Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 68
  1. #26
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Do you really think a carbon bike from, say, Parlee, is using the same carbon and workmanship as a knock off ebay special so it's definitely more apt to crack because it's lighter?

    I have no interest in convincing you of anything. I know I'd take my chances on Storck's top offering (if I could afford it) over a heavier ebay special though.
    I think your examples of using two extremes is forcing the issue for the sake of forcing the issue. Of course a high-end name brand carbon frame will be better and more durable than a Chinese no-name brand which probably has enough voids to be cringe worthy at best, life threatening at worst.
    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein

    "Beware of geeks bearing formulas."
    -- Warren Buffett

    "Education is what you get when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don't. -- Pete Seeger



  2. #27
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    I think your examples of using two extremes is forcing the issue for the sake of forcing the issue. Of course a high-end name brand carbon frame will be better and more durable than a Chinese no-name brand which probably has enough voids to be cringe worthy at best, life threatening at worst.
    Right, exactly.
    and yes, I am forcing the issue. Because "lighter is weaker" as a rule is just bogus information.

  3. #28
    pmf
    pmf is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    So if you replaced ALL the parts, is it really the same bike?
    It definitely has more carbon fiber on it.

  4. #29
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    I think your examples of using two extremes is forcing the issue for the sake of forcing the issue. Of course a high-end name brand carbon frame will be better and more durable than a Chinese no-name brand which probably has enough voids to be cringe worthy at best, life threatening at worst.
    BS

    Do you maybe want to list some examples of folks who’ve died when their Chinese carbon exploded ?

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Right, exactly.
    and yes, I am forcing the issue. Because "lighter is weaker" as a rule is just bogus information.
    This is not bogus. As a general rule of physics if you use the same material to make two different pieces, same exact pieces and same exact process. The part that has the least amount of material will be less dense therefore weaker. Density = mass/Vol
    Please stop trying to reinvent things that have been proven already.
    Suck it up. Admit that you are not taking into consideration Newtonian physics and move on.
    Opinions are the lowest form of human thought. They are unfounded and lack FACTS!
    Experiences are factual but are tainted by our limited perspective since they are observed only from and individual point of view. This said my experience with cracking 3 frames made by Scott doesn't mean all frames will crack.
    It just means that my
    3 frames cracked under the stress I placed on them.
    The frames that all my friends have cracked only adds to my limited perspective.
    FACT is they don't make the mars rover out of carbon fiber. They made the structure out of titanium. I wonder why? Durability perhaps?
    I'm done with this thread so I will
    Unsubscribe from it.
    Good luck to the person asking. Please read about the properties and construction methods of each frame and draw your own conclusions.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    412
    Actually, “Lighter is weaker” is totally bogus.

    Pretty obviously if you make something out of one material, and then make the same thing out of less of the same material if the design doesn’t change, one could expect the lighter part to be weaker.

    But not always. Look at the whole “drillium” idea. It started with sports care and airplanes ... remove excess material, material which is not load-bearing, and the resulting part is lighter and just as strong.

    Hmmm ... Failure #1 of the “Lighter Is Weaker” theory.

    Look at the same part made with a different material altogether. Simple comparison, a steel versus titanium bike frame. The titanium can be lighter and just as strong.

    Failure #2 for that theory.

    The the specific mention here, CF bike frames.

    In fact, every years CF frames are getting lighter ... the ones produced by the major manufacturers, that is. Sub 900 grams used to be a “light” frame. Now sub 700 grams is considered light. Improved construction techniques, better designs .... Lighter and just as strong and sometimes stronger.

    “Lighter Is Weaker” is just wrong. Badly designed and constructed” is generally weaker—or heavier— than “well constructed and designed” but then, weight and strength would be part of the criteria for “good” and “bad” in that case. Wouldn’t really be saying much.

    So yeah ... the idea that anything lighter is always weaker is just wrong.

  7. #32
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
    Actually, “Lighter is weaker” is totally bogus.

