| |
Main
Date: 06 Sep 2007 09:02:24
From: Rik O'Shea
Subject: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
tube is kaput.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07/BaytonsBikeCrashPhSpt
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07/BaytonsCrashedBikePhSpt
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 12:31:03
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:55:45 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Rik O'Shea wrote:
>>>>> Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
>>>>> tube is kaput.
>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>>>> interesting indeed.
>>> wow, a whole day passes and the stupidity contestants don't comment on
>>> how cfrp is "brittle", how it should all be aerospace spec and how it is
>>> in fact satan's spawn.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that a metal head tube would have erupted like that
>> one did? I've never seen the like with any kind of metal frame.
>
> no, the whole frame would completely mangled if it were metal
> encountering a force of that magnitude.
>
So, given similar conditions, metal and carbon fiber behave differently.
What is the property (or properties) in respect of which they exhibit
different behavior? Brittleness comes to mind, but you've ruled that out.
>>
>> The question remains: was the frame's structural failure a result of
>> the crash, or the cause?
>
> result.
>
> if that material were "brittle", the head tube would have broken its way
> out and pieces would have broken from head tube leaving an exit hole
> proportional to the size of the steer tube.
This sounds like something out of a Roadrunner cartoon. Coyote runs into
stone wall and leaves a coyote-shaped hole.
> instead however, we see the
> pieces of the head tube are still attached,
That hardly seems dispositive -- shards of safety glass are held in place
by a plastic layer, but that doesn't mean that the material as a whole
isn't brittle.
/and/ fracture consistent
> with high energy absorption - so to the crash necessary to brute-force
> the steer tube through a breach that is resisting it sufficiently to
> re-close itself after exit must have been significant.
>
> bottom line, i'd say this a pretty impressive result. the chumps that
> are now stand about having bleated that cfrp is "brittle" must be
> looking at this and feeling pretty damned stupid. or they should be -
> assuming they ever knew anything about deformation and fracture in the
> first place [which they haven't yet].
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 14:47:18
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Gary Young wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:55:45 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> if that material were "brittle", the head tube would have broken its way
>> out and pieces would have broken from head tube leaving an exit hole
>> proportional to the size of the steer tube.
>
> This sounds like something out of a Roadrunner cartoon. Coyote runs into
> stone wall and leaves a coyote-shaped hole.
OK, that made my day...
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 06:54:22
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
jim beam wrote:
>
> > Rik O'Shea wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
> >> tube is kaput.
>
> >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>
> >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>
> > interesting indeed.
>
> wow, a whole day passes and the stupidity contestants don't comment on
> how cfrp is "brittle", how it should all be aerospace spec and how it is
> in fact satan's spawn.
Are you suggesting that a metal head tube would have erupted like that
one did? I've never seen the like with any kind of metal frame.
The question remains: was the frame's structural failure a result of
the crash, or the cause?
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 05:55:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>>> Rik O'Shea wrote:
>>>> Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
>>>> tube is kaput.
>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>>> interesting indeed.
>> wow, a whole day passes and the stupidity contestants don't comment on
>> how cfrp is "brittle", how it should all be aerospace spec and how it is
>> in fact satan's spawn.
>
> Are you suggesting that a metal head tube would have erupted like that
> one did? I've never seen the like with any kind of metal frame.
no, the whole frame would completely mangled if it were metal
encountering a force of that magnitude.
>
> The question remains: was the frame's structural failure a result of
> the crash, or the cause?
result.
if that material were "brittle", the head tube would have broken its way
out and pieces would have broken from head tube leaving an exit hole
proportional to the size of the steer tube. instead however, we see the
pieces of the head tube are still attached, /and/ fracture consistent
with high energy absorption - so to the crash necessary to brute-force
the steer tube through a breach that is resisting it sufficiently to
re-close itself after exit must have been significant.
bottom line, i'd say this a pretty impressive result. the chumps that
are now stand about having bleated that cfrp is "brittle" must be
looking at this and feeling pretty damned stupid. or they should be -
assuming they ever knew anything about deformation and fracture in the
first place [which they haven't yet].
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 14:52:14
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
jim beam wrote:
> bottom line, i'd say this a pretty impressive result. the chumps that
> are now stand about having bleated that cfrp is "brittle" must be
> looking at this and feeling pretty damned stupid. or they should be -
> assuming they ever knew anything about deformation and fracture in the
> first place [which they haven't yet].
Eye, mote, beam, "beam".
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 18:21:29
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> bottom line, i'd say this a pretty impressive result. the chumps that
>> are now stand about having bleated that cfrp is "brittle" must be
>> looking at this and feeling pretty damned stupid. or they should be -
>> assuming they ever knew anything about deformation and fracture in the
>> first place [which they haven't yet].
