Scandium, it isn't just for lawyer-locked S&Ws anymore...

[mtnbkr]

With my recent return to biking, I've noticed that the bike industry hasn't been sitting static with regards to new designs and materials.  Sometime in the past 5-6 years, makers started using Scandium in aluminum frames.  These frames tend to run .5 to 1lb lighter than comparable aluminum frames.  That doesn't sound like much, but if you're trying to get a light build, it's noticeable. 

Last night, I installed a NIB scandium handlebar I picked up on ebay for $41 shipped.  Just switching from my heavy steel bar to this one will cut a bit over 6oz from my bike.  Once again, it doesn't sound like a lot, but in a sport where people spend hundreds of dollars to lose a few ounces, 6oz for $41 is a steal.  I find out tonight if it's durable.   

Chris

[StopTheGrays]

Happy you are pleased with your purchase. Can you explain the "lawyer-locked S&W" comment? I do not understand what it is supposed to mean. I know S&W made some handguns in with scandium...

[mtnbkr]

I believe the majority of the scandium Smiths have the lock in the side.  At least I don't recall seeing scandium guns in their lineup prior to the addition of the lock.

Chris

[AJ Dual]

Yes, it refers to the integral trigger/hammer locks that all S&W's come with.

People gripe about it, however it makes sense, considering that Safe-T-Lock, a maker of gun locks is the entity that bought out and saved S&W in the first place.

Given my druthers, I'd prefer no locks, but, I'm a fan of watching what people actualy do, not just what they say, and the new ginormous X-frame .500 and .460's seem to be a big middle-finger aimed right at the "PC crowd"...

[StopTheGrays]

I believe the majority of the scandium Smiths have the lock in the side.  At least I don't recall seeing scandium guns in their lineup prior to the addition of the lock.

Chris

Ah, makes sense now. Thanks for the reply.

[ilbob]

Given my druthers, I'd prefer no locks, but, I'm a fan of watching what people actualy do, not just what they say, and the new enormous X-frame .500 and .460's seem to be a big middle-finger aimed right at the "PC crowd"...

I think it is more likely a response to a perceived niche in the marketplace where they can make some money. This is a business after all. They are not going to spend millions of dollars to develop and market a new gun just to piss off a few people who are not gun owners anyway.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Given my druthers, I'd prefer no locks, but, I'm a fan of watching what people actualy do, not just what they say, and the new enormous X-frame .500 and .460's seem to be a big middle-finger aimed right at the "PC crowd"...

I think it is more likely a response to a perceived niche in the marketplace where they can make some money. This is a business after all. They are not going to spend millions of dollars to develop and market a new gun just to piss off a few people who are not gun owners anyway.

Then they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.  In going after this niche, they've passed up most chances to sell their guns to mainstream gun owners. Most of us wouldn't want any dad-gurned lock in our guns.

I, for one, have passed up on a SW revo that had a lock, primarily because of the lock.  It was offered to me at a gunshow at a really good price.  I didn't really want a revolver but I would have bought it if not for the sour taste that lock put in my mouth.

[AJ Dual]

I think it is more likely a response to a perceived niche in the marketplace where they can make some money. This is a business after all. They are not going to spend millions of dollars to develop and market a new gun just to piss off a few people who are not gun owners anyway.

Oh I agree, the primary motive was to develop a new products/markets. However, it did indeed have that effect, intended or not, and S&W didn't back down an inch...

As I said, the locks aren't my favorite, but if people hate them that much, they should have formed a consortium and out-bid Safe-T-Lock when S&W was on the auction block. A gun-lock company isn't going to just up and abandon what was thier main product "just because"...

[Perd Hapley]

I thought the company's name was Safe-T-Hammer, or at least it was something like that when the deal occured. 

What is scandium, anyway?  Element?  Alloy?

[mtnbkr]

What is scandium, anyway?  Element?  Alloy?

