Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

General Discussion about electric bicycles.
Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 17, 2018 6:45 pm

e-beach wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 6:10 pm
... screw ...
Screws cut threads, and they are stress risers.

Carefully drilled 3.2mm holes and pop-rivets don't. It's why they use pop-rivets to hold aluminium planes together.

e-beach
10 MW
10 MW
Posts: 2413
Joined: Jan 10, 2012 9:48 pm
Location: Any Los Angeles area beach I am at. Or Santa Monica or possibly the south bay beaches.

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by e-beach » Jan 17, 2018 7:12 pm

Buk___ wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 6:45 pm
.....
Carefully drilled 3.2mm holes and pop-rivets don't. It's why they use pop-rivets to hold aluminium planes together.
Hummm......Looks like I will have to dig deep into the ole tool box and look for my pop rivet gun.

:D
Favorite Quote: "This is L.A., sugar. There is no 'over the top." --- Chris Erskine

Current build: Liahona w/ cheap front suspension and suspension seat post. Yescomusa 36v 800w generic front hub motor. 15ah Headway triangle mounted pack. Tronsung 30 amp,

Previous Build:1992 Trek Antelope 800 - Bone Crusher (no suspension) - Yescomusa 800 watt 36 volt front wheel kit. Don't do it! Get suspension!!!

User avatar
speedmd
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2786
Joined: Nov 14, 2012 12:16 pm
Location: new england

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by speedmd » Jan 17, 2018 7:24 pm

e-beach wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 7:12 pm
Buk___ wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 6:45 pm
.....
Carefully drilled 3.2mm holes and pop-rivets don't. It's why they use pop-rivets to hold aluminium planes together.
Hummm......Looks like I will have to dig deep into the ole tool box and look for my pop rivet gun.

:D
Thanks for posting the crack photos. It lived it's life. Looks to be much too small a fillet on the lower weld on the down tube side. The sharp angle at the welds edge certainly did it no favors. Now that it is apart, take a deep breath and kick it to the curb. It did you a favor. Buy the best-strongest frame you can afford. Don't look back.

User avatar
Chalo
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 6443
Joined: Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Chalo » Jan 17, 2018 8:51 pm

Buk___ wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 6:42 pm
Every time I mention "Al has no fatigue limit", you say: "All structural metals work harden; all of them fatigue." which is a fundamental mis-statement of the facts.
You know that steel work hardens. It's why we cold forge things. And we all know that steel fatigues because we see bikes and other objects that have cracked that way.
If a steel structure is design such that its expected maximum loading + some margin is less than the fatigue limit, it will not fatigue. Ever. (for all practical purposes.
To the nearest approximation, bike frames are not built that heavy. Ever. That's the problem with your assumption about steel being immortal. If you built a steel frame that heavy, the bike would suck. And you could build an aluminum frame two-thirds as heavy that would be stiffer and do just as good a job of outliving its rider.
Aluminium has no fatigue limit. If you cycle it enough times, it will always fail no matter how beefy you make it!
And yet we have some aluminum bicycle frames, and aluminum airplanes, and all sorts of other aluminum machines from the 1930s still in service. Lots and lots of aluminum bikes and airplanes from the '80s that haven't had a break yet, in either sense of the word. So the implications can be lived with.
If you project a 10 year lifespan and design an aluminium bike frame to suffer orangutan-ing force levels, then you'd have to make it so beefy that there would be little or no savings over a steel frame constructed to the same specifications. And the steel frame would go on indefinitely barring accident or corrosion.
.

That's just not how things work in the real life of bikes. Weight for weight, aluminum bikes display greater longevity-- which is not an especially fair comparison because even bog standard aluminum frames tend to be substantially lighter than steel ones. Intelligently traditional aluminum frames like '80s straight-gauge Cannondales, Kleins, and Treks outlast their heavier steel contemporaries. They're overrepresented among the long term survivors of their time period.

