A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Comparison of Auminium, Steel and Carbon forks?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old May 4th 08, 06:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Comparison of Aluminium, Steel and Carbon forks?

The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
[...]
well, krygowski picks up a check for being an "engineering" professor,
but he doesn't know his ass from his elbow, and jobst brandt, esteemed
stanford alumni, doesn't know a damned thing about fatigue, deformation
or strength of materials. your conspicuous absence from all /those/
debates doesn't show me you have credentials.[...]

Gee "jim", ever consider the possiblity that "Mike" is a newcomer to
the group? That would explain his lack or participation in previous
debates, no?


gee tom, don't you think that pulling the "30 year veteran" card carries
some responsibility to do some homework?

Researching archived RBT posts? Certainly not, since discussions can
stand on their own, regardless of past history of the posters, no?

After all "jim", that is YOUR argument of why a sock puppet is no less
credible than someone using their real name.

goddamned lightweight.


Ooooh, an insult from a sock puppet!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
Ads
  #82  
Old May 5th 08, 03:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Comparison of Auminium, Steel and Carbon forks?

In article , says...
Mike wrote:
In article ,
says...
You may re-parrot "hysteresis in polymers" but without evidence that this provides a measurable reduction in the
transfer of vibrational energy _taking into account the differing geometry, mass and design of forks built from
differing materials_ you have not proved your case. If you _can_ supply such evidence, I will be willing to admit to
the accuracy of your hypothesis.


you've still gotten your approach inverted. as stated before, the
behavior of polymers are a given. even you admit it. now what /you/
have to do is argue the extent to which cf reinforcement mitigates that.
your "30 year career in materials physics" should make it easy, yes?

Yet still it goes on, and on.., and on...

Indisputible factoid: Polymers exhibit hysteresis upon deformation.

Ridiculous conclusion: Therefore they absorb all possible vibrational frequencies. Completely. Absolutely. No need
to demonstrate this - it is a given, a fact, an act of God. You can ride across a rough chip surface and won't feel a
thing as long as your front fork is cf. Heck - you can ride down a staircase on a 700-21C tyre at 125 PSI and won't
feel a thing as long as your front fork is cf.

Now read the following - carefully - please. I haver itemised things to make it easier for your comprehension.

1) I have made _no_ claims as to the benefits of cf over aluminium or steel. I have made no claims as to the benefit
of steel over cf or aluminium. I have made no claims as to the benefits of aluminium over steel or cf. But you have.

2) I have suggested that experimental evidence (do you need to read that again? e-x-p-e-r-i-m-e-n-t-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-
c-e) would be required to convince me that any of cf, aluminium or steel, has a significant (or even measurable)
benefit over the other materials for vibration-mitigation in forks. You haven't supplied it.

3) It is you who has made the claims - it is you who needs to provide the evidence. Mention of the hysteretic
properties of polymers is not evidence, specifically because the discussion is not about the capacity for vibratiuonal
absorption of materials, but instead is about the capacity for vibrational aborption of _structures_ (i.e. forks). You
need to demonstrate that such a capacity in the material confers a measurable advantage in the structure. Oterwise,
your claim is not dissimilar to claiming that (for example), because steel exhibits greater tensile strength than nylon
(as a function of cross-sectional area), _any_ steel rope must be stronger than _any_ nylon rope. That arguement is
patently absurd, and so is yours unless you take into account the structure of forks, as well as the materials from
which they are constructed. You need to supply the evidence, because it is you who makes the claims.

4) I don't expect a sensible answer - you appear incapable of providing them. Why not try and surprise me?

Mike

  #85  
Old May 5th 08, 04:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default Comparison of Auminium, Steel and Carbon forks?

Mike wrote:
In article , says...
Mike wrote:
In article ,
says...
You may re-parrot "hysteresis in polymers" but without evidence that this provides a measurable reduction in the
transfer of vibrational energy _taking into account the differing geometry, mass and design of forks built from
differing materials_ you have not proved your case. If you _can_ supply such evidence, I will be willing to admit to
the accuracy of your hypothesis.

you've still gotten your approach inverted. as stated before, the
behavior of polymers are a given. even you admit it. now what /you/
have to do is argue the extent to which cf reinforcement mitigates that.
your "30 year career in materials physics" should make it easy, yes?

Yet still it goes on, and on.., and on...

Indisputible factoid: Polymers exhibit hysteresis upon deformation.

Ridiculous conclusion: Therefore they absorb all possible vibrational frequencies. Completely. Absolutely. No need
to demonstrate this - it is a given, a fact, an act of God. You can ride across a rough chip surface and won't feel a
thing as long as your front fork is cf. Heck - you can ride down a staircase on a 700-21C tyre at 125 PSI and won't
feel a thing as long as your front fork is cf.


hmmm, the ridiculous b.s. argument that contains nuggets of truth, only
to condemn with outrageous lies.



