What EVERYone needs to know!
- canyncarvr
- Gold Member
- Posts: 6943
- Joined: 01:07 pm Nov 05 2004
- Country: US
- Location: The Mythical State of Jefferson
I did it like this: 23lbs/inch=.9055+lb/mm= .41kg/mm
As long as you know the number of mm in an inch..and the number of kg in a pound..and the piº radian of the hypotenuse, you're all set.
And YOU supplied the figures!!
..mostly...
Cheers!
As long as you know the number of mm in an inch..and the number of kg in a pound..and the piº radian of the hypotenuse, you're all set.
And YOU supplied the figures!!
..mostly...
Cheers!
Consider the source
Using a perceived level of knowledge to boost my self worth.
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
bike profile: !clicky!
- canyncarvr
- Gold Member
- Posts: 6943
- Joined: 01:07 pm Nov 05 2004
- Country: US
- Location: The Mythical State of Jefferson
Figure it like you did last time.
OK..truth of the matter...I didn't check your figures..just converted your answer.
I'm assuming you did it right, but obviously arriving at a correct answer doesn't inidicate any such thing!
BTW..having read the link that I started this thread with, you know that with a given spring removing a coil will increase its rate...and versy vice-uh.
Note: Increasing the rate does NOT increase it's load-carrying cability.
BTW...double check your figures in your post above.
OK..truth of the matter...I didn't check your figures..just converted your answer.
I'm assuming you did it right, but obviously arriving at a correct answer doesn't inidicate any such thing!
BTW..having read the link that I started this thread with, you know that with a given spring removing a coil will increase its rate...and versy vice-uh.
Note: Increasing the rate does NOT increase it's load-carrying cability.
BTW...double check your figures in your post above.
Consider the source
Using a perceived level of knowledge to boost my self worth.
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
bike profile: !clicky!
- Ryan
- Supporting Member II
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: 01:30 pm Sep 25 2005
- Country:
- canyncarvr
- Gold Member
- Posts: 6943
- Joined: 01:07 pm Nov 05 2004
- Country: US
- Location: The Mythical State of Jefferson
For starters..did you get the 'check' part? There are 2.2lb in a kg, NOT 2.2kg in a pound.
Again: 23lbs/inch=.9055+lb/mm= .41kg/mm
OK. You're starting with a spring that 'weighs' 23lb when you compress it one inch.
How many pounds is that per mm? Divide 23 by 25.4. You get .9055+lb. for each mm.
How many (how much of one) kg is .9055lb? Set that question up as a ratio. I don't have a math font on this machine, but it 'looks' like this:
2.2lb is to 1kg as .9055lb is to Xkg or...2.2 over 1 : .9055 over Xkg
Cross multiply (as you do with ratios when you know three out of the four numbers) and you get 2.2X=.9055 where 'X' is the number of kg in .9055lb.
Solve the equation for X: .9055 divided by 2.2 = .41(and change).
Sort'a like this:
WHICH...the clever amongst us will notice is a 220x220pixel graphic which is to say, I don't wanna have ANYthing to do with it agin!
Cheers!
Again: 23lbs/inch=.9055+lb/mm= .41kg/mm
OK. You're starting with a spring that 'weighs' 23lb when you compress it one inch.
How many pounds is that per mm? Divide 23 by 25.4. You get .9055+lb. for each mm.
How many (how much of one) kg is .9055lb? Set that question up as a ratio. I don't have a math font on this machine, but it 'looks' like this:
2.2lb is to 1kg as .9055lb is to Xkg or...2.2 over 1 : .9055 over Xkg
Cross multiply (as you do with ratios when you know three out of the four numbers) and you get 2.2X=.9055 where 'X' is the number of kg in .9055lb.
Solve the equation for X: .9055 divided by 2.2 = .41(and change).
Sort'a like this:
WHICH...the clever amongst us will notice is a 220x220pixel graphic which is to say, I don't wanna have ANYthing to do with it agin!
Cheers!
Consider the source
Using a perceived level of knowledge to boost my self worth.
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
bike profile: !clicky!
-
- Supporting Member II
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: 06:57 pm Mar 19 2005
- Country:
- canyncarvr
- Gold Member
- Posts: 6943
- Joined: 01:07 pm Nov 05 2004
- Country: US
- Location: The Mythical State of Jefferson
Is there a smilie after that?IdahoCharley wrote:Heck - I'am still trying to find out where the constant 11,500,000 came from?
It's 11.5 x Wire Diameter to the fourth power (D4).
Exponents aren't associative, natch. 11.5 raised to the 4th x WD isn't the same as 11.5 x WD to the 4th.
...and it's not '10 to the 4th' ..the BASE is not 10. 2 to the 5th is 2x2x2x2x2.... not 200,000
Actually, he didn't write it out...it could be (11.5 x WD) raised to the 4th, but you would have to intentionally misunderstand what he wrote to get that.
Doesn't mean HE knows what HE wrote...........
Consider the source
Using a perceived level of knowledge to boost my self worth.
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
bike profile: !clicky!
- Ryan
- Supporting Member II
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: 01:30 pm Sep 25 2005
- Country:
Actually, he didn't write it out...it could be (11.5 x WD) raised to the 4th, but you would have to intentionally misunderstand what he wrote to get that.
Doesn't mean HE knows what HE wrote........... [/quote]
i knew what i wrote . !!!!!
Acutally i kinda didnt. A little bit thought. But thanks for the other info, i just bought a caliper so now i can figure it out more exact.