    .
    Really? Totally bogus? Removing material never results in loss of strength? There are two ways to get lighter. One is careful design to remove material that does not add to strength. That is good. The other is simply to remove material at the expense of margin. Both are required to get super light frames. This is why light frames have weight limits

  8. #33
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by charlitin View Post
    This is not bogus. As a general rule of physics if you use the same material to make two different pieces, same exact pieces and same exact process. The part that has the least amount of material will be less dense therefore weaker. Density = mass/Vol
    Please stop trying to reinvent things that have been proven already.
    Suck it up. Admit that you are not taking into consideration Newtonian physics and move on.
    Opinions are the lowest form of human thought. They are unfounded and lack FACTS!
    Experiences are factual but are tainted by our limited perspective since they are observed only from and individual point of view. This said my experience with cracking 3 frames made by Scott doesn't mean all frames will crack.
    It just means that my
    3 frames cracked under the stress I placed on them.
    The frames that all my friends have cracked only adds to my limited perspective.
    FACT is they don't make the mars rover out of carbon fiber. They made the structure out of titanium. I wonder why? Durability perhaps?
    I'm done with this thread so I will
    Unsubscribe from it.
    Good luck to the person asking. Please read about the properties and construction methods of each frame and draw your own conclusions.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You don't even understand density, yet you are a materials expert. OK.

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    Really? Totally bogus? Removing material never results in loss of strength? There are two ways to get lighter. One is careful design to remove material that does not add to strength. That is good. The other is simply to remove material at the expense of margin. Both are required to get super light frames. This is why light frames have weight limits
    Nope. My RCA is very strong and durable, is one of the lightest frames and has no weight limit. Carbon frame strength and durability has much more to do with design and ply layup. It's not a homogeneous material. A frame is made of hundreds of layers applied at different directions and using different carbon materials to achieve the right strength in the right direction at the right spot. Your simplistic rule of thumb is not applicable to a complex engineered item like this.

    Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

  10. #35
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
    So yeah ... the idea that anything lighter is always weaker is just wrong.
    A senseless argument for sure. Of course it's easy to call BS when someone uses the words "always" or "never" as all you need to do is prove it to the contrary once to make it a false statement.

    The saying "Light, strong, cheap, pick two" applies. Sure, you can find the lightest frame that will be as strong or possibly stronger than a heavy frame, but you will pay for that. It is highly unlikely you will find all three qualities.
    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein

    "Beware of geeks bearing formulas."
    -- Warren Buffett

    "Education is what you get when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don't. -- Pete Seeger



  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    The saying "Light, strong, cheap, pick two" applies.
    Not to this topic. No one asked about the economics of carbon bike frames.

  12. #37
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,445
    Quote Originally Posted by goodboyr View Post
    Nope. My RCA is very strong and durable, is one of the lightest frames and has no weight limit. Carbon frame strength and durability has much more to do with design and ply layup. It's not a homogeneous material. A frame is made of hundreds of layers applied at different directions and using different carbon materials to achieve the right strength in the right direction at the right spot. Your simplistic rule of thumb is not applicable to a complex engineered item like this.

    Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
    There is clearly a correlation between weight and strength. If there weren't we'd all be riding 400 gram frames. Right now the design limit seems to just south of 700g for the lowest weight frames. They've shaped, butted and modeled that design to maximize every bit of material. At this point, to get substantially lighter than 700g would require just removing material at the expense of strength. I am sure the designers at Cervelo were quite aware of that (and that is probably why an RCA costs $10K)

  13. #38
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    There is clearly a correlation between weight and strength. If there weren't we'd all be riding 400 gram frames. Right now the design limit seems to just south of 700g for the lowest weight frames. They've shaped, butted and modeled that design to maximize every bit of material. At this point, to get substantially lighter than 700g would require just removing material at the expense of strength. I am sure the designers at Cervelo were quite aware of that (and that is probably why an RCA costs $10K)
    This seems like we are discussing semantics here. A correlation to me means as you get lighter, the frame gets weaker. What you are saying instead is that it's all ok, up to a threshold weight. Not the same.

    Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,445
    Quote Originally Posted by goodboyr View Post
    This seems like we are discussing semantics here. A correlation to me means as you get lighter, the frame gets weaker. What you are saying instead is that it's all ok, up to a threshold weight. Not the same.

    Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
    It was not my intent to make that point. Some folks countered by saying "my high-end CF bike is really light and still strong". My point was high-zoot bikes can counter some of the loss of material with costly design and construction techniques up to a point, but material is still part of the strength equation. If you built multiple CF bikes with similar design and dimensions but varied the tube thicknesses the lighter bikes would clearly be weaker

  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Not to this topic. No one asked about the economics of carbon bike frames.
    Not specifically, but it is a relevant part of the argument.

    I think Dave G. sums it up pretty well in Post 39.
    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein

    "Beware of geeks bearing formulas."
    -- Warren Buffett

    "Education is what you get when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don't. -- Pete Seeger



  16. #41
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Not specifically, but it is a relevant part of the argument.

    I think Dave G. sums it up pretty well in Post 39.
    No, price is not a relevant part of an argument about durability or correlation between weight and strength.