Now read the following - carefully - please. I haver itemised things to make it easier for your comprehension.

1) I have made _no_ claims as to the benefits of cf over aluminium or steel. I have made no claims as to the benefit
of steel over cf or aluminium. I have made no claims as to the benefits of aluminium over steel or cf. But you have.

2) I have suggested that experimental evidence (do you need to read that again? e-x-p-e-r-i-m-e-n-t-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-
c-e) would be required to convince me that any of cf, aluminium or steel, has a significant (or even measurable)
benefit over the other materials for vibration-mitigation in forks. You haven't supplied it.


dude, you're the materials physicist!!! there's plenty of stuff on the
web, but /you/ can go ahead and cite the real deal!!!



3) It is you who has made the claims - it is you who needs to provide the evidence. Mention of the hysteretic
properties of polymers is not evidence, specifically because the discussion is not about the capacity for vibratiuonal
absorption of materials, but instead is about the capacity for vibrational aborption of _structures_ (i.e. forks). You
need to demonstrate that such a capacity in the material confers a measurable advantage in the structure. Oterwise,
your claim is not dissimilar to claiming that (for example), because steel exhibits greater tensile strength than nylon
(as a function of cross-sectional area), _any_ steel rope must be stronger than _any_ nylon rope. That arguement is
patently absurd, and so is yours unless you take into account the structure of forks, as well as the materials from
which they are constructed. You need to supply the evidence, because it is you who makes the claims.


that is totally logically flawed. material properties of polymers are
indisputable - a subject you carefully avoid directly addressing,
although you're happy to put in a sentence with ridiculous garbage - and
yet you use the garbage part of the argument to extrapolate that it is
/all/ wrong.



4) I don't expect a sensible answer - you appear incapable of providing them. Why not try and surprise me?


why? you claim to be an expert, then you show yourself to be anything
but serious.

but who cares. the fact is, the fibers in composites like this transfer
load among themselves via their polymer matrix. since that polymer has
hysteresis, i.e. that load transfer is time dependent, load transmission
is not is not "pure" but colored by that polymer's ability to transmit.
this effect is affected by fiber density, layup, matrix polymer,
etc, but the "physics" are pretty basic. definitely something a
"30-year veteran" should understand.

[non-bike b.s. poisoned] examples of this effect in a 30-second google
search:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/54...scription.html
http://www.nikkiso.co.jp/e-c_seihin/...zai/index.html
http://composite.about.com/library/PR/2001/bltekes2.htm
http://www.macqc.com/apps_industrial.php
  #86  
Old May 5th 08, 10:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Comparison of Auminium, Steel and Carbon forks?

In article , says...
Mike wrote:


3) It is you who has made the claims - it is you who needs to provide the evidence. Mention of the hysteretic
properties of polymers is not evidence, specifically because the discussion is not about the capacity for vibratiuonal
absorption of materials, but instead is about the capacity for vibrational aborption of _structures_ (i.e. forks). You
need to demonstrate that such a capacity in the material confers a measurable advantage in the structure. Oterwise,
your claim is not dissimilar to claiming that (for example), because steel exhibits greater tensile strength than nylon
(as a function of cross-sectional area), _any_ steel rope must be stronger than _any_ nylon rope. That arguement is
patently absurd, and so is yours unless you take into account the structure of forks, as well as the materials from
which they are constructed. You need to supply the evidence, because it is you who makes the claims.


that is totally logically flawed. material properties of polymers are
indisputable - a subject you carefully avoid directly addressing,
although you're happy to put in a sentence with ridiculous garbage - and
yet you use the garbage part of the argument to extrapolate that it is
/all/ wrong.

It is like talking to a 5 year old.

I do _not_ dispute the fact that polymers have material properties that provide them with a capacity to absorb and
dampen vibration. I know this - I agree with you - I have "directly addressed" this in several posts. For the sake of
sanity, let's assume it is a given. Got that?

I _do_ dispute your premise that, as a result of these material properties, any and all cf forks are of necessity,
measurably better than any and all aluminium or steel shocks at reducing the transfer of vibrational energy from the
bottom of the fork to its top.

Note specifically the terms: 'measurably better', 'transfer', and 'any and all'. If you have proof of your thesis, then
supply it. If you believe that your thesis has been mis-stated, then re-state it. If you cannot do either of the above,
then admit to your error.

Mike
  #87  
Old May 6th 08, 04:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default Comparison of Auminium, Steel and Carbon forks?

