On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:36:25 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 3:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:02:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2022 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:26:36 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 4/21/2022 4:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength
> >>>>>>>>> applications..."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be
> >>>>>>>>> surprised to read that blanket statement. They might ask
> >>>>>>>>> "_Which_ stainless steel? How brittle, under what
> >>>>>>>>> conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
> >>>>>>>>> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into
> >>>>>>>>> the weeds.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel
> >>>>>>>>> fastener on a bike. It may have never happened.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The range of stainless alloys is wide and varied, which is
> >>>>>>>> why I ignored that comment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> None of the stainless steels could be considered brittle by bicycle standards and stainless frames and forks have been built without much attention to the particular compound, Though brittleness usually goes along with the highest strength compounds which makes carbon steel more brittle. How many carbon steel frames or forks have you seen fail?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Many. Countless even. There are a LOT of 1010/1020 steel
> >>>>>> bicycles on earth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you're talking a billion or more bicycles. 0.01% is still a million failed bicycles. And I'm talking about higher end bicycles. So if you don't personally see these failures, you certainly hear all about them.
> >>>>>
> >>>> 'Higher end' bicycles are not made of 1010 or 1020 steel.
> >>>> That was already true when I was born!
> >>>>
> >>>> https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1953-raleigh-lenton-sports-reg-harris-road-model/
> >>>>
> >>>> Note 531 frame, not 1010 steel.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reg Harris not only was World Champion Sprinter in 1947, he
> >>>> set the 1000 meter record in 1953 on his Reynolds 531
> >>>> Raleigh and then used the same bicycle and his own same old
> >>>> legs to win British Sprint Gold in 1974 (so much for 'steel
> >>>> deterioration').
> >>>
> >>> Although my memory of this isn't that hot but I'm fairly sure that LOTS of top end bike, especially made in Japan models were made from 1040 American steel and they performed very well. Track racing is EXTREMELY popular in Japan with very heavy betting and most of those bikes were constructed with straight gauge 1040 if memory serves.
> >>>
> >> That's not true.
> >> Keirin only dates from the 1950s and it's always been only
> >> premium high alloy seamless butted steel tube.
> >
> > I believe that the only difference between 1040 and True Temper 4130 is heat treatment.
> >
> 'Carbon steel' used in bicycles usually refers to AISI 1010
> and 1020. I am unfamiliar with AISI 1040. AFAIK it hasn't
> been used for bicycle tube, or at least not commonly. Can
> you recall a product made from 1040?

Most of the machined steel parts in a car engine are 1040. They also make large scale 1040 seamless tubes that are used in factories etc. Why these wouldn't be used for bicycle tubing.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:31:56 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 3:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:02:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2022 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:26:36 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 4/21/2022 4:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength
> >>>>>>>>> applications..."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be
> >>>>>>>>> surprised to read that blanket statement. They might ask
> >>>>>>>>> "_Which_ stainless steel? How brittle, under what
> >>>>>>>>> conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
> >>>>>>>>> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into
> >>>>>>>>> the weeds.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel
> >>>>>>>>> fastener on a bike. It may have never happened.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The range of stainless alloys is wide and varied, which is
> >>>>>>>> why I ignored that comment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> None of the stainless steels could be considered brittle by bicycle standards and stainless frames and forks have been built without much attention to the particular compound, Though brittleness usually goes along with the highest strength compounds which makes carbon steel more brittle. How many carbon steel frames or forks have you seen fail?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Many. Countless even. There are a LOT of 1010/1020 steel
> >>>>>> bicycles on earth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you're talking a billion or more bicycles. 0.01% is still a million failed bicycles. And I'm talking about higher end bicycles. So if you don't personally see these failures, you certainly hear all about them.
> >>>>>
> >>>> 'Higher end' bicycles are not made of 1010 or 1020 steel.
> >>>> That was already true when I was born!
> >>>>
> >>>> https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1953-raleigh-lenton-sports-reg-harris-road-model/
> >>>>
> >>>> Note 531 frame, not 1010 steel.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reg Harris not only was World Champion Sprinter in 1947, he
> >>>> set the 1000 meter record in 1953 on his Reynolds 531
> >>>> Raleigh and then used the same bicycle and his own same old
> >>>> legs to win British Sprint Gold in 1974 (so much for 'steel
> >>>> deterioration').
> >>>
> >>> Although my memory of this isn't that hot but I'm fairly sure that LOTS of top end bike, especially made in Japan models were made from 1040 American steel and they performed very well. Track racing is EXTREMELY popular in Japan with very heavy betting and most of those bikes were constructed with straight gauge 1040 if memory serves.
> >>>
> >> That's not true.
> >> Keirin only dates from the 1950s and it's always been only
> >> premium high alloy seamless butted steel tube.
> >
> > I believe that the only difference between 1040 and True Temper 4130 is heat treatment.
> >
> https://www.theworldmaterial.com/astm-sae-aisi-1020-carbon-steel/#Chemical_Composition
>
> https://www.theworldmaterial.com/sae-aisi-4130-chromoly-steel-alloy-material/#AISI_SAE_4130_Chemical_Composition

