| |
Main
Date: 22 Sep 2007 14:51:37
From: jim beam
Subject: more dreadful composites
|
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/bruchversuch-e.html
must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 06:29:28
From: chipsoars
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
On Sep 23, 7:00 am, Tosspot <FrankDotLe...@esa.int > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> >http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/bruchversuch-e.html
>
> > must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
>
> >http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
>
> People should be imprisoned for doing that to a DG-100 wing.
I've seen the same test on a B-747. Very impressive when that spar
let loose. Crash and breakage tests are normal for sailplane
manufacturers: http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/index_e.htm
When I go banging down a ridge at 120 knots with a ship ballasted to
over 11 pounds per square foot, it is heartening to know that the
manufacturer has tested the design in excess of the limitations in the
pilot operating handbook.
If you don't like composites, don't buy them. Anything will break if
you do something it wasn't designed to do. DG has also a video taking
a glider beyond red line speed. I wouldn't do that either.
Chip F.
ASW 27B driver
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 00:37:44
From: Tosspot
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
chipsoars wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:00 am, Tosspot <FrankDotLe...@esa.int> wrote:
>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/bruchversuch-e.html
>>
>>>must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
>>
>>>http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
>>
>>People should be imprisoned for doing that to a DG-100 wing.
>
>
> I've seen the same test on a B-747. Very impressive when that spar
> let loose. Crash and breakage tests are normal for sailplane
> manufacturers: http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/index_e.htm
>
>
> When I go banging down a ridge at 120 knots with a ship ballasted to
> over 11 pounds per square foot, it is heartening to know that the
> manufacturer has tested the design in excess of the limitations in the
> pilot operating handbook.
Well yes or course, but they mangled a work of art!!!
> If you don't like composites, don't buy them. Anything will break if
> you do something it wasn't designed to do. DG has also a video taking
> a glider beyond red line speed. I wouldn't do that either.
I'm fine with compsoites, time and a place for everything with me.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:00:42
From: Tosspot
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
jim beam wrote:
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/bruchversuch-e.html
>
> must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
People should be imprisoned for doing that to a DG-100 wing.
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:50:38
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:54udnRI0Dpj0E2jbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/bruchversuch-e.html
>
> must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
Wow, you're now resorting to arguing by way of associationg bike CF issues
with one irrelevant and unrelated article on CF wing overload testing! As
if this somehow verifies your utterly ignorant views of not just CF, but CF
as applied to bikes!
Lying fraudulent prick, your time is over. Give it up, you need to let go
of the years of "investment" you've poured on your sham persona here.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:51:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:54udnRI0Dpj0E2jbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/bruchversuch-e.html
>>
>> must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
>>
>> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
>
> Wow, you're now resorting to arguing by way of associationg bike CF issues
> with one irrelevant and unrelated article on CF wing overload testing! As
> if this somehow verifies your utterly ignorant views of not just CF, but CF
> as applied to bikes!
yeah it's really irrelevant you fucking moron. just listen to that wing
as it makes all that noise before it starts to fail. but carbon doesn't
do that you say, so that vid must be a jim beam fabrication posted on a
fake website just to hoax you.
>
> Lying fraudulent prick, your time is over. Give it up, you need to let go
> of the years of "investment" you've poured on your sham persona here.
moron.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:49:32
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:GJ6dnUaH6oZPbWjbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> moron.
Yes, I see it all now.
"jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
- CF Fork Whisperer
- "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
- CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
- Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
existed
Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
Okay?
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 09:59:32
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:GJ6dnUaH6oZPbWjbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>> moron.
>
> Yes, I see it all now.
>
> "jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
>
> - CF Fork Whisperer
> - "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
> - CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
> - Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
> existed
>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
> Okay?
>
>
take your meds, moron.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:49:37
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
In article <46f5c63d$0$15399$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Jambo" <-@-.->
wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:54udnRI0Dpj0E2jbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/bruchversuch-e.html
> >
> > must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
> >
> > http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
>
> Wow, you're now resorting to arguing by way of associationg bike CF
> issues with one irrelevant and unrelated article on CF wing overload
> testing! As if this somehow verifies your utterly ignorant views of
> not just CF, but CF as applied to bikes!