Mike wrote:
In article , says...
Mike wrote:


3) It is you who has made the claims - it is you who needs to provide the evidence. Mention of the hysteretic
properties of polymers is not evidence, specifically because the discussion is not about the capacity for vibratiuonal
absorption of materials, but instead is about the capacity for vibrational aborption of _structures_ (i.e. forks). You
need to demonstrate that such a capacity in the material confers a measurable advantage in the structure. Oterwise,
your claim is not dissimilar to claiming that (for example), because steel exhibits greater tensile strength than nylon
(as a function of cross-sectional area), _any_ steel rope must be stronger than _any_ nylon rope. That arguement is
patently absurd, and so is yours unless you take into account the structure of forks, as well as the materials from
which they are constructed. You need to supply the evidence, because it is you who makes the claims.

that is totally logically flawed. material properties of polymers are
indisputable - a subject you carefully avoid directly addressing,
although you're happy to put in a sentence with ridiculous garbage - and
yet you use the garbage part of the argument to extrapolate that it is
/all/ wrong.

It is like talking to a 5 year old.

I do _not_ dispute the fact that polymers have material properties that provide them with a capacity to absorb and
dampen vibration. I know this - I agree with you - I have "directly addressed" this in several posts. For the sake of
sanity, let's assume it is a given. Got that?


no, all you do is bleat about cites, complaining that, somehow absent
this information, it doesn't happen.



I _do_ dispute your premise that, as a result of these material properties, any and all cf forks are of necessity,


i've never said that. don't put false words in my mouth.


measurably better than any and all aluminium or steel shocks at reducing the transfer of vibrational energy from the
bottom of the fork to its top.


see above.



Note specifically the terms: 'measurably better', 'transfer', and 'any and all'. If you have proof of your thesis, then
supply it. If you believe that your thesis has been mis-stated, then re-state it. If you cannot do either of the above,
then admit to your error.


see above. and respond to what i first said. it happens for the
reasons stated. /you/, as the one disagreeing, and the one playing the
"30-year veteran" card have yet to say a damned thing other than an
appeal to faith.
  #88  
Old May 6th 08, 05:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default Comparison of Auminium, Steel and Carbon forks?

jim beam wrote:
Mike wrote:
In article ,
says...
Mike wrote:


3) It is you who has made the claims - it is you who needs to
provide the evidence. Mention of the hysteretic properties of
polymers is not evidence, specifically because the discussion is not
about the capacity for vibratiuonal absorption of materials, but
instead is about the capacity for vibrational aborption of
_structures_ (i.e. forks). You need to demonstrate that such a
capacity in the material confers a measurable advantage in the
structure. Oterwise, your claim is not dissimilar to claiming that
(for example), because steel exhibits greater tensile strength than
nylon (as a function of cross-sectional area), _any_ steel rope must
be stronger than _any_ nylon rope. That arguement is patently
absurd, and so is yours unless you take into account the structure
of forks, as well as the materials from which they are constructed.
You need to supply the evidence, because it is you who makes the
claims.
that is totally logically flawed. material properties of polymers
are indisputable - a subject you carefully avoid directly addressing,
although you're happy to put in a sentence with ridiculous garbage -
and yet you use the garbage part of the argument to extrapolate that
it is /all/ wrong.

It is like talking to a 5 year old.
I do _not_ dispute the fact that polymers have material properties
that provide them with a capacity to absorb and dampen vibration. I
know this - I agree with you - I have "directly addressed" this in
several posts. For the sake of sanity, let's assume it is a given. Got
that?


no, all you do is bleat about cites, complaining that, somehow absent
this information, it doesn't happen


omission: "with composites".

..



I _do_ dispute your premise that, as a result of these material
properties, any and all cf forks are of necessity,


i've never said that. don't put false words in my mouth.


measurably better than any and all aluminium or steel shocks at
reducing the transfer of vibrational energy from the bottom of the
fork to its top.


see above.



Note specifically the terms: 'measurably better', 'transfer', and 'any
and all'. If you have proof of your thesis, then supply it. If you
believe that your thesis has been mis-stated, then re-state it. If you
cannot do either of the above, then admit to your error.


see above. and respond to what i first said. it happens for the
reasons stated. /you/, as the one disagreeing, and the one playing the
"30-year veteran" card have yet to say a damned thing other than an
appeal to faith.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheap large steel frame and forks [email protected] Australia 16 July 17th 07 04:17 AM
When did Colnago start with the straight bladed steel forks? David Techniques 0 August 16th 05 03:41 AM
Steel; Aluminum Forks? D. Ualp General 0 August 21st 04 07:53 AM
Carbon forks phenian UK 17 January 7th 04 08:32 PM
20" Carbon forks? rorschandt Recumbent Biking 10 July 19th 03 04:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.