OK, the difference between 1040 and 4130 is a slight amount of chromium added to the mix.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:02:10 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/22/2022 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:26:36 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2022 4:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength
>>>>>>>> applications..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be
>>>>>>>> surprised to read that blanket statement. They might ask
>>>>>>>> "_Which_ stainless steel? How brittle, under what
>>>>>>>> conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
>>>>>>>> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into
>>>>>>>> the weeds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel
>>>>>>>> fastener on a bike. It may have never happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The range of stainless alloys is wide and varied, which is
>>>>>>> why I ignored that comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the stainless steels could be considered brittle by bicycle standards and stainless frames and forks have been built without much attention to the particular compound, Though brittleness usually goes along with the highest strength compounds which makes carbon steel more brittle. How many carbon steel frames or forks have you seen fail?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Many. Countless even. There are a LOT of 1010/1020 steel
>>>>> bicycles on earth.
>>>>
>>>> When you're talking a billion or more bicycles. 0.01% is still a million failed bicycles. And I'm talking about higher end bicycles. So if you don't personally see these failures, you certainly hear all about them.
>>>>
>>> 'Higher end' bicycles are not made of 1010 or 1020 steel.
>>> That was already true when I was born!
>>>
>>> https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1953-raleigh-lenton-sports-reg-harris-road-model/
>>>
>>> Note 531 frame, not 1010 steel.
>>>
>>> Reg Harris not only was World Champion Sprinter in 1947, he
>>> set the 1000 meter record in 1953 on his Reynolds 531
>>> Raleigh and then used the same bicycle and his own same old
>>> legs to win British Sprint Gold in 1974 (so much for 'steel
>>> deterioration').
>>
>> Although my memory of this isn't that hot but I'm fairly sure that LOTS of top end bike, especially made in Japan models were made from 1040 American steel and they performed very well. Track racing is EXTREMELY popular in Japan with very heavy betting and most of those bikes were constructed with straight gauge 1040 if memory serves.
>>
>
>That's not true.
>Keirin only dates from the 1950s and it's always been only
>premium high alloy seamless butted steel tube.

If I remember NJS Keiren bikes are defined and regulated by the rules
to the last minor detail so that they are all as much the same as
possible so the material with which they are made is really not of any
concern.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:30:21 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:02:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 4/22/2022 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:26:36 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> On 4/21/2022 4:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength
> > >>>>>>> applications..."
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be
> > >>>>>>> surprised to read that blanket statement. They might ask
> > >>>>>>> "_Which_ stainless steel? How brittle, under what
> > >>>>>>> conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
> > >>>>>>> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into
> > >>>>>>> the weeds.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel
> > >>>>>>> fastener on a bike. It may have never happened.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The range of stainless alloys is wide and varied, which is
> > >>>>>> why I ignored that comment.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> None of the stainless steels could be considered brittle by bicycle standards and stainless frames and forks have been built without much attention to the particular compound, Though brittleness usually goes along with the highest strength compounds which makes carbon steel more brittle. How many carbon steel frames or forks have you seen fail?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Many. Countless even. There are a LOT of 1010/1020 steel
> > >>>> bicycles on earth.
> > >>>
> > >>> When you're talking a billion or more bicycles. 0.01% is still a million failed bicycles. And I'm talking about higher end bicycles. So if you don't personally see these failures, you certainly hear all about them.
> > >>>
> > >> 'Higher end' bicycles are not made of 1010 or 1020 steel.
> > >> That was already true when I was born!
> > >>
> > >> https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1953-raleigh-lenton-sports-reg-harris-road-model/
> > >>
> > >> Note 531 frame, not 1010 steel.
> > >>
> > >> Reg Harris not only was World Champion Sprinter in 1947, he
> > >> set the 1000 meter record in 1953 on his Reynolds 531
> > >> Raleigh and then used the same bicycle and his own same old
> > >> legs to win British Sprint Gold in 1974 (so much for 'steel
> > >> deterioration').
> > >
> > > Although my memory of this isn't that hot but I'm fairly sure that LOTS of top end bike, especially made in Japan models were made from 1040 American steel and they performed very well. Track racing is EXTREMELY popular in Japan with very heavy betting and most of those bikes were constructed with straight gauge 1040 if memory serves.
> > >
> > That's not true.
> > Keirin only dates from the 1950s and it's always been only
> > premium high alloy seamless butted steel tube.
> I am trying to figure out what you mean. Of COURSE Keirin started in the 50's. Japan was in a state that made England look like each a millionaire. They would have starved to death without American food supplies. As far as double butting seamless tubes. I don't know what you mean by that. 1040 was seamless and could be butted. But it wasn't necessary since all it did was lighten the frameset very slightly.

Tommy, what Andy is referring to is that Keirin racing in Japan was at the elite level. Only the best of the best of the best was used in Keirin. It is still worshipped there. In bicycling, double butted seamless tubing is the top choice. Regardless of whether its needed or not. Or provides any benefits. Its the best. So it was used in Keirin bicycles.

> It was more for making the handling of a road bike more responsive by giving it more flexibility. And it was the same as Columus Cromor which is what composed almost all chainstays and seattubes. Columbus Aelle and Cromor were the MANORITY of European bikes and they were straight gauge. When double blind testing of bike frames were made with all of the top end Columbus tubing the plain old double butted Thron came out on top of the SL, SLX and TSX but racing advertising made huge demands for SL and SLX.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:02:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:02:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:26:36 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 4/21/2022 4:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength
>> >>>>>>> applications..."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be
>> >>>>>>> surprised to read that blanket statement. They might ask
>> >>>>>>> "_Which_ stainless steel? How brittle, under what
>> >>>>>>> conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
>> >>>>>>> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into
>> >>>>>>> the weeds.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel
>> >>>>>>> fastener on a bike. It may have never happened.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The range of stainless alloys is wide and varied, which is
>> >>>>>> why I ignored that comment.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> None of the stainless steels could be considered brittle by bicycle standards and stainless frames and forks have been built without much attention to the particular compound, Though brittleness usually goes along with the highest strength compounds which makes carbon steel more brittle. How many carbon steel frames or forks have you seen fail?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Many. Countless even. There are a LOT of 1010/1020 steel
>> >>>> bicycles on earth.
>> >>>
>> >>> When you're talking a billion or more bicycles. 0.01% is still a million failed bicycles. And I'm talking about higher end bicycles. So if you don't personally see these failures, you certainly hear all about them.
>> >>>
>> >> 'Higher end' bicycles are not made of 1010 or 1020 steel.
>> >> That was already true when I was born!
>> >>
>> >> https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1953-raleigh-lenton-sports-reg-harris-road-model/
>> >>
>> >> Note 531 frame, not 1010 steel.
>> >>
>> >> Reg Harris not only was World Champion Sprinter in 1947, he
>> >> set the 1000 meter record in 1953 on his Reynolds 531
>> >> Raleigh and then used the same bicycle and his own same old
>> >> legs to win British Sprint Gold in 1974 (so much for 'steel
>> >> deterioration').
>> >
>> > Although my memory of this isn't that hot but I'm fairly sure that LOTS of top end bike, especially made in Japan models were made from 1040 American steel and they performed very well. Track racing is EXTREMELY popular in Japan with very heavy betting and most of those bikes were constructed with straight gauge 1040 if memory serves.
>> >
>> That's not true.
>> Keirin only dates from the 1950s and it's always been only
>> premium high alloy seamless butted steel tube.
>
>I believe that the only difference between 1040 and True Temper 4130 is heat treatment.

