Originally Posted by
abdon
Again; respectfully, that doesn't really says much. Take your entire statement and replace "hole" for "light fork". The statement is equally correct but doesn't address whether it is significant enough.
And once again; I'm not argue to defend the point. I'll be the first one to tell you "I don't know". Heck; will the fork be prone at breaking here during a frontal crash? Even at the lower leverage point it builds a point where this outcome is most likely but on the other hand the crash itself takes the cake, not whether the fork broke post facto.
My point is really just that the "burden of proof" is on the guy drilling the holes. When I make a fork I buy the blades from Reynolds on the assumption that they've done the math and they're strong enough for the intended purpose, even if they are light. If I plan to make modifications to the design like removing material it's up to me to work out whether that is going to be OK. The same if I was making something less well-known than a bicycle-- I would have to work out what tubes to use and estimate the safety margin.
These links might be some places to start, but it seems like quite a complex problem. Especially if you have a bolt on both sides squeezing the tube. That will add some residual stress, which will be in tension in some places (the front and back of the tube I guess) and this might lead to fatigue.
Intuitively it just feels like something I would want to avoid because a fork failure is so unpleasant. If it was somewhere else on the frame experimenting a bit more might be justified.
https://www.fracturemechanics.org/hole.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...weaker.952298/