>
> Eye, mote, beam, "beam".
er, that fracture evidences /significant/ energy absorption...
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 15:45:33
From: still me
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:55:45 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>bottom line, i'd say this a pretty impressive result. the chumps that
>are now stand about having bleated that cfrp is "brittle" must be
>looking at this and feeling pretty damned stupid. or they should be -
>assuming they ever knew anything about deformation and fracture in the
>first place [which they haven't yet].
Bottom line - I've never seen a steel frame do that, no matter what
the crash conditions. CF still sucks.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 18:21:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
still me wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:55:45 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> bottom line, i'd say this a pretty impressive result. the chumps that
>> are now stand about having bleated that cfrp is "brittle" must be
>> looking at this and feeling pretty damned stupid. or they should be -
>> assuming they ever knew anything about deformation and fracture in the
>> first place [which they haven't yet].
>
> Bottom line - I've never seen a steel frame do that, no matter what
> the crash conditions.
it won't - it'll plastically deform and do so at a lower stress level.
> CF still sucks.
no it doesn't - on a specific modulus basis, it's about the best
material out there right now.
i don't understand the problem people have with a superior [stronger]
material - just because the deformation mechanism is different.
stronger is better. lighter is better. more fatigue resistant is
better. carbon is impressive on all three counts.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 12:32:33
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:QPednTdFMeuMZHzbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> still me wrote:
>> Bottom line - I've never seen a steel frame do that, no matter what
>> the crash conditions.
>
> it won't - it'll plastically deform and do so at a lower stress level.
Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
elastic
deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>> CF still sucks.
>
> no it doesn't - on a specific modulus basis, it's about the best material
> out there right now.
Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
elastic
deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
> i don't understand the problem people have with a superior [stronger]
> material - just because the deformation mechanism is different. stronger
> is better. lighter is better. more fatigue resistant is better. carbon
> is impressive on all three counts.
Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
elastic
deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 09:45:18
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:QPednTdFMeuMZHzbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> still me wrote:
>>> Bottom line - I've never seen a steel frame do that, no matter what
>>> the crash conditions.
>> it won't - it'll plastically deform and do so at a lower stress level.
>
> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
> elastic
> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>
>>> CF still sucks.
>> no it doesn't - on a specific modulus basis, it's about the best material
>> out there right now.
>
> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
> elastic
> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>
>> i don't understand the problem people have with a superior [stronger]
>> material - just because the deformation mechanism is different. stronger
>> is better. lighter is better. more fatigue resistant is better. carbon
>> is impressive on all three counts.
>
> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
> elastic
> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
if you want to make meat out of that typo mr. modulus, try omitting the
formula - because that gives the correct answer. moron.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 20:43:06
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:A7udncv0F-6CvnnbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:QPednTdFMeuMZHzbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> still me wrote:
>>>> Bottom line - I've never seen a steel frame do that, no matter what
>>>> the crash conditions.
>>> it won't - it'll plastically deform and do so at a lower stress level.
>>
>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
>> elastic
>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>
>>>> CF still sucks.
>>> no it doesn't - on a specific modulus basis, it's about the best
>>> material out there right now.
>>
>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
>> elastic
>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>
>>> i don't understand the problem people have with a superior [stronger]
>>> material - just because the deformation mechanism is different. stronger
>>> is better. lighter is better. more fatigue resistant is better.
>>> carbon is impressive on all three counts.
>>
>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
>> elastic
>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>
> if you want to make meat out of that typo mr. modulus, try omitting the
> formula - because that gives the correct answer. moron.
Really? You get 0.04% instead of 0.4%? And then you base your whole
"brittle" argument on your mistaken arithmetic?
" > 1. peter cole doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
> 2. he's attempting to deceive."
HAHAHAHA! Fucktard idiot!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 21:46:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:A7udncv0F-6CvnnbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:QPednTdFMeuMZHzbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> still me wrote:
>>>>> Bottom line - I've never seen a steel frame do that, no matter what
>>>>> the crash conditions.
>>>> it won't - it'll plastically deform and do so at a lower stress level.
>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
>>> elastic
>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>>
>>>>> CF still sucks.
>>>> no it doesn't - on a specific modulus basis, it's about the best
>>>> material out there right now.
>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
>>> elastic
>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>>
>>>> i don't understand the problem people have with a superior [stronger]
>>>> material - just because the deformation mechanism is different. stronger
>>>> is better. lighter is better. more fatigue resistant is better.