Your ignorance defies description.

1040 steel is primarily an alloy of iron and carbon.
Carbon 0.37 - 0.44
Iron Balance
Manganese 0.6 - 0.9
Phosphorus 0.04 max
Sulphur 0.05 max

While 4130 is an alloy of iron, carbon and several other ingredients
including chromium and molydenum, from which it takes its name a
"chrom-moly steel"
0.28 - 0.33% Carbon
0.8 - 1.1% Chromium
0.7 - 0.9% Manganese
0.15 - 0.25% Molybdenum
<_ 0.035% Phosphorus
0.15 - 0.35% Silicon
<_ 0.04% Sulphur
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:02:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:26:36 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 4/21/2022 4:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength
>> >>>>>>> applications..."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be
>> >>>>>>> surprised to read that blanket statement. They might ask
>> >>>>>>> "_Which_ stainless steel? How brittle, under what
>> >>>>>>> conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
>> >>>>>>> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into
>> >>>>>>> the weeds.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel
>> >>>>>>> fastener on a bike. It may have never happened.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The range of stainless alloys is wide and varied, which is
>> >>>>>> why I ignored that comment.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> None of the stainless steels could be considered brittle by bicycle standards and stainless frames and forks have been built without much attention to the particular compound, Though brittleness usually goes along with the highest strength compounds which makes carbon steel more brittle. How many carbon steel frames or forks have you seen fail?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Many. Countless even. There are a LOT of 1010/1020 steel
>> >>>> bicycles on earth.
>> >>>
>> >>> When you're talking a billion or more bicycles. 0.01% is still a million failed bicycles. And I'm talking about higher end bicycles. So if you don't personally see these failures, you certainly hear all about them.
>> >>>
>> >> 'Higher end' bicycles are not made of 1010 or 1020 steel.
>> >> That was already true when I was born!
>> >>
>> >> https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1953-raleigh-lenton-sports-reg-harris-road-model/
>> >>
>> >> Note 531 frame, not 1010 steel.
>> >>
>> >> Reg Harris not only was World Champion Sprinter in 1947, he
>> >> set the 1000 meter record in 1953 on his Reynolds 531
>> >> Raleigh and then used the same bicycle and his own same old
>> >> legs to win British Sprint Gold in 1974 (so much for 'steel
>> >> deterioration').
>> >
>> > Although my memory of this isn't that hot but I'm fairly sure that LOTS of top end bike, especially made in Japan models were made from 1040 American steel and they performed very well. Track racing is EXTREMELY popular in Japan with very heavy betting and most of those bikes were constructed with straight gauge 1040 if memory serves.
>> >
>> That's not true.
>> Keirin only dates from the 1950s and it's always been only
>> premium high alloy seamless butted steel tube.
>
>I am trying to figure out what you mean. Of COURSE Keirin started in the 50's. Japan was in a state that made England look like each a millionaire. They would have starved to death without American food supplies. As far as double butting seamless tubes. I don't know what you mean by that. 1040 was seamless and could be butted. But it wasn't necessary since all it did was lighten the frameset very slightly. It was more for making the handling of a road bike more responsive by giving it more flexibility. And it was the same as Columus Cromor which is what composed almost all chainstays and seattubes. Columbus Aelle and Cromor were the MANORITY of European bikes and they were straight gauge. When double blind testing of bike frames were made with all of the top end Columbus tubing the plain old double butted Thron came out on top of the SL, SLX and TSX but racing advertising made huge demands for SL and SLX.

Tommy, your ignorance seems unlimited.

I was in Japan, in the 1950's, 1954 - 1962 to be exact, and food
production was sufficient, in fact there was little evidence of the
damage caused by the war, at least in the Kanto area.

I might also point out that Honda built the first Honda D Model
motorcycle in 1949 and the Japanese car industry produced 20,000 cars
in 1950.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:30:21 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:02:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 4/22/2022 12:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:26:36 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >> On 4/21/2022 4:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >>>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength
>> > >>>>>>> applications..."
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be
>> > >>>>>>> surprised to read that blanket statement. They might ask
>> > >>>>>>> "_Which_ stainless steel? How brittle, under what
>> > >>>>>>> conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
>> > >>>>>>> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into
>> > >>>>>>> the weeds.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel
>> > >>>>>>> fastener on a bike. It may have never happened.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> The range of stainless alloys is wide and varied, which is
>> > >>>>>> why I ignored that comment.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> None of the stainless steels could be considered brittle by bicycle standards and stainless frames and forks have been built without much attention to the particular compound, Though brittleness usually goes along with the highest strength compounds which makes carbon steel more brittle. How many carbon steel frames or forks have you seen fail?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>> Many. Countless even. There are a LOT of 1010/1020 steel
>> > >>>> bicycles on earth.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> When you're talking a billion or more bicycles. 0.01% is still a million failed bicycles. And I'm talking about higher end bicycles. So if you don't personally see these failures, you certainly hear all about them.
>> > >>>
>> > >> 'Higher end' bicycles are not made of 1010 or 1020 steel.
>> > >> That was already true when I was born!
>> > >>
>> > >> https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1953-raleigh-lenton-sports-reg-harris-road-model/
>> > >>
>> > >> Note 531 frame, not 1010 steel.
>> > >>
>> > >> Reg Harris not only was World Champion Sprinter in 1947, he
>> > >> set the 1000 meter record in 1953 on his Reynolds 531
>> > >> Raleigh and then used the same bicycle and his own same old
>> > >> legs to win British Sprint Gold in 1974 (so much for 'steel
>> > >> deterioration').
>> > >
>> > > Although my memory of this isn't that hot but I'm fairly sure that LOTS of top end bike, especially made in Japan models were made from 1040 American steel and they performed very well. Track racing is EXTREMELY popular in Japan with very heavy betting and most of those bikes were constructed with straight gauge 1040 if memory serves.
>> > >
>> > That's not true.
>> > Keirin only dates from the 1950s and it's always been only
>> > premium high alloy seamless butted steel tube.
>> I am trying to figure out what you mean. Of COURSE Keirin started in the 50's. Japan was in a state that made England look like each a millionaire. They would have starved to death without American food supplies. As far as double butting seamless tubes. I don't know what you mean by that. 1040 was seamless and could be butted. But it wasn't necessary since all it did was lighten the frameset very slightly.
>
>Tommy, what Andy is referring to is that Keirin racing in Japan was at the elite level. Only the best of the best of the best was used in Keirin. It is still worshipped there. In bicycling, double butted seamless tubing is the top choice. Regardless of whether its needed or not. Or provides any benefits. Its the best. So it was used in Keirin bicycles.
>

