Talk:Bicycle fork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cycling Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Expansion

As of February 2006, this article could be expanded to cover a lot more about forks.

• relationship between threaded/threadless steerer and corresponding headset

Done AndrewDressel 01:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• materials

Done AndrewDressel 01:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• suspension types - different riding types, different travel - not just mountain; some cruisers have spring mechanisms
• manufacturers
• technical aspects - geometry as it relates to handling, aerodynamics
• other racing performance characteristics

I'm sure there are plenty of other things as well. --Christopherlin 06:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a brief comment at the end of the Offset section discussing the relationship between fork offset and geometric trail.Fbagatelleblack 20:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accurate mathematical models

"Contrary to the traditional diamond bicycle frame, for which the forces can be very accurately modeled mathematically, the more complex shape of the fork does not allow such precise calculations. Perhaps as a result, forks tend to fail more often than frames."

Is there any reference for this? Given the shapes of current all-carbon frames, and the state of Finite element analysis, I'd be very surprised to learn that forks are just too complex to model properly. Heck, they can model an entire car to analyze crumple zones. Besides, I've just seen a new Trek Madone involved in a crash with a car. The fork blades where fine, but the head tube of the frame was broken in half. AndrewDressel 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph that Gzuckier added on 18:48, 10 May 2005. Just about all carbon frames and many high-end metal frames all have fancy shapes now. I just don't believe the claim without a good reference. AndrewDressel 12:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's me! the author of the previous! Yeah, it may well be obsolete now in the days of them newfangled computer machines. It dates back to the aluminum bicycle project @ MIT in the early 70s which eventually gave birth to Klein, et al. I daresay finite element analysis has gone pretty far since then. thanks for the consideration of notifying/asking me. Gzuckier 15:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. In that context, I completely believe it. Where you involved in that project? AndrewDressel 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the early days in a Forrest Gump role. After the core group had worked out enough bugs to produce some very nice bikes, they opened it up to those of us who were not engineers and couldn't design a frame, but could hopefully copy somebody else's design. This is where the difficulty of fork design meme comes in, we were buying regular steel forks. I think somebody tried to make aluminum forks but they broke? Not sure. After I got a set of tubes cut to length and diameter, my aluminum welding skill never developed to the point where I felt it was worth even trying to assemble them. Worse, there was a lot of problems at the time with frames potato-chipping during heat treatment, and I figured that my sloppy welding would probably result in more heat stress and inevitable potato-chipping. Then after a while the design got updated, IIRC the dropouts were breaking (though they were built huge). Another example of the state of stress analysis in those days.... Anyway, I've been carrying this box of tubing around since then. Maybe someday I can make a set of wind chimes. Gzuckier 14:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)