>>>> carbon is impressive on all three counts.
>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
>>> elastic
>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>> if you want to make meat out of that typo mr. modulus, try omitting the
>> formula - because that gives the correct answer. moron.
>
> Really? You get 0.04% instead of 0.4%? And then you base your whole
> "brittle" argument on your mistaken arithmetic?
we were being quoted plastic elongation numbers and being asked to
compare with elastic elongation in an apples to oranges scenario. i
point out in an apples to apples comparison, that the elastic distortion
range of aluminum [at 0.4% or even 0.04%] is still way less than 1.5%
for carbon. sure, i made a typo, but the science was right and the
conclusion was right.
>
> "> 1. peter cole doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
>> 2. he's attempting to deceive."
>
>
> HAHAHAHA! Fucktard idiot!
and what do we have from you? gross scientific error, compounded by
further gross scientific error after what should have been a period in
which corrective research could have been conducted, all spiced up with
lies and lunatic moon howlings!
conclusion? you need to see a doctor. i doubt he'll be able to do much
for your i.q., but he might be able to stabilize your behavioral
episodes, once the kind gentlemen in the white coats release you from
the padded cell.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 13:59:24
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:ZaqdnW0Q66QTgHvbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives
>>>> an elastic
>>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>>>
>>>>>> CF still sucks.
>>>>> no it doesn't - on a specific modulus basis, it's about the best
>>>>> material out there right now.
>>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives
>>>> an elastic
>>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>>>
>>>>> i don't understand the problem people have with a superior [stronger]
>>>>> material - just because the deformation mechanism is different.
>>>>> stronger is better. lighter is better. more fatigue resistant is
>>>>> better. carbon is impressive on all three counts.
>>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives
>>>> an elastic
>>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>> if you want to make meat out of that typo mr. modulus, try omitting the
>>> formula - because that gives the correct answer. moron.
>>
>> Really? You get 0.04% instead of 0.4%? And then you base your whole
>> "brittle" argument on your mistaken arithmetic?
>
> we were being quoted plastic elongation numbers and being asked to compare
> with elastic elongation in an apples to oranges scenario. i point out in
> an apples to apples comparison, that the elastic distortion range of
> aluminum [at 0.4% or even 0.04%] is still way less than 1.5% for carbon.
> sure, i made a typo, but the science was right and the conclusion was
> right.
The science was wrong since you based it on elastic deformation calculation
that was wrong. Elastic range for Al alloys is around 0.4-0.5%. Carbon
fibers in fact don't have published tensile yield strength, only tensile
strength at break since CF does NOT YIELD, it BREAKS. However, since CF
stress-strain curve is practically linear until break, using epoxy/fiber
composite average values at
http://www.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=O1780:
0.810 GPa/190 GPa * 100 = 0.43%
How's that compare to Al 6061's 0.4%?
Your 1.5% elastic range for carbon fiber is WRONG, the science is WRONG, and
the conclusion is WRONG, idiot!
Let's go further - in the plastic range:
Elongation to failure of carbon fiber is typically 1.5%
(http://www.matweb.com/ - pick a carbon fiber).
Elongation to failure of 6061-t4 is 22-25%.
>> "> 1. peter cole doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
>>> 2. he's attempting to deceive."
>>
>> HAHAHAHA! Fucktard idiot!
>
> and what do we have from you? gross scientific error, compounded by
> further gross scientific error after what should have been a period in
> which corrective research could have been conducted, all spiced up with
> lies and lunatic moon howlings!
And of course you do know about science and scientific methodology, don't
you? After your "materials lecture more than 30 years ago", your defining
"inclusion" from a textbook, and your reading of textbook intros and Pop
Science mags. Your confusion of specific modulus and young's modulus, utter
ignorance of basic physics, and who can ignore your shiftiness in
backpedalling, shifting goalposts, and very lame attempts at covering your
lack of scientific understanding of basic metallurgy.
CF fork whisperer, "former metallurgist", lying fucktard extraordinaire -
that's you, beamboy!
>
> conclusion?
Well, we all know how your conclusions arte derived, don't we?
> you need to see a doctor. i doubt he'll be able to do much for your i.q.,
> but he might be able to stabilize your behavioral episodes, once the kind
> gentlemen in the white coats release you from the padded cell.
HAHAHAHA! Not very imaginative, and totally fails to detract from your
moronic "science" bleatings! Tell us again about your CF fork
conversations, beamboy!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 20:45:57
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:ZaqdnW0Q66QTgHvbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives
>>>>> an elastic
>>>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>>>>
>>>>>>> CF still sucks.