Doesn't mean HE knows what HE wrote........... [/quote]
i knew what i wrote . !!!!!
Acutally i kinda didnt. A little bit thought. But thanks for the other info, i just bought a caliper so now i can figure it out more exact.
2001 kdx220
1987 honda xl250
1987 honda xl250
- Ryan
- Supporting Member II
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: 01:30 pm Sep 25 2005
- Country:
well i used my digital caliper checked and triple checked every measurement and found the rate for each spring.
they came out to be
1. .419kg/mm
2. .416kg/mm
3. .380kg/mm
Im kinda bummed cause i was suppose to have a .36kg/mm set of springs. they turned out to be .419kg/mm. Well i guess i should try the .38kg/mm springs and see how i like them. Thanks for your help.
they came out to be
1. .419kg/mm
2. .416kg/mm
3. .380kg/mm
Im kinda bummed cause i was suppose to have a .36kg/mm set of springs. they turned out to be .419kg/mm. Well i guess i should try the .38kg/mm springs and see how i like them. Thanks for your help.
2001 kdx220
1987 honda xl250
1987 honda xl250
-
- Supporting Member II
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: 06:57 pm Mar 19 2005
- Country:
- canyncarvr
- Gold Member
- Posts: 6943
- Joined: 01:07 pm Nov 05 2004
- Country: US
- Location: The Mythical State of Jefferson
I'll bite!
Everything else being the same (material, diameters, mfg. methods and such), the more active coils you have, the lower the rate.
1. That's in the article I posted at the top.
2. Spring rate is increased by removing coils..which is ALSO in the article I posted at the top.
Exaggerate the situation to make the point. Take a spring 4" long and compare it to a spring 4' long.
For a given input (pressure), each coil on the longer spring will move less!
Right?
Everything else being the same (material, diameters, mfg. methods and such), the more active coils you have, the lower the rate.
1. That's in the article I posted at the top.
2. Spring rate is increased by removing coils..which is ALSO in the article I posted at the top.
Exaggerate the situation to make the point. Take a spring 4" long and compare it to a spring 4' long.
For a given input (pressure), each coil on the longer spring will move less!
Right?
Consider the source
Using a perceived level of knowledge to boost my self worth.
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
bike profile: !clicky!
- canyncarvr
- Gold Member
- Posts: 6943
- Joined: 01:07 pm Nov 05 2004
- Country: US
- Location: The Mythical State of Jefferson
In case you thought I was kidding...
From: here!
Google is your friend!
BTW...I've whined more than once (read: stated most evocatively clear!) that springs are not linear..even linear springs! I've been called bad names and have suffered insult most large upon my person for my ludicrous idea(s).
Correctly stated, rate creep is not the same as a progressive type spring. My point has always been the linearity part of it...whether you call it rate creep or any other name you choose.
From: here!
It's a pretty good write-up. Answers your questions from earlier, too.from where I said wrote:As the number of active coils increases, the spring rate decreases.
Google is your friend!
BTW...I've whined more than once (read: stated most evocatively clear!) that springs are not linear..even linear springs! I've been called bad names and have suffered insult most large upon my person for my ludicrous idea(s).
Correctly stated, rate creep is not the same as a progressive type spring. My point has always been the linearity part of it...whether you call it rate creep or any other name you choose.
Consider the source
Using a perceived level of knowledge to boost my self worth.
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
bike profile: !clicky!
- Ryan
- Supporting Member II
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: 01:30 pm Sep 25 2005
- Country:
no i didnt think you were kidding, you really seem to know what you are talking about. Thanks for helping me.
AS far as the bike goes, it doesnt feel much differnt than my kdx forks, but the kx forks have brand new seals and bushings which need to break in, and i am sure i am way off with the adjusters. Whats a good starting point for the adjusters.
Also i have only been riding on my flat yard since i am just breaking in the bike. Come sunday i will be ( if no rain) ripping around on the trails.
Hopfully in agust enter some harescrambles.
AS far as the bike goes, it doesnt feel much differnt than my kdx forks, but the kx forks have brand new seals and bushings which need to break in, and i am sure i am way off with the adjusters. Whats a good starting point for the adjusters.
Also i have only been riding on my flat yard since i am just breaking in the bike. Come sunday i will be ( if no rain) ripping around on the trails.
Hopfully in agust enter some harescrambles.
2001 kdx220
1987 honda xl250
1987 honda xl250
- m0rie
- Supporting Member I
- Posts: 2220
- Joined: 10:25 pm Nov 29 2004
- Country:
- Location: Crescent City, CA
On flat ground you won't be able to tell much of a difference. After your out on the trail a bit and get warmed up aim your bike straight for a section of trail that you previously had issues with. If you can't tell the difference between the stockers and the kx forks then something isn't right.
1989 KDX 200
2007 TTR-50E
2007 TTR-50E
- canyncarvr
- Gold Member
- Posts: 6943
- Joined: 01:07 pm Nov 05 2004
- Country: US
- Location: The Mythical State of Jefferson
FWIW...posting links to what someone else said has nothing to do with knowing anything about it, and researching an answer doesn't require knowledge of the subject, either.
But, you're welcome anyway.
Yeah...flat ground doesn't tell you diddle.
What about Sunday?
But, you're welcome anyway.
Yeah...flat ground doesn't tell you diddle.
What about Sunday?
Consider the source
Using a perceived level of knowledge to boost my self worth.
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
bike profile: !clicky!