Talk:Bicycle frame

message: I've removed some inaccurate references to this ongoing bicycle techie arguement from the Steel section. There are a lot of subtle references to this debate in the steel section (I've removed it) it said that steel was old fashioned, heavy and cheap. There is some of this in the Aluminum section where is talks about Aluminum being "generally agreed" to be heavier. There is also a lot of emphasis on Aluminum fatigue which is probably from people taking a pro-steel perspective. And all the stuff about frame flex doesn't look NPOV. Anyway, perhaps we should have something that objectively describes that there is debate about the benefits of each material... Though this would have to be done at the same time as removing the excessive sideways references to the debate that are all over the place elsewhere in the article. Also it's really only a Sports biking argument as the vast majority of utility and commuting bike are steel, all other materials are unusual with some pluses and minuses to them.
Frankly, after cleaning all that up, I'd like to see more in depth steel discussion of the types of steel and properties. I've added mention of 4130 steel which is very common, at least on the bikes here in Canada.
Perhaps we should make this article more managable by ***MAJOR PROPOSAL*** cleaving off the materials discussion into it's own seperate bike frame materials section? I actually stumbled upon (and then got caught up editing) this article trying to find a nice list of various types of tubing in both steel and aluminum bicycles. I'm trying to research tubes. But really this information isn't here at all but a materials article could include it, have space for encompassing material debates, and not bog down the whole notion of what a frame is in the main article.
Rusl (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aluminum vs Steel debate

message: I added the diagram of common bicycle measurements because these are terms that abound bikeswaps and ebay's bikes for sale, etc.  I hope that this is not seen as redundant as the other diagram addresses actual parts and this one addresses accurate measurements. --Circlemaker 06:16, 04 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image added to frame size section 

message: Whew. That took a while.
Could anybody add in material about geometries (road vs. comfort vs. hybrid vs. mountain) or any historical information? --Christopherlin 06:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged in material from bicycle frame construction 

message: 195.179.206.165 notes that the front/main "triangle" is technically not one, as the top and down tubes don't intersect. However, most references I've seen call it the triangle nonetheless. Thoughts? --Christopherlin 03:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Triangle.  --Kit transue 21:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Triangle as well, if one is to go on what The UCI has to say, in rule 1.3.020, "the frame of the bicycle shall be of a traditional pattern, i.e. built around a main triangle." even though their later definition of the main triangle clearly leaves room from forming of a trapezoid. see http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/1gene-E.pdf --Chinakow 05:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Triangle vs. trapezoid

message: In addition to saddle height, reach, etc., what about bottom bracket height and wheelbase?  I don't know if the latter is spec'd as axle-to-axle, tire contact-to-contact, or bottom bracket-to-axle.  Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could fill in here if these are useful?  --Kit transue 21:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frame geometry specification 

message: I have some issues with the pictures used on this article. It seems to me that judging just by the photographs, road/racing bicycles are over-represented. Maybe use more Utiliy or MTB type bike photographs more, since the former vastly outnumber racing/road bikes, anywhere in the world except perhaps in North America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicbicyclist (talk • contribs) .
:Yeah, all the other types of bicycles and cycling are underrepresented. Perhaps you'd like to help out with what you know. --Christopherlin 02:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on racing bicycles 

