# Is this good?



## Kathy (30 Dec 2007)

Hello,
I've just decided to ride from John oGroats to Lands End next summer to raise money for a charity and I've been looking for a bike. It's been 30 years since I last rode a bike and I know absolutely nothing about them. I also have very little money to spend on this adventure so I'm looking for something seconhand. I found this http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Touring-cycle...ryZ33503QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
on ebay and would like to ask your advise as to whether or not this is a good buy and also what questions I should ask the seller.
Kathy.


----------



## Cathryn (30 Dec 2007)

What a fantastic NY resolution!!! Brilliant idea. 

I know very little about the technicalities of bikes as well. I've not heard of Revell at all, so maybe try google searching and get some reviews if you can find them. I'd personally be nervous of a brand I hadn't heard of...although I'm a bit cautious like that.

Second hand can be brill though - I got a secondhand tourer this summer and it was the bargain of my life, so don't worry about that. Maybe try bike shops in your area that do second hand bikes. Maybe a bit safer than Ebay? Or...go and see the Revell and take it to a local bike shop there to get it checked and valued?


----------



## spandex (30 Dec 2007)

Things to ask 1) when did it last have a service 2) what was done in the service 3) how old is the chain, tyres ....

If the chain is old do not get it as you will be looking at £10 ish for a chain, Block £15, labour £10 upto £20, Tyres £10 up words each.


The thing is which bike do you have now?


----------



## spandex (30 Dec 2007)

If it all sounds ok go for it if your picking it up ask for a test ride.


----------



## Cathryn (30 Dec 2007)

Have you guys heard of Revell?


----------



## spandex (30 Dec 2007)

no sorry


----------



## Brock (30 Dec 2007)

Looks pretty good to me for the buy it now price, even if you do find it needs a service and a part or two at the local bike shop.
Do you know it's a good size for you?


----------



## Brock (30 Dec 2007)

Weren't Revell a toy manufacturer? Maybe it's not such a good idea..


----------



## Crackle (30 Dec 2007)

I've heard of Revell but I can't remember too much about them. It's a 531 frame which is a good start, no doubt you'll need to add a bit to the purchase price to change things to suit like saddle and stuff but 531, Tiagra 21 speed STI's (recent upgrade), a rack and panniers, full mudguards, looks clean and I think it's a good price - the Mixte frame won't make it popular which is probably why the price is good but that shouldn't put 'you' off it.

It looks good to me


----------



## Brock (30 Dec 2007)

I quite like that style of frame with the extra stays, makes it look more robust and suitable for touring than standard step throughs.




Oh I see, it's called a 'mixte' frame is it?


----------



## xilios (30 Dec 2007)

Cathryn said:


> Maybe try bike shops in your area that do second hand bikes. Maybe a bit safer than Ebay?



I agree with Cathryn above.
I got my bike 2nd hand from a bike shop and they gave it a complete service in the price. 
But than again we spent the same amount on my wifes new Trek 7.2fx.
I would not bother with ebay, especially if you don't know much about bikes. Do some research first so you know what to look for and than go to your LBS and ask them for a used or new bike in the price range you want.
cheers


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (30 Dec 2007)

My opinion FWIW would be to think longer term than just the end to end thing. If you do that I bet you'll be hooked and looking to do longer tours more often as well, as such a quality bike is going to be a must & likely money well spent....also getting the thing set up right is crucial on a long ride....then again the ebay machine might just still have a lifetime of miles in it...dunno...but i suspect we get what we pay for in bikes just tas we do in other things.


----------



## John Ponting (30 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Oh I see, it's called a 'mixte' frame is it?




They were reasonably popular around the early '80s. My wife had a Raleigh mixte in 531 with Stronglite kit - only passed it on to somebody last summer. At the time I had a similar spec Raleigh Clubman and the mixte was bought as a "terry & june".


----------



## yenrod (30 Dec 2007)

Kathy said:


> Hello,
> I've just decided to ride from John oGroats to Lands End next summer to raise money for a charity and I've been looking for a bike. It's been 30 years since I last rode a bike and I know absolutely nothing about them. I also have very little money to spend on this adventure so I'm looking for something seconhand. I found this http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Touring-cycle...ryZ33503QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> on ebay and would like to ask your advise as to whether or not this is a good buy and also what questions I should ask the seller.
> Kathy.



ALL THE BEST !  - by god youll need it...


----------



## andygates (30 Dec 2007)

I remember Revell. They were one of the respray houses back in the 80s, and did some frames too, IIRC. 

One of the expensive worries with secondhand bikes is worn gear bits - this has been replaced so that ought to be OK. 

Having said that, unless it's bobbins-cheap, I never buy a bike without putting my bum on the seat.


----------



## vernon (31 Dec 2007)

Kathy said:


> Hello,
> I've just decided to ride from John oGroats to Lands End next summer to raise money for a charity and I've been looking for a bike. It's been 30 years since I last rode a bike and I know absolutely nothing about them. I also have very little money to spend on this adventure so I'm looking for something seconhand. I found this http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Touring-cycle...ryZ33503QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> on ebay and would like to ask your advise as to whether or not this is a good buy and also what questions I should ask the seller.
> Kathy.



The bike seems to be decent value for money. The frame is made of decent tubing and has a decent gear/brake set up which is new-ish. 

The postal charge seems a tad high. I paid £25 to have a bike sent up from London.

See if the seller will include the panniers.

Now that you have decided to do a 1000 mile ride, have you considered what you are going to do to build up your fitness and stamina?.

Daily rides?
Distance?
Weekend tours?


I got away with 40 miles per week for a couple of months, a couple of weekend tours and four Audax rides ranging from 100km to 200km just before setting off. 

Have you thought about the type of ride i.e.

Camping or hostels/B&B?
Unsupported on your own or with an accompanying support vehicle?
Daily mileage?
Rest days?
Route?
When exactly you aim to do the ride
If you have a limited budget then camping is the cheapest option if you already have the camping gear.
If you are doing it solo and getting to and from the extremities by train, book well in advance to get the cheapest fares. I manged to get my tickets for under £70. Booking in advance for John O'Groats is essential - there's limited capacity between Inverness and Thurso/Wick though there is a van service to supplement the two bikes per train capacity.
Navigation? You or the support?
It will be a great adventure. I've done it both ways and enjoyed it immensely. There's no advantage in choosing LEJOG in preference to JOGLE despite the received wisdom that prevailing winds will be in your favour if you do LEJOG. 

Go for it but don't forget to get the miles in first.


----------



## vernon (31 Dec 2007)

Bigtallfatbloke said:


> My opinion FWIW would be to think longer term than just the end to end thing. If you do that I bet you'll be hooked and looking to do longer tours more often as well, as such a quality bike is going to be a must & likely money well spent....also getting the thing set up right is crucial on a long ride....then again the ebay machine might just still have a lifetime of miles in it...dunno...but i suspect we get what we pay for in bikes just tas we do in other things.



For many LEJOG is just a thing to do before they die just as many folk train for a marathon then abandon jogging. The original poster has less to lose by buying a cheap bike . The 531 mixte framed bike will serve her well for LEJOG and many other rides afterwards. It's got quality brakes and gears and, unless the wheels are shot, very little appears to need attention. Even so a pair of wheels can be had for under £100. If she bought new kit and hated the experience then she'd take a big hit when selling the bike. Besides she said that she's got a limited budget.

I met a few riders on LEJOG and JOGLE who were not enjoying the experience - probably through setting an unrealistic daily mileage target and not having the miles in their legs. I bet they didn't continue with cycle touring.

FWIW my Dawes Galaxy was bought second hand unseen for under £200 and so far has seen me through LEJOG x 1.5, JOGLE, C2C x 3, W2W, Hadrians Cycle Route, Channel to the Med, and around 5,000km of Audax rides plus the odd weekend mini tour. 

I've treated it to two new rear wheels - I'm v.porky and severely punish wheels especially when fully loaded for cycle camping, a set of brake blocks, one replacement chain ring and a couple of chains. CAn't complain at that.


----------



## Kathy (31 Dec 2007)

Thanks for all the replies and in particular to Vernon. I have thought of the logistics and plan to take 3 weeks over the trip. I will be cycling with my brother who has some experience in such adventures. 
I will have a look at the bike but no firm decision until I have asked the questions!
I am reasonably fit, now need to get cycle fit and get a load of miles under my belt in preparation!
Cheers


----------



## bonj2 (31 Dec 2007)

that bike AS A BIKE, I think it's a GWC.* Especially for doing john-o' groats to lands end.**
If you want something you can just get on and ride, without having to do anything to it and if you're not really interested in mechanics or messing with bikes or anything, then just get your arse down decathlon, they've got cheap but perfectly functional, good road bikes for under £200 and they'll have all (well, most of) the latest technology working straight out the box and probably be under 12kg.
It's got horizontal drop outs, which are an arse. I'll probably get shot down in flames for saying that, but I'm sorry they are. There's a reason proper drop-outs were invented, and that it's because they're _better_. With horizontal dropouts, there's more than one way in which the wheel can go in and it can go in wonky. Chances are it hasn't got QR skewers either, so make sure you take two big spanners with you in your puncture repair kit won't you.
It goes without saying it's an old OLD bike, so check the bottom bracket and hub bearings, as if it's just been stuck in a garage for years and is just suddenly finding itself the victim of a clearout they'll have turned to soap long ago. Also, check the chain isn't rusty - if the bike's not been used/maintained regularly it probably will be.
Also personally, I don't like the frame - it's steel and it's got a weird shape. There shouldn't be any need for two sets of seat stays.
So i wouldn't ride it, certainly not from JoG to LE.

*HOWEVER.* The seller's put STI shifters on it, this is obviously an upgrade - and it's pictured with a pannier. If the shifters are in good working order, and he's including the panniers and they're in good condition, then £125 isn't _too_ bad just for these things alone.
Add to this the fact that the brakes, pannier rack, handlebars, pedals, wheels, saddle are almost certainly salvageable, and _possibly_ salvageable are the tyres, chain, cassette, cranks (compatibility probably more of an issue than having seen better days), and mech(s).



*Genuine Work of Crapola.

** Also, have you considered doing LE to JoG, rather than the other way round? Apparently a lot of riders do it this way as cornwall has more unavoidable hills than scotland, so they go south to north to get them over with.


----------



## Chuffy (1 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> ** Also, have you considered doing LE to JoG, rather than the other way round? Apparently a lot of riders do it this way as cornwall has more unavoidable hills than scotland, so they go south to north to get them over with.


It's to do with the prevailing winds Bonjy...

Bike looks tidy and it's got a certain, charm. I like that in a bike. I think I'd want a look at it first though. If you can allow £200 for possible repairs/replacements etc then you'll have a very tidy machine.


----------



## vernon (1 Jan 2008)

Chuffy said:


> It's to do with the prevailing winds Bonjy...
> 
> Bike looks tidy and it's got a certain, charm. I like that in a bike. I think I'd want a look at it first though. If you can allow £200 for possible repairs/replacements etc then you'll have a very tidy machine.



Bonj manages to subtitute blind prejudice for reasoned argument based on experience. 

The proposed bike will fit the bill and it has to be remembered that Dawes also used the mixte frame for its ladies touring bikes for a while. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the design though some find it visually unappealing.

In all liklihood the components on the mixte bike will be of a superior quality to those on the Decathlon bike. I have a rear wheel bought from Decathlon in Dijon when my rear wheel failed on my Channel to the Med ride this summer. The wheel was a cheap as chips but the construction quality and anticipated durability leave a lot to be desired. It's the first bike wheel that I have owned where the holes for the spokes have been punched trough the inner second wall of the rim leaving the spokes being supported by a single wall. I'd be very wary of the £200 bike especially as one would have to consider buying a new set of gears to render it suitable for touring thus adding close to 50% of the initial purchase price. A 52/42 chain set and a 12/28 rear cassette that the £169 bike comes with is not a touring set up. The bike might not have the means of mounting a rack either. It also lacks mudguards. The weight of the bike isn't critically important. Surplus weigh only makes its presence felt on hills and although Devon and Cornwall are hilly none of the hills are insurmountable - I know, I've ridden them on a bike and a camping load considerably heavier than that which you are likely to take.

The mixte has the better gear range for the job and I'd not fret about the weight.

Horizontal drop outs are only a problem for the mechanically inept. There's no need for two large spanners to remove the wheels if they are not quick release. It's still possible to purchase dumb bell or 'dog bone' spanners to remove the wheels they cost peanuts and available from your local bike shop or Wilkinsons.

Gettiing back to the JOGLE ride - the transport logistics if travelling by train make this a much better choice because the northern extremities are poorly served by trains. There's only a couple of trains that leave Wick/Thurso each day. The first of which is around 06:00. It took around eleven hours to get back to Leeds. On the other hand, arrival at Wick or Thurso gives one sufficient time to pedal the 20 miles or so to JOG and pitch your tent.

Penzance on the other hand is well served by trains and connections to most parts of the country.

Arriving at JOG is a bigger anticlimax than arriving at LE.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Jan 2008)

Chuffy said:


> It's to do with the prevailing winds Bonjy...
> 
> Bike looks tidy and it's got a certain, charm. I like that in a bike. I think I'd want a look at it first though. If you can allow £200 for possible repairs/replacements etc then you'll have a very tidy machine.


The prevailing winds can blow in any direction. The wind on saturday for example is south westerly.

"it's got a certain, charm"
hmm, but that's nearly ALL it's got, sadly 



vernon said:


> In all liklihood the components on the mixte bike will be of a superior quality to those on the Decathlon bike. I have a rear wheel bought from Decathlon in Dijon when my rear wheel failed on my Channel to the Med ride this summer. The wheel was a cheap as chips but the construction quality and anticipated durability leave a lot to be desired. It's the first bike wheel that I have owned where the holes for the spokes have been punched trough the inner second wall of the rim leaving the spokes being supported by a single wall. I'd be very wary of the £200 bike especially as one would have to consider buying a new set of gears to render it suitable for touring thus adding close to 50% of the initial purchase price. A 52/42 chain set and a 12/28 rear cassette that the £169 bike comes with is not a touring set up. The bike might not have the means of mounting a rack either. It also lacks mudguards. The weight of the bike isn't critically important. Surplus weigh only makes its presence felt on hills and although Devon and Cornwall are hilly none of the hills are insurmountable - I know, I've ridden them on a bike and a camping load considerably heavier than that which you are likely to take.
> 
> The mixte has the better gear range for the job and I'd not fret about the weight.


you NEED new gears for touring?
absolute load of cobblers.
this one for instance, is £169 and is advertised as having a triple. Bet it's a damn sight lighter, aswell - it's aluminium rather than steel, and doesn't have a weird design with excess tubes where it doesn't shouldn't need them.

"The bike _might_ not have the means of mounting a rack either"
yes, it MIGHT not. So make sure you don't check it out so you don't discover that it does.  tit.




vernon said:


> Horizontal drop outs are only a problem for the mechanically inept. There's no need for two large spanners to remove the wheels if they are not quick release. It's still possible to purchase dumb bell or 'dog bone' spanners to remove the wheels they cost peanuts and available from your local bike shop or Wilkinsons.


ok yep, fine. So make sure you never cycle too far from a wilko's so when the head breaks off your dog bone spanner you can always just pop in for a new one.




vernon said:


> Gettiing back to the JOGLE ride - the transport logistics if travelling by train make this a much better choice because the northern extremities are poorly served by trains. There's only a couple of trains that leave Wick/Thurso each day. The first of which is around 06:00. It took around eleven hours to get back to Leeds. On the other hand, arrival at Wick or Thurso gives one sufficient time to pedal the 20 miles or so to JOG and pitch your tent.
> 
> Penzance on the other hand is well served by trains and connections to most parts of the country.
> 
> Arriving at JOG is a bigger anticlimax than arriving at LE.



hmm, can see the logic to most of that last bit, especially the last sentence. Beweare though that land's end itself isn't a public town as such, so much as a tourist attraction - when i went there as a kid you had to pay to get in. Don't think it's much, only a couple of quid probably but don't spend all your money on energy bars along the way and then not be able to complete the route 'cos some little hitler with a turnstile is standing in your way.


----------



## Brock (1 Jan 2008)

Bonj, the original poster specifies very limited money. The example you give is over 40 quid more expensive, even if she pays the 'buy it now' price and comes with no rack, guards or panniers. How much will decathlon charge on top for those?
I'd go for the Revell myself. Looks more comfortable for someone who isn't so used to cycling aswell.
You just don't like the frame do you?


----------



## snorri (1 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> The prevailing winds can blow in any direction. The wind on saturday for example is south westerly.



 Bonj, explain the relationship between the prevailing wind in the UK and the wind on Saturday at an undisclosed location.


----------



## Brock (1 Jan 2008)

Yeah, and why would the head break off your dog bone spanner?


----------



## bonj2 (1 Jan 2008)

What is it with you people?
I can't understand how people can claim to be a reliable resoure for beginners when they go mincing around paying flowery-eyed lip service to traditionalism and nostalgia the whole time. YOU might yearn for the old days, if so there's nothing wrong with that - but don't assume everone else is the same - it's not the introduction to cycling people _want_ in today's modern times!
Admit it, with a bike that's decades old sold on ebay there's a very reasonable chance that the buyer will have to replace the entire drivetrain straight off. That isn't what someone on a budget needs, and they'll be stuck without anything to ride from john o goats to lands end on and a big repair bill to boot, but oh yes, at least they'll have satisfied your yearning for nostalgia, glad to see we've got our priorities sorted.



