• 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Remember Newton's third law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If the frame flexes, it will flex back. Where does the energy go? Not into heat, so into the return flex of the frame.

    Ummm....

    Iím afraid that you misunderstood Newtonís third law.

    The ďequal and oppositeĒ force is simultaneous - eg when you push against a wall, the wall simultaneously pushes against you. Thatís the idea.

    A bike frame flexing and rebounding back is not an example of Newtonís third law.

    That being said, work (in Joules) imparted unto the frame to bend it is more than the work. (in Joules) carried out by the frame flexing back. The loss of energy (ie Joules) is to heat.
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.

    The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.

    Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor. Airlines would gladly pay more for a plane made from titanium if it was lighter and saved fuel costs over 20 years.

    BOEING UPS THE ANTE WITH COMPOSITE-LOADED 787-10 DREAMLINER
    So, what is it about the 787-10 that makes the plane so attractive? Drastic improvements in fuel mileage and emissions made possible by a full range of composites that make up entire sections of the plane, including the wings and fuselage.

    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    When the Boeing 747 was first introduced in 1970, it was believed that the company had reached the absolute limit in size and weight.

    Engineers have to look at a number of factors when designing a new airplane. First is the total weight of the aircraft, including the aircraft itself along with passengers and cargo. Aerodynamic principles dictate that in order to lift a certain amount of weight off the ground, a plane's wing span has to be commensurate. The more weight you add, the bigger the wings have to be.

    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER
    So, how did we get from the '70s-era 747 to the modern 787-10? By taking advantage of composite materials. Things like fiber composite panels offer superior strength and rigidity without excess weight. In fact, everything from carbon fiber tubing to fabricated sheets and panels offer the strength and rigidity needed for airframe construction but at a much lower cost in terms of weight.

    The 787-10 can seat 330 passengers and fly more than 6,000 nautical miles because of the advantages of composite materials. It is a 224-foot aircraft with a wingspan of just under 200 feet, so every major airport in the world can accommodate it. Its main advantage is fuel savings.

    By drastically reducing fuel consumption without sacrificing seating capacity, Boeing has created an aircraft that generates higher revenues per seat. In the ultra-competitive world of commercial airlines, this is everything.

    Dude... did you even read what you quoted? This ar
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Dude... did you even read what you quoted? This ar

    Dude.... yea. Did you?
    Do you still not understand why they chose composites over titanium?
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.

    The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.

    Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor. Airlines would gladly pay more for a plane made from titanium if it was lighter and saved fuel costs over 20 years.

    BOEING UPS THE ANTE WITH COMPOSITE-LOADED 787-10 DREAMLINER
    So, what is it about the 787-10 that makes the plane so attractive? Drastic improvements in fuel mileage and emissions made possible by a full range of composites that make up entire sections of the plane, including the wings and fuselage.

    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    When the Boeing 747 was first introduced in 1970, it was believed that the company had reached the absolute limit in size and weight.

    Engineers have to look at a number of factors when designing a new airplane. First is the total weight of the aircraft, including the aircraft itself along with passengers and cargo. Aerodynamic principles dictate that in order to lift a certain amount of weight off the ground, a plane's wing span has to be commensurate. The more weight you add, the bigger the wings have to be.

    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER
    So, how did we get from the '70s-era 747 to the modern 787-10? By taking advantage of composite materials. Things like fiber composite panels offer superior strength and rigidity without excess weight. In fact, everything from carbon fiber tubing to fabricated sheets and panels offer the strength and rigidity needed for airframe construction but at a much lower cost in terms of weight.

    The 787-10 can seat 330 passengers and fly more than 6,000 nautical miles because of the advantages of composite materials. It is a 224-foot aircraft with a wingspan of just under 200 feet, so every major airport in the world can accommodate it. Its main advantage is fuel savings.

    By drastically reducing fuel consumption without sacrificing seating capacity, Boeing has created an aircraft that generates higher revenues per seat. In the ultra-competitive world of commercial airlines, this is everything.