>>>>>> no it doesn't - on a specific modulus basis, it's about the best
>>>>>> material out there right now.
>>>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives
>>>>> an elastic
>>>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>>>>
>>>>>> i don't understand the problem people have with a superior [stronger]
>>>>>> material - just because the deformation mechanism is different.
>>>>>> stronger is better. lighter is better. more fatigue resistant is
>>>>>> better. carbon is impressive on all three counts.
>>>>> Yeah, because "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives
>>>>> an elastic
>>>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%."
>>>> if you want to make meat out of that typo mr. modulus, try omitting the
>>>> formula - because that gives the correct answer. moron.
>>> Really? You get 0.04% instead of 0.4%? And then you base your whole
>>> "brittle" argument on your mistaken arithmetic?
>> we were being quoted plastic elongation numbers and being asked to compare
>> with elastic elongation in an apples to oranges scenario. i point out in
>> an apples to apples comparison, that the elastic distortion range of
>> aluminum [at 0.4% or even 0.04%] is still way less than 1.5% for carbon.
>> sure, i made a typo, but the science was right and the conclusion was
>> right.
>
> The science was wrong since you based it on elastic deformation calculation
> that was wrong. Elastic range for Al alloys is around 0.4-0.5%. Carbon
> fibers in fact don't have published tensile yield strength, only tensile
> strength at break since CF does NOT YIELD, it BREAKS.
you don't read - that was my point.
> However, since CF
> stress-strain curve is practically linear until break, using epoxy/fiber
> composite average values at
> http://www.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=O1780:
>
> 0.810 GPa/190 GPa * 100 = 0.43%
>
> How's that compare to Al 6061's 0.4%?
apart from being a dea link, the results for /composites/ depends on the
fiber, the layup and the matrix! moron.
>
> Your 1.5% elastic range for carbon fiber is WRONG, the science is WRONG, and
> the conclusion is WRONG, idiot!
fuck you moron - read the freakin' thread. those are not my numbers
they're peter cole's.
>
> Let's go further - in the plastic range:
>
> Elongation to failure of carbon fiber is typically 1.5%
> (http://www.matweb.com/ - pick a carbon fiber).
> Elongation to failure of 6061-t4 is 22-25%.
but that's plasticity, not elasticity - you're making the same moron
error as peter cole!
>
>>> "> 1. peter cole doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
>>>> 2. he's attempting to deceive."
>>> HAHAHAHA! Fucktard idiot!
>> and what do we have from you? gross scientific error, compounded by
>> further gross scientific error after what should have been a period in
>> which corrective research could have been conducted, all spiced up with
>> lies and lunatic moon howlings!
>
> And of course you do know about science and scientific methodology, don't
> you? After your "materials lecture more than 30 years ago", your defining
> "inclusion" from a textbook, and your reading of textbook intros and Pop
> Science mags. Your confusion of specific modulus and young's modulus,
that's bullshit. /you/ are the moron that got those terms confused.
and you compounded it by making a bigger error two days of research
later than you made the first one!!!
> utter
> ignorance of basic physics,
er, like confusing density and weight??? moron.
> and who can ignore your shiftiness in
> backpedalling, shifting goalposts, and very lame attempts at covering your
> lack of scientific understanding of basic metallurgy.
>
> CF fork whisperer, "former metallurgist", lying fucktard extraordinaire -
> that's you, beamboy!
>> conclusion?
>
> Well, we all know how your conclusions arte derived, don't we?
>
>> you need to see a doctor. i doubt he'll be able to do much for your i.q.,
>> but he might be able to stabilize your behavioral episodes, once the kind
>> gentlemen in the white coats release you from the padded cell.
>
> HAHAHAHA! Not very imaginative, and totally fails to detract from your
> moronic "science" bleatings! Tell us again about your CF fork
> conversations, beamboy!
when you can be bothered to learn basic grade school science, get back
to us. otherwise, fuck off and take your meds. goddamned moron.
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 09:53:38
From:
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
On Sep 6, 10:00 am, Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 5:02 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
> > tube is kaput.
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>
> How can a crash destroy the bottom of your head tube outwards? I've
> seen stuff like that after casing a bmx or mtb jump landing, but hard
> to see how that would happen on a road bike....
>
> /s
It looks almost like something hit the fork from the left, or the bike
was lying on the ground on its left side and something landed on it.
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 07:00:57
From: Scott Gordo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
On Sep 6, 5:02 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
> tube is kaput.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
How can a crash destroy the bottom of your head tube outwards? I've
seen stuff like that after casing a bmx or mtb jump landing, but hard
to see how that would happen on a road bike....