While it is probably that Keirin bikes were made of "good stuff'", the
important point in Keirin racing is that everything is exactly the
same for all racers. Since, while it certainly is a form of bicycle
racing. it is primarily a gambling system and thus it is important
that no one uses equipment that is any different, in any way, from
anyone else.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:02:34 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I believe that the only difference between 1040 and True Temper 4130 is heat treatment.

That's not even close to true. 1040 would be a plain carbon steel. 4130 has several important alloying additions.

Tom, you should have been able to look that up in just a few minutes, instead of posting yet another mistake.
Here, bookmark this: https://matweb.com/ It's an excellent source for material information, very popular.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:08:15 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:31:56 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 4/22/2022 3:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe that the only difference between 1040 and True Temper 4130 is heat treatment.
> > >
> > https://www.theworldmaterial.com/astm-sae-aisi-1020-carbon-steel/#Chemical_Composition
> >
> > https://www.theworldmaterial.com/sae-aisi-4130-chromoly-steel-alloy-material/#AISI_SAE_4130_Chemical_Composition
> OK, the difference between 1040 and 4130 is a slight amount of chromium added to the mix.

Nope, wrong again. Do your constant mistakes never embarrass you??

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:47:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:08:15 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:31:56 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 4/22/2022 3:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I believe that the only difference between 1040 and True Temper 4130 is heat treatment.
>> > >
>> > https://www.theworldmaterial.com/astm-sae-aisi-1020-carbon-steel/#Chemical_Composition
>> >
>> > https://www.theworldmaterial.com/sae-aisi-4130-chromoly-steel-alloy-material/#AISI_SAE_4130_Chemical_Composition
>> OK, the difference between 1040 and 4130 is a slight amount of chromium added to the mix.
>
>Nope, wrong again. Do your constant mistakes never embarrass you??
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Frank, you simply ,must give credit where credit is due.

4130 may contain up to ~1% of chromium so he got that part right.
But, of course, there are some 8 alloying elements, counting the iron,
so we could say that Tommy got it about 12% correct.

Which is probably the highest grade he's gotten this year.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

> Japan was in a state that made England look like each a millionaire. They would have starved to death without American food supplies.

Nope. Every read about the Japanese economic miracle? By about 1954,
Japan's per capita inflation adjusted GDP was the same size as it was
when Japan entered the war in 1941:
<https://www.nippon.com/en/ncommon/contents/in-depth/42185/42185.jpg>
<https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a04003/>

"Japanese economic miracle"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle>
"Japanese economic miracle refers to the significant increase in the
Japanese economy during the time between the end of World War II and
the end of the Cold War (1945-1992). The economical miracle can be
divided into four stages: the recovery (1946-1954), the high increase
(1955-1972), the steady increase (1972-1992), and the low increase
(1992-2017)"

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:25:14 p.m. UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Japan was in a state that made England look like each a millionaire. They would have starved to death without American food supplies.
> Nope. Every read about the Japanese economic miracle? By about 1954,
> Japan's per capita inflation adjusted GDP was the same size as it was
> when Japan entered the war in 1941:
> <https://www.nippon.com/en/ncommon/contents/in-depth/42185/42185.jpg>
> <https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a04003/>
>
> "Japanese economic miracle"
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle>
> "Japanese economic miracle refers to the significant increase in the
> Japanese economy during the time between the end of World War II and
> the end of the Cold War (1945-1992). The economical miracle can be
> divided into four stages: the recovery (1946-1954), the high increase
> (1955-1972), the steady increase (1972-1992), and the low increase
> (1992-2017)"
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

And it took until 1954 before rationing finally ended in Britain.

Cheers

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:21:33 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength applications..."
>
> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be surprised to read
> that blanket statement. They might ask "_Which_ stainless steel? How
> brittle, under what conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
>
> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
>
> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into the weeds.
>
> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel fastener on a
> bike. It may have never happened.
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

That's a pretty ludicrous claim. Again to my professional area - we manufacture products for use in explosive atmospheres. One aspect is explosion-proof housings and one of the requirements for the enclosure design are stainless bolts in 316 or 18-8. They test by injecting an air/fuel mixture into the enclosure and igniting it while measuring the pressure during the ignition. It must not only show no signs of any damage or compromise during this baseline, but then in order to prove over pressure compliance they state it must also pass a hydro-static pressure test of 1.5 times the baseline, and they use the same housing to test the overpressure and the baseline. Our housings are rated to 480 PSI for the hydrostatic test. Given that the standard requires stainless bolts to control an explosion internal to the enclosure (a requirement that has been in place for over 50 years), for someone to claim "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength applications" pretty much tells me everything I need to know about their level of expertise in the area.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 03:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>And it took until 1954 before rationing finally ended in Britain.
>Cheers