Brock said:


> Bonj, the original poster specifies very limited money. The example you give is over 40 quid more expensive, even if she pays the 'buy it now' price and comes with no rack, guards or panniers. How much will decathlon charge on top for those?
> I'd go for the Revell myself. Looks more comfortable for someone who isn't so used to cycling aswell.
> You just don't like the frame do you?



I don't like the frame, no, you're right - but I don't see how you can justify recommending it to a beginner. But it's an OLD bike, a VERY OLD bike. 
They want a bike that's going to last, not one that was probably rusting to buggery decades ago!





snorri said:


> Bonj, explain the relationship between the prevailing wind in the UK and the wind on Saturday at an undisclosed location.



The wind's fairly random.
Explain what causes it to be fairly predictably more likely to be blowing from the north to south than south to north.




Brock said:


> Yeah, and why would the head break off your dog bone spanner?



er... _using_ it? there's a reason wilko's stuff is cheap you know. But if you want to _guarantee_ to someone that it will never break on a tour, go ahead.


----------



## Brock (1 Jan 2008)

Take your Christmas hat off, it just looks silly now.


----------



## summerdays (1 Jan 2008)

Prevailing wind is the dominant wind direction in any location. In the UK its from the South West, thats not to say that the worst winds come from that direction but that is the normal wind direction. I'm trying to remember all the technical reasons but my head is bunged up with a cold, but the Jet Stream must be the reason. (Come on someone dig me out of this hole)

(And I don't want to take my hat off... I've still got my lights up at home)


----------



## Brock (1 Jan 2008)

Yours looks fine Summerdays, it's just bonj's that looks daft


----------



## Chuffy (1 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> What is it with you people?


What, offering reasonable advice? The bike is fine, but with the usual caveats about having a good look first applying, as always. As Andygates suggested, it's not very wise to buy a bike without pressing bum to saddle and, if you can, getting someone with a bit more experience to check it over. 



> I don't like the frame, no, you're right - but I don't see how you can justify recommending it to a beginner. But it's an OLD bike, a VERY OLD bike.
> They want a bike that's going to last, not one that was probably rusting to buggery decades ago!


And as we all know, if you don't understand like something, that makes it wrong, doesn't it. 
Why would a mixte frame not be suitable to someone new to cycling?
It's only 19 years old. The gears have been replaced and I'd bet the wheels have too. Why does the the thought of something being 'old' terrify you so much, were you molested by someone's granny as a child?



> The wind's fairly random.
> Explain what causes it to be fairly predictably more likely to be blowing from the north to south than south to north.


Here, this might help. It doesn't mean that the wind always blows from the South West, but if you want a tailwind (and you might on a ride of that length) then you are more likely to get one going in that direction.

Kathy, please don't be put off by the controversy on here. We love Bonj dearly (every village needs its idiot) but he does take a while to get his head round new and difficult concepts. 
Please stick around, you'll get all the advice and support you need on here.


----------



## Cathryn (1 Jan 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Kathy, please don't be put off by the controversy on here.



I was thinking that! It was poor Kathy's second post and a war starts raging!!

Kathy, there's some good (and quite balanced) advice on this thread, we all really hope it helps. As a forum, we want to encourage and welcome new cyclists and I think everyone's pretty impressed by your launching yourself into a new hobby and we just want to help.


----------



## Crackle (1 Jan 2008)

Cathryn said:


> I was thinking that! It was poor Kathy's second post and a war starts raging!!



It's not a war it's a Bonj: A Bonj has broken out. He's been on the unreasonable juice again. My theory is he's affected by the e-numbers in his Coke.


----------



## Chuffy (1 Jan 2008)

Crackle said:


> It's not a war it's a Bonj: A Bonj has broken out. He's been on the unreasonable juice again. My theory is he's affected by the e-numbers in his Coke.


Stop it, you're making me laugh and I'm too ill to cope with laughing *and* coughing at the same time.


----------



## Crackle (1 Jan 2008)

sorry


----------



## Chuffy (1 Jan 2008)

So you should be. 
Horrid wretch.
Excuse me, I need to go and bring up another lung.


----------



## Crackle (1 Jan 2008)

Is it not you that's having the '_horrid 'retch'? _


----------



## Chuffy (1 Jan 2008)

Crackle said:


> Is it not you that's having the '_horrid 'retch'? _


It was a cunning piece of linguistic multi-tasking.


----------



## Crackle (1 Jan 2008)

I have chosen to ignore one of the multi's and treat it as a purely descriptive sentence then.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> blah blah blah *The bike might not have the means of mounting a rack either. blah blah blah*


*



Brock said:



blah blah blah even if she pays the 'buy it now' price and comes with no rack, guards or panniers. How much will decathlon charge on top for those?

Click to expand...

ok, so. At the end of the day, what it boils down to, is: The main advantage of that bike, which all the nostalgic loons have staked all their chips on being the thing that causes Kathy to buy it, it's main selling point is: it's got panniers.. Great. 
That's like buying a computer 'cos it's got a cup holder.



Brock said:



Take your Christmas hat off, it just looks silly now.

Click to expand...

I can't change it back yet because the image of the fish without the hat is on my home computer and I'm still away till tomorrow night.



summerdays said:



Prevailing wind is the dominant wind direction in any location. In the UK its from the South West, thats not to say that the worst winds come from that direction but that is the normal wind direction. I'm trying to remember all the technical reasons but my head is bunged up with a cold, but the Jet Stream must be the reason. (Come on someone dig me out of this hole)

Click to expand...

You can't seriously be suggesting ALL wind blows from the south west.
I find it laughable that you think you can even be sure that MOST of the wind will ON AVERAGE blow from the south west.



Chuffy said:



What, offering reasonable advice? The bike is fine, but with the usual caveats about having a good look first applying, as always. As Andygates suggested, it's not very wise to buy a bike without pressing bum to saddle and, if you can, getting someone with a bit more experience to check it over.

Click to expand...

In my experience, it isn't normally worth the petrol and time to go over there and have a look 'cos you can bet your bottom dollar something will be rusty.



Chuffy said:



And as we all know, if you don't understand like something, that makes it wrong, doesn't it. 

Click to expand...

Like I keep saying Chuffy, I'm just providing a balanced argument. I've pointed out the good points in my first post, that they might include the panniers and it's got good shifters and possibly other salvageable things, but all you nostalgia freaks seem to be getting all misty-eyed 'cos it's from the 1860s and are telling her to not only run forth brandishing over a ton in cash for it - but also to ride it from john o groats to lands end. 
I'm not saying don't buy it, I'm just saying, well, think carefully about it and consider your options before getting the same misty-eye-trocity.



Chuffy said:



Why would a mixte frame not be suitable to someone new to cycling?

Click to expand...

Well, other than the fact that it's heavy, no reason - well, no more reason for it not being suitable for a beginner than not being suitable for anyone else. A reason applicable to beginners and non-beginners being that it's a bit of a shite design - something that only really exists not through merit but because somebody's decided he's going to try and be different from the commonly accepted, tried and tested norm.



Chuffy said:



It's only 19 years old.

Click to expand...

ONLY nineteen years?! If it was a car, that'd make it E-, or F- reg. How many E or F reg cars do you see around?  Hardly any. Because they cost more to get through their MOT than they're worth, so they get sent to the scrapyard. The only thing that means the same isn't true of bikes is because you don't have to have MOTs, but mechanically, the same principle applies. The only reason they're not in the scrapyard therefore is because they don't take up so much space in people's garage as an old shoot car, and they get nostalgic about it until their other half makes them have a clear out, when they end up on ebay - as is clearly the case here. Same with the puch clubman I had. It's the same story with all bikes of these kind.




Chuffy said:



The gears have been replaced and I'd bet the wheels have too.

Click to expand...

Now that's viewing it with rose-tinted specs that have all misted up with rose coloured mist from your misty eyes. You 'bet' it's had new wheels? :?:  What makes you think it's had new wheels? Surely wouldn't the owner advertise that on the auction if it had?




Chuffy said:



Here, this might help. It doesn't mean that the wind always blows from the South West, but if you want a tailwind (and you might on a ride of that length) then you are more likely to get one going in that direction.

Click to expand...

That shows the wind blowing from the north west. So going south, that will at best help, at worst be a cross wind (but I'm sure that's actually just an example).
I'm still waiting for you to show me the evidence that you 'most' winds blow from the south west, and thus that you can confidently predict that that's what the wind direction will be on any given day.




Chuffy said:



Kathy, there's some good (and quite balanced) advice on this thread, we all really hope it helps. As a forum, we want to encourage and welcome new cyclists and I think everyone's pretty impressed by your launching yourself into a new hobby and we just want to help.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly - balanced. I'm needed to balance it out.*


----------



## Chuffy (1 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> That's like buying a computer 'cos it's got a cup holder.


That's not a cup holder, it's the DVD drive. 



> You can't seriously be suggesting ALL wind blows from the south west.



No, I wasn't.



> I find it laughable that you think you can even be sure that MOST of the wind will ON AVERAGE blow from the south west.


You're getting all confused again Bonj. It's a game of averages, ok? If you go from the SW then you have a greater chance of catching a tailwind. 



> Like I keep saying Chuffy, I'm just providing a balanced argument. I've pointed out the good points in my first post, that they might include the panniers and it's got good shifters and possibly other salvageable things, but all you nostalgia freaks seem to be getting all misty-eyed 'cos it's from the 1860s and are telling her to not only run forth brandishing over a ton in cash for it - but also to ride it from john o groats to lands end.
> I'm not saying don't buy it, I'm just saying, well, think carefully about it and consider your options before getting the same misty-eye-trocity.


Which is pretty much all that anyone else has said. Minus your weirdly obsessive phobia of anything more than a week old.




> Well, other than the fact that it's heavy, no reason - well, no more reason for it not being suitable for a beginner than not being suitable for anyone else. A reason applicable to beginners and non-beginners being that it's a bit of a shite design - something that only really exists not through merit but because somebody's decided he's going to try and be different from the commonly accepted, tried and tested norm.


So, there's no reason for it not being suitable then? It's a touring bike. A few extra ounces are not going to make much difference. As for the design, well mixte frames are basically frames for ladies (or Scotsmen) who want to ride in a skirt or want to minimise the risk of, ahem, _soft tissue_ damage when stopping in a hurry. 



> ONLY nineteen years?! If it was a car, that'd make it E-, or F- reg. How many E or F reg cars do you see around? ........Same with the puch clubman I had. It's the same story with all bikes of these kind.


Hmmm, you're right about the cars, but how does that explain the sheer number of ancient (10+ year old) bikes I see on the roads? Could it be the mechanical simplicity of the bike compared to a car?



> Now that's viewing it with rose-tinted specs that have all misted up with rose coloured mist from your misty eyes. You 'bet' it's had new wheels?   What makes you think it's had new wheels? Surely wouldn't the owner advertise that on the auction if it had?


It's something that would be worth asking about. It's old enough to have worn out the rims easily (and possibly the hubs too) depending on mileage and use. Who knows what goes through the mind of someone when they write up an E-Bay ad?



> That shows the wind blowing from the north west. So going south, that will at best help, at worst be a cross wind (but I'm sure that's actually just an example).


That's a chart, not a map.....



> I'm still waiting for you to show me the evidence that you 'most' winds blow from the south west, and thus that you can confidently predict that that's what the wind direction will be on any given day.


I have, you just can't don't want to understand it.




> Yes, exactly - _balanced_. I'm needed to balance it out.


A deranged Ying to my sane Yang perhaps? :?:


----------



## vernon (2 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> The prevailing winds can blow in any direction. The wind on saturday for example is south westerly.
> 
> "it's got a certain, charm"
> hmm, but that's nearly ALL it's got, sadly
> ...



I don't know why Bonj sees aluminium as being supperior to steel for frames buy hey, each to their own taste. The mixte frame works so the bike will do the job ofr the original poster. One needs to remember the stated need i.e. get to LE as cheaply as possible and assess whether the bike meets the need - it does.

Unfortunately Bonj can not avoid insulting folk whose opinions differ from his own. I'll be more assertive about the Decathlon biikes. From my recent recollections about the range as inspected in the Sheffield branch, I do not recall seeing rack mounting points on the road bike. This reminds me that the bikes are road bikes and not tourers so I'll restate that in addition to the £169 the user is likely to want to: replace the saddle at further expense, replace the cassette or chain rings to obtain a touring range of gears especially if camping at further expense, purchase mudguards at further expense, buy a rack at further expense, buy touring luggage at further expense and the £169 has become very inflated.......


Going along with *your* suggestion that two spanners is a good idea, breaking the head off one dog bone spanner through using ignorance and brute force is hardly a disaster as ther will be a spare to hand  There's a plethora of local bike shops to supplement the Wilkinson's network so purcdhasing a replacement is hardly problematic 

Neither end of LEJOG are public towns. There's no need to fret about admission fees LEJOGers are given access to the signing in point at the Hotel beyond the turnstile at LE. Beware of arriving after the end of the 'trading period' the finger posts are taken down at night which will deny riders the opportunity of a souvenir phote. The official photo taken by the official photographer is quite expensive. 

It's worthwhile collecting a LEJOG/JOGLE log sheet at the hotel at JOG and obtain six or soo proofs of passage as you complete the ride. This will give you the option of joining the LEJOG club and getting a commemorative certificate. I might get around to submitting mine sometime. 

And returning to the original post - yep the bike is likely to be fine.
Unlike Bonj, I _*have*_ ridden JOGLE and LEJOG and have observed a whole range of bikes and riders similarly engaged. There's a plethora of received wisdom about what can and can not be done or accomplished and most of it can be disproven. The mixte framed bike _*will*_ do the job without fuss and should your riding end with the completion of the ride, you will not have taken a huge financial hit when disposing of the equipment.

What ever decision you make, you need to get a bike soon to get some miles in. Meanwhile continue with the planning - some folk find it fun. I found it a chore and left it for as long as possible.


----------



## Aperitif (2 Jan 2008)

Great post Vernon - thanks.


----------



## snorri (2 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> You can't seriously be suggesting ALL wind blows from the south west.
> I find it laughable that you think you can even be sure that MOST of the wind will ON AVERAGE blow from the south west.



Bonj, the only laughable aspect is your amazing ignorance of meteorolgy. Wind direction is not random, weather patterns exist. We know these patterns exist from Met Office records taken over the last 150 years.


----------



## summerdays (2 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> You can't seriously be suggesting ALL wind blows from the south west.
> I find it laughable that you think you can even be sure that MOST of the wind will ON AVERAGE blow from the south west.



No all wind doesn't blow from the south west, however over any given period it will blow from that direction the most TIMES. Trees in exposed areas will be bent in a particular direction away from the prevailing wind (for that location). The most damaging winds are often from other directions as tree roots have developed to resist the prevailing wind.

Heres a link to wikipedia's version of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevailing_winds


----------



## User482 (2 Jan 2008)

Kathy

Welcome to the forum. Please ignore Bonj, he's obviously been drinking meths again.

I did my first LEJOG last year and absolutely loved it. I did a bare minimum of training, but planned the ride with some shorter days at the beginning, to ease myself in. By the time we got to Scotland, I was fit as a butcher's dog, and indeed my best average speed was on the last day. My advice is to follow my diet regime en route of large quantities of pie, plus copious measures of single malt in the evenings. You'll need the calories.


----------



## snorri (2 Jan 2008)

User76 said:


> 4. Avoid Slammaban, it's just outside Falkirk, and is the most depressing place I have ever been.



I think you mean Slamannan.


----------



## Kathy (2 Jan 2008)

Well this has been a great intro to touring and I have enjoyed reading everyone's advice. Incidentally I contacted the seller and found that the drive train and wheels have done about 3000 miles, which seems quite high to me, but I will swing by to look at it anyway - with someone who has more idea than I do!
I have been to look at other bikes and can see that most are aesthetically more pleasing and yes even more desirable but I dont have any money!! When I consider other kit that I will need in addition to the bike I am going to be struggling.
Personally I feel that 19 years old sounds Ok - I certainly wish I was only 19! 
And Bonj the photo shows that it does have a rack so I won't worry that it might not have the means of mounting one. (Oh yeah, and the panniers are included) If I tell you I am a sailor you will understand that the whole prevailing wind arguement told me plenty about the value of the advice being given.
Now to the training - if I've got it right I dont need to do much and must eat loads of pies and drink plenty of single malt - the whole trip is sounding better and better! And I will definately avoid crashing in Inverness and will pop in to see User76 for a cuppa and some cake!