    A couple comments in response:

    1. First, just because Boeing can take advantage of compositeís benefits doesnít mean bicycle companies can. Boeing is a large company that hires PhDs galore to study every last aspect of every airplane. Hell, my father had a PhD in mechanical engineering (his thesis was on acoustics) and Boeing hired him to study the acoustics in airplanes. Your average schmo designing bike frames is not playing anywhere even remotely near Boeingís playing field.

    2. Boeing has access to materials and manufacturing techniques and quality control techniques that no bicycle company has, or would be willing to even attempt to acquire.

    3. This quote from Boeing doesnít say anything about cost. Remember the objective of the 787 Dreamliner: the plane was designed to be a plane that would be built in large quantities, traveling to Ďsmallerí destinations as opposed to fewer planes flying to fewer and larger hubs (which is what Airbus bet on when they produced the A380) . Hence, using lower-cost materials was paramount to Boeing and the Dreamliner. That means Ti was out.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    A couple comments in response:

    1. First, just because Boeing can take advantage of compositeís benefits doesnít mean bicycle companies can.

    You seriously don't think bicycle companies aren't taking advantage of composites? :shocked:



    Quote:

    3. This quote from Boeing doesnít say anything about cost. Remember the objective of the 787 Dreamliner: the plane was designed to be a plane that would be built in large quantities, traveling to Ďsmallerí destinations as opposed to fewer planes flying to fewer and larger hubs (which is what Airbus bet on when they produced the A380) . Hence, using lower-cost materials was paramount to Boeing and the Dreamliner. That means Ti was out.
    Read it again.
    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER

    It doesn't say anything about costs because that wasn't the objective. Contrary to what you made up.
    "In response to the preferences of airlines around the world, Boeing Commercial Airplanes' new airplane is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a super-efficient airplane. The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane that had the seating capacity of a 767 and the range and speed of a 777 or 747."

    Yes it's about costs. Fuel costs. Achieved by the superior strength to weight ratio of composts.
  • 01-15-2019
    den bakker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Wow...this is roughly the equivalent of bring a wooden spoon to a gunfight. You should quit while you're not light years behind. Just give up on trying to convince anyone of anything at all in this thread. Read what has been posted...absorb it...and just stop.

    some people when offered a rope really just want there to be a shovel at the end so they can dig faster.
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    You seriously don't think bicycle companies aren't taking advantage of composites? :shocked:



    Read it again.
    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
    COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER

    It doesn't say anything about costs because that wasn't the objective. Contrary to what you made up.
    "In response to the preferences of airlines around the world, Boeing Commercial Airplanes' new airplane is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a super-efficient airplane. The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane that had the seating capacity of a 767 and the range and speed of a 777 or 747."

    Yes it's about costs. Fuel costs. Achieved by the superior strength to weight ratio of composts.

    Boeing makes money by selling airplanes for more than it costs to make them.

    You think cost wasnít a consideration for Boeing? Seriously?
  • 01-15-2019
    craiger_ny
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Yeah. Sure there are.

    I mean, why not? Itís every newly-graduated engineering PhDís dream to go design bicycles. What could be more enticing than that?

    A person may not entirely know where their career will take them. We work with a supplier of ours that has a number of folks on hand with PhDs. They make gears, that's all they make. I doubt those folks were chomping at the bit to get that degree so they could enter the exciting world of designing and manufacturing gears but rather it was likely something that they incrementally worked their way into as both their interests and opportunities grew for them.

    There was never a day that I pictured myself a designer of custom gages and programmer of various types of measuring equipment but it's where I have come to find myself.
  • 01-15-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by den bakker View Post
    some people when offered a rope really just want there to be a shovel at the end so they can dig faster.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to den bakker again.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Boeing makes money by selling airplanes for more than it costs to make them.

    You think cost wasnít a consideration for Boeing? Seriously?

    It would really help the conversation if you actually read.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.

    The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.

    Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor.

    This is really basic stuff.

    The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane Not the cost of the plane. Airlines will pay whatever Boeing charged for the plane for significant fuel savings.


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    It would really help the conversation if you actually read.