Aluminum has proved to be so suitable and long-lived for bicycle frames that manufacturers now capitalize on its strengths and do stupid things like curved truss tubes, that result in heavier and weaker frames than necessary.

Steel's awesome for DIY, and more than satisfactory for bikes, but for commercial bicycle frame production it doesn't have any noteworthy engineering advantage over aluminum. The reason I like most commercial steel frames better than most commercial aluminum frames is because they still use straight round tubes, and aluminum frames have gotten silly.

The reason that the pedicabs I design and build are made from chromoly is because heat treating an aluminum frame four feet wide and seven feet long is difficult and expensive, and because there is a strong likelihood that these trikes will need some kind of repair requiring welding eventually.

Consider this: most quality suspension forks are made of aluminum. They're cantilevered and unbraced. How often do you hear of them fatiguing and cracking? I don't think I've seen that yet.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 17, 2018 9:15 pm

Chalo wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 8:51 pm
Weight for weight,
I said "same specification", not "same weight". For an engineering, you do not seem to read well.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14521
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by liveforphysics » Jan 17, 2018 9:34 pm

Buk___ wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 6:22 am
liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 5:58 am
It would only be useful if all joints were designed around being adhesive bonded joints, then it would be fine.

For something like fixing a head tube, it would just fail, as the aluminum failed with that loading and the metal that cracked was bonded as well to itself as you're going to get from that design.

The beauty of the casting tape is it added a very tough resin to a very tough fiber material, so once you've built adequate layers of it, it's now redesigned the joint to be well supported by the fiber composite structure alone (aka, wrap until it builds up some bulk the high stress areas).

Buk___ wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 4:16 am
liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 16, 2018 10:47 pm
Broken bone casting tape is amazing stuff. ... I would trust it more than I trust welds in aluminum.
How do you feel about heat-cured epoxy-bonded Al?
I was thinking about forming a roughly u-shaped piece of (say) 0.8mm Al around the tube to span the crack and then heat-set epoxy it in place; then put small (say 3mm) pop rivets in the top corners plate both sides as an anti-peal measure.

But he would have to strip back the paint and oxide on the frame first.
It would perhaps work fine that way. It would still be unlikely to be as strong as casting tape.

speedmd wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 11:09 am
Don't band aid the frame. If you want to just fix it, you want to weld it and add lots of material (fillets) to cover much further out onto the tubes. I would fold a section of aluminum sheet and add it as a gusset also that connects the top down and head tube to it also. ...
Respectfully, that would be a shitty solution at best. Everywhere you add a new welding bead just makes new failure points. As a kid who grew up living at a home welding shop, I played that game with my own broken bike frames and it only shifts where the aluminum fails.

If you're re-welding aluminum that's already been welded and heat-treated, you've already lost the game.

I ended up having my father help me re-build the broken sections out of cromoly steel, and slip-fitting and clamping them to the aluminum tubing after no amount of added aluminum scab-plates and gussets offered more than another few days of riding before it re-broke.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14521
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by liveforphysics » Jan 17, 2018 10:09 pm

e-beach wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 6:10 pm

@LPF, Thanks for the welding offer, but getting up to SC from LA is a bit messy at the moment with the 101 closed, horrific mud slides and all. However the urethane casting tape sounds fun. I mean, if this frame is going to be put to pasture, a cheap fix for the purpose of having a peddle bike for short local runs or when I feel like taking the flat streets to the beach. I just might do that fix.

What I would probably do is wire brush the whole area clean of dirt, paint ect. Clean with acetone. Then, on both sides, screw and epoxy a small steel plate that spans both sides of the crack to keep the frame from separating at the crack, (one screw or bolt on either side of the crack, 4 fasteners total) and then apply the casting tape. Finish with paint and she would be ready for peddling pleasure. Could probably be done for under $25.00 usa.
I'm actually doing grid-tie battery development for a client in LA right now and have a premium TIG welder available here in LA I could weld your frame with anytime. However, it wouldn't be doing you any favors to weld it because it would just fail faster and more impressively after re-welding (I've learned this the hard way).

https://www.amazon.com/82003U-ScotchCas ... sting+tape

I just ordered 6 rolls of that tape (should be delivered friday), and I will wrap it for you if you want. Just a couple rolls would be more than adquate to make the head tube joint tougher than it ever was when new. I realize it seems hard to believe, but after you play with the stuff you will understand its freaky tough stuff, and it won't matter if drill-stopping the crack stops it's growth or not, because you could build the frame from just a few rolls wrapped properly around all the joints as a complete welding alternative. It looks goofy because it's bulky compared to using metals, but I would trust my life to it for aluminum over any welded solutions.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

e-beach
10 MW
10 MW
Posts: 2413
Joined: Jan 10, 2012 9:48 pm
Location: Any Los Angeles area beach I am at. Or Santa Monica or possibly the south bay beaches.

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by e-beach » Jan 17, 2018 10:57 pm

liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 10:09 pm
........I'm actually doing grid-tie battery development for a client in LA right now .....

Just PMed you
Favorite Quote: "This is L.A., sugar. There is no 'over the top." --- Chris Erskine

Current build: Liahona w/ cheap front suspension and suspension seat post. Yescomusa 36v 800w generic front hub motor. 15ah Headway triangle mounted pack. Tronsung 30 amp,

Previous Build:1992 Trek Antelope 800 - Bone Crusher (no suspension) - Yescomusa 800 watt 36 volt front wheel kit. Don't do it! Get suspension!!!

Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 17, 2018 11:58 pm

Chalo wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 8:51 pm
If a steel structure is design such that its expected maximum loading + some margin is less than the fatigue limit, it will not fatigue. Ever. (for all practical purposes.
To the nearest approximation, bike frames are not built that heavy. Ever.
Update: Rephrased ambiguous question.

You are saying that every steel frame in existance suffers stresses greater than 250MPa?
Last edited by Buk___ on Jan 18, 2018 12:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
speedmd
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2786
Joined: Nov 14, 2012 12:16 pm
Location: new england

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by speedmd » Jan 18, 2018 12:15 am

If you're re-welding aluminum that's already been welded and heat-treated, you've already lost the game.
Is that frame even heat treated? May not be. Do we even know what alloy it is. Certainly a can of worms.

Regardless, welding requires proper bead formation, weld prep and correct amounts of penetration. Not something that can be done by a amateur and expect expert results. I agree, it takes time and understanding to fix something like this and make it reliable. I would junk it if it was mine without giving it a second thought. Have the know how, tools and skills to do it, but would not put the work into it. It has lived a good life. May make a good trade school practice part.

User avatar
Chalo
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 6443
Joined: Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Chalo » Jan 18, 2018 1:22 am

Buk___ wrote:
Jan 17, 2018 11:58 pm
So you are saying that no steel bicycle frames are built to withstand 250MPa stresses?
Do you mean built to withstand foreseeable working stresses while remaining under 250MPa throughout? Remember all steels aren't equal in strength, and their fatigue limits are a function of their yield stresses. Very thick or very large diameter steel tubes that could keep maximum stress levels lower than 250MPa in all normal use are a feature of frames made from soft mild steel, which means they have lower fatigue limits stresses than that.

A36 and 1018 mild steel have yield stresses in the range of 250MPa, so their fatigue limits are about half that much.

I'm reminded of the Chicago Schwinn Super Sport, which had an unusual combination of thick walled chromoly tubing and huge brass fillet-brazed joints. If there's a steel bike that stays inside its fatigue limits everywhere, during all normal use, it would be like that-- with unusually thick or unusually large diameter tubing (or both), plus high strength alloy and comprehensive stress reducing joint geometry. As it is, I doubt the dropouts and seat cluster on the old Super Sport are smoothed out enough to prevent high-cycle fatigue.

Image

Edit:

I see you rephrased your question. And there are two reasons I can't give a definitive answer to that question. First is, even though a frame can be characterized by stress analysis, the stresses it will see out in the world are not easy to characterize or quantify. What are normal forces for one rider are abnormal for another. So what constitutes "normal forces" pretty much has to include most of the ugly end of the bell curve.

Second is, I don't know what the stress levels are in any units, by any form of direct measurement. All I know about stress levels is what I can infer by comparing the materials' properties with whatever failures I see in my own bikes and the thousands of bikes I've inspected to one degree or another at work. I can safely assume, based on the cracks I have found and the bikes that have had them, that almost any steel bike sees enough stress in its points of highest stress concentration to tally up an HCF cycle count for some part of the frame. Most don't count up enough cycles to hit the jackpot.

I've seen many steel bikes cracked in the same place as the OP's bike. Most of them were not lightweight sporting bikes. Other common spots for steel frames to crack are the seat tube to bottom bracket joint, seat stay to seat tube joints, and chainstay to dropout joints.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 18, 2018 3:16 am

Chalo wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 1:22 am
And there are two reasons I can't give a definitive answer to that question.

First is, even though a frame can be characterized by stress analysis, the stresses it will see out in the world are not easy to characterize or quantify. What are normal forces for one rider are abnormal for another. So what constitutes "normal forces" pretty much has to include most of the ugly end of the bell curve.

Second is, I don't know what the stress levels are in any units, by any form of direct measurement.
A Raliegh R700 50cm road racing frame made of Reynolds 853 tube. 1" 0.7/0.4/0.7 top tube; 1 1/8" 0.7/0.4/0.7 down tube; single butted seat tube; 0.7 constant diameter stays. 1.5mm head tube and BB shell. Total frame weight 1.525gms.

Elite rider generating a little over 1000N down strokes, through a 50/15 ratio, at a cadence of 120rpm for 1 minute producing 620W.

Maximum stresses occur in the down tube just down from the head tube; in the chain stays just in front of the dropouts; at the back of the seat tube a bit up from the BB; the outer edges of the BB shell; in the rear lower and front upper rims of the head tube.

Image

The maximum stress seen is < 220MPa. This below the 240MPa fatigue limit of mild steel and well below the 480Mpa fatigue limit of normalised ChroMoly.

Elite rider and very light frame and it is well within -- by a safety factor of 2.something -- the fatigue limits of ChroMoly steel.

Use 0.9/0.6/0.9 or plain 1mm steel tube everywhere for ~double the weight, and cheap steel, and it will never fatigue!

The case for the defense rests.
Last edited by Buk___ on Jan 18, 2018 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14521
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by liveforphysics » Jan 18, 2018 4:59 am

I've personally never felt like pedaling related forces were significant compared to riding impact related forces.

I've met e-beach, and something tells me his frame didn't crack from pedaling (no offense to e-beach who is a nice guy).

Reynolds 953 was my favorite steel on paper for a while due to better strength to weight than any aluminum or titanium alloys.

http://www.reynoldstechnology.biz/mater ... eel/s-953/

But it turns out, it's as rough as working with fussy alloys of Ti to get it to keep its strength through heat-based joining processes. Brazed lugs would be about the only option to keep it's properties, and maybe the ultimate strength and high-fatigue solution for making any performance bike frame short of just using carbon.

Things built to last from aluminum you generally don't find welds on (like an airplane), that said, if you have the right alloy and you weld it in the right environment with the right processes and put it through the right heat-treatment cycles afterwards, it can be maybe 90-95% of it's original strength. Lots of bike mfg's mastered that art, but even then it only works for the first time building the frame.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 18, 2018 6:08 am

liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 4:59 am
I've personally never felt like pedaling related forces were significant compared to riding impact related forces.
The point is, it isn't the big impact that cause fatigue failure. They can exacerbate it, and if they're big enough to go over the yield point, bend or even snap.

But fatigue is repetition of 'normal' working stresses. Pedal cadence and road chatter.

Smaller forces that, in steel, because they are below the fatigue limit, do not have any permanent or accumulative affect.