----------



## vernon (2 Jan 2008)

Kathy said:


> Well this has been a great intro to touring and I have enjoyed reading everyone's advice. Incidentally I contacted the seller and found that the drive train and wheels have done about 3000 miles, which seems quite high to me, but I will swing by to look at it anyway - with someone who has more idea than I do!
> I have been to look at other bikes and can see that most are aesthetically more pleasing and yes even more desirable but I dont have any money!! When I consider other kit that I will need in addition to the bike I am going to be struggling.
> Personally I feel that 19 years old sounds Ok - I certainly wish I was only 19!
> And Bonj the photo shows that it does have a rack so I won't worry that it might not have the means of mounting one. (Oh yeah, and the panniers are included) If I tell you I am a sailor you will understand that the whole prevailing wind arguement told me plenty about the value of the advice being given.
> Now to the training - if I've got it right I dont need to do much and must eat loads of pies and drink plenty of single malt - the whole trip is sounding better and better! And I will definately avoid crashing in Inverness and will pop in to see User76 for a cuppa and some cake!



3000 miles isn't particularly high. I cycled that distance last year. Everything is still good on the transmission front on my bike. At 21+ stone, my transmission will get a lot more hammer than that on the mixte. As long as the chain is regularly cleaned and lubricated everything shouldbe fine.

If you do buy the bike, you will be able to replace bits of the transmission piecemeal i.e. individula chain rings from the front and a cassette from the rear along with a chain. The middle chain ring tends to be the one that gets the most use and doesn't cost much to replace. A chain costs around £10 and a decent cassette £10-£15.

Don't underestimate the amount of eating that you need to do! I forgot to factor in the additional calorie expenditure needed to cart my camping gear and suffered from severe energy depletion aka 'the bonk' or 'hunger knock' once or twice. It takes some eating to eat your way back out of a bonk! I didn't drink that much o0n my LEJOG and JOGLE rides but got through a litre of wine per day on last year's Channel to the Med ride a surprisingly shorter and cheaper expedition than a UK End to End.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Unfortunately Bonj can not avoid insulting folk whose opinions differ from his own


Well, I didn't know I'd actually _insulted_ anyone, but seeing as I've been accused of it anyway, I might aswell use it up on you: vernon, you're a _pompous twat_.



vernon said:


> I don't know why Bonj sees aluminium as being supperior to steel for frames


it's lighter. Don't try and deny it, 'cos it is.



vernon said:


> buy hey, each to their own taste. The mixte frame works so the bike will do the job ofr the original poster.


It _works_... yay!, well the _penny farthing_ WORKS...



vernon said:


> From my recent recollections about the range as inspected in the Sheffield branch, I do not recall seeing rack mounting points on the road bike.


Do you recall actually bothering to look at all? No. So you don't know that they don't have them then do you.



vernon said:


> This reminds me that the bikes are road bikes and not tourers so I'll restate that in addition to the £169 the user is likely to want to: replace the saddle at further expense


Replace the SADDLE?!  and what makes you think that if they buy the old shitter off ebay that they're NOT going to want to replace the saddle?



vernon said:


> , replace the cassette or chain rings to obtain a touring range of gears especially if camping at further expense,


Please explain what ratio you will want when touring that the decathlon bike doesn't have. It's got a triple, if you want lower than that you'll need an MTB cassette.



vernon said:


> purchase mudguards at further expense


And you'll NEED mudguards because?...




vernon said:


> , buy a rack at further expense, buy touring luggage


oh right - so that pannier bag is the 'touring luggage' now is it?   Have we actually established whether it comes with it? 



vernon said:


> Going along with *your* suggestion that two spanners is a good idea, breaking the head off one dog bone spanner through using ignorance and brute force is hardly a disaster as ther will be a spare to hand


one for each side?  



vernon said:


> There's a plethora of local bike shops to supplement the Wilkinson's network so purcdhasing a replacement is hardly problematic


'tis if you're in the middle of nowhere.



vernon said:


> Neither end of LEJOG are public towns. There's no need to fret about admission fees LEJOGers are given access to the signing in point at the Hotel beyond the turnstile at LE. Beware of arriving after the end of the 'trading period' the finger posts are taken down at night which will deny riders the opportunity of a souvenir phote. The official photo taken by the official photographer is quite expensive.


don't bother, 'official photographers' are just a money spinner, a cash cow for the tourist magnates. Take a camera phone.



vernon said:


> It's worthwhile collecting a LEJOG/JOGLE log sheet at the hotel at JOG and obtain six or soo proofs of passage as you complete the ride. This will give you the option of joining the LEJOG club and getting a commemorative certificate. I might get around to submitting mine sometime.


What's the point in that - why do you need to prove it to somebody? If _you_ know you've done it, that should be all that matters. The sort of people who only do it for a certificate are probably the sort to cheat by driving.


----------



## Chuffy (2 Jan 2008)

Kathy said:


> Well this has been a great intro to touring and I have enjoyed reading everyone's advice. Incidentally I contacted the seller and found that the drive train and wheels have done about 3000 miles, which seems quite high to me, but I will swing by to look at it anyway - with someone who has more idea than I do!


3k isn't that much really, depending on maintenance. The wheels should certainly be fine unless the seller rides through sand and gravel for fun.



> I have been to look at other bikes and can see that most are aesthetically more pleasing and yes even more desirable but I dont have any money!! When I consider other kit that I will need in addition to the bike I am going to be struggling.


If it's in acceptable condition then it's a nice first bike. I bought my first bike (a proper grown up bike as opposed to the kids bikes I had years ago) for about £200. If I knew then what I know know then I could probably have found a better bike. However I love my bike and it's done many thousands of miles. I wouldn't swap it for anything. These things do matter.



> Personally I feel that 19 years old sounds Ok - I certainly wish I was only 19!
> And Bonj the photo shows that it does have a rack so I won't worry that it might not have the means of mounting one. (Oh yeah, and the panniers are included) *If I tell you I am a sailor you will understand that the whole prevailing wind arguement told me plenty about the value of the advice being given.*



Please stick around, I think you might enjoy yourself on here! 



> Now to the training - if I've got it right I dont need to do much and must eat loads of pies and drink plenty of single malt - the whole trip is sounding better and better! And I will definately avoid crashing in Inverness and will pop in to see User76 for a cuppa and some cake!


Wise woman. 

Right then...<cracks knuckles, prepares to tackle Mount Bonj just one more time...>


----------



## Chuffy (2 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> it's lighter. Don't try and deny it, 'cos it is.


Bonj, lightness isn't necessarily the measure of all things (the weight of your brain excepted). Alu is lighter, it is also more brittle. Steel is heavier but has more 'spring'. Both are very fine materials for frames but with distinct advantages and disadvantages over each other. For a touring frame, saving a few hundred grammes of frame weight isn't worth the bother given the advantages of steel (longevity, ease of repair, ride comfort etc) for that type of frame.



> And you'll NEED mudguards because?...


Do a 900 mile ride in the wet without them. Take a picture of your chaffed, scabby and bleeding perineum. Then make a fatuous comment like the above.
Besides, it's already got them fitted.



> oh right - so that pannier bag is the 'touring luggage' now is it?   Have we actually established whether it comes with it?


Er, yes, the OP did. Nearly an hour before you posted. You _did_ read her post, didn't you? 



> one for each side?


Now who's being pompous and patronising?  



> 'tis if you're in the middle of nowhere.


That could apply to any tool or any component. I take it you never venture more than 500 yards from the nearest lbs Bonj, just in case...



> What's the point in that - why do you need to prove it to somebody? If _you_ know you've done it, that should be all that matters. The sort of people who only do it for a certificate are probably the sort to cheat by driving.


I think Vernon's point was that he has done Lejog and you haven't. Despite this you were offering advice on how to go about it. Some might call this foolish... 
Just out of interest, what is the longest ride you've ever done? No silly games, I genuinely would like to know.


----------



## Chuffy (2 Jan 2008)

Kathy - Apologies if this is just stating the bleedin' obvious (after all I don't have a clue how much you know or what other advice you've had) but have you looked at the CTC website? They have a info pack on LEJOG which might be of use. The pack is free for CTC members, so if you know anyone who is, now's the time to offer them a pint and a cheeky wink.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Jan 2008)

Hi Kathy

Great ambition!

Regarding the bike, I recall Revell from the 1980's and seem to remember they were very nicely made and finished. As for Mixte style frames they again were hugely popular in the 1980's, the Claude Butler 531 Mixte frame was as common as muck amongst the female touring fraternity. The photo's show that the bike looks to have a very good finish and shine too around the rear-end, the bit that touring tends to beat-up a bit. My take is that it has been owned by somebody who bought it from new, has given it a lot of TLC over the years and is looking for a good home for it.
If it's the right size it looks perfect for a LEJOG. Good 531 frames are lovely to ride and last ages...mines nearly 50 years old!

I'd echo andygates advice though (oh and Chuffy's Maggot's and Vernons...ignore bonj on this one), if you can, go a give it a spin to make sure there are no nasty rumblings and really importantly fits you well, you're gonna be spending a long time on her!

If all is well it looks like a bike for a very long relationship!


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

User76 said:


> Yeah thats the place, jeeeezzzus keerisssst what a place. I even had to toil up a chuffing great hill to get there!!
> 
> Oh, and apologies about the earlier post, it's Penzance you should avoid crashing in, I was only a dozen miles from the end



I thouight you were close to the finish than Inverness... I recall your original postings. What an unfortunate end.

Mind you I nearly ended my JOGLE at Penzance in 2006 as I got into a tired tizz with myself and couldn't see the point of cycling to Land's End only to have to come back to catch the train the next morning. After all I'd nothing to prove having done LEJOG the previous year...

Thankfully common sense prevailed.


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Kathy - Apologies if this is just stating the bleedin' obvious (after all I don't have a clue how much you know or what other advice you've had) but have you looked at the CTC website? They have a info pack on LEJOG which might be of use. The pack is free for CTC members, so if you know anyone who is, now's the time to offer them a pint and a cheeky wink.



The info pack is not that great. I'll settle for a wink to part me from mine. I never got around to taking it seriously.

I used a large scale motoring Atlas with campsites printed on the maps to plan my approximate route. I then tore out the the relevant pages and threw away the remainder of the Atlas. The maps only let me down a couple of times when the camp sites turned out to be caravan only. I then resorted to wild camping and used the saved camp site fee for a decent meal the following day.

On the subject of food. If one is camping and wants a good breakfast cheaply, all day breakfasts in supermarkest are good value for money as are transport cafes. Big portions, loadsa calories, easy on the wallet.


----------



## bonj2 (3 Jan 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Bonj, lightness isn't necessarily the measure of all things


no, but there's no point lugging extra weight around when you don't have to.
If you tot up all the energy you could have saved lugging extra weight around on a 1,000 mile ride, you might squeeze an extra whole mile out with it.



Chuffy said:


> the advantages of steel (longevity, ease of repair, ride comfort etc) for that type of frame.


ease of _repair_? what, so if the _frame breaks_, you weld it back together? And thank christ it's a steel frame in the first place, god knows - me with my aluminium frame it would have snapped clean in two long ago _for sure_, wouldn't it... 



Chuffy said:


> Do a 900 mile ride in the wet without them. Take a picture of your chaffed, scabby and bleeding perineum. Then make a fatuous comment like the above.
> Besides, it's already got them fitted.


Well take them off. They add nothing to comfort. All mudguards do is stop you getting a few spots of mud on your back if you ride through a lot of muddy puddles.



Chuffy said:


> That could apply to any tool or any component. I take it you never venture more than 500 yards from the nearest lbs Bonj, just in case...


Such as? The only thing that's likely to happen to my bike that would cause me not to be able to ride it is a puncture, and I've got everything I need to deal with that with me whenever I ride it.



Chuffy said:


> I think Vernon's point was that he has done Lejog and you haven't.


Has he?
He's _claiming_ he has, that doesn't mean he actually has, and that he didn't once drive or get on a train for a bit does it.



Chuffy said:


> Despite this you were offering advice on how to go about it. Some might call this foolish...


Why would I have to have done it to offer advice on it? Touring isn't some magical mystical art you know, it's just riding a bike, A LOT. Advice on bikes in general and riding is still applicable.



Chuffy said:


> Just out of interest, what is the longest ride you've ever done? No silly games, I genuinely would like to know.


Well, you're banging on about how weight isn't the be all and end all, but now, suddenly length is, is it?


----------



## Chuffy (3 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> ease of _repair_? what, so if the _frame breaks_, you weld it back together? And thank christ it's a steel frame in the first place, god knows - me with my aluminium frame it would have snapped clean in two long ago _for sure_, wouldn't it...


Yes, exactly that. Read any history of the Tour de France and you'll come across tales of riders stopping at a village forge to repair broken forks. Steel touring frames last almost forever. Aluminium frames have a much shorter lifespan. 



> Well take them off. They add nothing to comfort. All mudguards do is stop you getting a few spots of mud on your back if you ride through a lot of muddy puddles.


Rubbish. Pure, unadulterated rubbish. Like I said, do a long ride _like I have_ with no mudguards _like I have_ in the wet _like I have_ and revel in the joy of a chaffed, scabby and bleeding arse _like I have_. That was only over the course of one 100 mile ride, doing the End2End in the wet without mudguards is just masochistic lunacy.
Be very, very grateful that I didn't actually take pictures....



> Has he?
> He's _claiming_ he has, that doesn't mean he actually has, and that he didn't once drive or get on a train for a bit does it.


Lots of people on here have done it. Do you doubt them all?



> Why would I have to have done it to offer advice on it? Touring isn't some magical mystical art you know, it's just riding a bike, A LOT. Advice on bikes in general and riding is still applicable.


Hmmm, I suspect that there's a bit more to it than that.



> Well, you're banging on about how weight isn't the be all and end all, but now, suddenly length is, is it?


No, it was a straight question, no strings or punchline attached. What's the longest single ride you've ever done?


----------



## User482 (3 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> no, but there's no point lugging extra weight around when you don't have to.
> If you tot up all the energy you could have saved lugging extra weight around on a 1,000 mile ride, you might squeeze an extra whole mile out with it.


A touring bike loaded up is going to weigh over 40lbs. Do you really think that 1/2 lb saved on the frame is going to make any noticeable difference. Do you not think that other factors such as comfort and ease of repair might be just a tad more important?



> ease of _repair_? what, so if the _frame breaks_, you weld it back together? And thank christ it's a steel frame in the first place, god knows - me with my aluminium frame it would have snapped clean in two long ago _for sure_, wouldn't it...



I bent my mech hanger on my steel frame when in the middle of nowhere. I bent it back with an adjustable spanner. Try that on an alu frame and see what happends



> Well take them off. They add nothing to comfort. All mudguards do is stop you getting a few spots of mud on your back if you ride through a lot of muddy puddles.


As chuffy says, you can't have ever toured in the wet. 

You know, this is a thread asking for advice on LEJOG. Why not leave it to those who have actually done some long distance touring?


----------



## User482 (3 Jan 2008)

Kathy

One useful tip. Getting back from JOG can be difficult, as the nearest train stations are Thurso or Wick, only one per day takes bikes - and that leaves early in the morning. My solution was to use Puffin tours (www.puffinexpress.co.uk) who can take 2 bikes on the back of their minibus. They picked me up from JOG and deposited me at Inverness train station for around £20. I then took the sleeper train to London Euston for £75.


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> A touring bike loaded up is going to weigh over 40lbs. Do you really think that 1/2 lb saved on the frame is going to make any noticeable difference. Do you not think that other factors such as comfort and ease of repair might be just a tad more important?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it might be best if Bonj left it to folk who rode bikes to offer advice as there's very little evidence that Bonj has experience of riding one :8:

I had the misfortune of having my rear dropout fracture on my steel framed Dawes Galaxy. I was so glad of it being steel as it was brazed up by Bill Nickson, the last British Winner of the Milk race and I was able to continue and finish my LEJOG.


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> Kathy
> 
> One useful tip. Getting back from JOG can be difficult, as the nearest train stations are Thurso or Wick, only one per day takes bikes - and that leaves early in the morning. My solution was to use Puffin tours (www.puffinexpress.co.uk) who can take 2 bikes on the back of their minibus. They picked me up from JOG and deposited me at Inverness train station for around £20. I then took the sleeper train to London Euston for £75.



Kathy is riding from JOG so getting home from there isn't a problem.


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I think Vernon's point was that he has done Lejog and you haven't. Despite this you were offering advice on how to go about it. Some might call this foolish...
> Just out of interest, what is the longest ride you've ever done? No silly games, I genuinely would like to know.



I've dug up a blog that I kept for JOGLE 2006. Forgive the typos as I was often tired when using the predictive text on the mobile phone that I used to make the entries with. It's also worth remembering that the Blog describes the ride in reverse i.e. the most recent entry covers the end of the ride and the oldest entry covers the start. I had a few adventures along the way including a broken frame in 2005 and losing my wallet with all my money and cards in 2006. Both incidents could have been 'game over' but for the kindness of total strangers.

http://jogle-ride.blogspot.com/

For LEJOG 2005

http://www.20six.co.uk/vernon

The latter link is confusing as it alludes to the 2006 ride too but I swapped blog services. Scrolling back through the 2005 Blog will lead to the abandoned 2004 effort.

To anyone contemplating a LEJOG or indeed any sort of tour I strongly advise keeping a blog as they certainly jog (sic) the memory. I rarely remember the poor weather that I encountered on the rides when I'm telling folk about the rides. I certainly don't recall ever being miserable though clearly I was :8:


----------



## domtyler (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Kathy is riding from JOG so getting home from there isn't a problem.