  17. #42
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    No, price is not a relevant part of an argument about durability or correlation between weight and strength.
    That is only your opinion and I disagree. I don't feel like getting into another p!ssing contest with you, Jay.

    And I don't really have anything more to add to this thread other than what Dave G. said in Posts 32, 37 and 39 sums it up quite well.
    “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” -- Aaron Levenstein

    "Beware of geeks bearing formulas."
    -- Warren Buffett

    "Education is what you get when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don't. -- Pete Seeger



  18. #43
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,153
    my colnago c-59 four years and over 25,000 miles
    my trek 5200 ridden since 2002 not sure of the miles
    i don't much buy into the carbon bikes expire. that said, i'm not buying a 700 gram carbon frame and think i'm getting a longer lasting more comfortable bike by going a little heavier.

  19. #44
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,116
    can someone explain to me how a 700g carbon frame is stronger than a 1200g carbon frame? I would like to hear the specific details as to how this can happen. I'm assuming that the "carbon fiber" used in these frames are from either Mitsubishi, Toray, and who else? I would really like to hear the science.

    My understanding is that lighter carbon fiber (eg, T800, T1000) make a stiffer and more brittle frame, thus usually manufacturers have to mix in the lower grade fibers for strength. So by reasoning, if the "lightest" frame is to be desire, it would be made out of the highest grade fiber, making it very brittle. That's my understanding.

    So if you say that a carbon frame of 700g can be stronger than one at 1200g, then I'd like to hear the science behind this claim. Eg, what sort of special fiber (if any) or technique that is used in a 700g frame that would make it stronger than a 1200g frame using the same construction technique.

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,153
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    can someone explain to me how a 700g carbon frame is stronger than a 1200g carbon frame? I would like to hear the specific details as to how this can happen. I'm assuming that the "carbon fiber" used in these frames are from either Mitsubishi, Toray, and who else? I would really like to hear the science.

    My understanding is that lighter carbon fiber (eg, T800, T1000) make a stiffer and more brittle frame, thus usually manufacturers have to mix in the lower grade fibers for strength. So by reasoning, if the "lightest" frame is to be desire, it would be made out of the highest grade fiber, making it very brittle. That's my understanding.

    So if you say that a carbon frame of 700g can be stronger than one at 1200g, then I'd like to hear the science behind this claim. Eg, what sort of special fiber (if any) or technique that is used in a 700g frame that would make it stronger than a 1200g frame using the same construction technique.
    i would argue the opposite

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    can someone explain to me how a 700g carbon frame is stronger than a 1200g carbon frame? I would like to hear the specific details as to how this can happen. I'm assuming that the "carbon fiber" used in these frames are from either Mitsubishi, Toray, and who else? I would really like to hear the science.

    My understanding is that lighter carbon fiber (eg, T800, T1000) make a stiffer and more brittle frame, thus usually manufacturers have to mix in the lower grade fibers for strength. So by reasoning, if the "lightest" frame is to be desire, it would be made out of the highest grade fiber, making it very brittle. That's my understanding.

    So if you say that a carbon frame of 700g can be stronger than one at 1200g, then I'd like to hear the science behind this claim. Eg, what sort of special fiber (if any) or technique that is used in a 700g frame that would make it stronger than a 1200g frame using the same construction technique.
    ?
    Could some other lay person please explain to me detailed materials science and engineering principals as applied to sate of the art bicycle frame design, which takes years of studying to understand, in a quick internet response.

    I question "science" because I don't "feel" that it makes sense. Or something like that?

    My guess is 1) the people that could give you the answer are paid good money to know that answer and 2) you and I wouldn't understand it anyway.

    But, all this ignorant pontification that lighter means weaker is super productive. So, we should totally continue it.

  22. #47
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    can someone explain to me how a 700g carbon frame is stronger than a 1200g carbon frame?
    How is a welded pyramid of titanium stronger than five times as much titanium scrap in a plastic bag?

    How is an X-braceds rectangle of steel tubes just as strong yet much lighter that a rectangular steel slab of the same perimeter dimensions?

    Oi.

    If you do not reject the answer while asking the question you might figure it out for yourself.

    A frame can be made lighter and use less material by using the material more judiciously.

    The folks at say Trek (not that they would know anything about engineering or constructing CF bike frames that You don't know better, right?) started working with CF a few decades ago. They learned a lot about its properties, its uses, its strengthts and weaknesses.

    Aerospace and performance vehicles of all sorts have been using CF for even longer. There has been literally decades of research into the material---and this research is Ongoing.

