Carbon Frame Reliability

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 16:34:23 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 3:26:03 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 13:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 12:31:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:33:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

He said that pro teams replace their framesets generally each race because they cannot take the chance injuring a rider with a failure. This is a famous Italian marque that has made bicycles since 1957. So the opinion of the factory should bear some weight.


Nonsense. There are 5 to 8 riders on each team at every race. So after every single rice/race, the bikes would need to be stripped and rebuilt with a new frame. We think of pro racing teams as being bottomless pits of money. But they are not. They have budgets and expenses and try to turn a profit. Every pro team would need to hire 2-3-4 extra mechanics permanently just to rebuild and strip frame after every single ride. This would be an extra half million dollars added to the budget. I know that sounds like a piddle amount to rich folks. But it adds up quickly. Half the pro bike teams would be out of business because they cannot stand that kind of expense. And pro bike sponsors would also stop sponsoring because giving away thousands of frames for free every year would not be worth the cost. I encourage you trumpians to at least add some believability to your lies. At least make your lies close or within sight of the truth.

Why don't you tell us all how long you've been making bicycles? Seems to me that only a moron will tell us that the factory doesn't know what they're talking about. So how long have you been making bicycles and of what materials?

You seem to be saying that something that what someone told you that
somebody else said must the truth, and all of the truth, but in
reality the real question is not what someone says that someone else
says but what is happening in real life. Do T de F teams actually
change frames, for every team member, every race?

Perhaps they do but to date I haven't read any reports by bicycle
reporters to that effect and I would think that it might be of great
interest to the bicycling world that this was happening.

But perhaps all the bicycling reporters are being bribed to not report
such truths by a conspiracy of all the carbon frame makers who pay
them large sums of money to ignore the truth.
--
cheers,

John B.

You have just lost the ability to ever pretend that you were an engineer. If you haven't watched the actual tests of aluminum and carbon fiber parts on YouTube you've shown exactly what a dope you are.

Nope I have never watched youtube to obtain any engineering data of
any nature. I far prefer to read the documents put out by the various
firms that manufacture, or test, the material. I recently posted some
data on the strength of carbon fiber versus metals and I certainly
didn't watch youtube to get that data. I went to the group that
actually did the testing.

I cringe to even imagine the results of someone making a proposal to
built something like the Bay Bridge and getting up in a meeting and
saying, "Yes, we got all our material strength values from youtube".

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

You demonstrate once again how far removed you really are from
reality.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 7/6/2019 4:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 12:31:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:33:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

He said that pro teams replace their framesets generally each race because they cannot take the chance injuring a rider with a failure. This is a famous Italian marque that has made bicycles since 1957. So the opinion of the factory should bear some weight.


Nonsense. There are 5 to 8 riders on each team at every race. So after every single rice/race, the bikes would need to be stripped and rebuilt with a new frame. We think of pro racing teams as being bottomless pits of money. But they are not. They have budgets and expenses and try to turn a profit. Every pro team would need to hire 2-3-4 extra mechanics permanently just to rebuild and strip frame after every single ride. This would be an extra half million dollars added to the budget. I know that sounds like a piddle amount to rich folks. But it adds up quickly. Half the pro bike teams would be out of business because they cannot stand that kind of expense. And pro bike sponsors would also stop sponsoring because giving away thousands of frames for free every year would not be worth the cost. I encourage you trumpians to at least add some believability to your lies. At least make your lies close or within sight of the truth.

Why don't you tell us all how long you've been making bicycles? Seems to me that only a moron will tell us that the factory doesn't know what they're talking about.

We're not doubting what "the factory" said. We're doubting what _you_
said. Since you're the one reporting that conversation with "the
factory" we have no way of knowing what "the factory" actually said.

To put it as charitably as possible: You tend to forget things.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts - sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts - sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

I do like Wikipedia as it covers an amazing number of subjects and I
do find that the majority of the more technical entries are factual.

On the other hand it is open to editing by just about everyone, which
sometimes does contribute to its accuracy, but I do find that some of
the more general entries can be somewhat slanted, or told from only
one viewpoint.

But I would say that anyone that relies on a single source for almost
any data is going to be disappointed.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 11:19:03 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts - sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

I do like Wikipedia as it covers an amazing number of subjects and I
do find that the majority of the more technical entries are factual.

On the other hand it is open to editing by just about everyone, which
sometimes does contribute to its accuracy, but I do find that some of
the more general entries can be somewhat slanted, or told from only
one viewpoint.

But I would say that anyone that relies on a single source for almost
any data is going to be disappointed.

--
cheers,

John B.

I remember when we were told to use at least THREE independent sources and to make sure that none of the three sources were just a reworded source from one of the others.

