Shaun H

That's too much of an open ended question really. A frame could be really well designed but use a poor quality/poor performance material that means it is weak or fatigues quickly. On the other hand a frame could be designed quite badly but use a quality, high performance material that means it is strong and can last. However if a company gets both right, a good design with a great material, then it can be very strong and potentially (material dependent) last a long time too. If I were to generalise (although like I explained it's massively open ended in truth) then I'd say any frame under 1.8-1.9 kg risks being "weak" and/or having short fatigue "life".

Because joining the two different materials requires extra strength at the join which in turn increases weight. Plus you can use pretty thin alloy for the shell of the hub so using CRP isn't going to help a great deal with weight.

Well that's the end of that then...

If my thumb stops aching so god damn much I'll be there.

The deal is, for most people, wank. It's ONLY for 122.5mm BBs and 165mm cranks. So it will only be of use to you if you ride mod and don't need much clearance from the frame and/or Magura slaves. Pretty small group of people I should think with most running 47mm rear rims. EDIT: I'd better point out that if the deal does work for you it's pretty stonking. Don't want to look too much of a hater

Nice one Chris, some interesting lines!

It's the anti-lag system dumping wads of fuel into the manifold to maintain turbine pressure. f**ks the turbo up but if you've got the budget to replace it frequently (which back then they did) then why the hell not!?

What he said. I "didn't" get Solidworks 64 bit AutoCAD Windows XP 64 bit Windows 7 Office 2007 and if I did they definitely "don't" work.

Well that could have gone better, somewhere between explaining how I felt and saying I wanted to see her in person she got the impression I was breaking up with her on the phone (I'll point out at this point that I'm certainly not the sort of coward who does that). I was already very upset trying to explain myself which probably didn't help with the misunderstanding but hearing her literally breaking down over the phone is the most horrible, heart wrenching thing I have ever been through, in fact I'm starting to cry again now just thinking about it. I certainly don't think it's resolved but the conversation ended with us both relatively content. She said it was fine to sometimes feel like I did but I don't know if I'd agree, I was so drained at this point though I didn't argue. The bit in bold I think might be true, certainly subconsciously... The MOT bit though, she'd already done all that, she was speaking to me later after it'd all been finalised the silly cow. I'd definitely call her my best friend though (when I'm not feeling as I've described earlier that is )

I'm not sure if I'm 100% happy in my relationship anymore. I just can't even begin to think about it all though. I've been with her 4 years, since I was 16... I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place. For the past couple of weeks or so I keep swinging between feeling like I really want to be with her to not wanting to even bother talking to her on the phone. We recently fell out over the phone because she was a bellend with her car's MOT and paid a garage £300 to do corroded brake lines and sort a loose brake pad whereas my Dad who does garage work on Saturdays to fund his race car would have probably done it for less than half that! Anyway I had to go to ride and she got in a big mood, text me after saying "thanks for making me feel even worse!" and since then I've barely text her back. Had to text her earlier to tell her she needs to drop off my parents' SatNav she borrowed urgently as my Dad needed it tomorrow morning. She text me later saying "so not urgent enough to call me for then?" but I was going riding so just ignored it. Had about 30-40 missed calls maybe. I just can't be bothered to go through the massive make up conversation. I don't have the energy for it and most worryingly I don't have the motivation for it...

Well you can already get wireless battery chargers for phones, iPods, GameBoys etc and there's some exciting wireless research going on for use with appliances. The big problem is the efficiency of the transfer as the distance increases. As said above, my avatar is the seagulls from Finding Nemo. Had the same avatar for at least 2 years and thought now was a good time to change!

Being able to draw very well is a useful skill in pure aesthetical design however an understanding of the mechanics of the forces in trials and the stresses through components/frames/forks is going to be more important in designing a good product (although a product that looks very good but might be worse may actually sell well! Such is the fickle mindset of many markets). You should be drawing inspiration from what's already out there, what exists in other markets (XC, DH etc) to come up with your own unique idea. Then you can begin research into materials and components to see they can work with/around your idea. Of course this being design and so open ended the process is sometimes completely reversed! But if I had no clue about trials that's how I'd go about it. I imagine you're aware of 3D CAD programs such as SolidWorks, AutoCAD etc. These are useful tools if you know how to use them. Some components are very difficult to model efficiently in CAD (i.e. it may be "easy" but your model can be too complex to allow proper analysis if you don't know how to model properly) I would say ideally yes, you should be well versed in mechanics of objects to be able to create a market leading trials product. Such emphasis is on weight and strength now, a designer must know how to get the most out of their designs, materials and manufacturing methods.

Won't be commercially viable for at least 20 years if ever though. Certainly won't cover our energy needs for the future. I'd put all my money into fusion technology and wireless energy transmission for orbital solar power generation. Massive potential for clean, cheap and high yield energy.

Nah I've thought that before. A nice light woman that you could lift off the floor with an upper cut. Yes yes yes...

Or not enough on your part.

Yeah you're right, I can't see any energy being lost in the transfer of oil from it's source to my car

About 1/3 of that was really good, the rest I thought was a bit rubbish

Yeah I'd love to miss a sidehop with that design

I agree, but you can't say that it will ever equal 26" diversity

TGS 24 Many people will say they would buy one since it's not been done before but since there isn't the same sort of component support as there is with stock bikes I think it would struggle to become a popular option. Lightweight high E.P. hub I personally wouldn't go near this unless it had been through extensive physical model prototype testing. Also of note; although FEA is a useful design refinement tool it isn't the be all and end all. Plus the majority of CAD jockeys don't really understand stress analysis. Do you mind telling us what qualifies you in mechanical design? Price of hub An irrelevant question at this stage. Without knowing further details of the hub it's impossible to place a value on it. However if you could match Hope's quality and reliability I can see the hub going for around £200+ Any higher and people are likely to revert to the trusted CK hubs instead. Chain-removal without breaking Noone would buy a frame which makes massive compromises for the facilitation of a solution which solves a problem that doesn't trouble trials riders very often if ever. So unless you've got something groundbreaking I'd shelve the idea. BB rise You've asked riders of all bike sizes, riding styles and riding types. Go back and think about what you really want to know.

That's what he was getting at

Not much at all.

He was talking about using the rotor on a DH bike smartass. Even so, what do you think happens to the kinetic energy that trials brakes convert. Every man and his dog knows that energy can't be created or destroyed nowadays. What I imagine happens in trials is that our bodies convert most of the energy whilst the brakes only convert the wheels rotational energy and provide a locked platform. EDIT: changed absorb to convert as it's a more accurate description of the process

The point of brakes is to convert kinetic energy into thermal energy which is then dissipated into the ambient air. If they are crap conductors of heat as you say, a DH bike is the last place I'd put them!

What!? So it's (apparently!?) going to be no good for road, but is designed for track so shouldn't have gears or brakes? If it's designed for track (which it isn't btw) of course it's going to be no good for road! Would you mind rephrasing that so it doesn't sound like you're arguing against yourself in case I've missed your point? Anyway it looks in this case as if the use of disc brakes has been an aerodynamic consideration. Obviously standard disc brakes are far too heavy and would negate the aero advantage, therefore the company producing this has come up with a system as light as possible by incorporating carbon rotors. I imagine this is a time trial bike from the spec/setup so the brakes would probably be used even less than on a road bike (which is very rarely if you can read the road right).