/s
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 21:17:38
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Scott Gordo wrote:
> On Sep 6, 5:02 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
>> tube is kaput.
>>
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>>
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07...
>
> How can a crash destroy the bottom of your head tube outwards? I've
> seen stuff like that after casing a bmx or mtb jump landing, but hard
> to see how that would happen on a road bike....
but that's what makes them so dramatic...
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 05:47:48
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Rik O'Shea wrote:
> Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
> tube is kaput.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07/BaytonsBikeCrashPhSpt
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07/BaytonsCrashedBikePhSpt
>
interesting indeed.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 21:15:47
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
jim beam wrote:
> Rik O'Shea wrote:
>> Interesting crash photos. The fork steering column looks ok, the head
>> tube is kaput.
>>
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07/BaytonsBikeCrashPhSpt
>>
>>
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/sep07/newport07/BaytonsCrashedBikePhSpt
>>
>>
>
> interesting indeed.
wow, a whole day passes and the stupidity contestants don't comment on
how cfrp is "brittle", how it should all be aerospace spec and how it is
in fact satan's spawn.
but how silly of me! to expect sufficient interest in commenting
presumes an interest in the /subject matter/ rather than trying to bleat
ridiculous personal dislike of a random anonymous troll they found on
the interweb. on their employers time no less.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 01:42:14
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:G-adndlCP7jpTX3bnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> wow, a whole day passes and the stupidity contestants don't comment on how
> cfrp is "brittle", how it should all be aerospace spec and how it is in
> fact satan's spawn.
>
> but how silly of me! to expect sufficient interest in commenting presumes
> an interest in the /subject matter/ rather than trying to bleat ridiculous
> personal dislike of a random anonymous troll they found on the interweb.
> on their employers time no less.
Hey dood, this conversation is over... you got everything wrong, remember?
Let me recap:
you excreted:
1. CF has elastic stress strain ratio an order of magnitude greater than Al
alloys
2. "a typical yield limit on quality carbon bike componentry is ~3x that of
steel"
3. "damage to cfrp is inflicted at much higher levels than for metals"
4. "almost every bike uses a CF fork"
5. NDT is the same as NDI
6. "quarter" tapping is all you need to check CFRPs
7. CF forks have "millions upon millions of real life rider miles" with no
failures reported
8. people made up their experiences of failures of CF handlebars, seatposts
(those damn mtbr.com liars)
9. no, people don't know how to use CF forks, that's why they fail (those
damn ignorami)
10. no, it's the Chinese manufacturers' fault CF forks are faulty (those
damn Chinese)
All of which are wrong.
Oh, and before you say "putting words in my mouth", "red herring", "fud",
"fudge", "bull", "deceive", "prick", "fuck you", and all the other lame
retorts you use, bear in mind everyone can see your previous posts to
confirm.
Anyway, whatsa matter, no one wants to play with you no more, so you go
trolling with "nyah nyah nyah"? Okay then, there's some of the attention
you crave...
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 23:12:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:G-adndlCP7jpTX3bnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> wow, a whole day passes and the stupidity contestants don't comment on how
>> cfrp is "brittle", how it should all be aerospace spec and how it is in
>> fact satan's spawn.
>>
>> but how silly of me! to expect sufficient interest in commenting presumes
>> an interest in the /subject matter/ rather than trying to bleat ridiculous
>> personal dislike of a random anonymous troll they found on the interweb.
>> on their employers time no less.
>
> Hey dood, this conversation is over... you got everything wrong, remember?
> Let me recap:
> you excreted:
> 1. CF has elastic stress strain ratio an order of magnitude greater than Al
> alloys
> 2. "a typical yield limit on quality carbon bike componentry is ~3x that of
> steel"
> 3. "damage to cfrp is inflicted at much higher levels than for metals"
> 4. "almost every bike uses a CF fork"
> 5. NDT is the same as NDI
> 6. "quarter" tapping is all you need to check CFRPs
> 7. CF forks have "millions upon millions of real life rider miles" with no
> failures reported
> 8. people made up their experiences of failures of CF handlebars, seatposts
> (those damn mtbr.com liars)
> 9. no, people don't know how to use CF forks, that's why they fail (those
> damn ignorami)
> 10. no, it's the Chinese manufacturers' fault CF forks are faulty (those
> damn Chinese)
>
> All of which are wrong.
>
> Oh, and before you say "putting words in my mouth", "red herring", "fud",
> "fudge", "bull", "deceive", "prick", "fuck you", and all the other lame
> retorts you use, bear in mind everyone can see your previous posts to
> confirm.
