Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Update on frame failure

Started by Chalo · · Last activity · 77 posts · 2,188 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
12 November 2004
Last activity
21 November 2004
Original author
Chalo
Posts
77
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,188
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 61–77 of 77
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In article <[email hidden]>,
    Peter <[email hidden]> wrote:

    [...]

    Quoted message said:

    I'm still curious about what caused Chalo's front wheel to
    lock up. The absence of any tire scuff marks on the downtube
    seems pretty conclusive in ruling out th possibility that
    the tire hit the tube while still turning. Any possibility
    that something jammed in the disk calipers? I could see
    a sudden wheel lockup having a similar effect on the frame as
    my dog impact, especially given the higher load on the bike.

    A wild-assed guess: while he was braking he hit a slick
    spot--moisture or a pebble, whatever. When the tire hit that spot two
    things happened: the wheel locked up because torque acting on it dropped
    off, and the frame unloaded for a moment. Once he reached the end of
    the slick spot the tire was already stopped, the brakes were locked, and
    the frame was again loaded very rapidly. If that happened, the wheel
    could move back (assuming the frame was flexible enough to do it) far
    enough to dent the tube, but not leave a scuff. After the dent, it
    folded.

    --
    B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net
    http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

  2. Phil Lee said:

    The tire would have been rotating somewhat, even if going at a slow
    rate. Any relative movement of the tire and downtube would have
    left some kind of mark. Tire marks on clearcoated paint usually
    leave a rubber streak that is easily rubbed off with some elbow
    grease. Chalo hasn't mentioned anything about marks directly, but
    he has responded to a comment concerning the lack of marks without
    mentioning the marks themselves.

    Quoted message said:

    If the tire wasn't moving and Chalo was, then the coefficient of
    friction would have gone from static to kinetic, and the wheel would
    have slid forward, away from the downtube.

    Quoted message said:

    I think a close-up of the downtube exterior and interior, and/or a
    cross-section of the downtube, would be really helpful.

    Take a look at the pictures yourself. Clicking on individual pictures
    gives enlargements.

    http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/FAIL-017.html

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  3. [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    Phil Lee said:

    The tire would have been rotating somewhat, even if going at a slow
    rate. Any relative movement of the tire and downtube would have
    left some kind of mark. Tire marks on clearcoated paint usually
    leave a rubber streak that is easily rubbed off with some elbow
    grease. Chalo hasn't mentioned anything about marks directly, but
    he has responded to a comment concerning the lack of marks without
    mentioning the marks themselves.

    Quoted message said:

    If the tire wasn't moving and Chalo was, then the coefficient of
    friction would have gone from static to kinetic, and the wheel would
    have slid forward, away from the downtube.

    Quoted message said:

    I think a close-up of the downtube exterior and interior, and/or a
    cross-section of the downtube, would be really helpful.

    Phil, I didn't see your post, so I'm responding to Jobst's followup.
    What I am getting at is that while the frame was collapsing, there can
    be relative motion between Chalo and the wheel without the wheel
    rotating or skidding on the pavement. Then when the tire contacts the
    downtube, there is almost no relative motion and thus no significant
    marking.

    But there may be another way to explain how the he could have went OTB
    without the tire hitting the downtube: when the frame started
    collapsing, the brake locked, and when the forces reached equilibrium
    again the bike had a different geometry that made it easier to go OTB.
    Also, since the brake was locked for an instant, the brake was then
    operating on static versus kinetic friction, and consequently the
    disc/wheel couldn't resume its rotation.

  4. Quoted message said:

    Phil, I didn't see your post, so I'm responding to Jobst's followup.
    What I am getting at is that while the frame was collapsing, there can
    be relative motion between Chalo and the wheel without the wheel
    rotating or skidding on the pavement. Then when the tire contacts the
    downtube, there is almost no relative motion and thus no significant
    marking.

    But there may be another way to explain how the he could have went OTB
    without the tire hitting the downtube: when the frame started
    collapsing, the brake locked, and when the forces reached equilibrium
    again the bike had a different geometry that made it easier to go OTB.
    Also, since the brake was locked for an instant, the brake was then
    operating on static versus kinetic friction, and consequently the
    disc/wheel couldn't resume its rotation.

