More junk from the "unc" (RBR's Uncle Al)



M

Matt O'Toole

Guest
According RoadBikeRider's Uncle Al today:

"If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it eons
ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've never
thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I had a bike
with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig after only two
months. The fork was way light and it was good on rough pavement, but it
seemed like an accident waiting to happen."

Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical engineering
lesson? I don't have the requisite letters after my name to make him
listen.

Matt O.
 
Matt O'Toole wrote:
> According RoadBikeRider's Uncle Al today:
>
> "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it eons
> ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've never
> thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I had a bike
> with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig after only two
> months. The fork was way light and it was good on rough pavement, but it
> seemed like an accident waiting to happen."
>
> Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical engineering
> lesson? I don't have the requisite letters after my name to make him
> listen.


Yeah, where are the failures?

Cast aluminum forks did indeed have breakage from inclusions and air
voids. Pretty much everything after 1978 risks an epoxy bond failure
more than an aluminum failure and even those have proved rare.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
Matt O'Toole writes:

> "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it
> eons ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've
> never thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I
> had a bike with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig
> after only two months. The fork was way light and it was good on
> rough pavement, but it seemed like an accident waiting to happen."


> Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical
> engineering lesson? I don't have the requisite letters after my
> name to make him listen.


I agree on not riding aluminum forks, they being a springing element
of the frame and aluminum doesn't make a good spring nor does it have
a reasonable fatigue life in that function. However, aluminum or
metals in general do not get mushy with use. Some get more durable
from work "hardening" but the elastic modulus remains the same.

As I have often mentioned, in winter bicycle shops advanced sales of
bicycles and tires because the frames got mushy and the tires needed
aging. These myths belong in the trash can along with many other old
saws of bicycling.

Hardening is a misnomer unless the term hard is qualified. The yield
stress is increased in "hardening" but the springiness of the metal
remains unchanged. A high speed steel drill has essentially the same
elastic modulus as coat hanger wire of a DT spoke, the modulus coming
from iron, the principal component of the metal.

Jobst Brandt
 
On Feb 14, 5:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Matt O'Toole writes:
> > "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it
> > eons ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've
> > never thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I
> > had a bike with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig
> > after only two months. The fork was way light and it was good on
> > rough pavement, but it seemed like an accident waiting to happen."
> > Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical
> > engineering lesson?  I don't have the requisite letters after my
> > name to make him listen.

>
> I agree on not riding aluminum forks, they being a springing element
> of the frame and aluminum doesn't make a good spring nor does it have
> a reasonable fatigue life in that function.  However, aluminum or
> metals in general do not get mushy with use.  Some get more durable
> from work "hardening" but the elastic modulus remains the same.
>
> As I have often mentioned, in winter bicycle shops advanced sales of
> bicycles and tires because the frames got mushy and the tires needed
> aging.  These myths belong in the trash can along with many other old
> saws of bicycling.
>
> Hardening is a misnomer unless the term hard is qualified.  The yield
> stress is increased in "hardening" but the springiness of the metal
> remains unchanged.  A high speed steel drill has essentially the same
> elastic modulus as coat hanger wire of a DT spoke, the modulus coming
> from iron, the principal component of the metal.
>
> Jobst Brandt


which aluminum type gets more durable from use ? or does "some" in
your sentence exclude aluminum ?
 
Matt O'Toole wrote:
> According RoadBikeRider's Uncle Al today:
>
> "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it eons
> ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've never
> thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I had a bike
> with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig after only two
> months. The fork was way light and it was good on rough pavement, but it
> seemed like an accident waiting to happen."
>
> Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical engineering
> lesson? I don't have the requisite letters after my name to make him
> listen.
>
> Matt O.
>


does aluminum become more elastic over time? no.

can a fatigue cracked component just a few cycles from failure feel
mushy? yes, absolutely.

is an aluminum fork more prone to failure? not when undamaged and made
to a decent standard, no.

is an aluminum fork "rougher" to ride? usually, yes. like most other
aluminum bike tube, fork tubes are bigger and therefore stiffer. and
therefore correspondingly much less pleasant on the hands.

bottom line - if you want a reason to not ride one, it is the last one.
 
A Muzi wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>> According RoadBikeRider's Uncle Al today:
>>
>> "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it eons
>> ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've never
>> thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I had a bike
>> with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig after only two
>> months. The fork was way light and it was good on rough pavement, but it
>> seemed like an accident waiting to happen."
>>
>> Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical engineering
>> lesson? I don't have the requisite letters after my name to make him
>> listen.

>
> Yeah, where are the failures?
>
> Cast aluminum forks did indeed have breakage from inclusions and air
> voids. Pretty much everything after 1978 risks an epoxy bond failure
> more than an aluminum failure and even those have proved rare.


but few are cast. most of the ones i've seen are separate forged crowns
and epoxied drawn tube blades. that's a fairly reliable combo.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Matt O'Toole writes:
>
>> "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it
>> eons ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've
>> never thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I
>> had a bike with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig
>> after only two months. The fork was way light and it was good on
>> rough pavement, but it seemed like an accident waiting to happen."

>
>> Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical
>> engineering lesson? I don't have the requisite letters after my
>> name to make him listen.

