DANGER - CARBON FIBER FRAMES

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 7/22/2016 9:38 AM, wrote:


WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH!

Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
useful life.

This must be why my local airplane manufacturer (Boeing) is using this
material all over its latest commercial jet designs.

{Sure, planes are not jets. Is one model Colnago representative of all
bikes?}

On 26/07/16 07:55, Frank Miles wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 7/22/2016 9:38 AM, wrote:


WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH!

Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
useful life.

This must be why my local airplane manufacturer (Boeing) is using this
material all over its latest commercial jet designs.

{Sure, planes are not jets. Is one model Colnago representative of all
bikes?}


Yes, there is a lot more to reliability than just material choice. I'm
sure an ultra reliable bicycle frame can be manufactured from any of the
common frame building materials. What's most important is how the
materials is applied to the job. Wafer thin, close to stress limits,
and prone to damage and collapse, are recipes for early disaster.

--
JS

On 7/25/2016 2:55 PM, Frank Miles wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 7/22/2016 9:38 AM, wrote:


WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH!

Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
useful life.

This must be why my local airplane manufacturer (Boeing) is using this
material all over its latest commercial jet designs.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-readies-patch-for-fire-damaged-787/

They are also using aluminum
https://vibrationdata.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/aloha.png.

They are using CF because it's light and the fuel savings are worth the
fragility.

On 7/25/2016 6:38 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/25/2016 2:55 PM, Frank Miles wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0700, SMS wrote:

Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
useful life.

This must be why my local airplane manufacturer (Boeing) is using this
material all over its latest commercial jet designs.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-readies-patch-for-fire-damaged-787/


They are also using aluminum
https://vibrationdata.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/aloha.png.

They are using CF because it's light and the fuel savings are worth the
fragility.

:-) According to SMS, they should make all aircraft out of steel. Or
perhaps cast iron.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/25/2016 6:38 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/25/2016 2:55 PM, Frank Miles wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0700, SMS wrote:

Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
useful life.

This must be why my local airplane manufacturer (Boeing) is using this
material all over its latest commercial jet designs.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-readies-patch-for-fire-damaged-787/


They are also using aluminum
https://vibrationdata.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/aloha.png.

They are using CF because it's light and the fuel savings are worth the
fragility.

:-) According to SMS, they should make all aircraft out of steel. Or
perhaps cast iron.

Spruce is real.

--

In article ,
Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

....

:-) According to SMS, they should make all aircraft out of steel.
Or perhaps cast iron.

Spruce is real.

Yes, but the Spruce Goose[1] only flew once. Hardly economical on
multiple, long-haul flights. Perhaps it *should* have been made of
spruce, rather than birch ?-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
--
Dennis Davis

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:38:12 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/25/2016 2:55 PM, Frank Miles wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 7/22/2016 9:38 AM, wrote:


WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH!

Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
useful life.

This must be why my local airplane manufacturer (Boeing) is using this
material all over its latest commercial jet designs.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-readies-patch-for-fire-damaged-787/

They are also using aluminum
https://vibrationdata.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/aloha.png.

They are using CF because it's light and the fuel savings are worth the
fragility.

The facts are that Boeing states that, by weight, the 787 is built
using steel - 10%, Titanium - 15%, aluminum 20%, and composites 50%,
and "other - 5%.

So you are arguing that as the airplane is 50% composite it is
fragile?

Of course these silly people at Boeing just went ahead and built the
damned thing out of crappy plastic in spite of everything.

And of course their experience with the 777 is meaningless although
they did discover that: "Reduced scheduled maintenance. Experience
with the Boeing 777 proves that composite structures require less
scheduled maintenance than noncomposite structures. For example, the
777 composite tail is 25 percent larger than the 767's aluminum tail,
yet requires 35 percent fewer scheduled maintenance labor hours."

And of course the experiences of Airbus with composites is
meaningless.

One can only imagine, I suppose, your astonishing knowledge of
aircraft design and the use of composites in aircraft design. I am
amazed that you choose to hide this vast knowledge.
--
cheers,

John B.

Dennis Davis writes:

In article ,
Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

...

:-) According to SMS, they should make all aircraft out of steel.
Or perhaps cast iron.

Spruce is real.

Yes, but the Spruce Goose[1] only flew once. Hardly economical on
multiple, long-haul flights. Perhaps it *should* have been made of
spruce, rather than birch ?-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules

The goose was *enormous*. That much aircraft quality spruce would
be worth a fortune today.

--

On 7/26/2016 12:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Dennis Davis writes:

Yes, but the Spruce Goose[1] only flew once. Hardly economical on
multiple, long-haul flights. Perhaps it *should* have been made of
spruce, rather than birch ?-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules

The goose was *enormous*. That much aircraft quality spruce would
be worth a fortune today.

The Spruce Goose _is_ *enormous* still. It's in a very nice aircraft
museum in Oregon.
http://www.evergreenmuseum.org/the-spruce-goose
It's well worth a visit.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 1:15:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/26/2016 12:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Dennis Davis writes:

Yes, but the Spruce Goose[1] only flew once. Hardly economical on
multiple, long-haul flights. Perhaps it *should* have been made of
spruce, rather than birch ?-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules

The goose was *enormous*. That much aircraft quality spruce would
be worth a fortune today.

The Spruce Goose _is_ *enormous* still. It's in a very nice aircraft
museum in Oregon.
http://www.evergreenmuseum.org/the-spruce-goose
It's well worth a visit.

Yes, the Spruce Goose avoided liquidation in bankruptcy, but I'm told that significant portions of the incredible plane collection did not. I haven't been down there since Evergreen went down the toilet.

-- Jay Beattie.