I'm pretty sure it's an element.  Whatever it is, when alloyed with aluminum in small amounts, the resulting alloy is much stronger than plain aluminum.  Therefore, you can use less material and maintain the same strength.

For example, my bars weigh 170grams.  The same bars in plain aluminum, from the same company, weigh over 200grams.  For frames, the weights tend to be something like 2.9lbs vs 3.5lbs for the same frame design.  Though, some builders have been building sub 3lb frames with standard aluminum for over 10 years now, but they're not meant for long term use.

Off the top of my head, the S&W j-frames in scandium weigh in about 12oz, while their plain alloy counterparts weigh about 14oz. 

Chris

[MillCreek]

I took a gander at weightweenies and several bike and framebuilder catalogs.  When I look at road frames of the exact same geometry; one frame in 7005 aluminum alloy with carbon seatstays and the other frame in Kinesium (aluminum/scandium alloy) with carbon seatstays, I see that the exact same frame weight is reported.  I wonder if there really is a difference in frame weights between 7005 and Kinesium or do some of the manufacturers just use the same reported weight.

PS: I have two roadbikes, one with a 7005 frame with carbon seatstays and the other is all titanium.  I am quite certain that each frame will outlive me.

[mtnbkr]

Hard to say.  I saw a mountain bike framebuilder's site where you could pic the material and the weights were different.  Wish I could remember the buider...  Spicer maybe?

There's also a lot of wiggle room.  Like I said, you can make a lighter aluminum frame, it just won't have the lifespan.  I imagine you could make a heavier scandium frame for more durability or other reasons.  On mountain bikes, once the frame gets below 5lbs, you're not talking about much of a difference.  The component spec makes a bigger difference in weight and "feel".

Oh, and my current 3.5lb aluminum frame is going strong after 8 years of use. 

Chris

[The Rabbi]

Given my druthers, I'd prefer no locks, but, I'm a fan of watching what people actualy do, not just what they say, and the new enormous X-frame .500 and .460's seem to be a big middle-finger aimed right at the "PC crowd"...

I think it is more likely a response to a perceived niche in the marketplace where they can make some money. This is a business after all. They are not going to spend millions of dollars to develop and market a new gun just to piss off a few people who are not gun owners anyway.

Then they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.  In going after this niche, they've passed up most chances to sell their guns to mainstream gun owners. Most of us wouldn't want any dad-gurned lock in our guns.

Last year they sold over $150M worth of guns.  I guess none of those were "mainstream gun owners."  If someone doesnt want a lock on his gun, then fine.  But it seems, um, cutting your nose off to spite your face.  Their products are still first rate.

Oh, yeah. To keep it on topic.
Scandium is a rare element found mainly in Russia.  A tiny bit added to aluminum produces a more durable alloy.

[MillCreek]

Ah, if we are talking about mountain bike frames, then materials, weight and durability may be more critical than for road bike frames.  I have a Specialized hardtail and KHS FS mountain bikes, and both of them are 7005 aluminum alloy frames.  Just based on my riding, my MTB take much more of a pounding than my road bikes, so materials choice and durability are more important for the MTB.  I wonder if an aluminum/scandium alloy MTB frame is stronger than a 7005 MTB frame of the same geometry.  I have done some brief looking, and have not yet found a scandium vs. 7005 MTB frame of the same geometry, to compare the frame weights.

Honesty compels me to add that with my style of essentially recreational riding these days, a few ounces  plus or minus on the frame makes no difference to me.  If I was racing for money, it no doubt would.

[mtnbkr]

Honesty compels me to add that with my style of essentially recreational riding these days, a few ounces  plus or minus on the frame makes no difference to me.  If I was racing for money, it no doubt would.

A few ounces here, a few ounces there and soon you have a pound.  Between my new bar and the new seat I bought to replace my well worn one, I'll have shaved nearly a pound off the bike.  This offsets the pound it gained when I added disk brakes to the front end.

Chris

[mtnbkr]

I forgot to mention...

I put in nearly 20 miles offroad tonight.  The bars held up fine.

Chris