    Yes, I see what you mean now.

    I don't think that the fork was bottomed out. It appears that about 50mm
    out of 80mm of travel of the fork was actually being used, judging by the
    grease ring on the stanchions. If Chalo was doing hard braking cycles, then
    maximum travel would have occurred during the tests. This might change some
    peoples' judgements.

    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training

  5. A Muzi said:

    ...
    I find myself frequently pointing out in my store that Michelin doesn't
    formulate policy for the French State Department....

    Corporations formulating government policy is common in a certain
    central North American country, however (and members of both major
    parties are guilty of allowing this).

    For what it is worth, the last Michelin tires I purchased had “Made in
    USA” imprinted on them.

    --
    Tom Sherman

  6. Jobst-

    I have been puzzling over this failure and I still think it could (place
    stress on could) be a combined load failure without wheel contact or a
    damaged tube. I spent some time in the garage crumpling beer cans (I had to
    empty them first). Using my drill press and a flat piece of wood on top of
    the can, I slowly applied an eccentric load. I can get a crack sort of noise
    and a horizontal fold similar to those in the photos. A beer can is much
    thinner walled of course and the down tube may act in some other way. I have
    considered a detailed analysis but I lack adequate information. My
    calculated buckling stress is a high number - probably higher than the
    proportional limit. Here is what I did:

    *******************************************************

    A 1st rough analysis in an effort to quantify failure parameters. I have
    guessed or approximated many of the variables - maybe someone would like to
    refine them. Maybe somebody out there has done FEM analysis or frame testing
    and can offer an opinion on possible magnitude of frame forces and frame
    bending moments.

    Maybe this is junk science and should go to the wastebasket. If so, please
    put it there.

    Anyone who is so inclined is free to check and correct my assumptions,
    algebra, math, etc.

    I assume that the tire did not contact the tube and that there was no
    earlier damage to the tube (no dent).

    Variables (guesses at best):
    d = 1.75 in = diameter of down tube at failure
    r = radius = d/2 = 0.875 in (smaller if oval tube)
    t = 0.04 in = thickness of down tube at failure (WAG)
    E = 10,000,000 psi = Modulus of elasticity

    Section properties based on round tube:
    A = Cross-sectional area of tube = Pi[r^2-(r-t)^2] = 0.21 in^2
    I = Tube moment of inertia = pi*[d^4-(d-2*t)^4]/64 = 0.079 in^4

    Stress limits:
    Scr = Elastic critical stress = 0.3*E*t/r = 137,000 psi. (see note)
    Sy = 40,000 psi = yield stress (WAG)

    Solve for required axial force and end moment (eccentricity of axial force)
    for failure:

    S = stress = P/a + P*e*r/I
    Where e is the eccentricity of the applied compressive force.

    Solving for e:
    e = (S-P/A)*(I/P*r)
    M = P*e = end moment

    To get a feel for magnitude of force and eccentricity. Try an axial force on
    the tube of p = 3000 lbs and a limiting stress of S = 40,000 psi (yield?)

    e = (40,000 - 3000/0.21) * 0.079/(2000 * 0.875) = 1.2 in

    An axial force of 3000 lbs doesn't seem unlikely to me. The bike and rider
    together weigh something over 400 lbs and the fork acts like a lever during
    braking applying a compressive force to the down tube and a tension force to
    the top tube. The frame is an indeterminate structure and I will leave its
    analysis to others. An end moment equivalent to a 1.2 inch (less than a
    diameter) eccentricity doesn't seem excessive either. However, The bending
    moments in the tube are more complex and there may be inflection points.

    Note:
    Critical buckling stress (Roark & Young 5th ed. Table 35 case 14) Scr =
    0.3*E*t/r where r is the radius of the tube at the location being
    investigated. Method suggested by R&Y is based on failures occurring at ~
    50% of theoretical critical stress. This could easily be off by 25%. The
    high result indicates that elastic buckling was not likely. As the
    proportional limit is exceeded the material stiffness drops off (tangent
    modulus) and the tube will probably buckle at a lower stress.

  7. Dan B? said:

    I have been puzzling over this failure and I still think it could
    (place stress on could) be a combined load failure without wheel
    contact or a damaged tube. I spent some time in the garage crumpling
    beer cans (I had to empty them first). Using my drill press and a
    flat piece of wood on top of the can, I slowly applied an eccentric
    load. I can get a crack sort of noise and a horizontal fold similar
    to those in the photos. A beer can is much thinner walled of course
    and the down tube may act in some other way. I have considered a
    detailed analysis but I lack adequate information. My calculated
    buckling stress is a high number - probably higher than the
    proportional limit. Here is what I did:

    Quoted message said:

    ********************************************************************

    Quoted message said:

    A first rough analysis in an effort to quantify failure parameters.
    I guessed or approximated many of the variables - maybe someone
    would like to refine them. Maybe somebody out there has done FEM
    analysis or frame testing and can offer an opinion on possible
    magnitude of frame forces and frame bending moments.

    Quoted message said:

    Maybe this is junk science and should go to the wastebasket. If so,
    please put it there.

    Quoted message said:

    Anyone who is so inclined is free to check and correct my
    assumptions, algebra, math, etc.

    Quoted message said:

    I assume that the tire did not contact the tube and that there was
    no earlier damage to the tube (no dent).

    Quoted message said:

    ...

    None of this explains why Chalo went over the bars and why the bicycle
    was deemed unridable from so minor a blemish. My assessment of the
    ding in the tube was merely to point out that it wasn't instrumental
    in the crash. Determining it's origin is another story and I doubt
    that we will find the answer here. After reading Chalo's previous
    cogent contributions to this newsgroup, I didn't expect to be
    confronted by this problem statement, either what caused the blemish
    or what unseated the rider.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  8. Quoted message said:


    None of this explains why Chalo went over the bars and why the bicycle
    was deemed unridable from so minor a blemish. My assessment of the
    ding in the tube was merely to point out that it wasn't instrumental
    in the crash.

    Blemish? The tube is buckled and bent. The curvature that is
    apparent to everybody else seems to have eluded your notice even after
    it was pointed out to you. The pictured crease is not a "ding"; bear
    in mind that the tube is about 1.75" in diameter at that point.

    Quoted message said:

    Determining it's origin is another story and I doubt
    that we will find the answer here. After reading Chalo's previous
    cogent contributions to this newsgroup, I didn't expect to be
    confronted by this problem statement, either what caused the blemish
    or what unseated the rider.

    At this point I have to guess you are just being dense. I braked
    hard; the downtube buckled as I was braking hard, making a "crack"
    sound in the process; and I was tossed over the bars. The bike was
    undamaged before this episode. I did not jam a shoe against the
    downtube as I fell-- I was wearing cloth slippers.

    I am unsure whether a simple compression overload buckled the tube by
    itself, or whether it was helped by a push from the front tire. But
    it did fail under a braking load, and that fact is not open for
    dispute. It all happened quite quickly, but I know what caused the
    frame failure was an unprecedentedly high braking force, made possible
    by the new metallic disc pads I had installed minutes earlier.

    Having bent more forks than I can remember under braking forces alone,
    _without_ crashing as a result, I can assure you that I did not
    ragdoll over the bars for lack of holding myself back.

    It's OK for you to admit you don't understand the circumstances or the
    nature of the failure, but accusing me of lying about what happened is
    baseless and pretty mean-spirited to boot. I presented my account and
    pictures because it seemed to be of interest here, not because I was
    trying to make a case of it.

    Chalo Colina

  9. Chalo-

    The simplist scenario is the most probable. This simple scenario is the one
    I am trying to put together. We will never know exactly what happend but it
    is an interesting problem to ponder.

    One scenario might be: You increased braking power until you started over
    the bars. As your body and the bike rise up, your center of gravity moves
    over the front wheel increasing the rearward load on the front wheel (there
    is also an interial force as you rise up but it may not be significant). The
    downtube overstresses and buckles. You crash.

    Another might be: You increased braking power until the down tube
    over-stressed and buckled. The geometry of the bike changes (it has
    partially recovered elastically). Your response may have been to tighten up
    on the brakes. You and the bike go unstable and crash. Maybe you did not
    exactly go over the bars.

    What was your body position? were you seated and upright? Down low and
    scooted back over the seat? Arms straight or bent?

    Did you and the bike actually go over the bars (what we picture here is your
    body and the back of the bike rising up and rotating over the front wheel)
    or did you lose control, let go of the bars and pitch forward to the ground?

    Do you think the tube failure happened before you started over the bars or
    after.

    How steep was the hill?

  10. Chalo Colina said:
    Quoted message said:

    None of this explains why Chalo went over the bars and why the
    bicycle was deemed unridable from so minor a blemish. My
    assessment of the ding in the tube was merely to point out that it
    wasn't instrumental in the crash.

    Quoted message said:

    Blemish? The tube is buckled and bent. The curvature that is
    apparent to everybody else seems to have eluded your notice even
    after it was pointed out to you. The pictured crease is not a
    "ding"; bear in mind that the tube is about 1.75" in diameter at
    that point.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Determining it's origin is another story and I doubt that we will
    find the answer here. After reading Chalo's previous cogent
    contributions to this newsgroup, I didn't expect to be confronted
    by this problem statement, either what caused the blemish or what
    unseated the rider.

    Quoted message said:

    At this point I have to guess you are just being dense. I braked
    hard; the downtube buckled as I was braking hard, making a "crack"
    sound in the process; and I was tossed over the bars. The bike was
    undamaged before this episode. I did not jam a shoe against the
    downtube as I fell-- I was wearing cloth slippers.

    There is no explanation for the dismount contained in what you have
    presented. As you see, no one has yet come up with an answer, one
    that had you recalled what occurred, you could give us. The sound you
    report doesn't clarify that either. If you read what I wrote, you
    should notice that I don't dispute that the tube is no longer straight
    or that it is undamaged in strength.

    What does not appear here is that once kinked, a tube has
    substantially lower bending strength and that, with an overload on the
    front end of the bicycle, this is an unstable condition that would
    have collapsed the tube. If the damage was caused by a braking
    overload, that load did not subside instantaneously when the tube
    kinked. We should see something

    more than a slightly bent tube that
    requires careful inspection to see that it is no longer straight.

    Quoted message said:

    I am unsure whether a simple compression overload buckled the tube
    by itself, or whether it was helped by a push from the front tire.
    But it did fail under a braking load, and that fact is not open for
    dispute. It all happened quite quickly, but I know what caused the
    frame failure was an unprecedentedly high braking force, made
    possible by the new metallic disc pads I had installed minutes
    earlier.

    I think there are enough people who have pointed out that the front
    tire cannot make contact with the downtube in the bicycle in question.
    As you may recall, I was the one who suggested that before seeing a
    picture of the bicycle.

    Quoted message said:

    Having bent more forks than I can remember under braking forces
    alone, _without_ crashing as a result, I can assure you that I did
    not ragdoll over the bars for lack of holding myself back.

    OK. So how do you explain the endo?

    Quoted message said:

    It's OK for you to admit you don't understand the circumstances or
    the nature of the failure, but accusing me of lying about what
    happened is baseless and pretty mean-spirited to boot. I presented
    my account and pictures because it seemed to be of interest here,
    not because I was trying to make a case of it.

    You are grasping at straws. Please show where I accuse you of lying
    if you believe I said that.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  11. Could the "crack" noise be the front brake caliper cracking? This
    could cause the front wheel to lock up. Maybe it was the rear brake
    caliper cracking. I had a similar problem with a sturmey archer drum
    brake on the front of one of my experimental bikes. The brake part
    that held the two brake shoes had broken in half. This caused the
    brake to lock up. Springs inside the brake caliper could keep the
    broken part together while hiding the crack. I hope to see you at the
    Bike Swap Meet on February 20. The Deadbabies have secret meetings
    that seem to be too rowdy and drunk for me. You need to build your own
    bike frames like I do. This is what you deserve for riding a stupid
    factory bike when you have what it takes build your own bike frame.

