Yep - all of the non-ferrous frames will fail in fatigue if used long enough - aluminum, titanium, Carbonium fiberium, every -um du jour. That's why steel will always be real! :-) There's gonna be a whole lot of those non-ferrous frames in landfills a couple decades from now! The problems with CF are multiple - degradation from UV exposure, nicks that cause stress risers that lead to catastrophic failures, toxic waste, you name it.... Greg "uh-huh, yeah, that's right" Parker Donning the Nomex in Dexter, Michigan
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:33:48 -0600 From: "Mazzeo, Daniel" <Daniel.Mazzeo@usap.gov> To: <hersefan@comcast.net>, <mark@bikesmithdesign.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Subject: Re: [CR]Soft frames? Hard Frames?
Guys, I would chime in that I have seen aluminum frames as the exception to the "does not reach the stress limits in frame use" rule. All of the folks I knew who had '80s Trek Aluminum frames suffered fatigue failure in the 20-25,000 mile range with the failure usually occurring at the bottom bracket. This suggests to me that the frame design and use did not keep the material from reaching its limits due to repeated flexure. Steel, having a considerably higher modulus of elasticity does not exhibit this problem when used with standard size tubing. I have also noticed that the newer Cannondales use a larger diameter tubeset to overcome this lower property of aluminum. Has anybody checked Young's modulus for titanium recently??? Is there any published data for carbon fiber??? Dan Mazzeo -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org <classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org> To: Mark Stonich <mark@bikesmithdesign.com>; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Wed Aug 03 20:39:49 2005 Subject: Re: [CR]Soft frames? Hard Frames?
Well that makes sense since I'm aware that all types of steel tubes have the same stiffness.
I wonder if the argument I heard was one of those at the theoretical limit cases where there is a theoretical but for all practical purposes non-existent effect.
Similar to a steel frame flexing and absorbing energy. From what I understand, upon flexing some energy is lost to heat, but for steel, aluminum, and titanium the amount is so insignificant that it just doesn't matter.
> At 8/3/2005 10:20 PM +0000, you wrote:
> >If anything, as engineering friends have explained to me, frames
> >work harden and in theory that would make them stiffer and at the
> >same time closer to a failure.
>
> A couple of hundred years of materials testing has shown that steel
> has the same modulous of elasticity (Young's Modulous) no matter how
> hard it is. Work hardening, heat treating or annealing have no
> effect on stiffness.
Now for the arguments that frames which are well designed will not
fatigue for a substantial time, I think that lack of overheating must
also be factored in. My guess is that reduces the elastic range of the
tube and in many cases brings the fatigue life into the range for which
many riders may experience a failure.
Mike "not an engineer" Kone in Boulder CO
>
>
> Mark Stonich;
> Minneapolis Minnesota
> http://mnhpva.org
> http://bikesmithdesign.com