MIT Unveils New Material Thatís Strongest and Lightest On Earth- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    that guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    690

    MIT Unveils New Material Thatís Strongest and Lightest On Earth

    https://futurism.com/mit-unveils-new...test-on-earth/

    I'm not sure what they're calling this magic new material, or the new unusual geometrical configuration, but I'm VERY intrigued by the thought of ultra lightweight MTB parts that are 10 times stronger than steel!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    601
    I think that its really interesting, and not because of the graphene. I think that they get a lot of the strength from that part because of the geometry of the surfaces and less from the graphene. At least that is what I took from that video. I'm not sure that it would translate well to a bicycle tube. Perhaps in key specific areas but not in all parts of a frame.
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    If I told you I saw a unicorn ****ing a leprechaun trail side, you'd probably be suspicious.

  3. #3
    that guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by PeopleForScience View Post
    I think that its really interesting, and not because of the graphene. I think that they get a lot of the strength from that part because of the geometry of the surfaces and less from the graphene. At least that is what I took from that video. I'm not sure that it would translate well to a bicycle tube. Perhaps in key specific areas but not in all parts of a frame.
    Yeah, the newly discovered structure is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this. If it can be applied to any existing material for added strength, then even that MIGHT make current tubing lighter/stronger.

    My scientific opinion: it's neato.
    Last edited by paleh0rse; 01-11-2017 at 11:27 AM.

  4. #4
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,319
    Weight savings on bikes passed the threshold of not really mattering quite a while ago, though. Your average high end mountain bike is only something like 15% of the total vehicle mass already, assuming a pretty heavy 30# bike and light-ish 170# rider.

    Diminishing returns is a *****.

    -Walt

  5. #5
    that guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Weight savings on bikes passed the threshold of not really mattering quite a while ago, though. Your average high end mountain bike is only something like 15% of the total vehicle mass already, assuming a pretty heavy 30# bike and light-ish 170# rider.

    Diminishing returns is a *****.

    -Walt
    Fair enough.

    I personally wouldn't turn down a one pound (or less) frame that is stronger than steel, though. Maybe that's just me...

  6. #6
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,319
    <20# mountain bikes have been available for 25 years (and bikes that are pretty much mountain bikes <30 pounds have been around for over 100). Less weight is nice, but it passed the point of mattering much a long time ago. Even if your bike weighed zero, your time up a typical singletrack climb would only change by a few percent.

    Just running some rough numbers, on a 5k dirt climb at 5% grade, with a 65kg rider/10kg bike vs 65kg/5kg (both at 250w), your total time with the 5kg lighter (so 11 pounds) bike would be about 60 seconds less - over a total 1100 seconds, so roughly 5%. Cutting the bike weight by 50% only saves you 5% of your climb time.

    Now, if you're a racer that 11 pounds/1 minute matters. If you're a recreational rider it doesn't mean squat.

    It's like ceramic bearings - your regular crappy steel bearings are already so efficient that reducing the resistance by 50%+ is literally not noticeable.

    Figure out how to make me lighter *water* that can do all the stuff my body needs water for, and we're talking...

    -Walt

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,789
    I wonder if they could find benefits beyond weight savings in 3d printing bulkier structures, like cranks and stems. With this new geometric design incorporating grapheme they would likely be able to tune things like vibration damping and stiffness with slight modifications. Sounds like a pricey process and difficult to mass print commercial quantities at this point.

  8. #8
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    <20# mountain bikes have been available for 25 years (and bikes that are pretty much mountain bikes <30 pounds have been around for over 100). Less weight is nice, but it passed the point of mattering much a long time ago. Even if your bike weighed zero, your time up a typical singletrack climb would only change by a few percent.

    Just running some rough numbers, on a 5k dirt climb at 5% grade, with a 65kg rider/10kg bike vs 65kg/5kg (both at 250w), your total time with the 5kg lighter (so 11 pounds) bike would be about 60 seconds less - over a total 1100 seconds, so roughly 5%. Cutting the bike weight by 50% only saves you 5% of your climb time.