----------



## User482 (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Kathy is riding from JOG so getting home from there isn't a problem.



D'oh! 

<clutching at straws mode>
Still, my advice might allow her to get from Inverness to JOG.
</clutching at straws mode>


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> D'oh!
> 
> <clutching at straws mode>
> Still, my advice might allow her to get from Inverness to JOG.
> </clutching at straws mode>



I covered that issue on 31st December :8:

I had the misfortune of having my connections at Edinburgh screwed up by a northbound GNER train failing and GNER failing to hold the Edinburgh to Inverness train to allow a pretty tight change of trains - five minutes to disembark, travel from the southernmost point on the station to the northern most via a lift with a 'ten minute queue' and I was onto an obvious loser.

I managed to negotiate getting onto a different train to Inverness but had to spend the night there as I'd missed the Thurso connection. The ticket inspectors at Inverness weren't interested in my passenger ticket the following day, they were only interested in my evidence of having the bike booked onto the train which turned out to be a van. The van transfer service for bikes is laid on from around May onto September/October and is actually faster than then train. Sadly the van service isn't allowed to carry passengers.


----------



## User482 (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> I covered that issue on 31st December
> 
> I had the misfortune of having my connections at Edinburgh screwed up by a northbound GNER train failing and GNER failing to hold the Edinburgh to Inverness train to allow a pretty tight change of trains - five minutes to disembark, travel from the southernmost point on the station to the northern most via a lift with a 'ten minute queue' and I was onto an obvious loser.
> 
> I managed to negotiate getting onto a different train to Inverness but had to spend the night there as I'd missed the Thurso connection. The ticket inspectors at Inverness weren't interested in my passenger ticket the following day, they were only interested in my evidence of having the bike booked onto the train which turned out to be a van. The van transfer service for bikes is laid on from around May onto September/October and is actually faster than then train. Sadly the van service isn't allowed to carry passengers.



Yeah, the minibus I took from JOG to Inverness was no slower than the train, despite numerous diversions on to back roads to see the sights, plus a stop in Helmsdale. Of course the real benefit was instead of cycling on to Thurso, I stayed in the bar at JOG and drank an extremely intemperate quantity of single malt.

That said, the sleeper train was very comfortable, although it messes with your mind: the train turns round and splits during the night, so your bike isn't where you thought you left it - imagine the panic at Euston when we thought our bikes had been stolen!


----------



## bonj2 (3 Jan 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Yes, exactly that. Read any history of the Tour de France and you'll come across tales of riders stopping at a village forge to repair broken forks. Steel touring frames last almost forever. Aluminium frames have a much shorter lifespan.


Bollocks. Tour de france riders don't WELD their forks back together and carry on! They either bow out, or get a new bike! All the others'd be miles ahead by the time they'd got the welding mask on!




Chuffy said:


> Rubbish. Pure, unadulterated rubbish. Like I said, do a long ride _like I have_ with no mudguards _like I have_ in the wet _like I have_ and revel in the joy of a chaffed, scabby and bleeding arse _like I have_. *That was only over the course of one 100 mile ride*, doing the End2End in the wet without mudguards is just masochistic lunacy.


So, therefore, when I ride 20 miles to work, the amount of mud on my arse should theoretically be 1/5th of the amount of mud required to cause chafing.
Why then is it always....erm..._none_? Only normally a few little spots on the back of my reflective vest, none on my arse! I would guess it's mainly because the saddle's in the way.
Your arse was probably chafed because you either had a crap saddle, or your arse was already muddy before you set off. Neither of which is advisable.



> Lots of people on here have done it. Do you doubt them all?


I don't know, I doubt the ones that are quick to assume I _haven't_ ever done any touring, and those who get, advise getting, or have got, a LEJOG certificate - because it shows they only do it so they can boast of having done it, rather than for the enjoyment of the actual cycling.
vernon for one strikes me as the sort to drive as soon as he gets a bit tired if he thinks no-one's looking. User482 probably is aswell.



User482 said:


> A touring bike loaded up is going to weigh over 40lbs. Do you really think that 1/2 lb saved on the frame is going to make any noticeable difference. Do you not think that other factors such as comfort and ease of repair might be just a tad more important?


Ease of repair - dealt with above.
Comfort - who's to say that old bike on ebay's going to be particularly comfy? A comfortable bike is one that's the right shape and the right saddle, that's different for everyone.





> I bent my mech hanger on my steel frame when in the middle of nowhere. I bent it back with an adjustable spanner. Try that on an alu frame and see what happends


Well if it was the mech hanger itself that broke, that isn't part of the frame is it. What are you trying to say will happen if you do that on an aluminium frame? that it will break? 
how do they bend mech hangers back in LBSs then, I've known them do it perfectly satisfactorily on an alu frame.



> You know, this is a thread asking for advice on LEJOG. Why not leave it to those who have actually done some long distance touring?



like I keep saying, why is having done it a precursor to being able to offer advice on it?


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> Bollocks. Tour de france riders don't WELD their forks back together and carry on! They either bow out, or get a new bike! All the others'd be miles ahead by the time they'd got the welding mask on!



Is the wrong answer!

Eugene Christophe did it twice. Once in 1913 and once in 1919. 

On both occassions he resorted to forge welding to repair his forks and went on to finish on the repaired bikes. On both occassions he was heavily penalised.

I do wish Bonj would make sure he gets his facts right before attempting to disprove other folks assertions. It would minimise his amazing displays of ignorance.


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Jan 2008)

bonj dear fellow, you are making a bit of a prat of yourself here....well actually, a lot, and it's not really helping Kathy get herself sorted. But if you need a bit more help, here goes.

If you care to look into the history of the TDF you'll find that it's a very old race...so old than men rode steel bikes, with fixed wheels and no lycra and no support cars or comfy hotels or energy bars and there were no tarmac roads over the alps and bikes broke...often and the riders had to fix, including welding/brazing them themselves, the local blacksmith was not allowed to offer assistance...go google.
Steel frames also survive happily with quite severe dents in them, unlike Aluwhere stress fractures soon occur.

Nobody with sense would do any serious touring without mudguards unless in very hot climes. 20 miles soaking on a road-bike is nothing compared to 100+ miles day-in day-out on a laden tour bike at a slower pace, say 10 hours in the saddle. I've done 85 miles on a road-bike in torrential weather but it was only 5 hours and it was getting pretty nasty. Guards would have made a great difference and weigh bugger-all.

If the ebay frame fits it should be pretty comfortable, 531 tubed bikes of that era generally were and it was more than likely designed with touring in mind.

Rear mech hangers on trad steel touring bikes are either an integral part of the rear dropout (so not a replaceable part) or on more basic designs the hanger is a steel part of the derailleur and again reparable...this is not usually the case with the rear-dropouts on Alu frames.

Oh, and I'd rather have advice from somebody who has done what I wish to do.

Take a look, how many makes of lightweight Aluminium road touring bikes are out there bonj...doesn't that tell you something? Why is steel and Titanium preffered for long distance travel?

If your aim is to be an irritating cock, you've achieved your goal. Well done. You can piss-off now and let those that know what they're talking about proffer advice.


----------



## bonj2 (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Is the wrong answer!
> 
> Eugene Christophe did it twice. Once in 1913 and once in 1919.
> 
> ...


oh _well_,in those days, maybe, when they weren't sponsored and could just get another bike...
And the fact that you've cited an (the?) example means it can't be common.
Why did he bother - he can't possibly have thought he would come even close after having time off to weld?


----------



## bonj2 (3 Jan 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> bonj dear fellow, you are making a bit of a prat of yourself here....well actually, a lot, and it's not really helping Kathy get herself sorted. But if you need a bit more help, here goes.
> 
> If you care to look into the history of the TDF you'll find that it's a very old race...so old than men rode steel bikes, with fixed wheels and no lycra and no support cars or comfy hotels or energy bars and there were no tarmac roads over the alps and bikes broke...often and the riders had to fix, including welding/brazing them themselves, the local blacksmith was not allowed to offer assistance...go google.


ok, great. But nowadays we have roads. So why are steel frames better? Aluminium frames don't break, 'cos there's nothing to _cause_ them to break. So why wouldn't you take advantage of the lighter weight? There's no _reason_ to ride a road bike over a rough track (unless, say, you're abitrary). So there isn't any need to strap a welder to your backpack when you head out to tesco's. And neither is there any need for a steel frame. If you _want_ one, to be nostalgic, fair play - but don't make out they're better because of a reason that was only prevalent 90 years ago.



Fab Foodie said:


> Nobody with sense would do any serious touring without mudguards unless in very hot climes. 20 miles soaking on a road-bike is nothing compared to 100+ miles day-in day-out on a laden tour bike at a slower pace, say 10 hours in the saddle. I've done 85 miles on a road-bike in torrential weather but it was only 5 hours and it was getting pretty nasty. Guards would have made a great difference and weigh bugger-all.


If I was riding for that long in torrential weather, well, even anything more than a few miles in torrential weather, I'd want to be wearing a waterproof.



Fab Foodie said:


> Rear mech hangers on trad steel touring bikes are either an integral part of the rear dropout (so not a replaceable part) or on more basic designs the hanger is a steel part of the derailleur and again reparable...this is not usually the case with the rear-dropouts on Alu frames.


again, and why is that better?


----------



## Abitrary (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Is the wrong answer!
> 
> On both occassions he resorted to forge welding to repair his forks and went on to finish on the repaired bikes.



Was also reading that sometimes they don't just weld the bike they started out with, but depending on what's broken, replace / weld-in whole new stuff that they find lying around on farmyards or whatever... like bits of plough for forks for example...


----------



## MarkF (3 Jan 2008)

Really enjoyed this thread gentlemen (and ladies)

I remember Bonj banging on about mudguards in a previous thread, or several previous threads and thought "WTF is he on about"? Anyway.......my last (stolen) bike had guards and I set off on my super duper new bike last week to buy some new ones. 30 miles later in continous rain I arrived in Keighley with a dry arse
A few specks of mud on my back was all the damage so........I bought a rack instead. Cheers Bonj.


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> oh _well_,in those days, maybe, when they weren't sponsored and could just get another bike...
> And the fact that you've cited an (the?) example means it can't be common.
> Why did he bother - he can't possibly have thought he would come even close after having time off to weld?



Inumerate too Bonj?

One rider - *two *examples. 

Furthermore they are *well known *examples reinforcing the suspicion that Bonj's cycling knowlege is somewhat limited. 

There is nothing wrong with the steel mixte framed bike. It will do the job. It is affordable and is cheaper than the inferior alternatives proposed by Bonj. Should the frame fail it is likely to be repairable by someone skilled at brazing or gas welding. Frame failure however is a red herring. It can happen, I've experienced it and it wasn't a catasrophe as far as having to abandon my tour was concerned. 

The pros and cons of frame materials can be discussed until the cows come home but I'm prepared to let Bonj believe aluminium is the material of choice if only to shut him up.


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Inumerate too Bonj?
> 
> One rider - *two *examples.
> 
> ...


----------



## bonj2 (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Inumerate too Bonj?
> 
> One rider - *two *examples.
> 
> ...



still doesn't change the fact that the ebay bike is being sold largely because it's had it...
It's exactly what I thought when i bought the puch clubman: "Can do it up!" "Won't need much spending on it!" It _never_ works out like that!


----------



## bonj2 (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Inumerate too Bonj?
> 
> One rider - *two *examples.
> 
> ...



well known if you're VERY old, maybe.


----------



## Abitrary (3 Jan 2008)

MarkF said:


> I remember Bonj banging on about mudguards in a previous thread



Funnily enough, I always equate Bonj with mudguards too... to the point that I often question them and often leave them off if it's a split second decision


----------



## vernon (3 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> well known if you're VERY old, maybe.



Or have an *active *interest in the sport.


----------



## bonj2 (3 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> Or have an *active *interest in the sport.



I don't see cycling as a sport. I know it is, for some people, but not me.


----------



## sadjack (3 Jan 2008)

Bonj

I'm new to this forum.

By lighten up man!


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Jan 2008)

sadjack said:


> Bonj
> 
> I'm new to this forum.
> 
> By lighten up man!


Welcome Sadjack.


----------



## User482 (4 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> Ease of repair - dealt with above.
> Comfort - who's to say that old bike on ebay's going to be particularly comfy? A comfortable bike is one that's the right shape and the right saddle, that's different for everyone.



Steel frame invariably provide more comfort than alu frames, at the expense of some stiffness and weight. It's horses for courses, and so for touring steel is the best choice. Steel can also be welded by any back street motor garage - try doing that on alu and see what happens.



> Well if it was the mech hanger itself that broke, that isn't part of the frame is it. What are you trying to say will happen if you do that on an aluminium frame? that it will break?
> how do they bend mech hangers back in LBSs then, I've known them do it perfectly satisfactorily on an alu frame.



Bending aluminium weakens the metal, and it is also very prone to fracturing. Steel isn't. If the alu frame has a replaceable hanger, if that breaks, you're still screwed unless you carry a spare.



> like I keep saying, why is having done it a precursor to being able to offer advice on it?



You really can't see why in this case, advice from people who have done a LEJOG is worth more than advice from those who haven't? Having ridden carbon and alu bikes without mudguards thousands of times, I can safely say I would never use one for a LEJOG. It would be better to stay out of subjects you so obviously know nothing about.


----------



## User482 (4 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> oh _well_,in those days, maybe, when they weren't sponsored and could just get another bike...



So let's see. 

Was I sponsored for my LEJOG? Only for charity.
Could I just get another bike from my support car? I had no support car.


----------



## Chuffy (5 Jan 2008)

Kathy - I see the bike went for the BiN price. Did you get it or are you still looking?


----------



## bonj2 (5 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> Steel frame invariably provide more comfort than alu frames blah blah blah


I've ridden a steel bike, and it was VERY uncomfy. Largely because it had a plastic saddle, the bottom bracket was ****ed, and probably several other reasons. I didn't think 'oh, it doesn't matter about the crap saddle, 'cos the steel frame is soaking up all the bumps', 'cos that didn't/doesn't happen. I fail to see how frame material is anything to do with comfort.



User482 said:


> Steel can also be welded by any back street motor garage - try doing that on alu and see what happens.


Again, I fail to see why this is necessary. If your answer is 'well eventually it'll break', then I would say I don't really want to lug around the extra weight for 10 years just so when/if it breaks it can be welded back together. When i've had a bike long enough for it to break, i'll probably be glad of an excuse to get a new one.
I'm pretty sure it will only be a temporary fix anyway as even a steel weld needs to be heat-treated for a good, long lasting join.



User482 said:


> Bending aluminium weakens the metal, and it is also very prone to fracturing. Steel isn't. If the alu frame has a replaceable hanger, if that breaks, you're still screwed unless you carry a spare.


I think you're far, far overestimating the likeliness of a metal part actually _snapping_ or bending on a ride or tour. Or maybe you're just pretending that it's likely in order to lend some credence to your theory that the advantages of steel are significant...



User482 said:


> You really can't see why in this case, advice from people who have done a LEJOG is worth more than advice from those who haven't?


Possibly worth slightly more, but not the only worth, i.e. advice from people who haven't done it but are still experienced cyclists is still worth something.



User482 said:


> Having ridden carbon and alu bikes without mudguards thousands of times, I can safely say I would never use one for a LEJOG. It would be better to stay out of subjects you so obviously know nothing about.


see Mark F's post. Confirms all my suspicions about mudguards.


----------



## bonj2 (5 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> So let's see.
> 
> Was I sponsored for my LEJOG? Only for charity.
> Could I just get another bike from my support car? I had no support car.


I was actually talking about the TdF in the pre-1920s, when one bloke stopped at a farm.
Did you actually have to weld a broken bike on the LEJOG?


----------



## bonj2 (5 Jan 2008)

Abitrary said:


> Funnily enough, I always equate Bonj with mudguards too... to the point that *I often question them and often leave them off if it's a split second decision*



I'm touched.


----------



## vernon (5 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> I'm touched.



touched *adj. colloq*. slightly mad.

Now there's a rare instance of understatement from Bonj


----------



## Chuffy (5 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> touched *adj. colloq*. slightly mad.
> 
> Now there's a rare instance of understatement from Bonj




I'm still waiting to hear what his longest ever ride is.


----------



## snorri (5 Jan 2008)

sadjack said:


> By lighten up man!



Bonj, it shows you just how bad your attitude is when someone with the nickname of SADjack tells you to lighten up


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Jan 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I'm still waiting to hear what his longest ever ride is.



A couple of minutes at most...





































Oh sorry, you meant on a bike?


----------



## bonj2 (6 Jan 2008)

still, back to the topic in hand. I presume Kathy didn't win it, or she'd have posted about it by now. Either that, or she's busy fixing it/still riding back home on it/trying to find the jacking point.


----------



## Abitrary (6 Jan 2008)

sorry to bring it up bonj, but what *is* your longest ride?

I've done 99.8k, I could have gone around the block a couple of times to do 100, but I honestly couldn't lift my leg back over the bike I was that destroyed.


----------



## vernon (6 Jan 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> A couple of minutes at most...



And three times at that! 



Fab Foodie said:


> Oh sorry, you meant on a bike?



No, you were right first time


----------



## bonj2 (6 Jan 2008)

Abitrary said:


> sorry to bring it up bonj, but what *is* your longest ride?
> 
> I've done 99.8k, I could have gone around the block a couple of times to do 100, but I honestly couldn't lift my leg back over the bike I was that destroyed.



I don't know about IS, because i haven't still 'got' it or am still doing it*, but it was probably about 40 miles. I don't know why it matters, though, I don't go in for length. I don't consider 'longest ride' a particularly great accolade.


*in the same way that I haven't 'got' [post count] posts, I've made them.


----------



## bonj2 (6 Jan 2008)

Abitrary said:


> sorry to bring it up bonj, but what *is* your longest ride?
> 
> I've done 99.8k, I could have gone around the block a couple of times to do 100, but I honestly couldn't lift my leg back over the bike I was that destroyed.



you should have just held bike in the air by the stem and spun the wheel with your hand a few times so that the computer ticked over. You wouldn't be alone, I'm sure lots of people on here who claim to have done 'centuries' do that.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Jan 2008)

Ah. Now it gets more interesting. 
Bonj, 40 miles is a fairly short ride. Maybe two and a half hours in the saddle max? You might appreciate things like frame comfort and mudguards if you rode for longer. A century is probably going to keep you in the saddle for 6-8 hours and then you really _care_ about such things. Kathy is going to be in the saddle a lot on her 800-900 mile ride (admittedly over the course of several weeks) so I imagine that she might care too. As for the types who do 300/400/600k rides (not to mention 1000k rides like PBP and LEL) I'd suggest that they might be fairly well informed on the subject.

I'm not pointing at you and mocking, everyone starts somewhere and not everyone is bothered about bagging big rides. Quality not quantity, and all that jazz. However, now I have a baseline to measure your advice against when it comes to long distance riding.


----------



## User482 (7 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> I've ridden a steel bike, and it was VERY uncomfy. Largely because it had a plastic saddle, the bottom bracket was ****ed, and probably several other reasons. I didn't think 'oh, it doesn't matter about the crap saddle, 'cos the steel frame is soaking up all the bumps', 'cos that didn't/doesn't happen. I fail to see how frame material is anything to do with comfort.


Right, so you rode a knackered old bike and on the basis that it had a crap saddle, all steel bikes are rubbish? Brilliant analysis as ever. There are good physical reasons why steel is more comfortable than alu. Do some reading.



> Again, I fail to see why this is necessary. If your answer is 'well eventually it'll break', then I would say I don't really want to lug around the extra weight for 10 years just so when/if it breaks it can be welded back together. When i've had a bike long enough for it to break, i'll probably be glad of an excuse to get a new one.
> I'm pretty sure it will only be a temporary fix anyway as even a steel weld needs to be heat-treated for a good, long lasting join.


My steel frame weighs around 0.5lbs more than an equivalent alu frame. My bike when loaded up for touring weighs over 40lbs. So that extra 0.5lbs is a huge deal. Not.



> I think you're far, far overestimating the likeliness of a metal part actually _snapping_ or bending on a ride or tour. Or maybe you're just pretending that it's likely in order to lend some credence to your theory that the advantages of steel are significant...



It's happened to me, and plenty of others. Have you never crashed a bike?




> Possibly worth slightly more, but not the only worth, i.e. advice from people who haven't done it but are still experienced cyclists is still worth something.


Advice on touring from someone whose longest ever ride is 40 miles, is worth precisely zero.




> see Mark F's post. Confirms all my suspicions about mudguards


.
I didn't have mudguards on my old bike. I got fed up with water trickling down my backside every time it rained, or I went through a puddle.


----------



## Abitrary (10 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> Right, so you rode a knackered old bike and on the basis that it had a crap saddle, all steel bikes are rubbish? Brilliant analysis as ever. There are good physical reasons why steel is more comfortable than alu. Do some reading.



I think Bonj playing devil's advocate in the 'steel touring bike' debate is quite useful, because I for one think that there is a certain amount of received wisdom / brainwashing with this one.

I've only done a couple of tours in europe, but it's been on aluminium non-touring type bikes. The most surprising thing is when you do get to countries with a much greater cycling / cycle touring culture, they also ride whatever they've got! Usually hybrid type things with chunky tyres, carrying family sized tents and kids inserted whereever.

If steel is indeed more comfortable than alu, then I think I can live without it, as long as I've got some chunky tyres to support the weight in the first place.

I might rethink this if I ever I do 'extreme touring' in a country where bikes and bike shops don't exist, only welders.



User482 said:


> Advice on touring from someone whose longest ever ride is 40 miles, is worth precisely zero.



I doubt whether most people average more than 40 miles a day touring. You'd get knackered, and you don't want that on holiday. I think a more useful indicator to how much someone can know about bike feel and robustness is whether they commute every day rain or shine.


----------



## vernon (10 Jan 2008)

Abitrary said:


> I think Bonj playing devil's advocate in the 'steel touring bike' debate is quite useful, because I for one think that there is a certain amount of received wisdom / brainwashing with this one.
> 
> I've only done a couple of tours in europe, but it's been on aluminium non-touring type bikes. The most surprising thing is when you do get to countries with a much greater cycling / cycle touring culture, they also ride whatever they've got! Usually hybrid type things with chunky tyres, carrying family sized tents and kids inserted whereever.
> 
> ...



You are Bonj and I claim my five pounds


----------



## User482 (10 Jan 2008)

Abitrary said:


> I think Bonj playing devil's advocate in the 'steel touring bike' debate is quite useful, because I for one think that there is a certain amount of received wisdom / brainwashing with this one.
> 
> I've only done a couple of tours in europe, but it's been on aluminium non-touring type bikes. The most surprising thing is when you do get to countries with a much greater cycling / cycle touring culture, they also ride whatever they've got! Usually hybrid type things with chunky tyres, carrying family sized tents and kids inserted whereever.
> 
> ...



I've toured on alu, steel & carbon fibre. Road, tourer, and MTB. I've done LEJOG. Do you suppose it's just possible that I am better placed to answer the OP than Bonj?

Now, if you like your alu bike that's fine, but I maintain that for long distances, a good steel bike wins out on comfort grounds. Ease of repair is an advantage but a secondary issue. The disadvantage is weight but there's not a huge difference.


----------



## vernon (10 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> I've toured on alu, steel & carbon fibre. Road, tourer, and MTB. I've done LEJOG. Do you suppose it's just possible that I am better placed to answer the OP than Bonj?
> 
> Now, if you like your alu bike that's fine, but I maintain that for long distances, a good steel bike wins out on comfort grounds. Ease of repair is an advantage but a secondary issue. The disadvantage is weight but there's not a huge difference.



Give up User482. You'll not convert Bonj and Arbitrary. I think that there's enough information in this thread for the original poster and anyone else for that matter to make an informed decision and buy a steel framed bike


----------



## bonj2 (10 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> Right, so you rode a knackered old bike and on the basis that it had a crap saddle, all steel bikes are rubbish? Brilliant analysis as ever. There are good physical reasons why steel is more comfortable than alu....


...but YOU don't seem to know what they are.
Can you explain in simple terms exactly WHY steel bikes are "more comfortable" as you would have us believe?
If a certain type of car was made exactly the same in any other way but had an aluminium chassis, would it be any comfier?



User482 said:


> My steel frame weighs around 0.5lbs more than an equivalent alu frame. My bike when loaded up for touring weighs over 40lbs. So that extra 0.5lbs is a huge deal. Not.


"An" equivalent alu frame. Which one though? One you've chosen based on its weight, no doubt.




User482 said:


> It's happened to me, and plenty of others. Have you never crashed a bike?


only a mtb, not a road bike, and before you ask, yes it was aluminium, no it wasn't hard enough to break anything on it (apart from the brake lever master cylinder, which i don't think frame material would have affected).



User482 said:


> Advice on touring from someone whose longest ever ride is 40 miles, is worth precisely zero.


well that's where I beg to differ, so I will continue to give it. If you want to carry on giving contradicting advice about steel frames and arse-mud then feel free.


----------



## Brock (11 Jan 2008)

Abitrary said:


> I think Bonj playing devil's advocate in the 'steel touring bike' debate is quite useful, because I for one think that there is a certain amount of received wisdom / brainwashing with this one.



I tend to agree.
bonj's bombastic questioning of generally accepted wisdom is useful in that he demands demonstrable reasoning instead of 'because it is, everyone knows that' responses.

I have a steel framed touring bike which I use to commute daily, have toured on, and intend to tour on for some months come April. I have no inclination to buy an alu bike because my steel bike fits me beautifully. It is designed to carry panniers so has a longish wheelbase, giving my huge feet clearance of the rear panniers, and I believe it also affords a feeling of more stability when loaded.
I'm pretty sure frame geometry is the key with comfort though, rather than frame material.

I still think the ebay bike was vastly more likely to be a good buy for the OP than that nasty cheap decathlon roadie thing you suggested bonj.


----------



## Kathy (11 Jan 2008)

Well thanks again for all the advice and other stuff!!
I went to see the bike, looked it over and tried it for size.
The frame had a few surface scratches but otherwise is very sound. The drive train, marathon tyres and panniers are all in nearly new condition - shame about the mudguards!
I reckon I got a great buy for the money and couldn't have done better.
Now, where is that bottle of single malt...................


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jan 2008)

Kathy said:


> Well thanks again for all the advice and other stuff!!
> I went to see the bike, looked it over and tried it for size.
> The frame had a few surface scratches but otherwise is very sound. The drive train, marathon tyres and panniers are all in nearly new condition - shame about the mudguards!
> I reckon I got a great buy for the money and couldn't have done better.
> Now, where is that bottle of single malt...................



Excellent! You just need a name for her now.
Stick around, we all want to know how you're getting on.


----------



## User482 (11 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> ..but YOU don't seem to know what they are.
> Can you explain in simple terms exactly WHY steel bikes are "more comfortable" as you would have us believe?
> If a certain type of car was made exactly the same in any other way but had an aluminium chassis, would it be any comfier?


Steel is stronger than aluminium, and can be flexed more without weakening it (higher modulus of elasticity). This means that frames are built with thinner tubes, and have more compliance than alu.
I have no idea why you're going on about cars in a discussion on bike frames.



> "An" equivalent alu frame. Which one though? One you've chosen based on its weight, no doubt.


Feel free to look it up - there will be little difference on like for like steel vs alu frames.



> only a mtb, not a road bike, and before you ask, yes it was aluminium, no it wasn't hard enough to break anything on it (apart from the brake lever master cylinder, which i don't think frame material would have affected).


I bent an alu gear hanger once (this was before replaceable hangers) and it was irreversibly weakened after that. Unlike my steel bike which was realigned by my local shop in 10 minutes.



> well that's where I beg to differ, so I will continue to give it. If you want to carry on giving contradicting advice about steel frames and arse-mud then feel free.


I'm not trying to stop you giving poor advice. You carry on.


----------



## User482 (11 Jan 2008)

Kathy said:


> Well thanks again for all the advice and other stuff!!
> I went to see the bike, looked it over and tried it for size.
> The frame had a few surface scratches but otherwise is very sound. The drive train, marathon tyres and panniers are all in nearly new condition - shame about the mudguards!
> I reckon I got a great buy for the money and couldn't have done better.
> Now, where is that bottle of single malt...................



I kept a list of all the single malts I tried, and gave them a score out of 10. I'll dig it out...

Touring bikes are often great value second hand - I picked up a virtually unmarked Thorn Audax frame & fork for £75 - they cost £1k new!


----------



## Crackle (11 Jan 2008)

Kathy said:


> Well thanks again for all the advice and other stuff!!
> I went to see the bike, looked it over and tried it for size.
> The frame had a few surface scratches but otherwise is very sound. The drive train, marathon tyres and panniers are all in nearly new condition - shame about the mudguards!
> I reckon I got a great buy for the money and couldn't have done better.
> Now, where is that bottle of single malt...................




Good stuff. I thought it looked a good buy so I was hoping you'd like it in the flesh and buy it. I think it will serve you well. 

Now if you have any more questions I suggest you start a new thread, otherwise you'll have to keep ducking on this one to avoid the buns!


----------



## Tony (11 Jan 2008)

Hmmmm. Dear Bonj et al, on my recent Aussie trip, as a fat old man who will be 50 at the IoW Randonnee, I did 1500km in 21 days. Work out my average mileage.
User482 has given the scientific answer. I'm just off to evolve a new frame.

Kathy, now is the time to sort out all the other bits like luggage, clothing, etc. A new thread is called for indeed!


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 Jan 2008)

Kathy, glad it's worked-out, she looked a nice piece of kit.

As Chuffy said, you'll need a name...I know...Bonj...

Bonj the bike!


----------



## Crackle (11 Jan 2008)

only trouble is you'll have to cycle with the wind behind you all the time!


----------



## bonj2 (11 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> Steel is stronger than aluminium, and can be flexed more without weakening it (higher modulus of elasticity). This means that frames are built with thinner tubes, and have more compliance than alu.
> I have no idea why you're going on about cars in a discussion on bike frames.


I've no idea why you've made a response to this post without answering the question, which was "Can you explain in simple terms exactly WHY steel bikes are `more comfortable` as you would have us believe?"
Presumably because you don't know an answer. Because there isn't an answer. Because steel bikes _aren't_ 'more comfortable'.



User482 said:


> Feel free to look it up - there will be little difference on like for like steel vs alu frames.


there ISN'T an "equivalent" aluminium frame, so therefore there can be no 'like for like' comparison. Bike makers sometimes make the same bike with either a double or triple chainset, they even sometimes make the same bike with either drop or flat handlebars. But they don't make the same bike with either an aluminium or steel frame, so there can not be this concept of comparing your bike wtih its 'aluminium counterpart' because there IS no counterpart. The heaviest aluminium frame will be heavier than the lightest steel frame, and the heaviest steel frame will be heavier than the lightest aluminium frame, in other words there's an overlap.
So basically, not only have you dreamt up the conclusion to your premise, but you have also dreamt up the concept on which the premise is based.



User482 said:


> I bent an alu gear hanger once (this was before replaceable hangers) and it was irreversibly weakened after that. Unlike my steel bike which was realigned by my local shop in 10 minutes.


So presumably it goes without saying that you were prudent enough a cyclist to go about executing exactly the same incident that caused it to bend under exactly the same conditions but having replaced the bent aluminium gear hanger with an otherwise identical steel one, which didn't bend?


----------



## bonj2 (11 Jan 2008)

Kathy said:


> Well thanks again for all the advice and other stuff!!
> I went to see the bike, looked it over and tried it for size.
> The frame had a few surface scratches but otherwise is very sound. The drive train, marathon tyres and panniers are all in nearly new condition - shame about the mudguards!
> I reckon I got a great buy for the money and couldn't have done better.
> Now, where is that bottle of single malt...................



Well that's excellent Kathy, I'm glad you have done well for yourself, seriously I am.
However, in the interests of settling the debate as to whether steel framed bikes or aluminium framed bikes are better, do you want a race? Me on my aluminium bike, versus you on your new recently purchased steel one. This will settle the dispute as to whether steel framed or aluminium framed bikes are lighter. Obviously, if I win, then it must be because aluminium bikes are lighter than steel ones, and therefore better. It's a scientific enough test for User482 .


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> Well that's excellent Kathy, I'm glad you have done well for yourself, seriously I am.
> However, in the interests of settling the debate as to whether steel framed bikes or aluminium framed bikes are better, do you want a race? Me on my aluminium bike, versus you on your new recently purchased steel one. This will settle the dispute as to whether steel framed or aluminium framed bikes are lighter. Obviously, if I win, then it must be because aluminium bikes are lighter than steel ones, and therefore better. It's a scientific enough test for User482 .


Can I join the race on my 1950 ish steel Holdsworth with fixed wheel...then if I win hopefully you'll shut-up on 2 counts...


----------



## bonj2 (11 Jan 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> Can I join the race on my 1950 ish steel Holdsworth with fixed wheel...then if I win hopefully you'll shut-up on 2 counts...



You sure? I haven't told you where the race is from and to yet.


----------



## User482 (14 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> I've no idea why you've made a response to this post without answering the question, which was "Can you explain in simple terms exactly WHY steel bikes are `more comfortable` as you would have us believe?"
> Presumably because you don't know an answer. Because there isn't an answer. Because steel bikes _aren't_ 'more comfortable'.



I just told you. Go and re-read my post. If you don't understand any of the words look them up. I thought you were a physicist? You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the properties of metals.




> there ISN'T an "equivalent" aluminium frame, so therefore there can be no 'like for like' comparison. Bike makers sometimes make the same bike with either a double or triple chainset, they even sometimes make the same bike with either drop or flat handlebars. But they don't make the same bike with either an aluminium or steel frame, so there can not be this concept of comparing your bike wtih its 'aluminium counterpart' because there IS no counterpart. The heaviest aluminium frame will be heavier than the lightest steel frame, and the heaviest steel frame will be heavier than the lightest aluminium frame, in other words there's an overlap.
> So basically, not only have you dreamt up the conclusion to your premise, but you have also dreamt up the concept on which the premise is based.



Aluminium framed touring bikes are built for the same purpose as steel touring bikes, and have a similar component spec. Hence a comparison is perfectly valid.




> So presumably it goes without saying that you were prudent enough a cyclist to go about executing exactly the same incident that caused it to bend under exactly the same conditions but having replaced the bent aluminium gear hanger with an otherwise identical steel one, which didn't bend?


Yet again you have failed to ackowledge the fundamental properties of the two metals in question. Steel can be bent back without weakening it, aluminium can't.


----------



## User482 (14 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> Well that's excellent Kathy, I'm glad you have done well for yourself, seriously I am.
> However, in the interests of settling the debate as to whether steel framed bikes or aluminium framed bikes are better, do you want a race? Me on my aluminium bike, versus you on your new recently purchased steel one. This will settle the dispute as to whether steel framed or aluminium framed bikes are lighter. Obviously, if I win, then it must be because aluminium bikes are lighter than steel ones, and therefore better. It's a scientific enough test for User482 .



You're just embarassing yourself now.


----------



## bonj2 (15 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> I just told you. Go and re-read my post. If you don't understand any of the words look them up. I thought you were a physicist? You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the properties of metals.


Ah, the old "I've already told you" argument. Getting desparate if we have to start wheeling that old one out.



User482 said:


> Aluminium framed touring bikes are built for the same purpose as steel touring bikes, and have a similar component spec. Hence a comparison is perfectly valid.


So tell me what make, model and year is your bike, then tell me what make, model and year you deem to be the 'equivalent' aluminium bike. Then tell me HOW and on what basis you have come to the conclusion that it is the 'equivalent' bike.




User482 said:


> Yet again you have failed to ackowledge the fundamental properties of the two metals in question. Steel can be bent back without weakening it, aluminium can't.


Steel does weaken if you bend it back. Possibly not as much, but not that different an amount. What do you think paper clips are made of? Yep, steel. So why when you keep bending one back and forth, back and forth does it eventually break?


----------



## User482 (16 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> Ah, the old "I've already told you" argument. Getting desparate if we have to start wheeling that old one out.
> 
> 
> So tell me what make, model and year is your bike, then tell me what make, model and year you deem to be the 'equivalent' aluminium bike. Then tell me HOW and on what basis you have come to the conclusion that it is the 'equivalent' bike.
> ...



You've never toured and have never owned a decent steel frame bike. But yet you know all the answers. If you can't see that there is a fundamental difference in the properties of the two metals, and that leads to pros and cons for each, there is no point in continuing further. Looks like three years of university education was wasted on you.


----------



## User482 (16 Jan 2008)

User said:


> I'll put my tuppenceworth in, having ridden on both steel and aluminium touring bikes.
> 
> Steel is stiffer than aluminium which means that the power transfer is better and the frame can better cope with being heavily laden. It is easier to fix if broken. Personally I find steel frames more comfortable
> 
> ...



I think that's partly right. Steel is much stronger than alu and can be deformed (to a degree) without damage. Hence good steel bikes are built with very thin tubes which I would attribute to the "springy" ride that they give, so the stiffness or otherwise of a steel frame is largely down to the design of the tubes. Alu tubes are very thick as you say which I'm sure is why the ride feels duller, but that does give a very stiff frame. On the other hand, for applications such as suspension MTBs, the characteristics of alu are preferable.


----------



## simonali (16 Jan 2008)

An alu frame that has poor power transfer is merely a badly designed frame. Light steel frames are more comfortable due to the springy nature of the lightweight heat treated tubing, whereas alu frames are generally stiffer and more unforgiving.


----------



## User482 (16 Jan 2008)

User said:


> You might want to check you view of the metals, User482. I've always understood that steel frames are stiffer than aluminium and that is why they better at carrying loads and at power transference.




Steel does have a higher tensile strength than alu, but it has a higher modulus of elasticity. It is also much denser. This is why steel frame bikes are be built with much thinner tubes than alu, because it can be allowed to flex without damage, whilst still being strong enough for the job. Steel frames would be stiffer than alu on a like for like basis, but they would be ridiculously heavy. If you're after a bike purely for speed, alu is a better choice as it will be stiffer and lighter than steel.


----------



## User482 (16 Jan 2008)

User said:


> Go for Ti....



Sure! I want a British made light touring/ audax Ti frame that I can buy for £75 second hand. Any tips?


----------



## simonali (17 Jan 2008)

I'm really liking the look of 953, but it's nearly as expensive as ti!

One day maybe?


----------



## User482 (17 Jan 2008)

User said:


> You could try the Brick Lane area on a Sunday morning...



Perhaps I should have added "not stolen" to my list of requirements. 

Seriously though, I'd love a Ti bike, but as Mrs User482 has (repeatedly) pointed out, my Thorn is a very nice bike that does everything I need it to do. She's irritatingly rational when it comes to bike purchases. Then just to put the boot it, she pointed out that a Ti bike would probably have been made in a Chinese sweatshop, and did an environmentalist like me really want to contribute to that...


----------



## bonj2 (20 Jan 2008)

> What are car springs made from, physics graduate? You know -the ones that can last at least 15-20 years of constant bending.


steel, but they can last 15-20 years (or more) because they are actually quite long, just wound round in a spiral, so the actual bending per unit length is not very much.




User482 said:


> Steel does have a higher tensile strength than alu, but it has a higher modulus of elasticity. It is also much denser. This is why steel frame bikes are be built with much thinner tubes than alu, because it can be allowed to flex without damage, whilst still being strong enough for the job. Steel frames would be stiffer than alu on a like for like basis, but they would be ridiculously heavy. If you're after a bike purely for speed, alu is a better choice as it will be stiffer and lighter than steel.





User482 said:


> You've never toured and have never owned a decent steel frame bike. But yet you know all the answers. If you can't see that there is a fundamental difference in the properties of the two metals, and that leads to pros and cons for each, there is no point in continuing further. Looks like three years of university education was wasted on you.






simonali said:


> An alu frame that has poor power transfer is merely a badly designed frame. Light steel frames are more comfortable due to the springy nature of the lightweight heat treated tubing, whereas alu frames are generally stiffer and more unforgiving.





User482 said:


> I think that's partly right. Steel is much stronger than alu and can be deformed (to a degree) without damage. Hence good steel bikes are built with very thin tubes which I would attribute to the "springy" ride that they give, so the stiffness or otherwise of a steel frame is largely down to the design of the tubes. Alu tubes are very thick as you say which I'm sure is why the ride feels duller, but that does give a very stiff frame. On the other hand, for applications such as suspension MTBs, the characteristics of alu are preferable.



don't you get it User482, you tool - frames aren't MEANT to flex! it's not a "by design" thing - it's an unfortunate consequence of using a worse metal to make a bike with. They HAVE to be made with thinner tubes in order not to weigh the same as a small aircraft carrier, and SUFFER from flex as a consequence - they aren't made with thinner tubes IN ORDER to flex for greater comfort!
The fact that aluminium can be made with thicker tubing in order not to flex and still be lighter is the best of both worlds! And the fact that it doesn't flex (significantly) means it doesn't suffer fatigue. Yes, aluminium may have a higher coefficient of fatigure PER AMOUNT FLEXED, but given that it's generally made with thick enough tubes to be stiff enough NOT to flex, is generally why aluminium frames don't break. While steel frames have been snapping left right and centre since the first world war.


----------



## User482 (21 Jan 2008)

> don't you get it User482, you tool - frames aren't MEANT to flex!



Thank you for proving so comprehensively that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Go away, do some reading (and riding), and come back when you're slightly less stupid.


----------



## Chris James (21 Jan 2008)

Bonj, you really are coming out with some total guff.

Both steel and aluminium alloys are suitable materials for frame construction. Different types of frames have different requirements. E.g.a track racing frame might be made to be extremely stiff for power transfer and an audax bike springier for long distance comfort.

As far as your comment about flexing – all materials flex. This is a function of their modulus of elasticity. Fatigue life is not directly due to flexing but due to cyclical stresses (which may come from flexing - bending but could equally come from tension / compression). 

The feel of a bike is much more down to its geometry than the material it is made from. Large diameter tubing will be much stiffer than skinny tubes.

However, as User482 has already pointed out, there are distinct differences in the mechanical properties of steel – particularly modulus of elasticity, density, corrosion resistance and the fatigue limit.

Aluminium alloys have a third the density of steel alloys. So you might expect al frames to be a third the weight of steel frames. But this is not the case. Why? Because al is a much less strong material (lower modulus of elasticity) and so cannot withstand the same stresses as steel frames without failing. Also steel frames typically have very thin tube walls and al frames with this thickness tubing would dent easily.

So al frames are made with thicker walls and using oversized tubing (to limit the internal stresses in the frame). So al frames have more material in them than steel ones, hence them only being slightly lighter than good steel frames despite being made of a much lighter material.

Both al and steel frames corrode. Aluminium is actually a very reactive metal and corrodes very rapidly but it has the advantage that its oxide is very adherent so after the initial surface corrosion then rate of corrosion slows down to almost nothing. High alloys steels are less corrosion resistant for general use. However, aluminium oxide is not stable in the presence of salts and will suffer badly from localised corrosion. So it is important that you keep all bikes clean!

Finally, steel has a ‘fatigue limit’ whereas aluminium doesn’t. The springs eluded to before are operated below their fatigue limit stress and so can flex forever without breaking. The paperclips are operated above their fatigue limit stress and will fail rapidly. A properly designed steel frame will operate below its fatigue limit so will NEVER fail through fatigue. Aluminium frames will ALWAYS have the potential to fail through fatigue as they have no fatigue limit and every fatigue cycle they endure brings them closer to their final failure. However, if you design the al frame so that the stress it sees is kept to a minimum (through OS tubes, thick tubes) then it may be that you can extend the frame’s fatigue life such that it will be replaced due to fashion or crashing before it fails due to fatigue.

In summary, you can make a bike out of anything. 

Steel frames will probably be slightly heavier than al frames, have thinner section tubes, probably thinner diameter tubes, be springier, corrode more easily unless looked after (eg painted and frame sealed) and will never fail due to fatigue.

Aluminium alloy frames will probably be slightly lighter than steel frames, they will be much stiffer as they need oversized tubes with thick walls for any sort of longevity, very corrosion resistant if looked after (washed regularly) and will eventually always fail due to fatigue if not replaced beforehand.

If you are interested in this sort of stuff there is quick a good chapter on it in the book Bicycling Science.


----------



## User482 (21 Jan 2008)

Chris, that's very informative - thanks for taking the time to post it.


----------



## bonj2 (22 Jan 2008)

User said:


> Sorry bonj - but it is you that is the tool. Bike frames are built with a certain amount of flex designed in. This is what helps absorb shocks.
> 
> I suggest you try knowing what you are talking about before you shoot your mouth off, otherwise you will just continue to prove to everyone that you're a self-opinionated twat!





User482 said:


> Thank you for proving so comprehensively that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Go away, do some reading (and riding), and come back when you're slightly less stupid.





Chris James said:


> Bonj, you really are coming out with some total guff.
> 
> Both steel and aluminium alloys are suitable materials for frame construction. Different types of frames have different requirements. E.g.a track racing frame might be made to be extremely stiff for power transfer and an audax bike springier for long distance comfort.
> 
> ...



Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
Read my lips: FRAME. FLEX. IS. NOT. BY. DESIGN.
Frame. Flex. Is. An. UNFORTUNATE. Consequence.
If you've all been sold the notion that it adds to comfort lock stock and barrel by the nostalgia brigade then i'm afraid it isn't my fault you're so gullible.


----------



## bonj2 (22 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> Chris, that's very informative - thanks for taking the time to post it.



yep, very thoughtful. shame it's mostly BOLLOCKS.


----------



## Brock (22 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
> Read my lips: FRAME. FLEX. IS. NOT. BY. DESIGN.
> Frame. Flex. Is. An. UNFORTUNATE. Consequence.
> If you've all been sold the notion that it adds to comfort lock stock and barrel by the nostalgia brigade then i'm afraid it isn't my fault you're so gullible.



What's so 'unfortunate' about it?


----------



## Bonj Hovi (22 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> yep, very thoughtful. shame it's mostly BOLLOCKS.



My evil twin wouldn't recognise bollocks even if he had some of his own


----------



## Bonj Hovi (22 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
> Read my lips: FRAME. FLEX. IS. NOT. BY. DESIGN.
> Frame. Flex. Is. An. UNFORTUNATE. Consequence.
> If you've all been sold the notion that it adds to comfort lock stock and barrel by the nostalgia brigade then i'm afraid it isn't my fault you're so gullible.



But not so guiillable dear twin that they believe the twaddle that your ill informed opinions support...

I'd love to know why steel bridges flex, aluminium wings on aeroplanes flex and tall structures flex when stressed. Please tell us they are design faults with unfortunate consequences so that we can have another laugh....


----------



## Chris James (22 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> yep, very thoughtful. shame it's mostly BOLLOCKS.



Bonj. Why do you have to be such a fool? 

Please point out what was incorrect in my posting and state what knowledge and professional qualifications you have to back this up?

If you are interested I can tell you what qualifications I have in this field but I dare say you will just accuse me of making them up as is your normal method.


----------



## User482 (22 Jan 2008)

bonj said:


> Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
> Read my lips: *FRAME. FLEX. IS. NOT. BY. DESIGN.*
> Frame. Flex. Is. An. UNFORTUNATE. Consequence.
> If you've all been sold the notion that it adds to comfort lock stock and barrel by the nostalgia brigade then i'm afraid it isn't my fault you're so gullible.



YES. IT. IS.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your stupidity anymore, but even by your own low standards you are being particularly thick.


----------



## User482 (22 Jan 2008)

> You're supposed to have a physics degree. Yet again you display your ignorance on the subject that you claim to have spent three years studying.



I know he claims only to have got a third, but it seems I know more about physics despite only having a GCSE. Makes me wonder if he's making the whole thing up.


----------



## vernon (22 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> I know he claims only to have got a third, but it seems I know more about physics despite only having a GCSE. Makes me wonder if he's making the whole thing up.



A third is awarded for attendance not attentiveness


----------



## Bonj Hovi (22 Jan 2008)

vernon said:


> A third is awarded for attendance not attentiveness



I think that the degree was in Theoretical Physics - a subject totally unsulled by practical experience.

You've got to be p**s poor to get a third.


----------



## Abitrary (23 Jan 2008)

Bonj Hovi said:


> I think that the degree was in Theoretical Physics - a subject totally unsulled by practical experience.
> 
> You've got to be p**s poor to get a third.



You sad goat


----------



## Bonj Hovi (23 Jan 2008)

Abitrary said:


> You sad goat



You sad dolphin


----------



## Abitrary (23 Jan 2008)

Bonj Hovi said:


> You sad dolphin



No need to get all affectionate all over me with such a likeable intelligent animal.


----------



## Bonj Hovi (23 Jan 2008)

Abitrary said:


> No need to get all affectionate all over me with such a likeable intelligent animal.



Dolphins are not that intelligent.

They've not figured out how to ride a bike.


----------



## Tony (10 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
> Read my lips: FRAME. FLEX. IS. NOT. BY. DESIGN.
> Frame. Flex. Is. An. UNFORTUNATE. Consequence.
> If you've all been sold the notion that it adds to comfort lock stock and barrel by the nostalgia brigade then i'm afraid it isn't my fault you're so gullible.


Ye gods. He still manages to surprise me with the depths of his ignorance.


----------



## bonj2 (10 Feb 2008)

Steel rusts.


----------



## Bonj Hovi (10 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> Steel rusts.



So Bonj is an expert in alls
That concerns touring an' all
His view's inelastic
His theories' fantastic
It's a shame that they are all balls


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Feb 2008)

That's the worst limerick I've ever seen. It doesn't rhyme properly and (cardinal sin for a limerick) it doesn't scan.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Feb 2008)

And it contains  a misused apostrophe.


----------



## Bonj Hovi (10 Feb 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> That's the worst limerick I've ever seen. It doesn't rhyme properly and (cardinal sin for a limerick) it doesn't scan.



Deliberately poorly constructed like much of Bonj's advice only his isn't deliberate.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Feb 2008)

Bonj Hovi said:


> Deliberately poorly constructed like much of Bonj's advice only his isn't deliberate.



It's still crap.


----------



## Abitrary (10 Feb 2008)

I think it's quite romantic.


----------



## snorri (11 Feb 2008)

Anyone hear if Kathy is back from John O' Groats yet:?:


----------



## Abitrary (11 Feb 2008)

snorri said:


> Anyone hear if Kathy is back from John O' Groats yet:?:



She's probably emigrated there to get as far away from the internet as possible after reading all this...


----------



## bonj2 (11 Feb 2008)

Chris James said:


> Bonj. Why do you have to be such a fool?
> 
> Please point out what was incorrect in my posting and state what knowledge and professional qualifications you have to back this up?
> 
> If you are interested I can tell you what qualifications I have in this field but I dare say you will just accuse me of making them up as is your normal method.



what's incorrect in your posting is that you're trying to make out aluminium will ALWAYS eventually fail due to flexing, but since aluminium bikes have tubes that are fat enough not to exhibit any significant flex, they never really suffer any fatigue BECAUSE of the fact that they DON'T flex. Fatigue can only occur with movement and repeated compression and stretching, over and over again. Like bending a paper clip till it breaks.
IF an aluminium bike was made out of thinner tubes, then it would flex and would fail, in a way that steel might not - but you're trying to equate a 'what if' with realilty. Aluminium might be weaker than steel for the same dimensions, but it's NOT generally made into bikes using the same dimensions as steel bikes.


