Re: Flimsy?
- From: KGring <soulinthemachine@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 13, 9:15 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:867cg6-as6.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tom Kunich wrote:
As these frames are getting lighter and lighter and assuming
funnier and funnier shapes wouldn't you think that sooner or later
they're
going to hit a limit?
Most of the "funny" shapes are the result of finite element
analysis and CAD programs, the same ones Boeing and Airbus use.
Right, but civilian airplanes don't routinely encounter other planes
flying within mere feet of them and sometimes colliding. Planes may have
a "hard" landing from time to time but rarely encounter a curb. Planes
may hit turbulence but have the means to attempt to steer around the
worst of it, while a bicycles life is littered with pothole encounters.
Dumbass -
You're even stupider on engineering issues than you are on political
ones.
A commercial plane encounter several orders of magnitude greater force
than a bicycle frame ever will and the consequences of failure for an
airplane are equally more severe.
CAD and finite element analysis are the correct tools to use for
bicycle frame design. I'm guessing the reason you pooh pooh their use
is, being the close minded person that you are, you never figured out
how to use them.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Flimsy?
- From: KGring
- Re: Flimsy?
- References:
- Flimsy?
- From: brian_j_roth@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Flimsy?
- From: Mike Jacoubowsky
- Re: Flimsy?
- From: Bob Schwartz
- Re: Flimsy?
- From: Mike Jacoubowsky
- Re: Flimsy?
- From: Tom Kunich
- Re: Flimsy?
- From: Donald Munro
- Re: Flimsy?
- From: Mike Jacoubowsky
- Flimsy?
- Prev by Date: Re: Flimsy?
- Next by Date: Re: Flimsy?
- Previous by thread: Re: Flimsy?
- Next by thread: Re: Flimsy?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|