Re: Comparison of Auminium, Steel and Carbon forks?

In article <_YadnRdhefe9cYDVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, spamvortex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
Mike wrote:
In article <xJqdnWGa4rrIl4jVnZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, spamvortex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comparison of Auminium, Steel and Carbon forks?
    ... 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. ... c-e) would be required to convince me that any of cf, aluminium or steel, has a significant benefit over the other materials for vibration-mitigation in forks. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Evolution and natural selection which is the cause and effect
    ... intelligence that is not material or that doesn't obey natural laws? ... So if I understand you correctly you are saying: in order for life to ... solid evidence that life requires an intelligent creature to create ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... There is no evidence that the cardinal 1 was ever called anything ... occurred somewhere between Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indic.. ... what the Mittani materials are, you might have learned that cuneiform ... Sanskrit - since you seem to know relevant stuff about the script the ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: What can we as "die-hard F1 fans" do now?
    ... for it" is a valid defense to rape... ... Go back to your sibling rape fantasies. ... On the other hand, not only was there not time to incorporate such information into the McLaren, and there is no evidence that the McLaren is of a similar design, but McLaren provided full developmental evidence to the hearing showing that their car has not been influenced by the information contained within the documents. ... You have not thereby proved that the materials ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... There is no evidence that the cardinal 1 was ever called anything ... occurred somewhere between Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indic. ... what the Mittani materials are, you might have learned that cuneiform ... Sanskrit - since you seem to know relevant stuff about the script the ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading