登入或註冊帳號即可開始張貼主題
24 回應
15839 觀看
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
阿哈！
最後真是獲得許多寶貴的知識阿！
.jpg)
|
|
|
回應者: Kevin
回應時間: 2008/09/13
|
Both aluminum and steel have their advantages when it comes to bicycle frame building. Steel is much easier to weld than aluminum, so it's less likely that a steel frame can be defective.
The density of steel is 7.85 Mg/m3 while the density of aluminum is generally around 2.72 Mg/m3. This means that steel is almost 3 times heavier than aluminum when you have the same volume of material!
In terms of strength when it comes to bicycle frames, steel is stronger. There is no argument about this. Steel has what is called a endurance limit, where as aluminum will continue to degrade and fatigue as you stress it more. In street biking or mountain biking, where you are always putting a lot of stress in multiple directions on the frame, steel is probably a better material.
The reason that you cannot use less material with steel frames is because the material has a naturally springy property. If you use to little, the frame will be far too flexy for anyone to ride. In applications where you want the frame to be lighter, aluminum is a better choice. You can engineer the frame to be stronger in certain areas with an aluminum frame, and still have it stronger. This is better for trials riding, because we usually only apply stress to the frame from one direction. Aluminum also makes for a much stiffer frame, which is important when we are riding trials.
The conclusion is, that there is really no point in building trials bikes out of steel. However, high quality steel frames will always last longer than aluminum frames.
The density of steel is 7.85 Mg/m3 while the density of aluminum is generally around 2.72 Mg/m3. This means that steel is almost 3 times heavier than aluminum when you have the same volume of material!
In terms of strength when it comes to bicycle frames, steel is stronger. There is no argument about this. Steel has what is called a endurance limit, where as aluminum will continue to degrade and fatigue as you stress it more. In street biking or mountain biking, where you are always putting a lot of stress in multiple directions on the frame, steel is probably a better material.
The reason that you cannot use less material with steel frames is because the material has a naturally springy property. If you use to little, the frame will be far too flexy for anyone to ride. In applications where you want the frame to be lighter, aluminum is a better choice. You can engineer the frame to be stronger in certain areas with an aluminum frame, and still have it stronger. This is better for trials riding, because we usually only apply stress to the frame from one direction. Aluminum also makes for a much stiffer frame, which is important when we are riding trials.
The conclusion is, that there is really no point in building trials bikes out of steel. However, high quality steel frames will always last longer than aluminum frames.
.jpg)
|
|
|
回應者: mark
回應時間: 2008/09/13
|
翻譯一下:
鋁與鋼各有其用來作為車架材料的優點, 由於鋼材的焊接比較容易, 鋼車架的焊接比鋁車架可靠.
鋼材的密度是7.85 Mg/m3而鋁材的密度一般約2.72 Mg/m3, 意思就是說同體積的材料鋼會比鋁重三倍!
以鋼材用來做車架的強度比較強這一點是毫無疑問的. 鋼材雖有其耐用強度的極限, 鋁材受到過大的壓力時材質也會疲乏變質. 街車或登山車來說, 由於車架經常受到各種方向的壓力, 鋼材也許是比較好的材料.
鋼材用來做車架因其彈性的本質不能夠作太薄, 太薄會使車架太有彈性而無法騎乘. 在實際應用上想要得到較輕的車架鋁材是比較好的選擇, 鋁材可以在特定的地方加以強化使車架夠堅固. 由於攀岩車通常只對車架施加單向的壓力, 使用鋁材對攀岩車來說也是比較好的選擇. 鋁材做成的車架比較堅硬沒有彈性, 這一點對攀岩車來說很重要.
結論是, 沒有什麼道理使用鋼材作為攀岩車架的材料. 雖然說鋼製的車架會比鋁車架耐久.