In Japan, rationing ended in 1953, when the US occupation of Japan
officially ended. That was at the end of the Korean War (1950 to
1953), which greatly aided the Japanese economy:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_in_the_Occupation_of_Japan>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan>
Note that Japan was not part of the Marshall Plan, which greatly
helped in European recovery.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 8:27:22 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:21:33 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength applications..."
> >
> > I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be surprised to read
> > that blanket statement. They might ask "_Which_ stainless steel? How
> > brittle, under what conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
> > 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
> >
> > https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
> >
> > Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into the weeds.
> >
> > I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel fastener on a
> > bike. It may have never happened.
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> That's a pretty ludicrous claim. Again to my professional area - we manufacture products for use in explosive atmospheres. One aspect is explosion-proof housings and one of the requirements for the enclosure design are stainless bolts in 316 or 18-8. They test by injecting an air/fuel mixture into the enclosure and igniting it while measuring the pressure during the ignition. It must not only show no signs of any damage or compromise during this baseline, but then in order to prove over pressure compliance they state it must also pass a hydro-static pressure test of 1.5 times the baseline, and they use the same housing to test the overpressure and the baseline. Our housings are rated to 480 PSI for the hydrostatic test. Given that the standard requires stainless bolts to control an explosion internal to the enclosure (a requirement that has been in place for over 50 years), for someone to claim "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength applications" pretty much tells me everything I need to know about their level of expertise in the area.

Under bicycle applications those sorts of loads are never achieved except by the idiot wrench turner over-tightening connectors. Many bike framesets have been made out of stainless. I had a frameset which I assumed to be chrome plated that turned out to be made out of polished stainless steel. It was slightly heavier than a steel frame since the tubes were not butted.

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:04:58 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:25:14 p.m. UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Japan was in a state that made England look like each a millionaire. They would have starved to death without American food supplies.
> > Nope. Every read about the Japanese economic miracle? By about 1954,
> > Japan's per capita inflation adjusted GDP was the same size as it was
> > when Japan entered the war in 1941:
> > <https://www.nippon.com/en/ncommon/contents/in-depth/42185/42185.jpg>
> > <https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a04003/>
> >
> > "Japanese economic miracle"
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle>
> > "Japanese economic miracle refers to the significant increase in the
> > Japanese economy during the time between the end of World War II and
> > the end of the Cold War (1945-1992). The economical miracle can be
> > divided into four stages: the recovery (1946-1954), the high increase
> > (1955-1972), the steady increase (1972-1992), and the low increase
> > (1992-2017)"
> > --
> > Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> > PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> > Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> And it took until 1954 before rationing finally ended in Britain.

You don't find the stupid statements of Jeff insulting to the intelligence of any normal person? Japan recovered in roughly the same period of time as England. And yet Japan was literally bombed into the stone age. It was the financial support of America that brought Japan back so rapidly. Tell me what was "made in Japan" before 1954? The first industries to recover were the agricultural industries because they received the least military attention. Cities built largely of paper houses disappears in the flare of high explosives but according to Jeff, Japan and their very ordered society were as good as new despite the fact that it took American-Japanese who had been subjected to concentration camps until the 60's to recover from that action..

I am attempting to understand the mental illness of Jeff who cannot or will not understand what I actually wrote so that he can object to it. Apparently "after the war" means until today. This is simply sick.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 10:16:01 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:04:58 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 11:25:14 p.m. UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Japan was in a state that made England look like each a millionaire. They would have starved to death without American food supplies.
>> > Nope. Every read about the Japanese economic miracle? By about 1954,
>> > Japan's per capita inflation adjusted GDP was the same size as it was
>> > when Japan entered the war in 1941:
>> > <https://www.nippon.com/en/ncommon/contents/in-depth/42185/42185.jpg>
>> > <https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a04003/>
>> >
>> > "Japanese economic miracle"
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle>
>> > "Japanese economic miracle refers to the significant increase in the
>> > Japanese economy during the time between the end of World War II and
>> > the end of the Cold War (1945-1992). The economical miracle can be
>> > divided into four stages: the recovery (1946-1954), the high increase
>> > (1955-1972), the steady increase (1972-1992), and the low increase
>> > (1992-2017)"
>> > --
>> > Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>> > PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>> > Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
>> > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>> And it took until 1954 before rationing finally ended in Britain.
>
>You don't find the stupid statements of Jeff insulting to the intelligence of any normal person? Japan recovered in roughly the same period of time as England. And yet Japan was literally bombed into the stone age. It was the financial support of America that brought Japan back so rapidly. Tell me what was "made in Japan" before 1954? The first industries to recover were the agricultural industries because they received the least military attention. Cities built largely of paper houses disappears in the flare of high explosives but according to Jeff, Japan and their very ordered society were as good as new despite the fact that it took American-Japanese who had been subjected to concentration camps until the 60's to recover from that action.
>
>I am attempting to understand the mental illness of Jeff who cannot or will not understand what I actually wrote so that he can object to it. Apparently "after the war" means until today. This is simply sick.

But Tommy... Japan was not bombed into the stone age. In fact with the
exception of fire bombing in Tokyo and the two "atom" bombs there was
little bombing done in the rest of the country.

And, I do know as I was there.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:56:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

(chomp)
>But Tommy... Japan was not bombed into the stone age. In fact with the
>exception of fire bombing in Tokyo and the two "atom" bombs there was
>little bombing done in the rest of the country.
>
>And, I do know as I was there.

I beg to differ somewhat.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan>
"Much of Japan's industrial capacity was also destroyed by Allied
bombing. Over 600 major industrial facilities were destroyed or badly
damaged, contributing to a large decline in production."

There were also raids on the coastal naval bases and some of the major
cities:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Allied_naval_operations_off_Japan_during_July_and_August_1945_(edit_1).svg>

The target committee had a difficult time finding worthwhile targets
for the atom bombs because most of the worthwhile (military) targets
had already been destroyed. The sole exception was Kyoto:
"Why was Kyoto removed as the prime target for the A-Bomb?"
<https://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/why-was-kyoto-removed-as-the-prime-target-for-the-a-bomb/>
Kyoto was the first choice for bombing, but was saved by Henry L.
Stimson. The other cities were thoroughly bombed.

