Carbon Frame Reliability

On 7/8/2019 12:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Drivel:
"Ants Can Support 5,000 Times Their Body Weight Before Losing Their
Heads"
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5970/20140210/ants-support-5-000-times-body-weight-before-losing-heads.htm
A 6.8Kg bicycle in the Tour de France is expected to support a 65kg
rider. That's only about 10 times the weight of the bicycle. Perhaps
the next generation of bicycle design might need some help from the
ants. Or, dump carbon fiber and switch to carbon nanotube and
graphene:
"Graphene bicycles - the potential future of composites"
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/graphene-bicycles-the-potential-future-of-composites/
Carbon nanotubes might be 20 times stronger than carbon fiber, but the
ants still do it better.

And skeleton bike frames! The wave of the future!

Now I feel bad about being a kid who burned ants with a magnifying
glass. I should have harvested them and saved them up!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/8/2019 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2019 9:32 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:57:11 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote
saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of
mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is
Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and
watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts -
sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life
engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most
especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not
manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be
seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely
unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows
large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components
that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the
difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

You don't need to be an engineer to question your story about
disposable CF frames.Â* The numbers don't add up.Â* A factory would
have to produce a staggering amount of product to outfit a pro-team
for a single season.Â* Each rider has maybe four to six bikes
(road/TT/climbing and spares), and if you threw those out after
every race or even stage race, that would over a hundred a year --
for every rider. The factory would go broke just supporting a
pro-team.Â* And now bicycle sponsors are paying money rather than
just providing product, so that factory would be knocking out
hundreds of bikes and paying some huge amount of money to sponsor
the team.Â* No Italian CF frame manufacturer that also makes one-off
steel frames for your friends could do it.Â* And if so, what is the
name of the factory?Â* We could easily fact check.

-- Jay Beattie.

In 2008Â* a German named Gunter Mai built a 3.2 kg bike andÂ* logged
over 20,000km on the machine overÂ* a couple years. Subsequently the
weight was further reduced toÂ* 2.7kg

Given that the lightest legal racing bike weighs 6.8 kg and a 3.2kg
bike has been ridden for 20,000 km with, apparently, no problems it
seems highly unlike that a bicycle manufacturer would built aÂ* 6.8kg
bike and thanÂ* recommend that it be replaced after each race.

Not to mention that all those frames would have to *go* somewhere.Â* Even
if they were supposed to be thrown out there would be a great temptation
for someone to make at least a little money on them.Â* Where are all
these carbon racing frames, only ridden once, by a little old lady, up
Alpe d'Huez?Â* I would expect every homeless person in Portland to have
at least one.


Pro teams (heck even some well organized amateur teams) have an annual
equipment sale at some large retailer. Been that way all my life.

That makes sense. But the number of frames implicit in Tom's claim does
not make sense.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/8/2019 1:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2019 12:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Drivel:
"Ants Can Support 5,000 Times Their Body Weight Before Losing Their
Heads"
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5970/20140210/ants-support-5-000-times-body-weight-before-losing-heads.htm

A 6.8Kg bicycle in the Tour de France is expected to support a 65kg
rider.Â* That's only about 10 times the weight of the bicycle.Â* Perhaps
the next generation of bicycle design might need some help from the
ants.Â* Or, dump carbon fiber and switch to carbon nanotube and
graphene:
"Graphene bicycles - the potential future of composites"
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/graphene-bicycles-the-potential-future-of-composites/

Carbon nanotubes might be 20 times stronger than carbon fiber, but the
ants still do it better.

And skeleton bike frames! The wave of the future!

Oops. ANT skeleton bike frames.


Now I feel bad about being a kid who burned ants with a magnifying
glass. I should have harvested them and saved them up!




--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi writes:

On 7/8/2019 9:32 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:57:11 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is
Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and
watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts -
sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life
engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most
especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not
manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be
seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely
unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows
large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components
that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the
difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

You don't need to be an engineer to question your story about
disposable CF frames. The numbers don't add up. A factory would
have to produce a staggering amount of product to outfit a pro-team
for a single season. Each rider has maybe four to six bikes
(road/TT/climbing and spares), and if you threw those out after
every race or even stage race, that would over a hundred a year --
for every rider. The factory would go broke just supporting a
pro-team. And now bicycle sponsors are paying money rather than
just providing product, so that factory would be knocking out
hundreds of bikes and paying some huge amount of money to sponsor
the team. No Italian CF frame manufacturer that also makes one-off
steel frames for your friends could do it. And if so, what is the
name of the factory? We could easily fact check.

-- Jay Beattie.

In 2008 a German named Gunter Mai built a 3.2 kg bike and logged
over 20,000km on the machine over a couple years. Subsequently the
weight was further reduced to 2.7kg

Given that the lightest legal racing bike weighs 6.8 kg and a 3.2kg
bike has been ridden for 20,000 km with, apparently, no problems it
seems highly unlike that a bicycle manufacturer would built a 6.8kg
bike and than recommend that it be replaced after each race.

