Richard Schwinn has had a long and varied history in the bicycle business, starting out as a mechanic in high school and working all around Schwinn Bicycle Company's Chicago factory, including a stint building Schwinn's elite Paramounts in the early 70's. After a period outside the bicycle industry, Richard returned to Schwinn in the late 1980's eventually heading up Schwinn's manufacturing division. When Schwinn was sold in 1993, he and Marc Muller started Waterford Precision Cycles, operating out of the old Schwinn Paramount factory in Waterford, Wisconsin. Waterford is one of the world's leading builder of custom bicycle frames and is a proud supplier of Terry Precision Bicycles.
All of Terry's bicycles are built at the Waterford Precision factory in Wisconsin. Recently, Richard and I talked about steel as a material for building bikes. We only had an hour, but some interesting points came out. Enough so that we both plan to meet again to continue the dialog. Here's how the conversation went:
[Georgena Terry] Hello Richard!
[Richard Schwinn] Hi! Welcome to Sunday.
[GT] How's the new year shaping up?
[RS] I'm very excited about the coming year for two reasons: First, cycling is a solution for a lot of current problems - energy, fitness, quality and economical living. Second, steel is becoming quite fashionable.
[GT] Yes, steel represents all the things that are "in" these days. There's a traditionalism about it that represents things that are here to stay -- not fashion that comes and goes at a whim.
[RS] It's not just traditionalism, though we certainly get our share of retro-grouches. It's a recognition of the long-term value of good steel construction and a recognition of the improvements in steel technology.
[GT] Even though we're talking to each other -- if someone else was in the room, they might want to know about how "green" steel is in terms of manufacturing? Visions of the mills belching smoke appear when one thinks of steel. Or is it the lesser of two or three evils?
[RS] Steel is clearly more green than aluminum (which requires lots of electricity and nasty chemicals), titanium (which requires even more) and carbon fiber. There is more opportunity for recycling. In this country, we've dramatically reduced emissions from all sources.
[GT] You know, the main concern that we still hear has to do with weight. "Gotta keep this bike under 18 pounds," for instance.
[RS] 18 pounds isn't that hard - especially on smaller frames. With a race geometry like the Isis Pro and Dura-Ace components, for example, it's not that hard to do.
[GT] What's the lightest weight steel bike Waterford has built?
[RS] We have a number of people riding sub-15 pound bikes - and I'm talking 56cm frames, not the smallest sizes. So much has to do with components.
[GT] We hear that a lot, too. The 15 pound figure has achieved god-like status.
[RS] Yes, but anything below that is now illegal under UCI rules. What's more, the benefit of reduced weight isn't that great - especially if you have to trade it off against other benefits.
[GT] Check this out: http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2008/12/petition-to-bicycle-industry-on-safety.html. This guy has a very neat site -- he's a mechanical engineer and he really covers some nice topics in a very factual way.
[RS] I've had a number of materials engineers remind me about the superiority of steel as a structural material. It has to do with toughness and fatigue life. Steel holds up remarkably well whether the forces applied are small or large.
[GT] I still remember the time I made a lugless joint -- mitered the joint, added a nice brass bead, nothing fancy. Then I hammered the daylights out of it trying to get it to fail. Looked awful, but never failed.
[RS] Then engineers refer to the term "failure mode". A properly built steel frame clearly has the best failure mode of any material.
[GT] Best yet -- the ride is incomparable.
[RS] That's where the "spring" in steel can give you a boost with every pedal stroke. No other material does as well. Weight is way over-rated as a factor in performance. Engineering studies have shown that it takes 12 pounds to affect your speed by 1 mile per hour. That comes to 1 foot per hour per gram. That assumes everything else is equal, and it isn't. Clearly weight is different going up hill rather than on a flat or downhill.
[GT] If you can dig that study out of your archives, it would be a blast to let it drift around the web for all to see.
[RS] That will take some searching. You figure that 1mph when you're only going 10mph is a much bigger factor than 1 mph when you're going 20mph down hill. n fact, more weight helps you go faster downhill, but the impact isn't as great.
[GT] Yes -- for sure. Don't forget the tailwind effect!
[RS] Our point is not to ignore weight. It's just that we need to get everything else right, too. Like the right components, tires and, of course, rider fit.
[GT] Yes -- there's much more to it than weight. Fall short with something else, and weight may not matter in the least.
[RS] The professional riders we've worked with would rather carry a bit more weight but have the confidence that comes with a solid ride.
[GT] There seems to be a reluctance sometimes to look at the facts. It's so easy to be swayed by marketing hype. Sometimes that hype knows a lot, but other times it doesn't. We have a tough row to hoe!
[RS] Waterfords are typically bought by people who already have one or more nice bikes. In many cases, they are refugees from the carbon, TI and aluminum worlds. Entry level riders aren't typically given steel alternatives because carbon is so profitable these days.
[GT] The trick is catching someone before they enter those realms. You can spend a fortune on any one of those materials. Will steel make a come-back in the lower to middle lines? Or is it strictly the material of hand-built bikes?
[RS] In the lower end, it has more to do with trade policy. China decided in 1998 that it wanted to be the leader in aluminum bike manufacturing and made it profitable to sell low-end bikes here. It killed the US manufacturing base.
[GT] In '98 or '88?
[RS] 1998. We still built 8 million bikes a year in this country. By 2000, we went down to less than 1/2 million.
[GT] That sounds worse than the current economic situation!
[RS] They're doing the same thing with carbon fiber. The big cost in carbon fiber is in the finishing. It's a perfect fit for a country with really inexpensive labor. That's why carbon gets all the advertising and sponsorhip dollars.
[GT] The steel you're using in our bikes is a proprietary blend made for you by True Temper. Where does True Temper manufacture that steel?
[RS] Most of our tubing from True Temper comes from the US. Most of the rest comes from Reynolds in England. Interestingly, Reynolds' new 953 stainless steel is actually made in the US and is sent to England for butting and processing.
[GT] That's nice! amazing that it's still profitable with all that transportation thrown in. That's the kind of thing that raises the carbon footprint eyebrows.
[RS] The carbon footprint of freight pales in comparison to the footprint of making carbon fiber, aluminum or titanium. What's more, you have to make quality aluminum from raw materials. No recycled cans in 7075 alloy.
[GT] Presumably the market for re-cycled steel is still strong. Although I've heard that some recyclables are stacking up becauses the market for them is saturated.
[RS] That's new to me, but not unexpected given the current economic environment. The US isn't the only country hit by the downturn. China has seen the a landslide of plant shutdowns due to soft demand.
[GT] Well, Richard, I hate to come full stop, but our hour is up. Let's do this again sometime -- we left lots of unfinished thoughts in the air!
[RS] Sounds like a great idea.
Tailwinds,
Georgena
talktous@terrybicycles.com
www.terrybicycles.com