message: While I was unable to find a source that explicitely lists carbon fiber as the primary non-metallic material, I have listed three sources, including a page from the highly-regarded and often cited Sheldon Brown's web site, that compare frame materials. All three include carbon fiber as the only non-metallic material in their discussions. Another way to look it this would be to list all the major manufacturers that offer carbon fiber frames (Trek, Specialized, Giant, Orbea, Felt, Raleigh, Scwhinn, Look, Seven, even aluminum frame pioneer Cannondale) vs all the major manufacturers that offer frames of any other non-metallic material. If there are any sources that indicate that any other non-metallic material is commonly used, or even currently in production (other than beautifully hand-crafted wood and bamboo), I would love to see it. -AndrewDressel 14:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Andrew, I have taken a look at the most recent references you added to the article bicycle. The are excellent references for much of the material. Unfortunatelly, I coudn't find, out of the 3 links, anything that mentions "carbon fiber" is the most popular non-metalic frame. Of course it is an "increasingly popular frame material". I will change the word "primary" to "popular." Perhaps, you could also place your references at various appropriate locations throughout the paragraph since having them all at the begining doesn't seem as relevant. Thank you! --CyclePat 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems silly, but okay. There isn't a source verifying that the frame is the main component of a bicycle. There isn't a source confirming that the most common frame design is based on the safety bicycle. There isn't a source specifying that the rear brake cable is most commonly routed along mounts on the top tube. There isn't a source corroborating the claim that a more economical method of bicycle frame construction uses cylindrical steel tubing connected by TIG welding. Why you let these slide while questioning the preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that carbon fiber is the primary and most commonly used non-metallic frame material is beyond my understanding. Does this somehow strike you as original research? Do you have support for a counter claim? -AndrewDressel 17:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take note that there is strict policy regarding inclusion of material. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Instead of trying to find counter exemples to this rule you may wish to try improve the sections of the article which you highlighted as lacking proper citations. --CyclePat 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is some question about the reliability of the sources I cite, please tell me what it is. I believe there is no point in looking for citations for the examples I highlighted because the points are widely agreed upon and there is not likely to be any source that bothers confirming them. That is why I chose those examples. The same is true of the primacy of carbon fiber among non-metallic frame materials. Due to your objections, I'll leave this discussion here and let readers draw their own conclusions. -AndrewDressel 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon fiber as "primary" non-metalic material 

message: Does anyone else see "Image:Foreskin penis cr07.jpg" at the top of the article page? The image does not exist, so it doesn't show, but a transparaent box covers the first paragraph of the article. I can find no trace of it when I edit the page nor in the history. It does not appear in a preview of the page and it does not appear in my view of any previous version, just in the current version of the article. -AndrewDressel 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism was in the transcluded template: Template:TOCleft. SeveroTC 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew! Glad you found it and got rid of it. -AndrewDressel 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird image that appears to be some sort of vandalism 

message: Any objections to moving most of the frame geometry section to the existing Bicycle and motorcycle geometry article? That would enable a more-comprehensive discussion of the topic in one place. This article is already 31k long, and moving some material out would help bring it back down to size. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea :) SeveroTC 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: The current article states that "in contrast to some steel and titanium alloys, which have unlimited fatigue life, aluminum has no endurance limit"
What is meant by this?  
The fatigue life of aluminum is *much* shorter than that of ti or steel.  But Neither ti nor steel have an unlimited fatigue life.  Aluminum, while not having an 'endurance life', as long as steel or ti certainly has an endurance life.  I have bikes that have seen millions of load cycles and are still in one piece.  Ender8282 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The endurance limit is the maximum cyclical stress that can be repeatedly applied without fatigue ever occuring. Aluminum doesn't have such a limit (a stress limit not a lifetime limit) so any repeated stress, no matter how small will eventually lead to failure. I've taken out this term because it's probably misleading as you say.Kallog (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Before trying to address the issue here, I've spent some time trying to clean up the Fatigue (material) and Fatigue limit articles. It appears, from the authors I've cited and ASTM International that fatigue life is only defined in terms of a specified stress. Without specifying the stress, fatigue life is meaningless. In that case, either fatigue limit or endurance limit are the terms that should be used here to distinguish between the nature of steel and aluminum. Steel has a clearly defined stress limit below which prevailing current practice assumes that fatigue failure will never occur. Aluminum does not. I found no mention, in any of the textbooks I examined, of the new research that suggests that this limit does not actually occur even in steel. That doesn't mean I contest the new research, but suggests that this article on bicycle frames need not take it into account.-AndrewDressel (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, you've managed to avoid having to say how it applies to bicycles, which we probably don't know. Kallog (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatigue 

message: "The ability to design an individual composite tube with properties that vary by orientation cannot be accomplished with any metal frame construction commonly in production."
This is false; any tube that does not have rotational symmetry (e.g. one with a rectangular cross section) has properties that vary by orientation. If the statement were qualified to say "a symmetrical" instead of "an individual", this would be rectified. However, the sentence would still read "The ability to design [...] a composite tube [...] cannot be accomplished with any metal frame construction."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulKishimoto (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims in "Carbon Fibre" section 

