Re: [CR]Fwd: [T@H] was Pedals now lugged forks?

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Cinelli)

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:53:09 -0600
From: "John Thompson" <JohnThompson@new.rr.com>
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance
Cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]Fwd: [T@H] was Pedals now lugged forks?
References: <004601c61b79$a36d9b60$b33cd945@domainnotset.invalid> <8801bb250601170934k468d056j97dd0cc29d9b065e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8801bb250601170934k468d056j97dd0cc29d9b065e@mail.gmail.com>


Mitch Harris wrote:
> This is how the history of lugged bicycles is being told on the
> Tandem@Hobbslist. Strange.


> From: Arlyn @ Superior Tandems <arlyn@superiortandems.com> Date: Jan
> 17, 2006 7:25 AM Subject: [T@H] was Pedals now lugged forks? To:
> Multiple recipients of list <tandem@hobbes.ucsd.edu>
>
> Folks,
>
> Someone pointed out to me that not everyone knows what a lugged steel
> = fork is and why they frequently fail. These went out of
> popularity in the = 80's because of there terrible rate of failure.
> These are brazed steel = forks that the crown is a lug and the steel
> fork blades were brazed into it. = The rate of failure of the blades
> at the lug after XYZ number of stress = cycles was pretty much 100%
> because of the flex on the blades were they entered = the lug.
> Maybe some of you engineer types care to elaborate?
>
> Jobst Brandt does a better job of describing it at
>
> http://yarchive.net/bike/fork_failures.html

I think the key things to note are 1) Jobst does *NOT* claim "pretty much 100%" failure rate of steel forks, as implied in Arlyn's message; and 2) without specifying the number and degree of stress cycles, Arlyn's claim of 100% failure is meaningless. Any part will fail eventually under some extreme conditions. Without specifying what those conditions are you cannot make any judgments about the durability of the steel forks.

--

-John Thompson (john@os2.dhs.org)
Appleton WI USA