Musk explains why Steel is the best material to work with for any engineering project, where strength, lightness, durability, reliability and reusability is required.Carbon fibre was discarded early on, aluminium too.In Musk's own words >'We went from 120 ply to a single ply, $130 a kg to $4 a kg and had a vehicle that had the same strength, was lighter, can be reused and has practically zero chance of catastrophic failure'https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1798937746624631249The titan sub disaster forced Space X too look again at Carbon fibre, and they soon discovered that the risks far outweigh any benefits, and many of the claimed benefits turned out to be simply untrue. Steel beat Carbon Fibre hands down on every metric they looked at. >''Carbon Fibre is great for single use applications, but even then it comes with massive fundamental risks, any tiny flaw in the weave, an air bubble for example, can cascade into catastrophic failure, at the end of the day it's just very expensive reinforced plastic.''
I would personally never buy a carbon or aluminum frame, but they make sense for competitive riding. I just think it's kind of absurd and hilarious that they've become a consumer product for normies, because the cons far outweigh the pros. However, in racing, you just need the bike to make it to the finish line, long term durability is just not part of the racing equation. Someone wrote an article I read that basically said, "if you need a carbon bike, your sponsors will buy it for you." and I think that's pretty much a spot on assessment.
>>2001940Also, carbon wheels make more sense than cabron frames, imo.
>>2001940oh, and to clarifiy, I think aluminum makes sense for non-competivie riders, just not carbon, but i still wouldn't buy one because the weight reduction matters less to me than durability.
>>2001924imagine quoting this person on am,thing engineering related.also nice n=1.
>>2001940>need
>>2001940>durabilitysteel frames will rust way faster than aluminum frames will break
Just buy a schwinn varsity from the 70's if you want durability.Or a 90's mtb.Or a recent mtb and ride it on the street.
>800km of vibration MINIMUM>AVOID using a material chance of catastrophic failure with materials with known random snaps due stressSounds about right. Good job quoting Musky boy out of context.
>>2002380Carbon fiber has been applied extensively in cars for 40 years
>>2002474Extensively? I was unaware my Volkswagen had a single strand of it. Motorsports use and ricer silliness, sure. But outside of that it’s essentially nonexistent because its advantages are equally nonexistent for the philosophy behind cars in our society. I’m sure it’s more common in motorcycles but that’s different. The production cars I see incorporating it are very low volume products, especially where its properties are best being exploited and as with other consumer applications is equal parts gimmick in the rest.
>>2002474what 80's cars were using carbon fiber that frequently.I know in the 80's carbon fiber was being used in road bikes and some mtb's, but there were failures. Didn't really get solid till the late 90's/early 2000's.
>>2002474KEK
>>2001959why? he is very experienced when it comes to engineering are you just mad he took away your safespace?
>>2001924>A v. BOh great, now we are going to have a whole thread of shit flinging because people don’t realize constraints drive material selection, and both SS304 and carbon fiber have their use cases.
>>2002356literally a skill issue, stop putting your bike frame in burial mounds for 2000 years
>>2001924Here is the thing. Stainless steel allow they use is much stronger at cryogenic temperatures than at room temperatures. Most loads of Starship and booster is when they are full (of cryogenic fuel). That is very special case because normally you don't operate machines at cryogenic temperatures.
>>2002356LMAO Got 60 yo frames. In some spots you can see flux residue caked inside. There is rust, probably since whenever. Integrity is still perfect.Wore out 2 aluminium frames so far. Broke but never ever 'wore out' a steel frame.Yeah not representative but...(you)'re wrong.
>>2002718now why would i ride the rustier, heavier bike as a consumer purchasing brand new goods just so some autist can yap about it in sixty years
>>2001940this.A lot of my friends have no fitness but ride expensive carbon bikes. I love to slay them on my Decathlon alu bike.Hell, I lend my 80's steel road bike to a friend who rode it for his triathlon. He finished a bit behind the middle but still left lots of carbon twats seething. He had the original pump still in the frame kek
>>2001924Don't mix bike and rocket science. Different materials for different applications
>>2001924>I want to nuke How about h2 economic going on mars?https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/nuclear-hydrogen-iaea/8552738/https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/pink-hydrogen-business/8553013/>>>/sci/16217403
>>2002939>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhBcQSUVuXI
>>2001924>at the end of the day it's just very expensive reinforced plastic.''HAHAHAHAHAHAHA YEAH BOY TELL EM
>>2001924How tesla going after Florida ban them?