----------



## Abitrary (11 Feb 2008)

I always wonder about the geometry.

For example, you see lots of compact alu frames, because the smaller triangles I guess compliment the stiffness of the aluminium tubing.

With steel, I imagine that with traditional geometries work better, because the flexibility of the steel works better with longer tubes.

What I don't understand is steel compact frames, like on the higher end Dawes Galaxies. Surely this compromises the ride quality of the steel in these bikes?


----------



## Bonj Hovi (11 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> what's incorrect in your posting is that you're trying to make out aluminium will ALWAYS eventually fail due to flexing, but since aluminium bikes have tubes that are fat enough not to exhibit any significant flex, they never really suffer any fatigue BECAUSE of the fact that they DON'T flex. Fatigue can only occur with movement and repeated compression and stretching, over and over again. Like bending a paper clip till it breaks.
> IF an aluminium bike was made out of thinner tubes, then it would flex and would fail, in a way that steel might not - but you're trying to equate a 'what if' with realilty. Aluminium might be weaker than steel for the same dimensions, but it's NOT generally made into bikes using the same dimensions as steel bikes.



Oh Bonj,

As ever the idiot (sans savant).

Aluminium framed bikes have to have fat tubes to overcome the the inherent weakness of the mechanical properties of aluminium i.e. it work hardens then fails if it flexes. They don't readily fall apart because they have to be designed not to flex to overcome the propensity of aluminium to fail after a finite number of stress cycles.

Your selection of a paper clip as an example is one of the least appropriate to demonstrate fatigue because the metal is stretched way beyond its elastic limit and outside of the design parameters of the device. I'm not aware of any paperclip failing when used appropriately. In a bike frame steel does not get stretched anywhere near its elastic limit and therefore flexing can be accommodated.

No one has been trying to sell the idea of aluminium frames in the same tube sizes of steel frames. They have merely pointed out that I can not be done without failure being an inevitable consequence.

Bonj, if you do infact have a degree is it a B.Sc. - Bonj's stupid comments?

Your brain is not fit for purpose. Trade it in for cretin's to up the quality of your arguments.


----------



## Tony (11 Feb 2008)

Is your bike made out of aluminium, Bonj? Pure aluminium?


----------



## Bonj Hovi (11 Feb 2008)

Abitrary said:


> I always wonder about the geometry.
> 
> For example, you see lots of compact alu frames, because the smaller triangles I guess compliment the stiffness of the aluminium tubing.



Not to compliment the stiffness but to *enhance* the stiffness. Less flexing means longer life before failure not that many aluminium frames bikes get ridden long enough to reach the point of failure. 



> With steel, I imagine that with traditional geometries work better, because the flexibility of the steel works better with longer tubes.


For any given tube - the longer the tube the greater the flex. It could be that the traditional geometries still sell simply becasue they are what people traditionally want - cyclists are a conservative bunch. All of the steel frames bikes that I have used for touring have flexed to some degree - one of them alarmingly so. Selecting a tube set using steel alloys with superior machanical properties will reduce the flex in any given design of frame.



> What I don't understand is steel compact frames, like on the higher end Dawes Galaxies. Surely this compromises the ride quality of the steel in these bikes?


One marketing ploy that I've encountered is the promotion of compact geometries transmit more power to the rear wheel because less work is expended on flexing the frame. In terms of ride quality, you need to remember that touring bikes use wider tyres which probably offer more in enhancing ride comfort than using steel rather than aluminium for any given geometry. A stiffer frame in this context could mean more miles for your effort. Being conservative and tight fisted I'd still buy the base model Galaxy in preference to then other two models.


----------



## Chris James (11 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> what's incorrect in your posting is that you're trying to make out aluminium will ALWAYS eventually fail due to flexing, but since aluminium bikes have tubes that are fat enough not to exhibit any significant flex, they never really suffer any fatigue BECAUSE of the fact that they DON'T flex. Fatigue can only occur with movement and repeated compression and stretching, over and over again. Like bending a paper clip till it breaks.
> IF an aluminium bike was made out of thinner tubes, then it would flex and would fail, in a way that steel might not - but you're trying to equate a 'what if' with realilty. Aluminium might be weaker than steel for the same dimensions, but it's NOT generally made into bikes using the same dimensions as steel bikes.



Bonj. I actually covered this in one of my earlier posts, but here goes again. Aluminium alloy frames do flex. But they are made with thick walls and large diameters to LIMIT the amount of flex (and thereby fatigue stresses generated) - so as to prevent EARLY failure.

Therefore, despite the FACT that aluminium will ALWAYS fail at some point due to fatigue, the frames can be designed such that it takes an incredibly long time to reach that point. The side effect fo this is that the frame is incredibly stiff (uncomfortably so?).


----------



## Abitrary (11 Feb 2008)

Bonj Hovi said:


> In terms of ride quality, you need to remember that touring bikes use wider tyres which probably offer more in enhancing ride comfort than using steel rather than aluminium for any given geometry.



This is my my main point with the perceived comfort aspect of a steel frame on a touring bike. The wider tyres will probably contribute a greater deal than the actual frame material.

I see steel as being more useful for a fast touring / audax type bike which will have smaller tyres.


----------



## Bonj Hovi (11 Feb 2008)

Abitrary said:


> I see steel as being more useful for a fast touring / audax type bike which will have smaller tyres.



Why?


----------



## bonj2 (11 Feb 2008)

Bonj Hovi said:


> Oh Bonj,
> 
> As ever the idiot (sans savant).
> 
> Aluminium framed bikes have to have fat tubes to overcome the the inherent weakness of the mechanical properties of aluminium i.e. it work hardens then fails *if* it flexes. They don't readily fall apart because they have to be designed not to flex to overcome the propensity of aluminium to fail after a finite number of stress cycles.


exactly, IF it flexes. But it DOESN'T flex. Therefore it DOESN'T break.




Tony said:


> Is your bike made out of aluminium, Bonj? Pure aluminium?


bits of it are probably steel, but the frame is aluminium - i don't know about pure aluminium, possibly aluminium alloy, but mainly aluminium. Why, are you trying to trick me? Were you genuinely curious, or do you already know the answer, and are now going to tell me I'm wrong? 





Chris James said:


> Bonj. I actually covered this in one of my earlier posts, but here goes again. Aluminium alloy frames do flex. But they are made with thick walls and large diameters to LIMIT the amount of flex (and thereby fatigue stresses generated) - so as to prevent EARLY failure.


The point is that while it may flex on a microscopic scale, it doesn't flex _significantly_.



Chris James said:


> Therefore, despite the FACT that aluminium will ALWAYS fail at some point due to fatigue, the frames can be designed such that it takes an incredibly long time to reach that point. The side effect fo this is that the frame is incredibly stiff (uncomfortably so?).


It will always fail, _given infinite time_, yes. You appear to have extrapolated the notion that because of (a) only a limited amount of flexing can occur before it breaks, and ( some flexing always does occur, no matter how significant, then a frame will therefore ALWAYS break. But you're attempting to equate molecular physics processes with general use and wear and tear of a bicycle. The two don't mix. It could be that it takes thousands of years of hard riding for it to reach the point of breaking. You appear to be then using this as leverage of your argument that steel frames are therefore better.
But hang on a sec - roll back a bit. If the advantage of steel frames is that they don't break, then how come there's stories of blokes in the tour de france in 1913 and 1919 etc having to stop at farms and blacksmiths and borrow a welder to weld their frame and forks back together, after they'd broke? And don't try and tell me they had aluminium in those days 'cos they didn't.


And, furthermore, if you're such an expert on materials science, explain this to me on a physical level: how, after a year of riding, are the molecules in an aluminium frame arranged any differently to when new, in such a way that makes the frame more likely to break?


----------



## Bonj Hovi (11 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> And, furthermore, if you're such an expert on materials science, explain this to me on a physical level: how, after a year of riding, are the molecules in an aluminium frame arranged any differently to when new, in such a way that makes the frame more likely to break?



Bonj, oh Bonj, oh Bonj,

Your ramblings offer further support to you being positioned on the autistic spectrum.

You can not embrace any ideas outside your limited notion of reality.

You challenge anything that contradicts your empirical grasp of reality without you being able to offer any tangible proof of your understanding of the underlying science that demonstrates that you are laughable wrong.

You are a very entertaining idiot who provides endless mirth for all who read your egocentric drivel.

Keep it up.


----------



## Abitrary (11 Feb 2008)

Bonj Hovi said:


> Bonj, oh Bonj, oh Bonj,
> 
> Your ramblings offer further support to you being positioned on the autistic spectrum.



Jesus mate, lighten up a bit! LOL!!!

You must have realised that all Bonj is doing is trying to stimulate a bit of debate in order to get the best overall response for the original poster. What he's doing is admittedly a bit guileful, but he is simply extracting the best from you guys for a common good.

I'd imagine he's not the sort of guy to expect an apology, but I think a bit of bonhomie and lateral thinking might be in order from now on....


----------



## Tony (12 Feb 2008)

Bonj, if you knew anything about metallurgy.....
Your bike will not be made of aluminium, but of an aluminium alloy, of which there are many. One example of such an alloy is Dural, which in essence is an alu-copper alloy. This affects the yield point, work-hardening and other aspects of the material. Your bike, if it is worth anything, should also have steel inserts at certain points, such as the drop outs, as alu is softer than steel and more likely to deform under such things as axle nut compression.
It is not the molecules in your frame material that are likely to change. A piece of metal is not a crystalline matrix, but an amalgam of grains. It is common metallurgical practice to take a cross section of a sample and polish it smooth at one end to reveal the granular structure. This structure can change under, in particular, cyclic stresses such as flex, or, importantly, cyclic compression such as happens every time you turn your pedals while riding. This is cyclic compression, NOT flex, and can lead to fatigue failure. Stress meters/strain guages can record microscopic movement that you would not detect as flex.
Such cyclic stresses can alter the structure and arrangement of the metal's granular structure. They can, for example, initiate cracks. Such microscopic cracks can propagate, and with stress concentration at areas such as joints become major features leading to failure. That is why a decently engineered frame should have smooth radius curves, not sharp corners.


----------



## Bonj Hovi (12 Feb 2008)

Tony said:


> Bonj, if you knew anything about metallurgy.....



Don't waste your words. If it isn't in Ladybird books Bonj won't have encountered the big words and certainly won't understand the pictures though he might try to trace the grain boundaries as they make a pretty picture or two to colour in.


----------



## User482 (12 Feb 2008)

Bonj

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## Bonj Hovi (12 Feb 2008)

User482 said:


> Bonj
> 
> "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."
> 
> Abraham Lincoln.



Bonj is forever the fool
Using facts and empirical rule
Argues black's the new white
And steel frames aren't right
Oh boy is he such a tool


----------



## rich p (12 Feb 2008)

Bonj Hovi said:


> Bonj is forever the fool
> Using facts and empirical rule
> Argues black's the new white
> And steel frames aren't right
> Oh boy is he such a tool




Tool? Tool? He doesn't need a tool just carry the bike on your back to the nearest bike shop!


----------



## bonj2 (12 Feb 2008)

i notice no constructive objection to my post of page 19 @ 21:10, instead, more drivel and meaningless insults.


----------



## Abitrary (12 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> i notice no constructive objection to my post of page 19 @ 21:10, instead, more drivel and meaningless insults.



I attempted to make them aware that all you were doing was instituting a bit of constructive debate, about 5 posts back, but I was completely ignored.

They seem to have it in for you, in the same way as the queer shop guys do in the film Pulp Fiction..


----------



## Tony (12 Feb 2008)

It's page 18 Bonj, and I answered it below on the same page. Unless you count a quick lesson in metallurgy as drivel.....
On the same page. Do you want a really detailed response covering dendritic cooling, yield points, grain size and compression loading?
The best thing about aluminium frames is that you can make thermite from them.


----------



## Tony (12 Feb 2008)

Abitrary said:


> I attempted to make them aware that all you were doing was instituting a bit of constructive debate, about 5 posts back, but I was completely ignored.
> 
> They seem to have it in for you, in the same way as the queer shop guys do in the film Pulp Fiction..


Fetch the gimp Bonj!


----------



## Abitrary (12 Feb 2008)

Tony said:


> Fetch the gimp Bonj!



That is unsavoury, but whatever turns you on....


----------



## bonj2 (12 Feb 2008)

Tony said:


> It's page 18 Bonj, and I answered it below on the same page. Unless you count a quick lesson in metallurgy as drivel.....
> On the same page. Do you want a really detailed response covering dendritic cooling, yield points, grain size and compression loading?
> The best thing about aluminium frames is that you can make thermite from them.



that wasn't 'constructive objection', it was just another of your steelophilic rants that you just reeled off in about 10 seconds 'cos you've become so well practised on lecturing people on the virtues of steel and the evils of aluminium that you don't even appear to be noticing that they're actually asking specific, valid, questions back.
In fact I dont' know about _constructve_ objection - it wasn't 'objection' at all, as the content of my post didn't really seem to affect the contents of your lecture in the slightest. You wanted to have a rant to show how much you think you know about metals, and you were going to type exactly the same text no matter what I posted. I wouldn't be surprised if you havent' even read my post at all.


----------



## Bonj Hovi (13 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> that wasn't 'constructive objection', it was just another of your steelophilic rants that you just reeled off in about 10 seconds 'cos you've become so well practised on lecturing people on the virtues of steel and the evils of aluminium that you don't even appear to be noticing that they're actually asking specific, valid, questions back.
> In fact I dont' know about _constructve_ objection - it wasn't 'objection' at all, as the content of my post didn't really seem to affect the contents of your lecture in the slightest. You wanted to have a rant to show how much you think you know about metals, and you were going to type exactly the same text no matter what I posted. I wouldn't be surprised if you havent' even read my post at all.



Oh Bonj's last comment's a hoot
His logic just does not compute 
For it's he who can't read
But he can write a screed 
Oh he is such a humourless coot

If he took the time to digest
The knowledge that others divest
He'd be better placed
To avoid the disgrace
Of having his 'knowledge' described as a guess


----------



## User482 (13 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> i notice no constructive objection to my post of page 19 @ 21:10, instead, more drivel and meaningless insults.



Reading back through this thread, I can't see anything you've raised that hasn't been answered. What are you referring to?


----------



## Tony (13 Feb 2008)

Bonj, I have four steel bikes, one alu bike, and one alu and carbon-fibre bike. I pick the material for the job I want it to do. If you bothered to read the bit of materials science that I gave you, you would see that it talks about metals in general. But then, you are very good at seeing what you want to see....
Bonj, God has guided my Path to you as a Good Christian Soul, with a Third in Physics, and I nkow that your Honorableness will wish to help me with the release of A Large Sum of Dollars from United Staes. If you will onour me with the details of your most private banking account....


----------



## Nigeyy (14 Feb 2008)

Oh dear, not this old `chestnut of steel vs. alu again! However, I can truthfully say I have the answer about this argument. Without a doubt, the best material to make a frame from is the material that provides adequate safety, reliability, longevity, performance, fit and comfort.

And.... err... to some people that's steel, alu, carbon fibre, etc....

Just some points of interest (I've ridden quite a few bikes):
1. I feel very comfortable in saying the harshest bike I've ever ridden was an old steel Fuji. It was nasty!
2. Smoothest bike I've ridden? Honestly, don't laugh, but a Cannondale CAAD 4. Done quite a few centuries on that with complete comfort.

Course, I don't equate steel=discomfort, alu=comfort from this experience, just that different bikes with different designs, with different components, with different riders with different riding styles for different ride types feel... well... different.

And I can't post without saying that a problem I suspect strongly with frame material evangelists has to surely be a self fulfilling prophecy? Since someone may say "*insert frame material of choice here* is the best" surely they will have a predilection to prefer that material knowing they are riding a frame made of that material? From a scientific point of view: when has someone blind tested a frame on a bike? I would love to see the results of that!

In interests of full disclosure, I should add I really don't care a primate's relative whether a bike is steel or alu, just that I like the complete bike and how it feels.


----------



## User482 (15 Feb 2008)

Nigeyy said:


> Oh dear, not this old `chestnut of steel vs. alu again! However, I can truthfully say I have the answer about this argument. Without a doubt, the best material to make a frame from is the material that provides adequate safety, reliability, longevity, performance, fit and comfort.
> 
> And.... err... to some people that's steel, alu, carbon fibre, etc....
> 
> ...




And likewise I have done a few centuries on carbon fibre and alu frame bikes. But my view is that the advantages of steel over alu are the properties that I look for in a touring bike. For road racing or suspension mountain bikes, steel would probably not be my preference as I think that other materials are better suited to these applications.


----------



## ChrisKH (15 Feb 2008)

It's entirely possible Kathy has decided to top herself after reading this lot.


----------



## Fab Foodie (15 Feb 2008)

ChrisKH said:


> It's entirely possible Kathy has decided to top herself after reading this lot.



Or bought a car...