But in aluminium, because it doesn't have that minimum below which it is unaffected -- no fatigue limit -- those constant, repetitious, smaller forces each have a small effect, and they accumulate.

Take a nylon zip tie, lay it on your vice, and hit it with a hammer as hard as you like, pretty much nothing will happen. Clamp a cm or two at one end in the vice jaws, clap a set of mole grips on the other end and pull it all the way over one side hard and back to the other hard; and if you start with a small enough zip tie and are strong and persistent, you'll eventually fatigue it enough to cause it to break.

You can fatigue steel, but only by exceeding its fatigue limits many, many times. Or you can do the Yuri Geller pre-weakening a spoon handle trick by repeatedly bending it back and forth past its yield point.

Once again I say, it doesn't mean that aluminium structures -- including bike frames -- cannot be designed to be strong and last a long time; but the design criteria are much different to steel; the fabrication requirements are far more stringent.

The smallest particle of steel (or brass) from a tool say, or a tiny bit of grit, gets embedded in the Al when pressing or folding or hammering -- instant stress riser. Use a scribe, same again. (In the link above they say even using a normal pencil causes problems because the carbon combines with and weakens the Al. I hadn't heard that one before.)

Stop before completing a weld, and not dress it back to remove any hidden voids and oxide pockets, and then puddle over to continue; stress riser.

Do an iffy weld first time and then puddle weld over and even if you start with O temper Al, you've now double heated the surrounding metal and no amount of heat treatment with restore it.

So you have the triple wammy of: a) it requires different design criteria that are not well disseminated; b) fabrication requires a new set of rules regarding cleanliness and accuracy -- no re-working; c) no matter how low the stresses, or beefy the part, even very small flexure causes changes to the temper; enbrittlement is inevitable; how long only depends on how many cycles, and their frequency.

The downfall of the Comet, besides square corners, was high frequency vibration. Tiny movements and forces, but at 20,000 rpm or whatever speed the jet engines ran at back then, for hours on end. Add in the heat/cold cycle and bye bye.

Having seen the latest set of close ups of the fracture, I'm even more convinced that my original assessment is correct. There is no sign of impact damage, and the position of the start of the crack and the way it has propagated, point to the classic void or oxide inclusion; probably with over-welding.

There's no way to prove that without hacking out a cross-section and doing a micro-graph or ultrasound testing; but I'd put a pint on it, if anyone in the right place and has an ultrasound tester, they'd see the void/inclusion.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14521
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by liveforphysics » Jan 18, 2018 7:01 am

I agree with all of that and it matches my own experiences in working with aluminum.

When Aluminum framed bikes were a few grand to buy, they might have budgeted in some/all of the process control and QC needed to weld them right. When aluminum framed bikes started retailing at walmarts for $249, I bet the folks making them only got good at making a bunch for as cheap as possible, and any added processes or cleaning steps don't make it cheaper to build.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

User avatar
speedmd
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2786
Joined: Nov 14, 2012 12:16 pm
Location: new england

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by speedmd » Jan 18, 2018 10:40 am

Now that we are deep into the armchair failure analysis :lol:, I am not too sure it is a weld void or over weld type defect. To me it looks to be a classic hi weld bead angle causing stress concentration at welds edge in the tube. A bit of finishing with a hand file or grinder as done on the old schwinn may have helped quite a bit here IMO. I agree that aluminum is a whole other animal when coming to the rework side of things.

Any of the steel bike tubes above the 531 level are terrible in welded joints. Even silver solder is borderline in developing large grain growth if you keep it hot a bit too long. If your gas welding, as done in many ultralight air frames, you want to start with normalized temper steel. In general, the higher the temper, the more unsuitable a metal is to welding, regardless of the material.