    This is really basic stuff.

    The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane Not the cost of the plane. Airlines will pay whatever Boeing charged for the plane for significant fuel savings.


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?

    Fuel economy is only relevant to Boeing inasmuch as it is a selling feature for the plane.

    But for Boeing itself, they needed to accomplish this in a way that was as inexpensive as possible. It is entirely possible that CF was superior in this way alone.
  • 01-15-2019
    Marc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    It would really help the conversation if you actually read.

    This is really basic stuff.

    The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane Not the cost of the plane. Airlines will pay whatever Boeing charged for the plane for significant fuel savings.


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?

    I mean we all know how the market is saturated with titanium sub-1kg bike frames. I mean geeze, you hear about sub-800gram titanium frames all the time for road use.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Fuel economy is only relevant to Boeing inasmuch as it is a selling feature for the plane.

    Well duh. That's why that was their original objective. To sell planes. :rolleyes:


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I mean we all know how the market is saturated with titanium sub-1kg bike frames. I mean geeze, you hear about sub-800gram titanium frames all the time for road use.

    lol I was just looking into that. I'm not up to speed on weights of Ti frames so was doing some research. Lightest I could find was Litespeed T1sl @ 1050g.
    An …monda SLR 9 frame weighs 640 grams.

    Surely it has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.
  • 01-15-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    It doesnít help to use big words when you donít know what they mean.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    lol I was just looking into that. I'm not up to speed on weights of Ti frames so was doing some research. Lightest I could find was Litespeed T1sl @ 1050g.
    An …monda SLR 9 frame weighs 640 grams.

    Surely it has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.

    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    So what? The UCI weight limit has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.

    Quote:

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.
    lol You haven't heard of hydroforming? Never seen a CAAD12? :rolleyes:


    So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? Seriously?
  • 01-15-2019
    den bakker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    I

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.

    https://cdn3.bigcommerce.com/s-1h8i1...0.1280.JPG?c=2
  • 01-15-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.

    Looked at your own bike lately? Not exactly straight, round tubes.
  • 01-15-2019
    Marc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.


    Just stop posting about this already...you're only proving how little you know by arguing with those who know more than you.
  • 01-15-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    So are you saying that all three of these bikes have exactly the same brand and make of tires, the same size tires inflated to exactly the same pressure?

    Tires will make the biggest difference in ride quality. Everything else is comparatively minuscule.

    I've been using the same HED jet 5 wheels with conti gp4000ii pretty much the whole time for the past 5 years and I always inflate my tires to the same pressure. Occasionally I would pick up an Sworks turbo from the bike store when I ran out of contis before my next online order arrived. The turbos never lasted me long so I would be back on conti's in a month or two.

    14k miles on the venge, 6k on the sl5, 2.3k so far on the sl6 from july of 2018. I've just moved all the components/wheels to each new frame. The biggest difference in ride quality being the SL5 to SL6. The original venge had pretty much identical geometry to the sl5 and the sl6 is fairly close to the sl5 as well in this regard.
  • 01-15-2019
    velodog
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    If youíll read my original post, youíll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

    Moreover, you have to realize that there hasnít been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.

    Did you just wake from a 30yr nap?
  • 01-15-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Just stop posting about this already...you're only proving how little you know by arguing with those who know more than you.

    No, it's all of us that are wrong. Especially those of us that have been in the industry for over 20 years and worked for teams for 15 years. We know nothing about why certain materials are used or not, and have no clue about the level of education in the industry. It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.
  • 01-15-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    No, it's all of us that are wrong. Especially those of us that have been in the industry for over 20 years and worked for teams for 15 years. We know nothing about why certain materials are used or not, and have no clue about the level of education in the industry. It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.

    He did mention that his dad had a PhD, but never divulged his own education or profession. Hmmmm.
  • 01-15-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.

    I'm sure he's scouring the interwebs looking for something to come back and "school us" that the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven.
  • 01-15-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    I'm sure he's scouring the interwebs looking for something to come back and "school us" that the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven.

    I'm sure you're right!