For tubes try here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDVpRSNtcPQ
and other fun from Fabio Gigli or Google Santa Cruz carbon crush test or similar. Or perhaps, as mentioned by others, look at running prosthetics - hey, look in the sky at planes, at old carbon frame soft tails, at aero blades, carbon spokes, boats, leaf springs, at all sorts of shit.
In that youtube clip, they are applying a stress across the tube not along
it's length with which the fibres align and hence it's strength. They are
basically testing the material properties of the matrix i.e resin,
plastic,whatever the fibres lie in, which in this case bends. In a bike frame,
the stress largely lies along the length of the tubes, it maybe compressive e.g
the top tube, or in tension. Whichever, it will lie along the lay up of the
fibre in the matrix, the carbon fibre being (not the matrix) strong.
Ditto where they
bounce a weight on the fork. In use, the stresses resolve largely along the
length of the fork and the carbon fibres in the fork will lie along it's
length. The only time you'd get the equivalent to that fork test in the video
would be if you rode your bike into a brick wall.
Basically, that video is marketing fluff.
A proper test of carbon fibre
composite is done by making a specimen with the fibres aligned along it's
length. It will be round in cross-section and of a standard, known
cross-sectional area and length. A force is applied trying to pull
the specimen apart eg.it will be put under tension, the force
applied measured and the extension of the specimen measured and a
stress/strain graph can be plotted until the force is enough for the
material to fail. From that graph the engineer can measure it's Young's
modulus(E) and it's UTS (ultimate tensile strength). E in practice is important
to the engineer because you can then calculate the strength of components of
various cross-sections.
A specimen of carbon fibre composite will fail with very little extension (low
strain). ie. it's brittle. This is pretty boring to look at, which is why they
applied stresses across the carbon fibres in the video.
There are areas on a bike eg. around the bottom bracket, where the stresses are
all over the place. These stresses can be modelled by the designer/engineer
using CAE/FEA. Because the carbon fibre can't in practice be aligned with
these stresses, they just beef up the area with more material to stop it
flexing or breaking.
Carbon fibre composite is a "wonder material" to the general public, to the
engineer it's just another material with various pros and cons.
For example, I recently saw a review for a car where they had used carbon
fibre composite for the dashboard (it was a sports car IIRC). They had used it
purely for it's "bling" factor. They could have used some moulded polymer like
cheaper cars FWIW but it doesn't look as "cool".
If you look at the dashboard of an old Bentley sports car for example, you
will see it's made of aluminium.
In it's day aluminium was expensive and hence "cool".
Eros in Picaddily Circus is cast from aluminium. When it was put up, aluminium
was more expensive than gold. The purpose of making it out of the Al was to
say to the rest of the world "look how rich and powerful we (Britain) are".
Materials are not always used for their engineering properties.
Add new comment
9 comments
FFS guys stop feeding the troll.
Think I was done anyway but fair point, well made.
Yeah, it's hard to imagine why no one wants to engage with you.
I guess when reality doesn't agree with your outlook you can always go invent a new one. Go look at how these things are made and how many layers of fibre are used in the construction of these types of athletic prostheses and then come back and tell everyone how irrelevant they are, please.
..or just redefine what a composite material is I guess, that seems to work for you.
A bit OT but some people bought up Oscar Pistorius' prosthetic "blades".
If these are made of carbon fibre composite, then the stresses induced in the
composite when he runs do not align with the fibres within the matrix
material. ie. The designer/engineer has relied on the properties of the matrix
material rather than the carbon fibres. This matrix material can obviously bend without failing.
The carbon fibres in the composite are serving no useful purpose and they
could be built entirely of the matrix material ie. polymer or whatever it is.
But plastic blades doesn't sound quite as "cool" as carbon fibre.
The "technical commitee" of the IOC declared that his "blades" offered no
advantage over a human lower leg. His "blades" are an engineered artifact and
resemble a human lower leg as much as my bike frame does.
He was allowed to enter the able bodied race purely for commercial reasons
(advertisors). He lost and then whinged that he had been "cheated" IIRC.
Not happy with that, he went on to murder his girlfriend. To say the guy's an
@rse is a bit of an understatement.
I said that carbon fibre composite materials can withstand relatively large deflections without suffering failure or permanent deformation - that first one was one example. The Santa Cruz ones show dynamic and quasi-static deflections with appreciable strain. All marketing fluff apparently... There were also further suggestions for examination, it would appear you haven't bothered - or chosen not to mention it.
You said
..so it doesn't flex to any degree before failing, clearly rubbish. You talk about the lay-up influencing behaviour then decide the only important property is 'strength' - re-examine your logic there please.
You ignore resin properties despite being instrumental to much of the behaviour of the material, e.g. vibration absorption - quite useful in a frame. It might be worth your time looking more at that.
There is little discussion of strength versus brittleness in CF.
You seem to ignore structural forms and there's a cursory and simplistic mention of lay-up - that's fairly fundamental to any meaningful discussion. There's more to composite physical properties than uniform, circular tubes in tension.
You seem obsessed with UTS and Youngs modulus as though it defines a composite structures behaviour - and extension as a proxy for strength.
I am utterly uninterested in the irrelevant coda about composites being using for decorative uses - every material in vogue will be used like that at some point and has no bearing on it's suitability for a particular engineering use.
It's obvious to me that you are either being deliberately obtuse or you're
too retarded to understand the engineering principles and materials science
which I've outlined, with links to other sites, in previous long posts. I've
done enough so the rest you can figure out for yourself, assuming you're not
too dense.
Hence, I'm not going to explain to you yet again by going through your post
point by point. I'll respond to questions from other (polite) posters. But
you're a muppet and I'm not going to respond to you from now on.
FWIW, the engineers who read this site are yet to respond to my posts and
point out any area were I'm factually wrong.
..I see you've reached the dismissive stage and moved onto insults, earlier than I thought too, ah well..
For the record i'm not entirely ignorant of the physics behind the materials and structures, although CF composites are very far from being a subject I claim to have in depth knowledge of, and spent a fair chunk of my PhD work researching work on non-linear materials behaviour (mainly biological) and was lucky enough to be working with some very nice and bright theoretical and experimental guys who knew quite a lot on the subject. If that makes any difference to you, probably not, as i'm probably too 'retarded' or 'dense'. The links I followed in your generous bread-crumb of knowledge for the terminally dense had some useful, if well known, bits of information - most of which you seemed to misconstrue in the broader discussion of composite frame. You keep missing the point that ultimate tensile strength and Youngs modulus are not the be all and end all of the physical properties of a structure.
So i'm no CF expert, but I think I know enough to point out some holes in your arguments however - although I would be grateful for real composite experts (of which there are some on here I believe) to correct me and point out where i'm talking shite - it's called 'learning' and I love it, even when I have to give up some of preconceptions and prejudices, which is not always easy.
If you really can't see anything in the list of points I made that isn't 'crap' and doesn't impact on your reasoning then would be little point in continuing anyway I guess - as you've shut up shop on that it is thankfully irrelevant.
Your post about athletic prostheses was factually wrong, which I pointed out to you - no reply on that yet. Why don't you start there ? You don't have to explain to me, as you're not responding to me anymore (huzzah !), but why not do so to your potential audience of admirers in search of education ?
Frank told me I should be a toilet attendant so I can't imagine he is very interested in my views!