Gene Heskett <gene.hesk...@...> writes: snip... > But since I'm an old biker myself, I would never install a part like that on > my bike, I have first hand seen the results of a broken one. At about 45mph. > > At first we thought he would be in a wheelchair the rest of his life, but he > never made it from the bed to the wheelchair. That part needs more mass, > lots more. >
Thanks for your concern Gene. I can see you are advocating for the good here, so I am inclined to listen carefully. I would like to offer a few more facts about the part: My customer's trike is a tried an proven design that has undergone iterative improvements for decades. Here is the website: http://www.lightningmotorcycles.com/specs2.html You can see a shot of the original tripleT here: http://www.lightningmotorcycles.com/specs2.html This design is my remake of the original which consisted of a .75" thick flat plate 7075 without lightening pockets. The original design withstood a 35 mph head-on collision without cracking, even though the forks were bent back about 45 degrees. I know the guy who endured the crackup and he is just fine, and drives his "replacement" whenever he can. Now, I will grant you that shallow clamping area of the original design may have tolerated greater flex without causing metal fatigue in the part - and therefore the newer design may experience internal stresses that were never seen by the old design. In fact, I think this will be the case. So what would it take to make you willing to put such a part on your bike. Would you be willing to forgo the lightening pockets altogether? Thanks! Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