>
> Lying fraudulent prick, your time is over. Give it up, you need to
> let go of the years of "investment" you've poured on your sham
> persona here.
Jeez, and I thought calling jim beam a "liar" in a few threads was
bordering on incivility.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 01:26:26
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:51:37 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
My personal preferences about CF mirror your own; however, anything
will break if you put enough force against it. CF just has a nasty
failure mode.
I was driving the other day and happened upon the aftermath of a CF
fork pulling away from its dropouts in the roof rack on Interstate
35... there wasn't much left after the following couple of cars hit
it. Since the couple had been at the same ralley I had, I stopped.
The dropouts were still clamped in the rack.
Actually, that's a well known failure and not unique to CF.
Jones
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:48:28
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
In article <uofbf3pv2tgm084v8tmgbqulbeoj9elst3@4ax.com >,
!Jones <piss@off.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:51:37 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >must be crap - i mean, this wing /broke/ for peter cole's sake...
>
> My personal preferences about CF mirror your own; however, anything
> will break if you put enough force against it. CF just has a nasty
> failure mode.
>
> I was driving the other day and happened upon the aftermath of a CF
> fork pulling away from its dropouts in the roof rack on Interstate
> 35... there wasn't much left after the following couple of cars hit
> it. Since the couple had been at the same ralley I had, I stopped.
> The dropouts were still clamped in the rack.
>
> Actually, that's a well known failure and not unique to CF.
Dropouts pulling out of the fork blades is a "well known" failure mode?
I don't recall any prior reports of that in r.b.t. or any other cycling
media.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 08:18:50
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:48:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>Dropouts pulling out of the fork blades is a "well known" failure mode?
>I don't recall any prior reports of that in r.b.t. or any other cycling
>media.
Uuuh... yeah... but I can't put my finger on it right now. It happens
when you clamp the drop outs into a rack, The drag on the bike,
particularly if there's a side component, has lots of leverage in
directions that the forks weren't designed to take... and the forks
most deffo can (and many have) fail in this situation. They weren't
meant to be clamped with the torque coming at a 1 meter moment!
I'll see if I can find the article... If I can't, I'll write one and
publish it!
Jones
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 18:55:08
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
> Dropouts pulling out of the fork blades is a "well known" failure mode?
> I don't recall any prior reports of that in r.b.t. or any other cycling
> media.
-------------
think of the wind force on those light
bikes. Have you ever driven with kayaks
stacked on their side on a roof rack? A
side wind moves the whole car sideways,
and you just pray the roof rack doesn't
get pulled out by the roots. I always
put my bikes on a rack on the back of
the vehicle, where they have a chance
for survival.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 08:45:04
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:55:08 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech Crescentius
Vespasianus <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>> Dropouts pulling out of the fork blades is a "well known" failure mode?
>> I don't recall any prior reports of that in r.b.t. or any other cycling
>> media.
>-------------
>think of the wind force on those light
>bikes. Have you ever driven with kayaks
>stacked on their side on a roof rack? A
>side wind moves the whole car sideways,
>and you just pray the roof rack doesn't
>get pulled out by the roots. I always
>put my bikes on a rack on the back of
>the vehicle, where they have a chance
>for survival.
There was a video on U-tube of that happening on a team car at Giro...
and a 60 MPH wind certainly has plenty of force to twist the forks
right off of the dropouts; it has lots of leverage. I use a Sportsrig
trailer with my bikes guyed out... it's more trouble, but a fork clamp
alone isn't safe at speed.
Jones
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:37:42
From: vey
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
!Jones wrote:
>
> Actually, that's a well known failure and not unique to CF.
So why mention it in a CF thread?
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 02:46:50
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: more dreadful composites
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:37:42 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech vey
<junker@ericvey.com > wrote:
>!Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, that's a well known failure and not unique to CF.
>
>So why mention it in a CF thread?
Oh, you'll get over it, I suppose. And, if not, then accept my
regrets.
Jones
|
|