message: I added a request for a reference to the claim that 'generally frame tubes are made of steel'.  My experience working at a bicycle shop in Tucson, AZ is that most new bikes are being made of Aluminum.  I would say that this is true both of bicycle shop brands and department store brands.  I believe the statement to not reflect the current trends of the last 5 years.  Historically I don't argue that bicycle were made of steel but I don't think that this is the current trend.  Please add a reference to back this up or remove it.  
Ender8282 (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with you for the most part, I do think this is another example of how difficult it is to make global statements on how one bike thing is more common than another.  Surely Chinese and Indian roadsters are some of the most common bikes globally?  They're made from "gas pipe" steel, lugged.  How about saying that steel and alu are the most common frame materials?--Keithonearth (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steel Generally Used 

message: A resent change to the opening blurb of this article has specified that the article is only about Diamond frames.  This seems unnecessary to me, and even undesirable.  I would suggest that we should have an article that is an overview of bicycle frames in general, and that we shouldn't exclude other frame types from this article.  I'd also say that it is appropriate for an article giving an overview of bicycle frames in general, to mainly talk about the most common one: the diamond frame.  The second most common one, the step-through frame shares many characteristics with the diamond frame, and all the tubes have the same name, construction technique and materials are virtually identical.  Of the 3 links provided in the header: step-through frame, recumbent bicycle and Humber (bicycle), Step-through is nominally about a bicycle frame, but in fact discusses the type of bicycle in general.  The other two articles are not about bicycle frames at all: the recumbent article talks about a wide range of characteristics about this style of bicycle, but on skimming through did not have any info about the frame construction, materials, or anything else.  The Humbler article is about an obscure and obsolete bicycle manufacturer that at one time made a non-standard frame.  It has little info.  I propose changing the header to "This article describes bicycle frames in general with emphasis on diamond frames. For more non-diamond frames see step-through frame, recumbent bicycle and Humber (bicycle)."--Keithonearth (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your suggestion. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've done it, with the minor modification that I said ...with emphasis on diamond and step-through frames.  I did this because there is so much overlap between the two.  If anyone feels this is inappropriate and thinks my first suggestion is better, feel free to edit it.--Keithonearth (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about? 

message: While Reynolds 531 is similar to 4130 Chromoly, and they both have Manganese, Rynolds 531 has nearly twice as much.
:
 Alloy composition (by weight)
SAE grade	% Mo       	% C        	% Mn       	
4130     	0.15 - 0.25	0.28 - 0.33	0.40 - 0.60	
531      	0.25       	0.35       	1.5        	
Its mechanical properties and response to heat-treatment are broadly similar to the AISI 4130 standard alloy steel. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, it's not "Reynolds 531" unless it's made by Reynolds and says 531 on it. Particularly for UK bikes in older decades, "Reynolds 531" is also a notable product brand in its own right, as recognisable as Reynolds themselves and far more recognisable than a 4130 SAE code. Even if these had been identical alloys by definition, any article around cycling still needs to preserve use of the term "Reynolds 531", on account of its familiarity with so many of the readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my impression that many tube-set branding refered to not just the alloy itself but also to the wall thickness, both at the butts and in the middle.  Does anybody know if this is true with 531 as well?  --Keithonearth (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reynolds 531 vs 4130 Chromoly 

