Originally Posted by
rebel1916
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.
Actually, most of the more recently popular bicycle frame materials
came to us direct from the air and space industries.(Reynolds 531,
Titanium tubing, most of the early composite research, etc.)
For obvious reasons, they, too, are very interested in strength to
weight ratios and avoidance of catastrophic failures. They also have
considerably more cash to throw around in terms of systematic testing
and design of these materials, as well as greater resources in logging
and investigating failures.
One begins to suspect that your interest here is less benign than I first assumed.
If you really are interested in the materials science involved in this, I'd suggest
that you embrace a willingness to go beyond the bicycle only literature, amigo.
Edit: OK, in the interests of understanding, I just pulled up some of your recent posts.
You're a ****ing Strava roadie, for god's sake.....can you say'"agenda?"