    So Trek (as an example) looks at what has been learned by the decades or materials science research, and figures out, "If we use an internal bladder inside the external mold we can get better impregnation and distribution of epoxy, and control the thickness of the piece at every point. If we carefully align the fibers in different directions and thicknesses, we can create parts which are springy in one direction and very rigid in others. By bonding together these different parts, we can achieve greater compliance where we want it, greater rigidity where we want it, and use less material overall because we only put exactly what we need at each exact spot to do exactly what we want."

    Are you with me so far?

    That 1200-gram frame might have had tubes of basically the same thickness with all the plies laid in the same direction. To get greater stiffness, the engineers simply used more layers of cloth, and more epoxy, which meant greater weight. And, because the resulting frame was very rigid, it had to be even more rigid---more overbuilt---because it could not dissipate energy by flexing, but had to absorb that energy through more material.

    Still following?

    Consider a disc wheel. Say your bicycle has a steel disc for a wheel. It is grooved along the outer circumference to accept a tire and pierced at the center to accept an axle. It wights hundreds of pounds because it is a solid steel disc 26 inches in diameter and an inch wide.

    I come along and make a thin steel strap and bend it into a hoop, and take a bunch of steel wires and attach them to the hoop and to a tiny little steel cylinder which is pierced to take an axle. Voila. I have produced a spoked wheel which weighs perhaps two pounds and is just as strong as that steel disc in all the load ranges which matter for the given application.

    Still on the same page?

    Using less of the same material but using it more cleverly, I have drastically reduced the weight of the product while still producing a product more than sufficiently strong to perfrom in the ways it is intended.

    Got it? Seems actually pretty basic ... in fact glaringly obvious to anybody bold enough to actually look.

    Quote Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    ?
    Could some other lay person please explain to me detailed materials science and engineering principals as applied to sate of the art bicycle frame design, which takes years of studying to understand, in a quick internet response.

    I question "science" because I don't "feel" that it makes sense. Or something like that?
    crit_boy might seem to be a little harsh here, but what he says is right on. If you Know you don't know something, admit that. Don't sit around telling everyone a thing cannot be a certain way because you cannot understand it. Ask, learn ...

    Think about it ... when you go to a doctor, do you debate with the doctor? S/he has years of schooling, years more of real-world experience, and you are experiencing something you don't understand or you wouldn't be there. If the doctor says, "I did all the relevant tests and my diagnosis is this" do you tell the doctor "I have never heard of that condition, therefore you must be wrong"?

    Maybe you do. And if you get a second and a third opinion and they are all exactly the same, are you going to ignore all the doctors ... because you have not bothered to do the slightest bit of research yourself?

    I hate to say it, but the best way to not seem really silly in debates like this is to not debate what you Know you don't know. I hate to say it ... because that is what you have been doing.

    All you would really need to do is look how the major manufacturers have been producing lighter and lighter CF frames ... with no increase in failures. Pretty obviously they have found a way to do it ... because they are doing it. You might not understand the science, but you can actually see the freaking bikes. You might even own one. How much more real does it need to be?

    Similarly, you could look at how steel bikes have also come down in weight over the last several decades. if CF freaks you out ... how have constructors managed to produce steel-framed bikes which are vastly lighter and also stronger than the old 42-lb Schwinns of yesteryear?

    Again, you might not understand the science ... but somehow you can buy steel bikes which weigh under 20 pounds, and as for strength ... they last forever. According to you, that simply isn't possible ... but the bikes are there.

    A good way to tell if you cannot understand something and maybe should do some research before you shoot your mouth off, is if your version of "reality" precludes the existence of things which very much do exist in the reality you share with everyone else.

    if your "idea" tells you that stuff cannot exist, which your senses tell you does exist ... maybe you have the wrong idea.
    Last edited by Maelochs; 4 Weeks Ago at 09:47 PM.

  23. #48
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
    How is a welded pyramid of titanium stronger than five times as much titanium scrap in a plastic bag?

    How is an X-braceds rectangle of steel tubes just as strong yet much lighter that a rectangular steel slab of the same perimeter dimensions?

    Oi.

    If you do not reject the answer while asking the question you might figure it out for yourself.

    A frame can be made lighter and use less material by using the material more judiciously.

    The folks at say Trek (not that they would know anything about engineering or constructing CF bike frames that You don't know better, right?) started working with CF a few decades ago. They learned a lot about its properties, its uses, its strengthts and weaknesses.

    Aerospace and performance vehicles of all sorts have been using CF for even longer. There has been literally decades of research into the material---and this research is Ongoing.