>
> Anyway, whatsa matter, no one wants to play with you no more, so you go
> trolling with "nyah nyah nyah"? Okay then, there's some of the attention
> you crave...
>
>
wow.
1. the modulus of cf is much greater than that of al alloys. look it up.
2. reynolds forks published the data i cited. look it up.
3. yield is lower. look it up.
4. almost any modern road bike. look it up.
5. actually it is. look it up.
6. i didn't say that. look it up.
7. i cited that carbon forks have been used for millions and millions of
rider miles, and over the span of at least a decade - and that's true.
first you disputed that number somehow trying to say it's too high
[!!!], then you tried to misconstrue into red herrings of insisting on
aerospace standards for bikes, then started bullshitting about how forks
break jra. after 10+ years of your kind alleging that is going to
happen on r.b.t, where's the evidence? what's the failure rate?
1/1,000,000? 1/100,000? 1/1,000?
8. some of it /is/ bullshit. people citing that phil wood hubs are
unreliable crap is /utter/ bullshit. people with 5 chillies and zero
chillies in the same review? that's bullshit. people emailing /me/
asking for endorsement of their product on mtbr? that's bullshit.
9. that's not what i said - i, and others, have stated that if failure
is going to occur, it's usually preceded by warning signs that are
readily apparent. the only "trick" is not ignoring them.
10. a crap manufacturer does not mean that the /material/ is in
principal flawed. just like spokes, tubes, tires, etc. are not all
flawed every time one of them breaks.
just because i call you a bullshitter - because it's the truth - doesn't
give you license to put words in my mouth, then criticize them. and you
/definitely/ don't have license to call an aerospace tech a liar just
because he exposes your dumb ass to be a bullshitter.
bottom line - truth hurts and you're dead sore right now. and because
you're too fucking dumb to figure this out for yourself, you'd better
understand that there's a direct causal relationship between bullshit
and abuse. you don't like the abuse, then stop bullshitting.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 12:23:40
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:BuudnZ3KM4pJdn3bnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> wow.
>
> 1. the modulus of cf is much greater than that of al alloys. look it up.
Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
Wow!
> 2. reynolds forks published the data i cited. look it up.
Still wrong!
Wow!
> 3. yield is lower. look it up.
Still wrong!
Wow!
> 4. almost any modern road bike. look it up.
So now it's "modern road bike", and not "almost all bikes". Here's your
lame reotrt for ya: "shift goalposts when it suits you"
Wow!
Pick any manufacturer website, or any bike shop not specializing in CF
bikes.
Wow!
> 5. actually it is. look it up.
ND Testing is not the same as ND Inspection. Geez, are you making an effort
to be really stupid?
Wow!
> 6. i didn't say that. look it up.
So now you admit you need more than tapping to inspect CF components. Wow!
By the way, yes you did say that. Wow!
> 7. i cited that carbon forks have been used for millions and millions of
> rider miles, and over the span of at least a decade -
Nah, nah, nah, you didn't "cite" from anywhere credible the "millions of
millions of rider miles", you speculated that. "CITE" the reference for
this speculation.
Wow!
> 8. some of it /is/ bullshit. people citing that phil wood hubs are
> unreliable crap is /utter/ bullshit.
What's hubs got to do with stories and pictures of failed CF components?
Grasp, claw, wheeze.
Wow!
> people with 5 chillies and zero chillies in the same review? that's
> bullshit.
What's that got to do with stories and pictures of failed CF components?
Grasp, claw, wheeze.
Wow!
> people emailing /me/ asking for endorsement of their product on mtbr?
> that's bullshit.
What's that got to do with stories and pictures of failed CF components?
Grasp, claw, wheeze.
Wow!
> 9. that's not what i said - i, and others, have stated that if failure is
> going to occur, it's usually preceded by warning signs that are readily
> apparent. the only "trick" is not ignoring them.
Yeah, crack blam wee-o wee-o wee-o stat!
Still bullshit - so you say CFRP doesn't plastically deform, which means
catastrophic failure, yet you say there are warning signs that are "readily
apparent".
Still bullshit - you're now saying that there's no need to inspect, just
ride the thing until you hear "warning signs that are readily apparent".
"Tricks" don't work for CF inspections.
Wow!
> 10. a crap manufacturer does not mean that the /material/ is in principal
> flawed. just like spokes, tubes, tires, etc. are not all flawed every
> time one of them breaks.
So it's ok to have catastrophic CF failures due to manufacturer fault.
Wow!
> just because i call you a bullshitter - because it's the truth - doesn't
> give you license to put words in my mouth, then criticize them.