Not to mention that all those frames would have to *go* somewhere. Even
if they were supposed to be thrown out there would be a great temptation
for someone to make at least a little money on them. Where are all
these carbon racing frames, only ridden once, by a little old lady, up
Alpe d'Huez? I would expect every homeless person in Portland to have
at least one.


Pro teams (heck even some well organized amateur teams) have an annual
equipment sale at some large retailer. Been that way all my life.

The question is whether the number of frames thus available is
consistent with a new frame for every race. My guess is that some here
would have noticed.

In article ,
Tom Kunich wrote:

The studies of measles and Lyme's Disease are the only full fledged studies available. How do you get three sources?

(De-lurk mode ON)

Tom -

As someone who just got over Lyme Disease and has read a lot of the literature on same, could you pass along the study you mention above?

On 7/8/2019 2:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 7/8/2019 9:32 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:57:11 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is
Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and
watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts -
sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life
engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most
especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not
manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be
seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely
unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows
large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components
that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the
difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

You don't need to be an engineer to question your story about
disposable CF frames. The numbers don't add up. A factory would
have to produce a staggering amount of product to outfit a pro-team
for a single season. Each rider has maybe four to six bikes
(road/TT/climbing and spares), and if you threw those out after
every race or even stage race, that would over a hundred a year --
for every rider. The factory would go broke just supporting a
pro-team. And now bicycle sponsors are paying money rather than
just providing product, so that factory would be knocking out
hundreds of bikes and paying some huge amount of money to sponsor
the team. No Italian CF frame manufacturer that also makes one-off
steel frames for your friends could do it. And if so, what is the
name of the factory? We could easily fact check.

-- Jay Beattie.

In 2008 a German named Gunter Mai built a 3.2 kg bike and logged
over 20,000km on the machine over a couple years. Subsequently the
weight was further reduced to 2.7kg

Given that the lightest legal racing bike weighs 6.8 kg and a 3.2kg
bike has been ridden for 20,000 km with, apparently, no problems it
seems highly unlike that a bicycle manufacturer would built a 6.8kg
bike and than recommend that it be replaced after each race.

Not to mention that all those frames would have to *go* somewhere. Even
if they were supposed to be thrown out there would be a great temptation
for someone to make at least a little money on them. Where are all
these carbon racing frames, only ridden once, by a little old lady, up
Alpe d'Huez? I would expect every homeless person in Portland to have
at least one.


Pro teams (heck even some well organized amateur teams) have an annual
equipment sale at some large retailer. Been that way all my life.

The question is whether the number of frames thus available is
consistent with a new frame for every race. My guess is that some here
would have noticed.


Agreed, there's some exaggeration to 'every rider every
race'. Even a thinly funded team has many spare bikes, just
not hundreds or thousands of them.

In my own misadventures, hotel/air were larger expenses than
equipment. For team budgets, bicycles are not (relatively)
all that expensive.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:34:20 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:33:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
My friend just returned from Italy on a tour up the entire length of the east coast.

He visited the factory that built his and his wife's custom steel frames.

They also build carbon fiber frames and sponsor a Pro team. When Mike asked them about their reliability the company official that was showing them around said that he would not recommend ANYONE buying a carbon fiber frameset.

He said that pro teams replace their framesets generally each race because they cannot take the chance injuring a rider with a failure. This is a famous Italian marque that has made bicycles since 1957. So the opinion of the factory should bear some weight.


Tommasini began making bicycles in 1957. And they still make steel bikes. And offer custom frames. So we will assume your friend and his wife were riding Tommasini bikes and stopped at their factory in Grosseto, Italy. Grosseto is on the WEST coast of Italy 100 miles north of Rome. But you said their tour was on the EAST coast of Italy. Seems your story already has some facts wrong. But I understand wrong facts do not deter you folks.

I am sure Tommasini has sponsored pro teams in the past. So that part of your story is believable. And as pointed out by others, your story has a lot of pieces in it. Your friend told you what he heard from the tour guide at the Tommasini factory. Generally truth is best if it comes directly from the source. Not two or three interpreters in between. And of course how knowledgeable a tour guide is about the quality of carbon bikes is a question. I worked for a utility company. But I do not know how good our gas and electric repairmen were at their jobs. Are you going to ask the GM factory worker how accurate and credible the financial statements are?

Now I am assuming you have never ever worked for anyone in your entire life. I say that because most, all, people with current jobs, do not denigrate their own company during working hours. Yet you tell us that the company tour guide denigrated his own company's carbon bikes during a guided tour. That would be very similar to Andy Muzi's employees telling customers that Andy is an A Hole and is the worst bike mechanic in Madison or Wisconsin. And they had better run away from Andy's shop. Maybe that happens, but I doubt it.

Are you telling us that touring the east coast of Italy doesn't allow one to take a detour to visit Rome and Grossetto before returning to the east coast to see Venice?

At what point in reality do you start designing the tour plan for other people? As I stated - this man spent 30 years as a detective. Explain to us all how many years were you a federal detective? The level of ignorance of people like you is grossly understated even by me.

What factory? Why all the intrigue? Just tell us where he had his bike made. Any proud owner of a custom frame will tell you where it was made, assuming the decals aren't enough. What name is on his frame? I can tell you the names on all my friends' frames. Isn't this NCIS guy your friend?