    So Trek (as an example) looks at what has been learned by the decades or materials science research, and figures out, "If we use an internal bladder inside the external mold we can get better impregnation and distribution of epoxy, and control the thickness of the piece at every point. If we carefully align the fibers in different directions and thicknesses, we can create parts which are springy in one direction and very rigid in others. By bonding together these different parts, we can achieve greater compliance where we want it, greater rigidity where we want it, and use less material overall because we only put exactly what we need at each exact spot to do exactly what we want."

    Are you with me so far?

    That 1200-gram frame might have had tubes of basically the same thickness with all the plies laid in the same direction. To get greater stiffness, the engineers simply used more layers of cloth, and more epoxy, which meant greater weight. And, because the resulting frame was very rigid, it had to be even more rigid---more overbuilt---because it could not dissipate energy by flexing, but had to absorb that energy through more material.

    Still following?

    Consider a disc wheel. Say your bicycle has a steel disc for a wheel. It is grooved along the outer circumference to accept a tire and pierced at the center to accept an axle. It wights hundreds of pounds because it is a solid steel disc 26 inches in diameter and an inch wide.

    I come along and make a thin steel strap and bend it into a hoop, and take a bunch of steel wires and attach them to the hoop and to a tiny little steel cylinder which is pierced to take an axle. Voila. I have produced a spoked wheel which weighs perhaps two pounds and is just as strong as that steel disc in all the load ranges which matter for the given application.

    Still on the same page?

    Using less of the same material but using it more cleverly, I have drastically reduced the weight of the product while still producing a product more than sufficiently strong to perfrom in the ways it is intended.

    Got it? Seems actually pretty basic ... in fact glaringly obvious to anybody bold enough to actually look.



    crit_boy might seem to be a little harsh here, but what he says is right on. If you Know you don't know something, admit that. Don't sit around telling everyone a thing cannot be a certain way because you cannot understand it. Ask, learn ...

    Think about it ... when you go to a doctor, do you debate with the doctor? S/he has years of schooling, years more of real-world experience, and you are experiencing something you don't understand or you wouldn't be there. If the doctor says, "I did all the relevant tests and my diagnosis is this" do you tell the doctor "I have never heard of that condition, therefore you must be wrong"?

    Maybe you do. And if you get a second and a third opinion and they are all exactly the same, are you going to ignore all the doctors ... because you have not bothered to do the slightest bit of research yourself?

    I hate to say it, but the best way to not seem really silly in debates like this is to not debate what you Know you don't know. I hate to say it ... because that is what you have been doing.

    All you would really need to do is look how the major manufacturers have been producing lighter and lighter CF frames ... with no increase in failures. Pretty obviously they have found a way to do it ... because they are doing it. You might not understand the science, but you can actually see the freaking bikes. You might even own one. How much more real does it need to be?

    Similarly, you could look at how steel bikes have also come down in weight over the last several decades. if CF freaks you out ... how have constructors managed to produce steel-framed bikes which are vastly lighter and also stronger than the old 42-lb Schwinns of yesteryear?

    Again, you might not understand the science ... but somehow you can buy steel bikes which weigh under 20 pounds, and as for strength ... they last forever. According to you, that simply isn't possible ... but the bikes are there.

    A good way to tell if you cannot understand something and maybe should do some research before you shoot your mouth off, is if your version of "reality" precludes the existence of things which very much do exist in the reality you share with everyone else.

    if your "idea" tells you that stuff cannot exist, which your senses tell you does exist ... maybe you have the wrong idea.
    Nicely done.

    Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

  24. #49
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,445
    We need the WikiLeaks people to hack the warranty/failure date from CF bike OEMs. That would shed a lot of light on the topic

  25. #50
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,116
    Quote Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    ?
    Could some other lay person please explain to me detailed materials science and engineering principals as applied to sate of the art bicycle frame design, which takes years of studying to understand, in a quick internet response.

    I question "science" because I don't "feel" that it makes sense. Or something like that?

    My guess is 1) the people that could give you the answer are paid good money to know that answer and 2) you and I wouldn't understand it anyway.

    But, all this ignorant pontification that lighter means weaker is super productive. So, we should totally continue it.
    I get it, you don't know or don't want to explain, but have plenty of time to skirt what I thought was an honest question. Move along...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-07-2017, 10:32 AM
  2. Leary's Charlie Brown Christmas
    By V3L0X in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-27-2011, 08:07 PM
  3. I won! I won! I won!
    By CyreneSong in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 03:40 PM
  4. Charlie Rose on Charlie Rose
    By DrRoebuck in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 02:41 PM
  5. Man... I'm watching A Charlie Brown Christmas and...
    By JoeDaddio in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-10-2008, 08:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •