andyroo

You silly billy

Thats cheating

I didnt say the driving was realistic, you did. PGR2 has better graphics by a long way, and the analogue button move about 3 mm making them pretty crappy at pressure sensing. PGR2 has the added bonus of xbox live enabling, meaning the game never ends. you can download new tracks and cars for it as they are made. ive had all GT's up to 3, but for pure graphics and gameplay, it didnt match up to PGR2. But anyway, its only an opinion, and you know im right (Y)

Mango is the best fruit in the world! Non fibrous obviously... Grapes are a close second

I thought the same till i played PGR2. i hated the xbox, thought it was a crap microsoft gimmick, and i played it round my mates house and it was awesome! Similar car handling, but you have more control over the car, with progressive acceleration, and you can get the cars to wheelspin and other silly things that you cant do with the cars in the GT series. But hey, since you know what its like to actually race those cars, you should know how realistic the game is (Y)

Let it be said that that Project Gotham Racing 2 kicks GT4's butt big time. Amen

Yoda's only Kermit's great great grandaddy, how can he beat up an angry old man who is armed with a walking stick? It wouldnt happen Albus Dumbledor could 'have em both

Gandalf, blatently, because he can keep his whites white, he has a big stick, and is probably naked under that big dressing gown, so he has the element of surprise

Argh i hate it when you have to hang off the edge of the chair closest to the aisle because the person on the window seat takes up one and half seats... Surely it gets a bit windy up on that court? Ruining gameplay, and possibly people too as they get blown off

What scares me is the fact that theres not an awful lot there to stop you falling off

Oh yeah... :"> well hopefully the second diagram is better, i'll remove the first to avoid confusion...

One good picture is better than twenty crap ones (not saying the ones on Viz are crap) and also gives you the benefit of quick loading times. The idea on tartybikes of showing a small pic, which can be enlarged to a larger detailed pic is better than instantly having five large pics which could be a 56kers worst nightmare

No, it was the only pic i could find that indicates the correct positioning of the speakers around you to get the best surround effect. theres a decent pic in the sony catalogue, but i dont have a camera or anything. The speakers arent tipped back anyway, its perspective And the height of the speakers wants to be when the tweeters are level with your ears. And it means worst like 5.1 is the worst and 7.1 is the best

The positioning is fine, make sure, the front speakers are the same distance away from you, as with the rear. Rotate them, so if the sound was drawing a line through the air, lines would cross just in front of you for the front speakers and for the rear. Centre speaker directly under the tv, and your sorted! Sub somewhere off to the side, out of the way, on the floor. Andy

Jims always right - always

Especially if they dont take the time to design them with safety factors. I think weve poo pooed these forks enough now! Oh well...

Does the alu have a much lower elastic limit than steel then? So that steel can flex a lot more and return to its original shape without effect before actually becoming plastic? EDIT: Using Ads website, I answer my own question by saying yes, steel is a lot more flexable than alu, by a considerable amount! (4 times)

The most force on the steerer will be that adjacent to it. If you really want to, you could use the live load factor for structures (which is the same whatever material you use in a structure) of 1.6. What your saying is that if i measured the force of someone punching me in the face, that force would cover the amount of force if someone poked me in the eye, because it is a lot greater. So when the force is coming at 90 degrees to the steerer, that will be the position that will have the most affect on the steerer, and will cover the smaller forces applied in other directions (like braking). I said before the max force would be simple to work out with mechanics (time to dig out those old A level books when i get home) using speed, weight and the formula for a collision against a still object. this will give you the force acting onto the object at the point of collision, which is equal to the force acting on the steerer. The only reason you use a steel bond over all alu, is to make the forks stiffer, but still not too heavy, like you said, so you need to make sure the bond is strong enough to make the extra stiffness created by the steel steerer worth it. Although civils do eat a lot of cakes, they dont build them. We do infrastructure ie roads and drainage

Don't. Get some nitromors, take all the paint off, (only nitromors and a toothbrush needed, no sanding) and you will find that the forks have a brushed effect similar to that of your frame already on the metal. (quality you see) Just laquer it up for a really professional look. I done with a mate on his fatties, and they look awesome, match his pitbull frame perfectly. Saving you lots of money you could get a decent frame with (Y)

I am a civil engineer, civils dont build structures, structural engineers do. And the 1.4 factor for dead loads is taken from the BS handbook in the section for structural engineering with steel. Im not saying a bike is subject to dead loads, its just a used factor for safety. The point I am getting at, is if you really want to make a stiffer fork using a bonded steerer, it would be safer to apply an increasing force adjacent to the forks on the legs with the steerer clamped in place, so at least then you can say "Aha, the bonded steerer will withstand a direct force of however much, meaning trials riders who only exert so much force will not be able to break the bond." And then I was saying it would be a better pay off, to design the forks to withstand an adjacent force of a factor of the max force a trials rider could put on the steerer, thus eliminating all this hoo haa about the strength of the bonded steerer, meaning quicker release and quicker return in profit.

im talking about the force on the steerer here- disk mount and rim brake mounts have ben tryed and tested to get strength, but the bond seems to be the big problem on these forks, and im talking about testing that. Any splay in the legs caused by braking will have little effect on the steere bond, and would be taken into account by a safty margin of 1.4 anyway. (1.4 because thats what the britich standards use for dead loads on beams and columns, and if its good enough for them, its good enough for me)

The only forces that will affect the steerer bond are the ones adjacent to it. And for the forces on the forks applied by the rider, you use a worse case scenario, taking the speed the bike approaches something, the mass of rider and bike, then you can work out the force applied onto the forks by the surface pushing against them. and then times it all by 1.4 just to be safe! that should be the greatest force the the forks would need to take, and then you can test the forks, by applying that amount of force on them, and seeing if they stand up to it. Not oo difficult with a company with a budget for r+d

Are your forks actually painted silvery white? It doesnt look like the bare metal showing

But the forks will only fatigue and get stressed if they are taken passed their elastic limit, which can also be found out using the method i was talking about in my previous post. Its a much quicker, safer way of testing the forks limits, and knowing them for sure. applying an increasing pressure would suficently test the strength of the forks.