>>2002732I actually do not believe you. What I have found is that younger people on not-so-great bikes are very insecure about their bikes, and there is a phenomenon similar to cars where if you're driving a slightly nice car and you're stopped at a light, and some rice rocket piloted by a teenager with an energy drink is next to you, and even if you're just minding your business they'll feel threatened and try to drag race. It's similar with bikes, if someone sees a "fast" (in their mind) person they'll do that weird Cat 6 thing but it only lasts a block or two until everyone goes their own separate way. I think that is what's happening with you and your "carbon twats". You see someone doing a century ride on a $2000 bike, and you on your 10 mile ride on your decathlon feel insulted and have to prove a point, so you "beat" them in the race that only exists in your head while they're just like, "what's this guy's problem"
>>2003671I'm not talking about Cat6ing strangers. I'm talking about my cycling peers, with which I regularly ride with.>$2000 bike as an expample for nice carbon bikelmao, more like $5000+
>>2004168>I'm not talking about Cat6ing strangers>lmao, more like $5000+Mmm, yez... Und what can you tell me about your muzzer?
>>2004220Nah he's got you there desu, I don't think you can get into carbon for $2k at all outside of a) last year's rim brake 105 TCR or b) Aliexpress and sale watching.
>>2002597Nah, he's another grifter born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He doesn't know shit, he just hires people that do.
>>2004246Just a salesman larping as an engineer.>"I'm an engineer, I do engineering"
>>2001924Elon Musk is a cocaine addict and it's riddled his brain with so many holes that he makes no sense anymore, also he's a huge faggot facist pig and should be deported back to South Africa or just plain killed outright.
>>2002356Just not true.>>2002726Bike weight almost doesn't matter. On flat ground every extra KG incurs about a 10 second penalty over 100km, 40 seconds over undulating grades averaging +/-3.5%.You are not arriving anywhere faster because your bike frame is one kilo lighter, which is the typical difference between steel and carbon frames built for the same purposes.
>>2001924Green steel products for H2 factory & tanker in marshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gAAsM8-wqI
>>2004849based schizoid and thunderf00t blackpilled
>>2004862What a cope, a lighter bike feel way nicer to ride/manipulate and goes up hills that much easier. But every has a place, I'd rather an light aluminum roadie and a stiff steel tourer
>>2004246Okay, but why do the people he hired not want to use carbon fibre?
>>2004849>t. EFF fanboy
>Decarbonized natural gas>through pyrolysisThat may not be the most retarded commercialization of greenwashing I've ever seen, but it's certainly on the short list. I get that they're separating out elemental carbon, and that comes off as a solid, but I promise it's less energy efficient than just burning the methane. If anyone gives a shit, here's the breakdown on why.Start with the energy sink a perfectly clean pyrolysis will give us (I assure you, they're not reaching 100% effeciency)>Breaking C-H bonds (times 4 per molecule)414kJ/mol each, so it takes a total of 1656kJ per mole of natty gas consumed>Forming H2 (twice per pyrolyzed molecule)436kJ/mol each, so it adds back a total of 872kJ per mole of natty gas consumed>Net energy sink for pyrolysis784kJ per mole of natty gas pyrolyzed.Now let's calculate energy delivered per mole of natty gas>Breaking H-H bonds (twice per pyrolyzed natty gas molecule)872kJ per mole, from earlier>Breaking O=O (one per mole of natty gas (2*H2 generated, gonna eat 1*O2)498kJ/mol>Forming water molecules (H-O bonds)464kJ per bond per mole, so times 4 gives us 1856kJ/mol>Net energy delivered for hydrogen486kJ/mol energy delivery for every mole of natty gas consumedLet's compare it to the combustion of natural gas alone>Breaking C-H1656kJ/mol>Breaking O=O (gonna be two per natty gas for 2*H2O and CO2)498kJ/mol times 2 = 996kJ/mol>Forming C=O799kJ/mol (times 2) is 1598kJ/mol>Forming water1856kJ/mol>Add it up802kJ/mol delivered per mole natty gasSo let's consider that. Comparing 802kJ delivery vs 486kJ delivered (ignoring 784kJ of added processing) means using 1.65 times the amount of natural gas to heat anything.
>>2006134Any "decarbonizing" of anything is a greenwashing scam, and it's exposed by simply asking where the carbon goes. You need a space at a minimum the volume of the well you're draining just to store it, because hydrocarbons are actually pretty efficient at storing carbon. This would involve expense at least equivalent (but really significantly more costly) to just extracting and processing hydrocarbons to begin with.Nuclear waste is famously dense for the energy it provides, and although it's a solved problem it's still an expensive problem. Carbon waste is about the least dense waste imaginable. It's hard to imagine a more diffuse waste product than carbon.
>>2002496Ferrari F40 was carbon