Cheers

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:18:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 16:34:23 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 3:26:03 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 13:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 12:31:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:33:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

He said that pro teams replace their framesets generally each race because they cannot take the chance injuring a rider with a failure. This is a famous Italian marque that has made bicycles since 1957. So the opinion of the factory should bear some weight.


Nonsense. There are 5 to 8 riders on each team at every race. So after every single rice/race, the bikes would need to be stripped and rebuilt with a new frame. We think of pro racing teams as being bottomless pits of money. But they are not. They have budgets and expenses and try to turn a profit. Every pro team would need to hire 2-3-4 extra mechanics permanently just to rebuild and strip frame after every single ride. This would be an extra half million dollars added to the budget. I know that sounds like a piddle amount to rich folks. But it adds up quickly. Half the pro bike teams would be out of business because they cannot stand that kind of expense. And pro bike sponsors would also stop sponsoring because giving away thousands of frames for free every year would not be worth the cost. I encourage you trumpians to at least add some believability to your lies. At least make your lies close or within sight of the truth.

Why don't you tell us all how long you've been making bicycles? Seems to me that only a moron will tell us that the factory doesn't know what they're talking about. So how long have you been making bicycles and of what materials?

You seem to be saying that something that what someone told you that
somebody else said must the truth, and all of the truth, but in
reality the real question is not what someone says that someone else
says but what is happening in real life. Do T de F teams actually
change frames, for every team member, every race?

Perhaps they do but to date I haven't read any reports by bicycle
reporters to that effect and I would think that it might be of great
interest to the bicycling world that this was happening.

But perhaps all the bicycling reporters are being bribed to not report
such truths by a conspiracy of all the carbon frame makers who pay
them large sums of money to ignore the truth.
--
cheers,

John B.

You have just lost the ability to ever pretend that you were an engineer.. If you haven't watched the actual tests of aluminum and carbon fiber parts on YouTube you've shown exactly what a dope you are.

Nope I have never watched youtube to obtain any engineering data of
any nature. I far prefer to read the documents put out by the various
firms that manufacture, or test, the material. I recently posted some
data on the strength of carbon fiber versus metals and I certainly
didn't watch youtube to get that data. I went to the group that
actually did the testing.

I cringe to even imagine the results of someone making a proposal to
built something like the Bay Bridge and getting up in a meeting and
saying, "Yes, we got all our material strength values from youtube".

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

You demonstrate once again how far removed you really are from
reality.
--
cheers,

John B.

Exactly who do you think you're kidding? You have read diddly squat. You certainly show that you've never actually been an engineer. My suspicion is that you were exactly like my uncle and were a supervisor on mechanical constructions.

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:26:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 4:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 12:31:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:33:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

He said that pro teams replace their framesets generally each race because they cannot take the chance injuring a rider with a failure. This is a famous Italian marque that has made bicycles since 1957. So the opinion of the factory should bear some weight.


Nonsense. There are 5 to 8 riders on each team at every race. So after every single rice/race, the bikes would need to be stripped and rebuilt with a new frame. We think of pro racing teams as being bottomless pits of money. But they are not. They have budgets and expenses and try to turn a profit. Every pro team would need to hire 2-3-4 extra mechanics permanently just to rebuild and strip frame after every single ride. This would be an extra half million dollars added to the budget. I know that sounds like a piddle amount to rich folks. But it adds up quickly. Half the pro bike teams would be out of business because they cannot stand that kind of expense. And pro bike sponsors would also stop sponsoring because giving away thousands of frames for free every year would not be worth the cost. I encourage you trumpians to at least add some believability to your lies. At least make your lies close or within sight of the truth.

Why don't you tell us all how long you've been making bicycles? Seems to me that only a moron will tell us that the factory doesn't know what they're talking about.

We're not doubting what "the factory" said. We're doubting what _you_
said. Since you're the one reporting that conversation with "the
factory" we have no way of knowing what "the factory" actually said.

To put it as charitably as possible: You tend to forget things.


--
- Frank Krygowski

More charitably - you've never worked as a real engineer. You've never been anything more than a school teacher. So yammer away as if you had some sort of knowledge that you do not.

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts - sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 4:07:47 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 11:19:03 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts - sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

I do like Wikipedia as it covers an amazing number of subjects and I
do find that the majority of the more technical entries are factual.

On the other hand it is open to editing by just about everyone, which
sometimes does contribute to its accuracy, but I do find that some of
the more general entries can be somewhat slanted, or told from only
one viewpoint.

But I would say that anyone that relies on a single source for almost
any data is going to be disappointed.

--
cheers,

John B.

I remember when we were told to use at least THREE independent sources and to make sure that none of the three sources were just a reworded source from one of the others.

Cheers

The studies of measles and Lyme's Disease are the only full fledged studies available. How do you get three sources?