Originally Posted by
Scooper
Can we please get past
this discredited test and get to the crux of the
failure mode of CFRP structures?
Here are post-mortem photographs of the CFRP vertical stabilizer attachment lugs of the scarebus, er... Airbus 300 equipment used for American Airlines Flight 587. The vertical stabilizer spar attachment lugs, which separated from the airframe in flight resulting in the loss of 260 passengers and crew members and 5 people on the ground, simply snapped because the aerodynamic loading on the rudder exceeded the design stress of the spar to lug attachment. Because of the low elongation of CFRP, the failure mode of CFRP structures is sudden and catastrophic. Would a Boeing airframe billet aluminum vertical stabilizer spar to airframe attachment have failed under similar loading? It might have deformed (bent), but it is highly unlikely that it would have failed so catastrophically.
Holy shnikes, now you are an imaginary expert in airframe engineering. And you quote an article that didn't even bother to do a real experiment, but just spouted a bunch of nonsense and offered that as proof, that the German test, was actually proof that the frames that failed, were in reality stronger. For the record, I ride an aluminum frame. I think steel is capable of being formed into perfectly fine frames, although at a significant weight disadvantage for the same strength to CF and Al. But the imaginary, only on the interwebs nonsense, that posits that steel is in some way stronger than the other common materials for building bikes, is flat out laughable.