Daft PACE question of the day

markoc

Orange 🍊 Fan
Feedback
View
Right all you Pace afficionados, and engineery types:

As we all know PACE built frames out of box section - so why didn't they follow suit with their rigid forks that accompanied the early RC100's?
 
Ohh, that's a goody...not sure to tell you the truth, at a guess, cost of making and perhaps too harsh??

Don't think I've ever come across a set of square tubed forks eh?

Sure someone on here will give you an engineering type answer though ;)
 
I'll take a shot.

The square frame tubes were machined to remove material in low load baring planes. My guess is that the vector of the load on the forks is so variable that you would not be able to make decisions on where material could be removed as such the strongest shape to go with was good old circular section.

Also its much easier to make round holes in the crown for fork legs than it is square ones :wink:
 
I always assumed it was because the early RC-30's were Reynolds 531, and for later versions, Columbus tubing. Would it not be that those manufacturers make round tubes first and foremost, so it was therefore the easiest (and relatively cheapest) way to produce the fork?
 
Drencrom":39kuvc1t said:
I always assumed it was because the early RC-30's were Reynolds 531, and for later versions, Columbus tubing. Would it not be that those manufacturers make round tubes first and foremost, so it was therefore the easiest (and relatively cheapest) way to produce the fork?
It would have been the best way to make a frame too... :roll:
 
I was always under the impression that pace made their frames from box sections to because they had worked out that it was better for the loads/forces being placed upon the frames. If you look at the down tube, it is deeper than wide, making it stiff has hell over bumps (oo-er).

Round tubes flex in any direction, so making for a more comfortable ride.

But then again, i'm probably way off the mark....
 
Back
Top