Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Re: Softail frames

Started by Steve Blankenship · · Last activity · 2 posts · 438 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
19 April 2005
Last activity
19 April 2005
Original author
Steve Blankenship
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
438
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Do frames like the Castellano Fango
    http://www.castellanodesigns.com/fango.html

    and this Ibis
    http://www.totalbike.com/news/article/24/

    have a propensity to fail?

    There are other similar softail designs out there, notably the


    carbon-stayed

    Quoted message said:

    Cannondale Scalpel:
    http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/02/images/large/scal3000_02.jpg

    Thoughts?

    The Castellano looks a bit dicey to me, but Klein and Trek both have
    aluminum-based softail road bikes on the market this year, and there have
    been plenty of others in the past. Discovery has been using the design on
    their carbon team bikes in some of the spring classics, most notably Paris
    Roubaix. As for how failure-prone they are, it's likely a function of how
    much travel is built into the design. If you limit the travel sufficiently,
    there shouldn't be a big problem if properly designed and tested. After
    all, unsupported fork blades flex back and forth regularly, but you don't
    see too many people worrying about how failure prone they are. Ti, steel
    and carbon setups should be able to offer a bit more travel than aluminum
    and live to tell, but with a maximum of 10-12mm of axle movement like the
    road designs mentioned above, aluminum will probably be OK too.

    SB

  2. Quoted message said:

    much travel is built into the design. If you limit the travel
    sufficiently,
    there shouldn't be a big problem if properly designed and tested. After
    all, unsupported fork blades flex back and forth regularly, but you don't
    see too many people worrying about how failure prone they are.

    I don't think this is true. The flex one sees is more a function of
    headtube stiffness and the strength of the headtube/downtube junction.

    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.