Ash-Kennard Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) Does anyone remember a few years ago when Heatsink Steve brought out his 4 bolt booster? I remember FEA software was used to estimate the stresses in the system, why can't we get hold of anything like that for say, these new echo cranks and a pair of trial techs, or try alls, something that has been proven to be good? That way we could have a direct comparison under the same loadings, its the only fair way I can see this working, especially as the correct mechanical properties can be applied, and the designs can be taken directly from CAD. Or if tarty or someone who owns these cranks could draw up some dimensions and gives us an accurate material, could be done at home... Edited May 9, 2013 by Ash-Kennard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostrider88 Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 I remember FEA software was used to estimate the stresses in the system, why can't we get hold of anything like that for say, these new echo cranks and a pair of trial techs, or try alls, something that has been proven to be good? You mean like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamR28 Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Yeah that could be done, I have done it in the past for cranks. The software assumes a lot though, and f**k modelling all the parts on our site, haha. You mean like this? No units and no loading conditions = doesn't tell us much unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostrider88 Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) Yeah that could be done, I have done it in the past for cranks. The software assumes a lot though, and f**k modelling all the parts on our site, haha. No units and no loading conditions = doesn't tell us much unfortunately. No, but it could mean they are using some sort of software already If I remember right, they wanted to prove that these drilled cranks are almost identical to the old undrilled version in terms of strenght? Edited May 9, 2013 by ghostrider88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dngr2self Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Maybe yes, maybe no, the fact is noone here knows how that happened, but everyone thinks it´s because those cranks aren´t good. The fact that nobody knows was my point. Everyone's jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 How unlike Trials-Forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostrider88 Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 The fact that nobody knows was my point. Everyone's jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts. Settle down, I wasn´t stating otherwise.How unlike Trials-Forum. But when you try to fight against it, you are the worst lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dngr2self Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Settle down, I wasn´t stating otherwise. Why do I need to settle down? You really seem to be looking for an arguement today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostrider88 Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Why do I need to settle down? You really seem to be looking for an arguement today. So at first you insult me, than I agreed with you and you overreact as was arguing with you and now I´m the one looking for an arguement? How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamR28 Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 No, but it could mean they are using some sort of software already If I remember right, they wanted to prove that these drilled cranks are almost identical to the old undrilled version in terms of strenght? I see - I missed the point of your post there, sorry! The pics they posted don't prove anything, without units and loading conditions 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dngr2self Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 So at first you insult me, than I agreed with you and you overreact as was arguing with you and now I´m the one looking for an arguement? How so? I insulted you in a different thread, and the insult was based on your behaviour. As for me over reacting I think you'll find, if you read it back, I was also agreeing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash-Kennard Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 I remember FEA software was used to estimate the stresses in the system, why can't we get hold of anything like that for say, these new echo cranks and a pair of trial techs, or try alls, something that has been proven to be good? You mean like this? yeah something like that, but with useful output results, or all done on the same program with the same set up. also, just to clear this up quickly. I wasn't asking tarty to model all their products. What i was asking, was for manufacturers to start having standard forces and constraints, some decent meshes and a reasonably accurate computer analysis. all these companies will have most of their products drawn up in CAD i would have thought, not really too hard to them knock it through FEA. If the trials world wants to do things properly, that is the way to go, so customers have a vague idea of what will be strong enough for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostrider88 Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 I insulted you in a different thread, and the insult was based on your behaviour. As for me over reacting I think you'll find, if you read it back, I was also agreeing with you. My appologies, this really is planet bizzaria sometimes though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoox Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 The GU is their lightest spec bike. If you think you're worried about breaking light parts, why would you be buying the lightest bike that Deng produces? I don't think so, according to the Echo website: MARK II TI mod: 7.8kg GU 2013 mod: 8 kg Using these cranks seems silly when they still supply the bike wit a double-wall rear rim and the tires are not the lightest out there. IMO supplying these cranks as standard would only be logical with the MARK II TI build. So what I am saying is this: If I wanted the lightest possible bike I'd buy the MARK II TI, but then I'd be upset that the cranks could have been lighter (if they supplied the 2013 model). Yet, if I wanted something a bit sturdier, I might go for the GU model, and then I'd be moaning that the cranks are too weak. So basically the 2013 crank has ended up on the wrong bike, and it shouldn't even be called "2013 crank", they should really go back to having two product lines SL and TR, which was both simple and clear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Sorry for the late reply - my mistake about the weights, although I was thinking primarily about the 26" bike (my "over mods" bias shining through ). I'm not entirely convinced the weight for the GU 20" is correct, although we'll know soon enough once we've built them up. I don't really agree with your second point though - if you bought one of the two bikes specifically for the weight, and without consideration for anything else, you're doing it wrong (bearing in mind the two have fairly different specs, e.g. one being dual rim brake, the other being dual disc). The GU 20" bike is a 'Ti build' in the same way the Echo build is a 'Ti build', so putting the SL cranks on there makes sense in that way. The spec on the Echo site for their Echo bikes seems a little old now anyway (e.g. featuring the older TR stem rather than the latest model), so it's entirely possible future 'Ti' bikes they produce will feature them too. I don't really get your point about the naming of the TR/SL cranks in that these are SL cranks? The year is added to the end of them to clarify they're not the same as last year's SL cranks. Much like this thread title and spec lists on shop websites, it's not like it's confusing in any way. If anything, it helps people out more as it specifies exactly which product is being talked about. Ultimately though, they still are the SL cranks. The only person to just call them the "2013 crank" is you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.