Eh, no my friend, I call YOU a bullshitter. And that's the truth. No
putting words in your mouth necessary - I wouldn't do that without wearing
biohazard gloves, anyway. Like I said, your posts are there for everyone to
see!
Wow!
> and you /definitely/ don't have license to call an aerospace tech a liar
> just because he exposes your dumb ass to be a bullshitter.
Ah, but no one called anyone a liar in that exchange, dickhead. But when
you piped in where you're totally outclassed and outgunned (as you usually,
comically do), you again obfuscate with "bullshit", "fud", "fudge"...
> bottom line - truth hurts and you're dead sore right now.
I'll tell you what's sore, my sides from your comic flailing - it's
sometimes funny to see a guy drowning in his own turd.
> and because you're too fucking dumb to figure this out for yourself, you'd
> better understand that there's a direct causal relationship between
> bullshit and abuse. you don't like the abuse, then stop bullshitting.
What I see, and what everyone else in rbt also see, is your trademark causal
relationship between your being shown to have no knowledge, and your
propensity for abuse to try to cover up this fact. Uh, and "fud" is not an
argument, and neither is "fudge", nor "bullshit", nor "fuck you", nor ......
Don't worry, I've seen and fired many people like you before, people who
only read the first few pages of a text book or magazine and then proclaim
themselves experts in the field, letting loose some jargon they picked up
from someone else to try to sound good. You losers then get struck down by
people who are experts, but instead of listening and learning, you proclaim
your "expertise", make loud noises, obfuscate and shift topics, then in the
bitter end, when it's clear you know nothing, get abusive. You'd never make
it in the industry, so you drift from one company to the next, never lasting
long.
In your case, then you find a forum that you can piss in without being
fired, and still meet your desire to be recognized as an "expert". And it
only takes one or two acknowledgements from others to feed your desire to
keep propping up your ego, keep coming back to make loud farting noises, and
dismissing everything that proves you're a fake.
Anyway, you do make me laugh, so you do have that going for you at least.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 18:20:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:BuudnZ3KM4pJdn3bnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>> wow.
>>
>> 1. the modulus of cf is much greater than that of al alloys. look it up.
>
> Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
<snip remaining crap >
er, actually modulus = stress/strain.
i kind of figure that i should spell out what "stress" and "strain" are
as well, but i think that wasted effort with such a fucking moron.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 12:31:51
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:QPednTRFMetCZXzbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>>
>> Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
> <snip remaining crap>
>
> er, actually modulus = stress/strain.
Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's modulus.
Lying fucktard!
> i kind of figure that i should spell out what "stress" and "strain" are as
> well, but i think that wasted effort with such a fucking moron.
HAHAHAHHA! Lying fucktard!!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 12:24:38
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:31:51 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Jambo"
<-@-.- > wrote:
>HAHAHAHHA! Lying fucktard!!
May we have better quality flaming, please? If you're going to spew,
at least do so with some class. "Liar" (or any variant thereof) is a
pedestrian epithet and vastly overused. Also out are any references
to Hitler and the Jews, child molesters, threats of legal action, or
high-stakes "bets"... unless I get to hold the money, of course. Try
for some originality, please. If you're going to bless us with your
shrieking, then I'd hope you would have the decency to entertain us.
< example >
You stingless quiver! How fucking DARE you deface my planet by
crawling across it. leaving your trail of slime and filth as the
roaches crawl across the evidence of my last night's binge, now rancid
upon my bathroom floor.
< /example >
That might be worth a 3, maybe 4 out of 10 troll points. "Lying
fucktard!!" is a flat zero and, if I had my way, would actually result
in a deduction of troll points
Jones
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 19:38:00
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Ah, the shrieking is reserved for jim beamer. I don't see you criticizing
his rather pedestrian insults... but that's okay, because that IS the
point...
"!Jones" <piss@off.com > wrote in message
news:c4a8e3p6c6dtk6i6c19c5qeq3m61s8u55g@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:31:51 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Jambo"
> <-@-.-> wrote:
>
>>HAHAHAHHA! Lying fucktard!!
>
> May we have better quality flaming, please? If you're going to spew,
> at least do so with some class. "Liar" (or any variant thereof) is a
> pedestrian epithet and vastly overused. Also out are any references
> to Hitler and the Jews, child molesters, threats of legal action, or
> high-stakes "bets"... unless I get to hold the money, of course. Try
> for some originality, please. If you're going to bless us with your
> shrieking, then I'd hope you would have the decency to entertain us.
>
> < example >
>
> You stingless quiver! How fucking DARE you deface my planet by
> crawling across it. leaving your trail of slime and filth as the
> roaches crawl across the evidence of my last night's binge, now rancid
> upon my bathroom floor.