    Now, if you're a racer that 11 pounds/1 minute matters. If you're a recreational rider it doesn't mean squat.

    It's like ceramic bearings - your regular crappy steel bearings are already so efficient that reducing the resistance by 50%+ is literally not noticeable.

    Figure out how to make me lighter *water* that can do all the stuff my body needs water for, and we're talking...

    -Walt
    Except that biking is about accelerations, even when pedaling at a constant speed, looking at it closer it's not a constant speed, your body is incapable of constant output. So it's really speeding up due to impulse and slowing down due to drag and friction.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,124
    I have studied the information on this material intently.

    My conclusion is that they have discovered an isotope of Drillium which should therefore be named NanoDrillium.

    But they need to be careful because Drillium is often contaminated with Crackinium.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  10. #10
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,319

    Um, ok

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Except that biking is about accelerations, even when pedaling at a constant speed, looking at it closer it's not a constant speed, your body is incapable of constant output. So it's really speeding up due to impulse and slowing down due to drag and friction.
    The problem here is that all those micro-accelerations result in...acceleration. Meaning you are going faster, and that higher inertia takes more friction/drag/gravity/etc to slow back down.

    You don't need to spin perfect circles, it doesn't matter. All the energy you manage to put into forward motion, whether "micro" or macro acceleration, is energy propelling you forward. The energy you put into going forward doesn't just magically disappear because it's a "micro" acceleration.

    Honestly, every time I hear the micro-acceleration stuff it reminds me of Zeno's arrow-never-reaches-target paradox, in that it is nonsensical in the real world.

    -Walt

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I have studied the information on this material intently.

    My conclusion is that they have discovered an isotope of Drillium which should therefore be named NanoDrillium.

    But they need to be careful because Drillium is often contaminated with Crackinium.
    doesn't really matter, because at this point it's still Unobtainium

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    18
    So they figured out that a 3D structure can have benefits over a 2D structure? Thats genius, except its not.
    And then they compare different shapes of 3D printed parts to figure out that different structures result in a different reaction...The MIT is just highly overrated...

  13. #13
    Randomhead
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,182
    I'm always impressed with the ability of MIT researchers to get press.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,944
    Quote Originally Posted by OlMarin View Post
    doesn't really matter, because at this point it's still Unobtainium
    This is really important. Steel was know to man for a very long time. Japanese Samuari swords were made from steel. Steel at the time was made by hand pounding to drive out impurities of base iron. As you can imagine that process was time consuming and therefore expensive. It took the creation of the Bessimer process in the 1800's to be able to mass produce steel at reasonable enough cost to make the revolution that it became.

    So while all this new material how it impacts bikes is pointless until it can be produced to a cost effective number and can be made in the shapes and sizes we require. Cheaper carbon with processes to make it it more radical shapes will have greater impact on bike than this stuff. At least in the near term.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,944
    Quote Originally Posted by felixv View Post
    So they figured out that a 3D structure can have benefits over a 2D structure? Thats genius, except its not.
    And then they compare different shapes of 3D printed parts to figure out that different structures result in a different reaction...The MIT is just highly overrated...
    You are missing the point.

    It is obvious that 3D shapes are stronger than 2D. What is innovative here is being able make non-homogenous material in to 3D shapes to create a material that appears homogeneous at the macro level, but at the micro level has a 3D hollow structure. This is being done to a material that it was not possible to do that with prior. So it some ways it like learning how to make bread rise instead of flat bread. Now of course bread has very little structural strength, but you can imagine the different internal structure. Now imagine doing that sort of thing with something very strong and while creating the 3D structure where you are not limited by weak links joining the individual 2D filaments. This where the real science is taking place.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

Similar Threads

  1. Strongest material for ball bearings
    By bfldworker in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-07-2015, 08:25 AM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-25-2014, 06:42 AM
  3. World's Lightest Material
    By CarolinaLL6 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-19-2011, 04:09 PM
  4. Lightest Clamps for R1 and XX on The Earth !
    By ayjay69 in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-06-2011, 04:28 PM
  5. Santa Cruz Unveils Carbon 29'er Hardtail
    By B-Line in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-04-2011, 05:29 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.