Back to the OP. Is the head set tight? I forgot to ask. :D

User avatar
Chalo
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 6443
Joined: Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Chalo » Jan 18, 2018 11:54 am

liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 4:59 am
I've personally never felt like pedaling related forces were significant compared to riding impact related forces.
Right. Potholes and even little bumps can have much higher instantaneous peaks (even if the durations are short), and hard braking winds up a frame much more than hard pedaling. Make the chainring 22t instead of 50t, and the situation between BB and rear axle changes pretty substantially when pedaling, too. Lots of us here weigh significantly more than 1000N. That means bigger forces than in the von Mises diagram every time we stand to pedal, even if we're not elite. All that is the ugly end of the bell curve of forces that I was talking about.

I remember one time when I was working on bearing mountings for a flywheel motor-generator unit with a 700lb rotor and an evacuated enclosure. The engineer and tribologist who was in charge of that assembly was talking about a vibration on the order of 10G magnitude that we were struggling with at the time. I asked him, when did we get that kind of vibration? He pointed out that the running machine was doing it at that moment. I put my hand on it and only felt a slight hum. The relative suppleness of a bicycle prevents it from hiding large forces as effectively as that, but the same principle-- shock and vibration can easily dwarf other mechanical forces-- does apply to bicycles. Basically, the vibration you feel when riding that comes across as annoying or painful is telling you about force peaks that are much higher than static forces.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

User avatar
Chalo
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 6443
Joined: Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Chalo » Jan 18, 2018 12:06 pm

Buk___ wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 3:16 am
[...]well below the 480Mpa fatigue limit of normalised ChroMoly.
That's close to the yield stress of normalized 4130, so the fatigue limit would be not much more than half that.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 18, 2018 2:46 pm

Chalo wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 12:06 pm
Buk___ wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 3:16 am
[...]well below the 480Mpa fatigue limit of normalised ChroMoly.
That's close to the yield stress of normalized 4130, so the fatigue limit would be not much more than half that.
Wrong again. Fatigue limit is usually roughly half of the ultimate tensile strength, not the yield strength.



Here the wonders of metallurgy come to our rescue as the differences between our mild-steel frame and top tubing are absolutely massive!

Mild Steel is what you'd expect your 'supermarket' bike to be made of and has a pretty pathetic Yield of 247 MPa**.

Now go to the most common, quality cycletube steel which is 4130 Cr-Mo*** – this has almost identical properties as the old Reynolds 531 and is what Reynolds 525 and 520 is made of, it's also almost certainly what any quality bike manufacturer uses for their own-brand or generic Cr-Mo tubing - This gives a typical UTS of 1110 MPa and a Yield of 951 MPa – a big improvement...

Now let's get silly and go for the very strongest steels on the Planet – called Maraging steels (like Reynolds 953) the example having a UTS of 2693 and Yield of 2683. Compare those with the two cycle tubes above and you'll see the huge potential of those 'super' steels.

The striking thing about the above figures is firstly how easy it is to bend mild steel – you'd need nearly 4x as much steel for the same resistance to failure (permanent bending) as a 4130 tube. That is why cheap bikes are so heavy****

On the other hand, if you used Maraging steel your frame would be less than ½ the weight of a 4130 frame for the same strength! Amazing! Except is doesn't work quite like that as we'll see later.

Fatigue

Fatigue is where a material may fail at well below its UTS because repeated flexions have weakened it. This is why every Aluminium component in an aircraft has a fixed life measured in hours before it is at risk of failure. Steel on the other hand has a Fatigue Limit. Any flexing below that Fatigue Limit will NEVER fail – this is why car springs are made of steel not Aluminium. Every time a steel component is flexed beyond its Fatigue Limit it will weaken and the count-down to failure begin. Better steels have a higher Fatigue Limit (generally around half their UTS) and so again can be thinner and flex more before failure – hence 'spring steel' - but generally speaking a frame in quality steel like 4130 should be designed to be well below its Fatigue Limit in normal use with the gauges used for cycletouring and so last indefinitely.
Last edited by Buk___ on Jan 18, 2018 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 18, 2018 2:53 pm

Chalo wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 11:54 am
liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 4:59 am
I've personally never felt like pedaling related forces were significant compared to riding impact related forces.
Right. Potholes and even little bumps can have much higher instantaneous peaks (even if the durations are short),
Still missing the point. You don't generally ride from one pothole to the next. Most of us try to avoid them.