I couldn't find anything on whether the US bombed the smaller towns
and fields. When Japan decentralized production to small home
workshops, they might have considered bombing. My guess(tm) is they
didn't. Bombing isn't very effect against low density targets.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 18:45:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:56:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>(chomp)
>>But Tommy... Japan was not bombed into the stone age. In fact with the
>>exception of fire bombing in Tokyo and the two "atom" bombs there was
>>little bombing done in the rest of the country.
>>
>>And, I do know as I was there.
>
>I beg to differ somewhat.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan>
>"Much of Japan's industrial capacity was also destroyed by Allied
>bombing. Over 600 major industrial facilities were destroyed or badly
>damaged, contributing to a large decline in production."
>
>There were also raids on the coastal naval bases and some of the major
>cities:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Allied_naval_operations_off_Japan_during_July_and_August_1945_(edit_1).svg>
>
>The target committee had a difficult time finding worthwhile targets
>for the atom bombs because most of the worthwhile (military) targets
>had already been destroyed. The sole exception was Kyoto:
>"Why was Kyoto removed as the prime target for the A-Bomb?"
><https://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/why-was-kyoto-removed-as-the-prime-target-for-the-a-bomb/>
>Kyoto was the first choice for bombing, but was saved by Henry L.
>Stimson. The other cities were thoroughly bombed.
>
>I couldn't find anything on whether the US bombed the smaller towns
>and fields. When Japan decentralized production to small home
>workshops, they might have considered bombing. My guess(tm) is they
>didn't. Bombing isn't very effect against low density targets.

Well, I can tell you, for sure, that when I went to Japan, 1954 there
was, in the Kanto area (Tokyo, etc.) no evidence whatsoever of any
bomb damage.

As for industrial damage, Tachakawa Air Base which the Wiki states
"was rendered unserviceable by the bombing raids, along with most of
the structures and support facilities of the airfield by the time the
first United States Army forces moved in on 5 September 1945", seemed
to be in perfect condition and structures such as a large Wind Tunnel,
never used by the U.S. appeared to be undamaged.

Granted that I arrived in the country 9 years after the war ended but
still, no evidence at all? And in many cases what certainly appeared
to be the original Japanese structures were still in use. When I
first was assigned to Yokota AFB I lived in a long, wooden, barracks
said, by the Japanese "House Boys" to have been used by the Japanese
A.F.

I was told, by Japanese, about the fire bombing of residential
districts of Tokyo, which I might add the Japanese seemed to think was
a rather strange thing to do as, they commented, you can build a new
house in a few days.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:05:34 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 18:45:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:56:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>(chomp)
>>>But Tommy... Japan was not bombed into the stone age. In fact with the
>>>exception of fire bombing in Tokyo and the two "atom" bombs there was
>>>little bombing done in the rest of the country.
>>>
>>>And, I do know as I was there.
>>
>>I beg to differ somewhat.
>>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan>
>>"Much of Japan's industrial capacity was also destroyed by Allied
>>bombing. Over 600 major industrial facilities were destroyed or badly
>>damaged, contributing to a large decline in production."
>>
>>There were also raids on the coastal naval bases and some of the major
>>cities:
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Allied_naval_operations_off_Japan_during_July_and_August_1945_(edit_1).svg>
>>
>>The target committee had a difficult time finding worthwhile targets
>>for the atom bombs because most of the worthwhile (military) targets
>>had already been destroyed. The sole exception was Kyoto:
>>"Why was Kyoto removed as the prime target for the A-Bomb?"
>><https://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/why-was-kyoto-removed-as-the-prime-target-for-the-a-bomb/>
>>Kyoto was the first choice for bombing, but was saved by Henry L.
>>Stimson. The other cities were thoroughly bombed.
>>
>>I couldn't find anything on whether the US bombed the smaller towns
>>and fields. When Japan decentralized production to small home
>>workshops, they might have considered bombing. My guess(tm) is they
>>didn't. Bombing isn't very effect against low density targets.

>Well, I can tell you, for sure, that when I went to Japan, 1954 there
>was, in the Kanto area (Tokyo, etc.) no evidence whatsoever of any
>bomb damage.

The Korean War or police action, started in June 1950 and went on
until the armistice in July 1953. The US had some warning of things
to come and built up their military presence in Japan prior to the
start of the war. That involved throwing quite a bit of US money into
Japan, much of which went into rebuilding military bases and
facilities. During these 3 years, the Japanese economy grew
substantially from US spending. I mentioned some of this in a
previous rant on the topic.

Note that Japan under US occupation until Apr 28, 1952.

>As for industrial damage, Tachakawa Air Base which the Wiki states
>"was rendered unserviceable by the bombing raids, along with most of
>the structures and support facilities of the airfield by the time the
>first United States Army forces moved in on 5 September 1945", seemed
>to be in perfect condition and structures such as a large Wind Tunnel,
>never used by the U.S. appeared to be undamaged.

Just because a single large wind tunnel was left standing doesn't mean
that the rest of the air base wasn't damaged or destroyed. Other than
the existing wind tunnel, were the air base buildings fairly new,
repaired, or pre WWII?

>Granted that I arrived in the country 9 years after the war ended but
>still, no evidence at all? And in many cases what certainly appeared
>to be the original Japanese structures were still in use.

Ok, that answers part of my question. There were some original
buildings "in many cases". The begs the question how many cases? No
detail is required. Just a general impression of what percentage of
the standing structures were new, repaired, or pre WWII.

>When I
>first was assigned to Yokota AFB I lived in a long, wooden, barracks
>said, by the Japanese "House Boys" to have been used by the Japanese
>A.F.

"Yokota Air Base 1947-1954"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4lvVNItQCU> (11:57)
"Yokota saw intensive activity during the Korean War 1950-1953 when it
hosted the Far East Air Forces (FEAF) Bomber Command and served as the
Air Force's main B-29 bomber base. Activity intensified again during
the Vietnam War, from 1955-1975."

Looks like there had been quite a bit of construction between 1947 and
1954. Most of the buildings look like those I've seen at local
military bases. However, that doesn't mean much as I have no idea
what Japanese construction from that time might have looked like.

I noticed that all of the roofs in the film are in perfect condition,
which suggests recent repair or construction. I also noticed that
many of the trees appear to be older than 9 years in some areas, but
recently planted in others. I would have expected the bombings to
destroy most of older roofs and trees. I'm not sure how to interpret
this.

