probably more relaxed. This new bike is for century and double century club rides and being able to walk the next day.

I am slowly climbing up the learning curve regarding the various kinds of steel tubing - Columbus XCr, Reynolds 953, KVA MS2, and Waterford S3 - and the challenges in working with them and the various properties of each tube set for various parts of the bike - the front triangle consisting of the head tube, down tube, and seat tube could be stiffer while the rear triangle consisting of the seat stay and chain stay can be vertically compliant and a bit more flexible for comfort. Another recommendation is to use lugs instead of TIG wielding for better durability.

I realize that this might be a difficult question since these are not exactly common bikes - but any opinions on the tube sets and the lugging and the following bikes:
1) the Anderson Signature 953 (probably 953 front triangle and KVA MS2 or XCr rear triangle)
2) the Waterford ST-33 with 953 upgrade (they now recommend the KVA MS2 tube set because the 953 is quite hard to work with)
3) the IF Crown Jewel (Columbus XCr)

Perhaps I am over-analyzing this, perhaps the bikes may all feel the same once welded into a frame, and perhaps I am just trying to rationalize my decision to buy another bike, but please bare with.

Mark

unterhausen

If it was my money, I would go with the Anderson, just because he's a one man operation and controls everything. IF makes really nice bikes, so I'm sure you'll be happy with them too.

So much goes into long distance riding that I hesitate to say that a steel frame will suit that purpose more than any other kind of bike.

Andrew R Stewart 

Mark- The first comment that I focused on was your comparison between the Helix OS and the R330 and your suggestion as to why the R330 is slower. Do you have the same fit on each bike? If not, why not? I'm not talking about the frame's geometry, which shouldn't provide much difference in power transfer, friction losses or aerodynamics. But the position of your body, the three contact points WRT each other and the power, comfort, aero aspects any fit differences create. Any difference in speed can't be due to the very small weight difference (assuming the two wheel sets are close to each other spec wise).

I'm wondering why you think a steel bike will make much of a difference. I always felt that body positioning made a FAR larger change then frame specs did.

One other difference that you touch on but don't give much credit is that when you ride your helix OS you're "on your game". The mind set you have when riding is very important in how you're willing to work the ride. If you have a more aggressive approach to riding when on the Helix OS (and all that comes with this like being part of the fast group instead of the mid pack/friends/wives) no wonder your ride speed is greater.

It would be interesting if you spent an extended period on the R330, using it for all your riding, what views and ride experiences you might have. Andy.

MassiveD

Large companies try to specialize on uses, because they can sell you more styles, and they can't fit you personally. What I try to do is stick with the basics that I can build. I'm into getting the BS out of bikes, and getting a fit, and building use specific function (like carrying panniers on touring bikes). I don't provide an even more potent magic sauce, or more micro segmentation.

In blind tests people can't tell the difference, or select the cheap stuff. If you are in the cohort that really counts the seconds, then you probably don't ride steel, but if you did, a slightly lighter frame might have some meaning.


Lugs are a "look", anyone who says they are more durable is, to be kind, out of touch.

ksisler

[Partial QUOTE=MassiveD;14926377] ....In blind tests people can't tell the difference, or select the cheap stuff. ...Lugs are a "look", anyone who says they are more durable is, to be kind, out of touch.[/QUOTE]

MD; +5 on fact that most folks can't tell the difference unless they know in advance which they are riding... perverse but true. Makes one wonder doesn't it?

On the other hand re your thoughts on lugs vs TIG'd. Each has good points and bad points, but the points are in different areas. I believe that either method if done well with modern tubes will be very strong, very stiff, resiliant, and effectively unbreakable. The state of the art is pretty darn good today for materials and builders (I will even give a nod to those robots in the factories in China even if they still can't build a great wheel...).

Now to a second dangle to that; Have you ever built a frame joint using both methods? I did a frame for a gorilla hill climber friend (I am sure he could pick up my car and move it for me if asked...). What I decided to do was to start with good TIG joints and then clean and flux it up just as I would for a lugged build. Then I split lugs on the bandsaw such that I could set them in over top of the TIG joints and pinned them in place. Following with a nice silver job to finish it off. Rationale; 1) The buyer wanted something stronger than anything normal, wanted something different and would pay for the extra effort; 2) I have always felt that a lugged frame distributed forces better down the length of the tubes; 3) I always felt that a TIG joint did a better job of fully eliminating movement or flex immediately at the tube intersection; 4) That neither a TIG or lugged joint was the ultimate answer when all the issues were studied; 5) For almost all riders, the difference was not significant and either was more than adequate. So why not do both to double up. Well its been a couple of years and my gorilla guy is still in Europe looking for even bigger hills to pound into submission. As far as I know, he hasn't broken the frame yet.

MassiveD

Cool.

I think part of the problem with the TIG story, is the story telling. First, few people tell the story of TIG and leave it up to others to tell, often people who have never done it, but feel qualified to call it quick and dirty, or easy. So here are two stories:

1) The fusion lugged frame. Essentially lugs and welds are the same, they are metals that are cast in place with all the disadvantages one finds in cast metals, porosity, lower tensile strength, and susceptibility to corrosion. The advantage to TIG welds is that the web is normally deeper since it is in the bead/fillet, and right on down through the tube. This is a thicker fusion joint than one finds in lugs, though obviously lugs are more than sufficiently strong. The load path then continues on through the tube where the butts act like lugs to distribute the load in the tube. What one ends up with, is a structure that is essentially superior to lugs in that it is continuously fused throughout the length of the tubes and bike.

2) The clunky story. This one has had life mostly in MTBs. Basically if you look at frame manufacture, for one reason or another, manufacturers have avoided using standard proven details, both by building with lugs and by building with welds. If one wants to strengthen a welded frame there are many ways of doing it, and often it pays to examine cheap bikes, shopping carts, or MTBs for the answers.

- Most fancy bikes depend excessively on approaches that treat each joint as though it were acting alone. Often on bikes there are left and right components, and they need to be treated as though they were acting together, rather than as though they were mono structures. So structures like flattened tubes may actually be stronger when a left/right analysis is undertaken

- Most fancy bikes use excessively sculptural approaches, so for instance tangent flat stock brake bridges are more structurally correct as braces than tubular inset ones. Some with gussets that should be tangent, not on the centre line.

- There is also a tendency to use an excessive number of socketed complex parts.

Of course one is not going to get people to build more bikes that look at though they were sold at the Soviet era GUM department store. But if people are worried about welded bike structure, or have some special projects in mind they could always fall back on more elegantly engineered structures, even if they look bad.

ksisler

Massive one; +5 on the discussion.

But am I also divining the most folks that can do modelling do not have much in the way knowledge of bikes and those that know enough to build a good bike frame aren't really into the math of modelling the entire structure that is a bike frame?

Have to wonder if there is a serious mechanical engineer on this forum who is also a framebuilder of note? Haven't yet downloaded RattleCAD, but maybe it has or could be extended to have some funtionality to evaluate stresses and the like?