>
> < /example >
>
> That might be worth a 3, maybe 4 out of 10 troll points. "Lying
> fucktard!!" is a flat zero and, if I had my way, would actually result
> in a deduction of troll points
>
> Jones
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 01:18:55
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:38:00 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Jambo"
<-@-.- > wrote:
>Ah, the shrieking is reserved for jim beamer. I don't see you criticizing
>his rather pedestrian insults... but that's okay, because that IS the
>point...
I didn't read 'em and, most likely, won't. There are some on whom I
won't waste my writing. < SHRUG > I usually get paid for writing.
Jones
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2007 09:43:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:QPednTRFMetCZXzbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
>> <snip remaining crap>
>>
>> er, actually modulus = stress/strain.
>
> Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's modulus.
but you didn't say "specific modulus". and specific modulus =
modulus/density not "strength to weight" - modulus is not strength, it's
stiffness. and weight is not density. moron.
>
> Lying fucktard!
>
>> i kind of figure that i should spell out what "stress" and "strain" are as
>> well, but i think that wasted effort with such a fucking moron.
>
> HAHAHAHHA! Lying fucktard!!
say whatever you want, moron, but at least get your grade school facts
straight.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 20:40:52
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:A7udncj0F-4Cv3nbnZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:QPednTRFMetCZXzbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
>>> <snip remaining crap>
>>>
>>> er, actually modulus = stress/strain.
>>
>> Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's modulus.
>
> but you didn't say "specific modulus".
But you did, and that's what you are confused with, fucktard!
>and specific modulus = modulus/density not "strength to weight" - modulus
>is not strength, it's stiffness. and weight is not density. moron.
Ah, is that what Pop Science says? Here's a real scientific resource:
http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/properties/non-IE/stiffness.html
"Specific stiffness (more properly called specific modulus) is Young's
modulus/density - it is mostly used for comparing materials so the units are
not important."
HAHAHAHAHA! Idiot.
> say whatever you want, moron, but at least get your grade school facts
> straight.
But you wouldn't know if they're wrong or right, beamboy!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 21:25:50
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:A7udncj0F-4Cv3nbnZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:QPednTRFMetCZXzbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>> Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
>>>> <snip remaining crap>
>>>>
>>>> er, actually modulus = stress/strain.
>>> Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's modulus.
>> but you didn't say "specific modulus".
>
> But you did, and that's what you are confused with, fucktard!
<snip crap >
eh? now let's see who this might be... density confused with weight,
stiffness confused with strength, modulus confused with what? after two
days of research??? freakin' moron.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 13:10:41
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:yMednZCXxpNShXvbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>>
>> But you did, and that's what you are confused with, fucktard!
>
> <snip crap>
>
> eh? now let's see who this might be... density confused with weight,
> stiffness confused with strength, modulus confused with what? after two
> days of research??? freakin' moron.
Let's see then - who did indeed say these things to be true:
1. specific modulus = Young's modulus
2. for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic
deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.
3. "Materials lecture more than 30 years ago" from "sikorski" showed
helicopter composite rotor combat service results, at a time before
composite rotors entered service
4. CF forks talk to people before breaking
5. In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones
before breaking
6. metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance
7. NDT is the same as NDI
8. stress does not figure in spoke fatigue
9... ah shit, there are just too many.....
Give you a hint - it's a lying fucktard who fancies himself as a "former
metallurgist".
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 14:39:53
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Fork survived, head tube didn't!
|
In article <46e6cbe5$0$15401$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:yMednZCXxpNShXvbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > Jambo wrote:
> >>
> >> But you did, and that's what you are confused with, fucktard!
> >
> > <snip crap>
> >
> > eh? now let's see who this might be... density confused with weight,
> > stiffness confused with strength, modulus confused with what? after two
> > days of research??? freakin' moron.
>
> Let's see then - who did indeed say these things to be true:
> 1. specific modulus = Young's modulus
> 2. for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic
> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.
> 3. "Materials lecture more than 30 years ago" from "sikorski" showed
> helicopter composite rotor combat service results, at a time before
> composite rotors entered service
> 4. CF forks talk to people before breaking
> 5. In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones
> before breaking
> 6. metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance
> 7. NDT is the same as NDI
> 8. stress does not figure in spoke fatigue
> 9... ah shit, there are just too many.....
>
> Give you a hint - it's a lying fucktard who fancies himself as a "former
> metallurgist".
That's X-metallurgist. Anyway, the show was cancelled.
--
Michael Press
|
|