>I was told, by Japanese, about the fire bombing of residential
>districts of Tokyo, which I might add the Japanese seemed to think was
>a rather strange thing to do as, they commented, you can build a new
>house in a few days.

Given the infrastructure (roads) and materials needed, they could
probably have done that. However, if they lacked usable roads,
vehicles, gasoline, wood, electricity, gas(?), and building materials,
it might take longer to scrounge these than to actually build the
house. Also, the contents of the house would take longer to
reconstruct. They may have lacked some things that would certainly
have helped with the reconstruction... no building inspectors or
permits.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/24/2022 8:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:56:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> (chomp)
>> But Tommy... Japan was not bombed into the stone age. In fact with the
>> exception of fire bombing in Tokyo and the two "atom" bombs there was
>> little bombing done in the rest of the country.
>>
>> And, I do know as I was there.
>
> I beg to differ somewhat.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan>
> "Much of Japan's industrial capacity was also destroyed by Allied
> bombing. Over 600 major industrial facilities were destroyed or badly
> damaged, contributing to a large decline in production."
>
> There were also raids on the coastal naval bases and some of the major
> cities:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Allied_naval_operations_off_Japan_during_July_and_August_1945_(edit_1).svg>
>
> The target committee had a difficult time finding worthwhile targets
> for the atom bombs because most of the worthwhile (military) targets
> had already been destroyed. The sole exception was Kyoto:
> "Why was Kyoto removed as the prime target for the A-Bomb?"
> <https://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/why-was-kyoto-removed-as-the-prime-target-for-the-a-bomb/>
> Kyoto was the first choice for bombing, but was saved by Henry L.
> Stimson. The other cities were thoroughly bombed.
>
> I couldn't find anything on whether the US bombed the smaller towns
> and fields. When Japan decentralized production to small home
> workshops, they might have considered bombing. My guess(tm) is they
> didn't. Bombing isn't very effect against low density targets.
>

+1

After weeks of firebombing, Curtis LeMay complained in July
1945 there were not enough targets for his Army Air Corps.

"Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing
Survey determined at least 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured,
8.5 million people made homeless, and 2.5 million buildings
destroyed. Almost half of 64 Japanese mainland cities were
completely destroyed. The destruction was not lost on LeMay.
He acknowledged that if the Japanese had won the war, he
would have been tried as a war criminal.

Later he would reveal that dropping the atomic bombs was
totally unnecessary, given the level of destruction he had
already waged on Japan. He said he only dropped them because
of President Truman’s authority. After the war, Japan’s
former Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe confirmed that the
decision to surrender was based on the prolonged bombing
wrought by General LeMay’s Marianas-based air forces. "

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/7-awesome-airpower-quotes-general-curtis-lemay/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/24/2022 10:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 18:45:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:56:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> (chomp)
>>> But Tommy... Japan was not bombed into the stone age. In fact with the
>>> exception of fire bombing in Tokyo and the two "atom" bombs there was
>>> little bombing done in the rest of the country.
>>>
>>> And, I do know as I was there.
>>
>> I beg to differ somewhat.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan>
>> "Much of Japan's industrial capacity was also destroyed by Allied
>> bombing. Over 600 major industrial facilities were destroyed or badly
>> damaged, contributing to a large decline in production."
>>
>> There were also raids on the coastal naval bases and some of the major
>> cities:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Allied_naval_operations_off_Japan_during_July_and_August_1945_(edit_1).svg>
>>
>> The target committee had a difficult time finding worthwhile targets
>> for the atom bombs because most of the worthwhile (military) targets
>> had already been destroyed. The sole exception was Kyoto:
>> "Why was Kyoto removed as the prime target for the A-Bomb?"
>> <https://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/why-was-kyoto-removed-as-the-prime-target-for-the-a-bomb/>
>> Kyoto was the first choice for bombing, but was saved by Henry L.
>> Stimson. The other cities were thoroughly bombed.
>>
>> I couldn't find anything on whether the US bombed the smaller towns
>> and fields. When Japan decentralized production to small home
>> workshops, they might have considered bombing. My guess(tm) is they
>> didn't. Bombing isn't very effect against low density targets.
>
> Well, I can tell you, for sure, that when I went to Japan, 1954 there
> was, in the Kanto area (Tokyo, etc.) no evidence whatsoever of any
> bomb damage.
>
> As for industrial damage, Tachakawa Air Base which the Wiki states
> "was rendered unserviceable by the bombing raids, along with most of
> the structures and support facilities of the airfield by the time the
> first United States Army forces moved in on 5 September 1945", seemed
> to be in perfect condition and structures such as a large Wind Tunnel,
> never used by the U.S. appeared to be undamaged.
>
> Granted that I arrived in the country 9 years after the war ended but
> still, no evidence at all? And in many cases what certainly appeared
> to be the original Japanese structures were still in use. When I
> first was assigned to Yokota AFB I lived in a long, wooden, barracks
> said, by the Japanese "House Boys" to have been used by the Japanese
> A.F.
>
> I was told, by Japanese, about the fire bombing of residential
> districts of Tokyo, which I might add the Japanese seemed to think was
> a rather strange thing to do as, they commented, you can build a new
> house in a few days.
>

You saw scant evidence because by 1954 the burnt wood/paper
structures had been cleared and rebuilt.

Kansai:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=aerial+photo+tokyo+1945&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images