message: An image used in this article, File:M5 ShockProof 453.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:M5 ShockProof 453.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Recently a section on cardboard bike frames was added, with a reference. Then it was deleted, presumably because it was not notable and/or not in production.
It is quite notable, I believe, as evidenced by the extensive and mainstream news coverage it received:
*NPR
*The LA Times
*CBS news
*Christian Science Monitor
*The Economist
*SlashGear
That isn't necessarily the only inclusion criteria. Is it? Maybe it is. We already list Magnesium, Thermoplastic, and Wood, but I don't believe those materials are "in production" now. At least the article currently doesn't suggest so.
What say ye? -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite notable bikes have been made in large numbers of thermoplastic, magnesium and wood. The cardboard bike is yet a one-off. Strictly speaking it is just another composite material, with a main material (cardboard) and a reinforcing agent (the resin), just like carbon bikes are really resin reinforces woven carbon strings. Not sure the cardboard technology requires a whole section in the article, perhaps just a small note? Keanu (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who erased the section on cardboard bicycle frames, with the comment "removing non-notable non-production cardboard bicycle".  I believe in the interest of keeping the article focused it's better not to include the cardboard  section.  While the prototype has been in the news a fair bit over the last few months, I do not believe that it is worth mentioning as it is only a prototype.  The examples in Andrew's comparison (Magnesium, Thermoplastic, and Wood), while rare, have made it beyond the prototype stage, in to production -- though not to commercial success.  As such I'd like to see cardboard left out unless it actually makes it into production.  --Keithonearth (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardboard 

message: Someone who knows a bit more about this than me might like to do an edit. But in my opinion the photo illustrating a modern "truss frame" (something I'd not heard of before) looks very like what I know of as a cross frame. For example, this is a picture of a 1917 Cross-Frame Raleigh: http://www.oldbike.eu/museum/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1917_Raleigh_Crossframe_03.jpg. And someone else might wish to add that the cross-frame stayed in the UK market as the police continued to use it, in the belief that it was that much stronger (policemen back then being fairly large!).Thomas Peardew (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't a truss frame (old or new) generally a doubled top tube? Often the lower top tube is curved upwards and tied to the upper in the middle. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross frame vs Truss Frame

message: Somebody should add a picture showing the names of the different parts of the frame.  The article talks about a "downtube" in a couple of places, but doesn't explain which part that is.  I'm guessing it's the diagonal member going from the handlebars to the crank, but maybe it's the vertical member that the seat sits on top of?  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean something like the picture currently in the frame tubes section of the article? -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, uh, yeah.  My bad.  I searched for "downtube" and didn't find it.  Should have searched for "down tube".  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downtube? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bicycle frame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.windsorstar.com/business/Windsor+bred+bike+hits+time/5821313/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061119123438/http://www.whytitanium.com:80/materials.html to http://www.whytitanium.com/materials.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629004242/http://www.bikeframerepair.com:80/BikeFrameGeometry.html to http://www.bikeframerepair.com/BikeFrameGeometry.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130205215344/http://www.bicyclewarehouse.com/how-to/carbon-bicycle-and-component-care-pg457.htm to http://www.bicyclewarehouse.com/how-to/carbon-bicycle-and-component-care-pg457.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120705060506/http://www.spadout.com:80/w/bike-frames/ to http://www.spadout.com/w/bike-frames/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917224602/http://www.bicycling.com:80/node/59457 to http://www.bicycling.com/node/59457
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lemondbikes.com/bikes/road_racing/carbon_aluminum_spine/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019062728/http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?sid=07Allez&bikeTab=techspec to http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?sid=07Allez&bikeTab=techspec
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bicycle frame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whytitanium.com/materials.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bikeframerepair.com/BikeFrameGeometry.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spadout.com/w/bike-frames/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bicycling.com/node/59457
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113210225/http://www.calfeedesign.com/bamboo.htm to http://www.calfeedesign.com/bamboo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *swingbike (1970is)
*Wobblebike, name coined in 2000, street performer's bike that bends in the middle. 
*Тhe Trocadero Fixie, experimental bicycle (at first) that features a twisting frame in the middle, it's for tricks and drifts but it also shrinks the turning radius by a lot, maybe inspired by wobblebike (around 2016)
*helyx bike, described as twin steer bike
It seems that first three have different parts that are "loose"
*Kevin Scott's "bike that bends around a post" (around 2010)
*frames for bikes like varibike  fr3 or twicycle that have hand and leg cranks
*flying rider seatless bike
*nitro rail bike
*frames like one on The Bicymple
Not sure if they fall in any of the categories in the article or are new category so I put them here. 95.178.222.9 (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird frames