----------



## Chris James (15 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> It will always fail, _given infinite time_, yes. You appear to have extrapolated the notion that because of (a) only a limited amount of flexing can occur before it breaks, and ( some flexing always does occur, no matter how significant, then a frame will therefore ALWAYS break. ...... It could be that it takes thousands of years of hard riding for it to reach the point of breaking. You appear to be then using this as leverage of your argument that steel frames are therefore better.
> 
> And, furthermore, if you're such an expert on materials science, explain this to me on a physical level: how, after a year of riding, are the molecules in an aluminium frame arranged any differently to when new, in such a way that makes the frame more likely to break?



Hi Bonj, you are appear to be attributing opinions to me that I don't have! In particular I have never argued that steel frames are better. There are advantages and disadvantegs to all materials and the design and fabrication play a very important part too.

But bear in mind that this whole exchange started because you said that the mixte frame was not much use becasue it was steel. So it is you who is saying steel in unsuitable rather than me dismissing aluminium alloys!

First thing, yes aluminium will always fail - in finite, not infinite time. But how long that period is depends on how much stress the material experiences - eg is a function of the wall thickness and diameter. However, aluminium's main advantage over steel is that is has a lower density (with albeit lower strength too) and if you are required to make the frame very hefty to prevent it failing then this advantage is negated.

As I stated in my original post, you can make a frame out of anything. But some will last longer than others. Typically commercially produced aluminium frames will be slightly lighter than steel ones, but will not last as long. If you plan on changing your frame every few years this doesn't matter. However, in order to get a decent working life from an aluminium alloy frame it will always be stiffer than a similar weight steel frame so the ride will be different. This often unacceptable level of stiffness is the reason why most aluminium alloy frames are kitted with carbon fibre forks, although the short wheelbase loved by roadies also contribute to this.

There is a piece on this on Wikipedia that appears reasonable. If you look at the section entitled Design against fatigue you will see that steel frames are designed to follow method 1 (infinite life) and aluminium alloy frames method 2 (safe life design). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)

The next link covers your question about the microstructural changes experienced as a material is worked. Tony has covered this point anyway in a more general way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dislocation

Finally, I am not an expert on material science and haven't claimed to be one but I do have a B.Eng. (2.1 not third!) in Mechanical Engineering - funnily enough from the University of your current home town - specialising in fracture mechanics and also an M.Sc. in Corrosion Science and Engineering so have quite a bit of knowledge in this field.


----------



## Nigeyy (15 Feb 2008)

You pays your money, you takes your choice. For me personally (touring in western countries and not being a performance athelete!), there just aren't any overriding advantages to steel or alu with a touring bike or road bike, given the big picture of the complete bike. Too many different designs and components.

I do have a steel tourer, and a steel road bike and an alu road bike though. But that was more a function of liking the bike and costs involved than a preference for either material. It's whatever you like as a rider.




User482 said:


> And likewise I have done a few centuries on carbon fibre and alu frame bikes. But my view is that the advantages of steel over alu are the properties that I look for in a touring bike. For road racing or suspension mountain bikes, steel would probably not be my preference as I think that other materials are better suited to these applications.


----------



## Bonj Hovi (15 Feb 2008)

Chris James said:


> Finally, I am not an expert on material science and haven't claimed to be one but I do have a B.Eng. (2.1 not third!) in Mechanical Engineering - funnily enough from the University of your current home town - specialising in fracture mechanics and also an M.Sc. in Corrosion Science and Engineering so have quite a bit of knowledge in this field.



Bonj is an expert at attributing false claims to a range of posters and ignoring advice from better informed folk. Don't think for one minute that your qualifications count for anything - he's dismissed other folks' qualifications and experience out of hand and ploughed a lonely furrow to demonstrate that aluminium is a material with mechanical properties that make it the material of choice for cycle frames.

He's ignored the fact that aluminium is not used as a pure metal in bike frames.
He's ignored the mechanical properties of aluminium that are modified by alloying.
He's ignored the fact that load bearing aluminium structures have a finite life.
He's ignored the fact that work hardening of aluminium alloys takes placed when flexed.
He's ignored the fact that aluminium framed bikes do flex.
He's ignored the fact that the metallurgy of steel has changed for the better since the frame faliures in the Tour de France.
He's ignored the fact that for the intended purpose the steel mixte framed bike purchased by the original poster perfectly suited suited.
He's ignored the fact that when aluminium frames fail on tour it's generally game over.

It is good of you to take the time to dismantle the falsehoods propagated by Bonj. Sadly it's unlikely to persuade Bonj that his ingnorance of the material world is in need of correction. 

The gulf between the quality of your exposition vs that of Bonj's suggests that even a third is, perhaps, an optimistic claim on Bonj's part. I know that the contents of the Physics A-level has been considerably slimmed down over the years but I doubt that stress, strain, bulk modulus, and elastic limits etc has been removed. There's little in Bonj's rants to suggest that he's progressed beyond a low grade A-level pass in his claimed sphere of knowledge.

Bonj's grasp of materials science would be further improved if he also read:

Structures: Or Why Things Don't Fall Down 
The New Science of Strong Materials: Or Why You Don't Fall Through the Floor
 Both books are by Professor J.E. Gordon and have stood the test of time as informative books for undergraduate mechanical engineers, metallurgists and materials scientists.


----------



## bonj2 (15 Feb 2008)

Chris James said:


> Hi Bonj, you are appear to be attributing opinions to me that I don't have! In particular I have never argued that steel frames are better. There are advantages and disadvantegs to all materials and the design and fabrication play a very important part too.
> 
> But bear in mind that this whole exchange started because *you said that the mixte frame was not much use becasue it was steel. *So it is you who is saying steel in unsuitable rather than me dismissing aluminium alloys!


No, i said it was a GWC. I dont' think i used the words 'useless' or 'unsuitable' - I just said I think there's better options.
It's heavier than the OP needs, not least because it's made out of steel, but because it's got tubes in places it shouldn't need them.



Chris James said:


> First thing, yes aluminium will always fail - in finite, not infinite time. But how long that period is depends on how much stress the material experiences - eg is a function of the wall thickness and diameter. However, aluminium's main advantage over steel is that is has a lower density (with albeit lower strength too) and if you are required to make the frame very hefty to prevent it failing then this advantage is negated.


you don't have to make it VERY hefty - just slightly heftier, but usually it's still somewhat lighter - otherwise why would they make frames out of aluminium?



Chris James said:


> As I stated in my original post, you can make a frame out of anything. But some will last longer than others. Typically commercially produced aluminium frames will be slightly lighter than steel ones, but will not last as long. If you plan on changing your frame every few years this doesn't matter. However, in order to get a decent working life from an aluminium alloy frame it will always be stiffer than a similar weight steel frame so the ride will be different. This often unacceptable level of stiffness is the reason why most aluminium alloy frames are kitted with carbon fibre forks, although the short wheelbase loved by roadies also contribute to this.


You mark yourself out as a steelophile because with every successive post, you appear to be succumbing to the addiction of needing to reinforce the notion that 'an aluminium frame will break one day', and having to give yourself the additional fix of pretending this time to fail will be 'only a few years'. You obviously own a steel bike, and are conscious of the fact an aluminium one would be lighter, so whenever you're lugging the thing around rather than consider getting an aluminium one instead, you obviously need to imagine yourself coming across me walking along carrying my broken frame, cursing its manufacturers for making it out of aluminium, while you ride off into the sunset chuckling smugly on your invincible steel one.
You just don't see, hear of, or see the results of, enough incidents involving breakages of aluminium frames for this to ring even remotely true I'm afraid Chris - unless, like I say - a 'few' years is a few hundred or thousands.
e.g. cassettes wear out - the chain gradually grinds the metal of the teeth away - you always get posts on here about that. There's other common wear and tear things that crop up time and time again. But I can't remember when the last time I saw a post about someone's aluminium frame breaking was.


----------



## rich p (15 Feb 2008)

I just pop in here every now and again to make sure the hasn't ended. You lot will pop out from the undergrowth in 20 years time and find that they've discovered a new bike frame material that surpasseth all others!


----------



## Abitrary (15 Feb 2008)

Planet X are now doing cheap titanium frames


----------



## vernon (15 Feb 2008)

Abitrary said:


> Planet X are now doing cheap titanium frames



And Spa cycles will fit you out with a complete steel frame touring bike, luggage and lighting for less than the price of the 'cheap' titanium frame. You mihgt even get a tent thrown in too!


----------



## Abitrary (16 Feb 2008)

vernon said:


> And Spa cycles will fit you out with a complete steel frame touring bike, luggage and lighting for less than the price of the 'cheap' titanium frame. You mihgt even get a tent thrown in too!



They're not cheap ones... they're made by the original litespeed people.

I was actually thinking about a steel audax frame type thing, but now that the mail order companies are doing it, I might just bypass steel and move straight up to titanium.


----------



## Chris James (16 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> No, i said it was a GWC. I dont' think i used the words 'useless' or 'unsuitable'



I assumed that 'genuine work of crapola' meant that you dind't think it was well suited. 



bonj said:


> You mark yourself out as a steelophile because with every successive post, you appear to be succumbing to the addiction of needing to reinforce the notion that 'an aluminium frame will break one day', and having to give yourself the additional fix of pretending this time to fail will be 'only a few years'. You obviously own a steel bike, and are conscious of the fact an aluminium one would be lighter, so whenever you're lugging the thing around rather than consider getting an aluminium one instead, you obviously need to imagine yourself coming across me walking along carrying my broken frame, cursing its manufacturers for making it out of aluminium, while you ride off into the sunset chuckling smugly on your invincible steel one.
> You just don't see, hear of, or see the results of, enough incidents involving breakages of aluminium frames for this to ring even remotely true I'm afraid Chris



Again you are attributing views to me that I don't have! As it happens I have two steel bikes, one of which is more than twenty years old. But that is more to do with the type of riding I do. If I wanted to race then I wouldn't buy steel - probably CF or, if on a budget, aluminium alloy. 

Fatigue life relates to stress cycles rather than time. So the life of a frame will depend on how much use its given. Yours will probably last aeons as, in previous posts, the furthest you have ever ridden is 40 miles. I have a friend who has broken two aluminium alloy MTB frames and bought an top quality frame to replace them (which is still goign). Having said that, he has just bought another downhill bike and I think that has a aluminium frame.

As I have repeatedly said, lots of materials are suitable for bike frames and it is just a case of recognising their strengths and weaknesses and making an informed decision.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Feb 2008)

Chris James said:


> I assumed that 'genuine work of crapola' meant that you dind't think it was well suited.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



whatever. i still dispute that they break within only a few years just due to stress of riding. Your friend must have crashed badly or something, or just had frames made of a crap alloy or with shoddy welding or something.


----------



## Abitrary (16 Feb 2008)

With the advent of carbon nanotube technology, we will soon have frames that are 1 micron thick, and weight 1 gram. The carbon nanotubes will also be programmable to imitate the properties of any current frame metal simply by sending an electrical current through them.

Not a moment too soon if you ask me...


----------



## PaulSB (18 Feb 2008)

Just happened across this highly entertaining thread. I'm planning LeJog or perhaps JoGLe next summer. Originally had planned it for last summer but had an accident which severly limited my cycling in 2007.

I realise this is probably an anethema to the purists but I shall be using the credit card / B&bs and until this evening was planning to travel very light on my road bike. I'm now wondering if I should be on the look out for a second hand tourer?

Should say the road bike fits like a glove. I can do 80 miles without any serious discomfort, though from there to 100 I'm hurting! It's the legs, not my nether regions.


----------



## bonj2 (18 Feb 2008)

PaulSB said:


> Just happened across this highly entertaining thread. I'm planning LeJog or perhaps JoGLe next summer. Originally had planned it for last summer but had an accident which severly limited my cycling in 2007.
> 
> I realise this is probably an anethema to the purists but I shall be using the credit card / B&bs and until this evening was planning to travel very light on my road bike. *I'm now wondering if I should be on the look out for a second hand tourer?*
> 
> Should say the road bike fits like a glove. I can do 80 miles without any serious discomfort, though from there to 100 I'm hurting! It's the legs, not my nether regions.



Why would you need one if you can do 80 miles in comfort on your existing road bike, and aren't going to be taking much in panniers?


----------



## PaulSB (18 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> Why would you need one if you can do 80 miles in comfort on your existing road bike, and aren't going to be taking much in panniers?



That's pretty much what I was thinking but thought I'd ask the question! I don't even plan to use panniers - I hate carrying anything on the bike - just a large saddle bag of some sort. If the clothes get too smelly I'd buy a new T-shirt.

The way I see it is this, and I'm quite prepared to be mocked, I need good cycle clothing to keep, warm, cool or dry as appropriate, which I already have plus a few bits for the evening.


----------



## bonj2 (18 Feb 2008)

sounds like the best way of touring to me.


----------



## Abitrary (18 Feb 2008)

Abitrary said:


> With the advent of carbon nanotube technology, we will soon have frames that are 1 micron thick, and weight 1 gram. The carbon nanotubes will also be programmable to imitate the properties of any current frame metal simply by sending an electrical current through them.
> 
> Not a moment too soon if you ask me...



(er, sorry, did noone read this? It's a good mix of humour and reality)


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Feb 2008)

bonj said:


> ONLY nineteen years?! If it was a car, that'd make it E-, or F- reg. How many E or F reg cars do you see around?  Hardly any. Because they cost more to get through their MOT than they're worth, so they get sent to the scrapyard.



Sorry to revive an old post, but my E reg Volvo 240 is still going strong, bought for around the same as Kathy's bike (is she still around? Did she buy the bike?). Volvo designed the 240 to have a twenty year working life. Since Ford took Volvo over, the design life of new Volvos is around five years. Much the same applies to old bikes.
Anyway, as you were.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Feb 2008)

Just read the first sixteen pages of this. Bonj is hilarious!


----------



## User482 (19 Feb 2008)

PaulSB said:


> That's pretty much what I was thinking but thought I'd ask the question! I don't even plan to use panniers - I hate carrying anything on the bike - just a large saddle bag of some sort. If the clothes get too smelly I'd buy a new T-shirt.
> 
> The way I see it is this, and I'm quite prepared to be mocked, I need good cycle clothing to keep, warm, cool or dry as appropriate, which I already have plus a few bits for the evening.



I doubt you'd manage without panniers. As a minimum you're going to need a change of clothes for the evenings, underwear, a couple of cycling tops & shorts, waterproof, lock, food, lights, maps, tools, spares, etc etc. I travelled fairly light myself as I was staying in youth hostels, but I still filled 2 medium panniers.


----------



## vernon (19 Feb 2008)

PaulSB said:


> Just happened across this highly entertaining thread. I'm planning LeJog or perhaps JoGLe next summer. Originally had planned it for last summer but had an accident which severly limited my cycling in 2007.
> 
> I realise this is probably an anethema to the purists but I shall be using the credit card / B&bs and until this evening was planning to travel very light on my road bike. I'm now wondering if I should be on the look out for a second hand tourer?
> 
> Should say the road bike fits like a glove. I can do 80 miles without any serious discomfort, though from there to 100 I'm hurting! It's the legs, not my nether regions.



There is no right or wrong bike . It's just that some bikes are more right than others. 

I've done JOGLE and LEJOG and seen the full spectrum of bikes being used ranging from carbon fibre road bikes on a supported ride and the riders carried nothing more than would fit in their bottle cages and cycle shirt pockets through to folding bikes via tourers, expedition bikes, hybrids, tandems...you get the idea.

I am confident that I could do LEJOG in the manner that you aspire to on my road bike but I find my tourer more comfortable and I like the independence offered by camping hence the tourer in my first choice as my road bike does not have the rack mounting points to allow panniers from being carried.

If you are considering a saddle back, you might like to consider the Carradice range of saddle bags. They have a good reputation fro longevity and function. www.carradice.co.uk

You might also consider a Brooks B17 leather saddle. Doing 80 miles in a day is very different from doing 80 miles per day for 12 or so days. I've found the bRooks to be comfortable from day one. 

If you go to the CTC website their message board has a LEJOG section and you might also consider looking at the web site which acts as a repository for LEJOG and JOGLE accounts.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=c43a9d2323ce41e0c37b94678a95f544
[SIZE=-1]http://www.users.*waitrose*.com/~ianclare/links.htm

You'll find more information in the above two sources as they exist soley to deal with LEJOG advice and matters.
[/SIZE]


----------



## PaulSB (20 Feb 2008)

Thanks Vernon, that is very helpful.


----------



## vernon (20 Feb 2008)

PaulSB said:


> Thanks Vernon, that is very helpful.



I see you live in Chorley. That brings back memories of my LEJOG ride in 2005 when my Galaxy frame broke at the drop out in Chorley at 7:30 on a Friday night. I rang someone in Preston that I'd met on my ride in Bristol and he ferried me to Bill Nickson's house where my frame was repaired by 8:30 the same evening! Bill refused to accept payment for the repair. What a gent.

Will you be taking a break (no pun intended) in Chorley seeing that it is roughly half way.

I was so glad I had a steel frame. It would have been game over otherwise


----------



## PaulSB (21 Feb 2008)

Part of my plan is to stop one night at home. Collect clean clothes etc and carry on. Nickson's are still going strong I believe. My favoured LBS is in Blackburn so I only know of Nickson's by name.


----------