  12. Quoted message said:


    Chalo said:


    It's OK for you to admit you don't understand the circumstances or
    the nature of the failure, but accusing me of lying about what
    happened is baseless and pretty mean-spirited to boot. I presented
    my account and pictures because it seemed to be of interest here,
    not because I was trying to make a case of it.

    You are grasping at straws. Please show where I accuse you of lying
    if you believe I said that.

    OK, first, I apologize to you if I misunderstood what you were saying.
    Here is my understanding of your assertions:

    "As I look at this picture it strikes me as not a compression failure
    from loading or braking. From what I can see this is a ding in the
    tube caused by a foreign object... This ding probably occurred on
    loading the bicycle in or on a car."

    "Bending tubes do not make a cracking sound or even a clunk. What you
    heard was something striking the downtube but I have no idea why that
    would cause an end-over."

    "...the blemish in the tube is a rounded dent made by some object that
    has such a shape. That the paint is so clean and not crazed makes
    this a mystery because the dent would have to be from a piece of
    plastic or wood to not cause a blemish in the paint."

    "My assessment of the ding in the tube was merely to point out that it
    wasn't instrumental in the crash. Determining it's origin is another
    story and I doubt that we will find the answer here. ***After reading
    Chalo's previous cogent contributions to this newsgroup, I didn't
    expect to be confronted by this problem statement,*** either what
    caused the blemish or what unseated the rider." (emphasis added)

    This last I interpreted to mean that you believed I was not
    representing the events honestly. I have no problem with you
    believing and/or claiming that I am mistaken (in fact I hope to be
    mistaken about what you were saying here), but I will take issue with
    anybody's assertion that I'm claiming circumstances that differ from
    what actually occurred.

    Chalo Colina

  13. I wonder where the tire hits the downtube if the front wheel is turned around 180 degrees and the fork is compressed

  14. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    This last I interpreted to mean that you believed I was not
    representing the events honestly. I have no problem with you
    believing and/or claiming that I am mistaken (in fact I hope to be
    mistaken about what you were saying here), but I will take issue with
    anybody's assertion that I'm claiming circumstances that differ from
    what actually occurred.

    Chalo Colina


    Chalo, I believe Jobst was questioning your observations and conclusions,
    not your sincerity or integrity.

  15. An unopposed force DOWNWARD on the bars--which could happen when the
    bike is inverted and the headtube is not supported by the front wheel
    as usual--could apply tremendous bending forces to the downtube in the
    proper direction to produce a buckle mid-span on the font side, just
    where we see it.

    This could have happened in the crash, especially if the rider's mass
    was contributing.

    The slight downward bend in the top tube, which has been reported, is
    also consistent with this explanation.

    -Pete

  16. Chalo said:

    Just before the bike stopped and pitched me off, there was a "crack"
    sound. I am fairly certain that the sound came from the downtube as
    it buckled, since it was clearly not the "clunk" that forks make when
    the bottom out or the "ping" that frames make when they are struck
    with a hard object.

    The buckling downtube theory sounds reasonable. I can think of other
    possibilities that might have contributed to your unfortunate downfall.

    Do you still have the front end of the bike? The fork, front wheel,
    brakes, etc? Is there a chance that something else may have broken,
    causing the cracking noise and also causing the front wheel to lock up?
    I can imagine a front axle cracking, the front wheel getting jammed
    against the fork, and pitching you OTB (and buckling the frame in the
    process) in one nice little motion. I'm sure there are other possible
    explanations along similar lines, and that's why I'm asking if you still
    have the front end of the bicycle available for inspection.

    --
    Dave
    dvt at psu dot edu

  17. I'm late to this discussion and just saw the picture. Was the front disc brake
    an original part of the bike? It looks like it may have been the additional
    torque/strength/force of the disc front brake that 'may' have caused the
    downtube to fail like it did.

    Maybe somebody that can spell physics can desribe the forces involved out at
    the end of the fork as opposed to a rim brake(?), or amybe I am all wet...just
    a thought.

    Peter Chisholm
    Vecchio's Bicicletteria
    1833 Pearl St.
    Boulder, CO, 80302
    (303)440-3535
    http://www.vecchios.com
    "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

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.