Shaun H

Loving the handle with care tape

That's the shittest prank I have ever heard! Making a mess does not constitute a pranking Give 'em hell dude

You used to be able to modulate with X on PS2 controllers. It was one of the reasons my mate used to occasionally beat me on GT3, he would never let me use the Sony controller and always gave me the shitty aftermarket one!

Can't believe no one has mentioned Trashzen yet!

I think we've all heard that one before Obviously it's difficult for us to give advice if you can't tell us what it is you've upset her with. I'd suggest making sure you're there for her if she wants and being VERY careful about pushing the issue. I think it may be Skoze who is best experienced in dealing with a missus who doesn't want to talk about something difficult? Either way like he said, we're all friends here, we'll be able to help better knowing the whole situation.

If you're weight inclined it may be worth noting white parts will be slightly heavier since they have to be painted rather than being anodised.

If you look at the equations for second moment of area for a beam you'll find the general formula: So looking at a booster, making it taller has a much bigger effect of making it deeper although it is important to point out that is theoretically!

To generalise, the deeper and taller a booster's cross section is, the stiffer it will be. Stiffness is a function of a materials' modulus of elasticity E, and the geometry's second moment of area I. Since boosters require stiffness driven design, out of the two popular 6061 and 7075 alloys, 6061 tends to be used since there isn't a large difference in their moduli (6061 about 69 and 7075 about 72) and 6061 is a bit lighter and is cheaper. I sort of agree with Adam that you don't necessarily want the extra stiffness offered by heavier boosters since increasing the cross section of a booster (and increasing weight) won't return a similar increase in stiffness for some dimensions. Increasing the width of a booster's cross-section is the most efficient way of increasing stiffness however there's little scope to do this when working around rims, tyres, brakes etc. Failing that increasing the booster depth increases stiffness but this also considerably increases cost, since a larger amount of material has to be machined away in the webbing (pockets), hence, some boosters sticking with a thinner shape and simple, minimal machine operation profiles that (should) make for a cheaper product. EDIT: In answer to your question, the Tensile booster is the stiffest one I have ever used, however I found it couldn't be run with unworn brake pads.

Anyone want to send me one to cut up and stick on the Uni tensile tester?

Looks well interesting! I quite like engineering that really benefits people's lives, big responsibility in it too.

Where's that at then?

If you know anyone with access to a lathe get them to turn the mashed threads off for you. I did the same for a V!Z BB which I put into a frame that I didn't realise had wonky threads.

If it wasn't for numerous mechanical failures Vettel would have walked it this year. Still, I'm a bit disappointed Webber didn't make it his year but at least Alonso didn't win!

I've been with my missus over 5 years, the past 3 have been spent living about 50 miles apart!

So much power AND precision. Impressive.

I was trying to give you the thought process to decide for yourself. It's pretty unlikely that someone here will have designed a rickshaw before and even less likely that they're going to be able to give you tubing specifications. To rephrase what I was originally trying to get through; If you believe you are limited to just those 2 alloys, then you need to compare all their properties. You are correct, it is obvious a rickshaw needs strength and stiffness, but which is more important for your application? Does the rickshaw need to last a long time, if so you need to consider corrosion and fatigue limits. Is one considerably more expensive than the other? Is one more difficult to work with? If you aren't familiar with these kind of design processes and you can't find some one with experience, then I'd advise you play it safe and use tubing around twice the thickness of standard cycle tubing.

Well depending on whether or not you can get comprehensive property data then you should be considering what you need from the material. Strength? (Yield stress) Stiffness? Endurance limit? (Fatigue strength) Corrosion resistance? Cost? It's down to you the designer to decide on which properties are most important in the application. I'm not familiar with either alloys so I can't give you my thoughts, even so it should be your own decision as it's yourself (and maybe your friend?) that need to decide on the specification. Square tubes are probably used in most rickshaws since it is easier to work with than round tubes and therefore cheaper in labor (could also use cheaper mitre equipment). EDIT: Although I should add, square and round tubes have different mechanical properties which will also impact on the design.

Anyone else been loving Webber's response to Deitrich and Helmut being massive bellends?

Do you honestly think that's going to happen?

It's a full carbon fibre downhill frame. As such there will be a very small number of them produced at a very high cost per unit. If CF stuff didn't have such a stigma attached to it I'm sure it'd be more popular and therefore cheaper.

Looks like we're going somewhere else now

Like this? I'm pretty sure you already have a photo of a certain Limey breaking Mike?

It would make carbon fibre even more amazing but, even better, more isotropic! (CFRP analysis is the current bane of my life )

Really liked that Ben

Precision angle grinding engineering?