Kanto:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=aerial+photo+osaka+1945&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:58:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/24/2022 8:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:56:39 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > (chomp)
> >> But Tommy... Japan was not bombed into the stone age. In fact with the
> >> exception of fire bombing in Tokyo and the two "atom" bombs there was
> >> little bombing done in the rest of the country.
> >>
> >> And, I do know as I was there.
> >
> > I beg to differ somewhat.
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan>
> > "Much of Japan's industrial capacity was also destroyed by Allied
> > bombing. Over 600 major industrial facilities were destroyed or badly
> > damaged, contributing to a large decline in production."
> >
> > There were also raids on the coastal naval bases and some of the major
> > cities:
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Allied_naval_operations_off_Japan_during_July_and_August_1945_(edit_1).svg>
> >
> > The target committee had a difficult time finding worthwhile targets
> > for the atom bombs because most of the worthwhile (military) targets
> > had already been destroyed. The sole exception was Kyoto:
> > "Why was Kyoto removed as the prime target for the A-Bomb?"
> > <https://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/why-was-kyoto-removed-as-the-prime-target-for-the-a-bomb/>
> > Kyoto was the first choice for bombing, but was saved by Henry L.
> > Stimson. The other cities were thoroughly bombed.
> >
> > I couldn't find anything on whether the US bombed the smaller towns
> > and fields. When Japan decentralized production to small home
> > workshops, they might have considered bombing. My guess(tm) is they
> > didn't. Bombing isn't very effect against low density targets.
> >
> +1
>
> After weeks of firebombing, Curtis LeMay complained in July
> 1945 there were not enough targets for his Army Air Corps.
>
> "Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing
> Survey determined at least 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured,
> 8.5 million people made homeless, and 2.5 million buildings
> destroyed. Almost half of 64 Japanese mainland cities were
> completely destroyed. The destruction was not lost on LeMay.
> He acknowledged that if the Japanese had won the war, he
> would have been tried as a war criminal.
>
> Later he would reveal that dropping the atomic bombs was
> totally unnecessary, given the level of destruction he had
> already waged on Japan. He said he only dropped them because
> of President Truman’s authority. After the war, Japan’s
> former Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe confirmed that the
> decision to surrender was based on the prolonged bombing
> wrought by General LeMay’s Marianas-based air forces. "
>
> https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/7-awesome-airpower-quotes-general-curtis-lemay/

I find it absolutely amazing that John has to make such a fool out of himself. He claims to have been to Japan and yet seems to have absolutely no idea of how the Japanese lived. To say that he was there 10 years AFTER the war and after the US dumped in what would be $21 Billion in today's dollars to rebuild Japan after the war, is purely ignorant right on the surface. Then considering that it wasn't until the 80's or so before Japan was even allowed to have self defense forces so that virtually every penny they had could go into the reconstruction of their own country shows a level of stupidity that even Google can't help.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:21:33 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> "Stainless steel is too brittle for high-strength applications..."
>
> I'm sure there are countless engineers who would be surprised to read
> that blanket statement. They might ask "_Which_ stainless steel? How
> brittle, under what conditions? What sort of stresses qualify as
> 'high-strength'? What sort of applications?"
>
> https://www.renehersecycles.com/just-a-bunch-of-bolts/
>
> Jan Heine has some good idea, but IMO he often goes off into the weeds.
>
> I can't remember the last time I broke a stainless steel fastener on a
> bike. It may have never happened.
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Pff... as if the bolts on a bicycle are in the high end application category.
I read the article and what I came up with is 'what a snob...' YMMV.

Lou

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 07:47:10 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:58:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/24/2022 8:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:56:39 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > (chomp)
>> >> But Tommy... Japan was not bombed into the stone age. In fact with the
>> >> exception of fire bombing in Tokyo and the two "atom" bombs there was
>> >> little bombing done in the rest of the country.
>> >>
>> >> And, I do know as I was there.
>> >
>> > I beg to differ somewhat.
>> >
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan>
>> > "Much of Japan's industrial capacity was also destroyed by Allied
>> > bombing. Over 600 major industrial facilities were destroyed or badly
>> > damaged, contributing to a large decline in production."
>> >
>> > There were also raids on the coastal naval bases and some of the major
>> > cities:
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg>
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#/media/File:Allied_naval_operations_off_Japan_during_July_and_August_1945_(edit_1).svg>
>> >
>> > The target committee had a difficult time finding worthwhile targets
>> > for the atom bombs because most of the worthwhile (military) targets
>> > had already been destroyed. The sole exception was Kyoto:
>> > "Why was Kyoto removed as the prime target for the A-Bomb?"
>> > <https://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/why-was-kyoto-removed-as-the-prime-target-for-the-a-bomb/>
>> > Kyoto was the first choice for bombing, but was saved by Henry L.
>> > Stimson. The other cities were thoroughly bombed.
>> >
>> > I couldn't find anything on whether the US bombed the smaller towns
>> > and fields. When Japan decentralized production to small home
>> > workshops, they might have considered bombing. My guess(tm) is they
>> > didn't. Bombing isn't very effect against low density targets.
>> >
>> +1
>>
>> After weeks of firebombing, Curtis LeMay complained in July
>> 1945 there were not enough targets for his Army Air Corps.
>>
>> "Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing
>> Survey determined at least 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured,
>> 8.5 million people made homeless, and 2.5 million buildings
>> destroyed. Almost half of 64 Japanese mainland cities were
>> completely destroyed. The destruction was not lost on LeMay.
>> He acknowledged that if the Japanese had won the war, he
>> would have been tried as a war criminal.
>>
>> Later he would reveal that dropping the atomic bombs was
>> totally unnecessary, given the level of destruction he had
>> already waged on Japan. He said he only dropped them because
>> of President Truman’s authority. After the war, Japan’s
>> former Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe confirmed that the
>> decision to surrender was based on the prolonged bombing
>> wrought by General LeMay’s Marianas-based air forces. "
>>
>> https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/7-awesome-airpower-quotes-general-curtis-lemay/
>
>I find it absolutely amazing that John has to make such a fool out of himself. He claims to have been to Japan and yet seems to have absolutely no idea of how the Japanese lived. To say that he was there 10 years AFTER the war and after the US dumped in what would be $21 Billion in today's dollars to rebuild Japan after the war, is purely ignorant right on the surface. Then considering that it wasn't until the 80's or so before Japan was even allowed to have self defense forces so that virtually every penny they had could go into the reconstruction of their own country shows a level of stupidity that even Google can't help.

Well Tommy, I was there, I spent 8 years there, I learned to speak
sufficient Japanese to get by with and I even married a Japanese Girl
so I do know something about Japan. Certain far more then you do.

For example, your statement "it wasn't until the 80's or so before
Japan was even allowed to have self defense forces".

The Japanese "Self Defense Forces - the Japan Ground Self-Defense
Force, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Japan Air
Self-Defense Force - was formed in 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces#History

You really are stupid, aren't you.
--
Cheers,

John B.