>
> I agree on not riding aluminum forks, they being a springing element
> of the frame and aluminum doesn't make a good spring nor does it have
> a reasonable fatigue life in that function.


eh? aluminum frames are elastic and subject to all kinds of flex - how
is it that the great jobst brandt, fatigue expert extraordinaire,
doesn't seem to understand that wild speculation in one department is
negated by oversight in the other?


> However, aluminum or
> metals in general do not get mushy with use. Some get more durable
> from work "hardening" but the elastic modulus remains the same.


you are correct that elasticity remains the same, and that u.t.s can
increase from work hardening, but frames and forks are not subject to
work hardening in use. if you want to grasp at straws for property
changes, u.t.s can increase with age in aluminum systems because
precipitation hardening can continue at room temperature, but that's not
cold work.

and it's not "hardening" in quotes - the metal really does harden.
u.t.s increases in proportion as it does so.


>
> As I have often mentioned, in winter bicycle shops advanced sales of
> bicycles and tires because the frames got mushy and the tires needed
> aging. These myths belong in the trash can along with many other old
> saws of bicycling.


red herring.


>
> Hardening is a misnomer unless the term hard is qualified. The yield
> stress is increased in "hardening" but the springiness of the metal
> remains unchanged. A high speed steel drill has essentially the same
> elastic modulus as coat hanger wire of a DT spoke, the modulus coming
> from iron, the principal component of the metal.


it's true that the modulus for most steel alloys is pretty much the
same, but the "springiness" of the steel in terms of the deformation it
will withstand before onset of plasticity most definitely changes as a
material hardens.

you should go to a library and "refresh" your memory on the basics jobst.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 14, 5:31�pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Matt O'Toole writes:
>>> "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it
>>> eons ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've
>>> never thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I
>>> had a bike with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig
>>> after only two months. The fork was way light and it was good on
>>> rough pavement, but it seemed like an accident waiting to happen."
>>> Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical
>>> engineering lesson? �I don't have the requisite letters after my
>>> name to make him listen.

>> I agree on not riding aluminum forks, they being a springing element
>> of the frame and aluminum doesn't make a good spring nor does it have
>> a reasonable fatigue life in that function. �However, aluminum or
>> metals in general do not get mushy with use. �Some get more durable
>> from work "hardening" but the elastic modulus remains the same.
>>
>> As I have often mentioned, in winter bicycle shops advanced sales of
>> bicycles and tires because the frames got mushy and the tires needed
>> aging. �These myths belong in the trash can along with many other old
>> saws of bicycling.
>>
>> Hardening is a misnomer unless the term hard is qualified. �The yield
>> stress is increased in "hardening" but the springiness of the metal
>> remains unchanged. �A high speed steel drill has essentially the same
>> elastic modulus as coat hanger wire of a DT spoke, the modulus coming
>> from iron, the principal component of the metal.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt

>
> which aluminum type gets more durable from use ? or does "some" in
> your sentence exclude aluminum ?


he doesn't know - he's making stuff up. jobst is always foggy on the
details when it comes to materials.
 
On Feb 15, 7:45 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> > Matt O'Toole wrote:
> >> According RoadBikeRider's Uncle Al today:

>
> >> "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it eons
> >> ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've never
> >> thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I had a bike
> >> with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig after only two
> >> months. The fork was way light and it was good on rough pavement, but it
> >> seemed like an accident waiting to happen."

>
> >> Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical engineering
> >> lesson?  I don't have the requisite letters after my name to make him
> >> listen.

>
> > Yeah, where are the failures?

>
> > Cast aluminum forks did indeed have breakage from inclusions and air
> > voids.  Pretty much everything after 1978 risks an epoxy bond failure
> > more than an aluminum failure and even those have proved rare.

>
> but few are cast.  most of the ones i've seen are separate forged crowns
> and epoxied drawn tube blades.  that's a fairly reliable combo.


I'll second that; I've had a Tange Fusion aluminum fork on one of my
bikes for a long, long time, and many, many miles (I've all the
mileage recorded, but without looking it up, I can safely say "way
over fifteen thousand miles" [probably over 20k, but let's be
conservative].) I have kept the fork polished, but never painted, so
even the smallest signs of "danger" would be readily visible. Nothing,
so far.
 
>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>> According RoadBikeRider's Uncle Al today:
>>> "If you're riding on an aluminum fork you should have replaced it eons
>>> ago. Aluminum forks become mushy and flexible over time. I've never
>>> thought aluminum is a good choice for a fork. The only time I had a bike
>>> with one, I worried so much that I got rid of that rig after only two
>>> months. The fork was way light and it was good on rough pavement, but it
>>> seemed like an accident waiting to happen."
>>> Would someone please give this "authority" a brief mechanical
>>> engineering
>>> lesson? I don't have the requisite letters after my name to make him
>>> listen.


> A Muzi wrote:
>> Yeah, where are the failures?
>> Cast aluminum forks did indeed have breakage from inclusions and air
>> voids. Pretty much everything after 1978 risks an epoxy bond failure
>> more than an aluminum failure and even those have proved rare.


jim beam wrote:
> but few are cast. most of the ones i've seen are separate forged crowns
> and epoxied drawn tube blades. that's a fairly reliable combo.


Yes, we agree. I phrased that poorly.
The cast fork debacle long predates Vitus' '78 pressed-epoxied design
which was later copied by SR-Sakae and Kinesis, inter alia.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 

Similar threads