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:26:05 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 7/8/2019 9:32 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:57:11 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is
Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and
watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts -
sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life
engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most
especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not
manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be
seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely
unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows
large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components
that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the
difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

You don't need to be an engineer to question your story about
disposable CF frames. The numbers don't add up. A factory would
have to produce a staggering amount of product to outfit a pro-team
for a single season. Each rider has maybe four to six bikes
(road/TT/climbing and spares), and if you threw those out after
every race or even stage race, that would over a hundred a year --
for every rider. The factory would go broke just supporting a
pro-team. And now bicycle sponsors are paying money rather than
just providing product, so that factory would be knocking out
hundreds of bikes and paying some huge amount of money to sponsor
the team. No Italian CF frame manufacturer that also makes one-off
steel frames for your friends could do it. And if so, what is the
name of the factory? We could easily fact check.

-- Jay Beattie.

In 2008 a German named Gunter Mai built a 3.2 kg bike and logged
over 20,000km on the machine over a couple years. Subsequently the
weight was further reduced to 2.7kg

Given that the lightest legal racing bike weighs 6.8 kg and a 3.2kg
bike has been ridden for 20,000 km with, apparently, no problems it
seems highly unlike that a bicycle manufacturer would built a 6.8kg
bike and than recommend that it be replaced after each race.

Not to mention that all those frames would have to *go* somewhere. Even
if they were supposed to be thrown out there would be a great temptation
for someone to make at least a little money on them. Where are all
these carbon racing frames, only ridden once, by a little old lady, up
Alpe d'Huez? I would expect every homeless person in Portland to have
at least one.


Pro teams (heck even some well organized amateur teams) have an annual
equipment sale at some large retailer. Been that way all my life.

The question is whether the number of frames thus available is
consistent with a new frame for every race. My guess is that some here
would have noticed.

Radey, that would imply that 1. People are interested and 2. They are looking. We have just seen a group of people who are unaware that most carbon bikes are made in China and cost almost nothing, are not being replaced because of cost. Or perhaps even though the factory rep at the factory said that they are replaced every race, no one would do that.

Exactly why do you suppose that people who idea of a "good bike" is a $300 1998 Bob Jackson would even get involved in such a conversation?

You can go to Ebay right now and buy an entire selection of Chinese framesets for under $400. Looking at them closely you can see that they are mildly modified European marks. These people are making around 30% profit. Yeah, damned expensive to replace framesets often. Even though the cost of ONE possible Tour winner is more than the entire Peloton would cost to replace every frame every race for the entire year.

On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:58:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/8/2019 12:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Drivel:
"Ants Can Support 5,000 Times Their Body Weight Before Losing Their
Heads"
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5970/20140210/ants-support-5-000-times-body-weight-before-losing-heads.htm
A 6.8Kg bicycle in the Tour de France is expected to support a 65kg
rider. That's only about 10 times the weight of the bicycle. Perhaps
the next generation of bicycle design might need some help from the
ants. Or, dump carbon fiber and switch to carbon nanotube and
graphene:
"Graphene bicycles - the potential future of composites"
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/graphene-bicycles-the-potential-future-of-composites/
Carbon nanotubes might be 20 times stronger than carbon fiber, but the
ants still do it better.

And skeleton bike frames! The wave of the future!

Now I feel bad about being a kid who burned ants with a magnifying
glass. I should have harvested them and saved them up!

The math is easy enough. How many ants would it take to support a
bicycle rider? Worker ants weigh 1 to 5 mg and can carry 5 to 25
grams each at 5000x their weight. Tour de France riders are on the
light side and typically weigh about 65 Kg.
65Kg / 5 grams/ant = 13,000 ants
65Kg / 25 grams/ant = 2,600 ants
Now, all we need is some way to equally distribute the load, and we
have a bicycle proxy that can carry a rider across the finish line at
the speed of an ant. Some training may be needed to get the ants to
all move in the same direction and to increase their rate of travel to
racing speeds.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:36:19 PM UTC-7, wrote:
In article ,
Tom Kunich wrote:

The studies of measles and Lyme's Disease are the only full fledged studies available. How do you get three sources?

(De-lurk mode ON)

Tom -

As someone who just got over Lyme Disease and has read a lot of the literature on same, could you pass along the study you mention above?

There are all sorts of articles on the latest problems with diagnosis. I happen to keep the eye out for the occasional mention of Polymerase Chain Reaction since I was the one that designed and programmed the first practical automation of that process that Dr. Kary Mullis then used to both discover HIV and then connect it with AIDS.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article...dFrom=fulltext

Andrew mentioned an article in Science News and I got my issue the same day and looking in it they are saying that PCR isn't sensitive nor reliable enough.

Also in that article they mention that the March issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases is looking into direct sequencing. The more advanced design I made for Cetus Corp., I believe, could accomplish genome sequencing and detect DNA strands related to Lyme. Whether the actual knowledge of what strands to look for, that aren't common to other sorts of infections, is actually known probably isn't available since that would be a pharmacological gold mine.