A commuter: 1 hr a day at an average cadence of say 45rpm.

45*60*5*48*2 == 1.3 million flex cycles/year. This is what kills Al frames!

Maybe he cannot avoid 1 pothole a week. 48/year. So long as they don't exceed the yield strength, no harm done.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14521
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by liveforphysics » Jan 18, 2018 3:28 pm

Buk___ wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 2:53 pm
Chalo wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 11:54 am
liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 4:59 am
I've personally never felt like pedaling related forces were significant compared to riding impact related forces.
Right. Potholes and even little bumps can have much higher instantaneous peaks (even if the durations are short),
Still missing the point. You don't generally ride from one pothole to the next. Most of us try to avoid them.

A commuter: 1 hr a day at an average cadence of say 45rpm.

45*60*5*48*2 == 1.3 million flex cycles/year. This is what kills Al frames!

Maybe he cannot avoid 1 pothole a week. 48/year. So long as they don't exceed the yield strength, no harm done.
Everyone has a different kind of riding preference.
Even on my road bike, I look for the biggest sets of stairs to drop or climb, and ride over log piles and aggressive downhill trails, and it still feels like inadquate training for cyclocross racing.

For that reason my roadbike is cromoly, and the frame has not yet broken (though I go through wheels faster than most folks go through tires).
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 18, 2018 4:09 pm

liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 3:28 pm
Even on my road bike, I look for the biggest sets of stairs to drop or climb, and ride over log piles and aggressive downhill trails, and it still feels like inadquate training for cyclocross racing.

For that reason my roadbike is cromoly, and the frame has not yet broken (though I go through wheels faster than most folks go through tires).
And presumably isn't a 1.5kg racing frame with eggshell thin tubes.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14521
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by liveforphysics » Jan 18, 2018 4:23 pm

Buk___ wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 4:09 pm
liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 3:28 pm
Even on my road bike, I look for the biggest sets of stairs to drop or climb, and ride over log piles and aggressive downhill trails, and it still feels like inadquate training for cyclocross racing.

For that reason my roadbike is cromoly, and the frame has not yet broken (though I go through wheels faster than most folks go through tires).
And presumably isn't a 1.5kg racing frame with eggshell thin tubes.
It's a 2002 Lemond Zurich using Reynolds 853 (the predecessor of the amazing 953) running a mix of dura-ace components with a cable pull ratio modified modern XTR rear derailleur (for it's auto-chain tensioner function that is awesome for avoiding chain drama on big impacts).

The tubes are butted to leave just the ends where the weld joints happen to be thicker material, and I bet the mid sections of the tubes gives egg-shell a run for it's money at some point, as it's lighter than my friends carbon road bikes.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

Buk___
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 497
Joined: Jul 28, 2017 5:59 pm

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by Buk___ » Jan 18, 2018 4:32 pm

liveforphysics wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 4:23 pm
It's a 2002 Lemond Zurich using Reynolds 853 (the predecessor of the amazing 953) running a mix of dura-ace components with a cable pull ratio modified modern XTR rear derailleur (for it's auto-chain tensioner function that is awesome for avoiding chain drama on big impacts).

The tubes are butted to leave just the ends where the weld joints happen to be thicker material, and I bet the mid sections of the tubes gives egg-shell a run for it's money at some point, as it's lighter than my friends carbon road bikes.
I just read 8.6kg (19lbs) for the frame? Ignore this!

The review said frame weight, but the tech manual says that the total bike weight, and the frame IS 1.5kg. Sorry.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14521
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Potential Catastrophic Frame Failer Averted ….sort of.

Post by liveforphysics » Jan 18, 2018 4:50 pm

My bike is 18.5lbs fully assembled with cyclocross tires. I don't know the bare frame weight.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

Post Reply