Talk:Bicycle fork

Description of steerer angle

"The general rule is that a slacker head angle requires a fork with more offset, and small wheels require less offset than large wheels."

"slacker" is undefined jargon

S C Cheese (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15mm Thru axels

Lacking any reference to the 15mm Thru axels now widely avalible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.165.124 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

materials

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

May also be what holds the backwheel axle on mopeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon fiber and headless development history

Article could be expanded in these areas, e.g. who introduced or pioneered these areas. --MornMore (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium and steel coils interchanged in sentence?

The following sentence appears to be worded incorrectly: "Substituting steel coils for titanium coils in a design can decrease the weight of the design but leads to an increase in expense."

Should the wording be changed as follows? "Substituting titanium coils for steel coils in a design can decrease the weight of the design but leads to an increase in expense." Mecanoge (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bicycle fork. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]