Well the 1199 is now fitted with an 80nm spring same as 848 Evo, the Evo is fine so no reason why I can't get 1199 the same with same nm spring as fitted on Evo
) i didn t want to ruin the party... but normally the lack of flex puts more pressure on the spring.. Still 80nm for 74 kg sounds fine )
"Boing !" quote: Zebedee "...and so to bed." quote: Samual Pepys .................I know, no bl@@dy help at all !
Being a bit pedantic here but its important ...... The units of spring stiffness are defined as the force required to produce a given deflection, ie Newtons PER millimetre, or N/mm Why do people insist on quoting "nm", a completely bogus unit where the implication is that this is Newtons TIMES millimetres, which is the unit for torque, not stiffness (and the "N" should be a capital letter too). Start off on the wrong foot and you're bound to trip up at some stage. End of class.
Best you take it up with the manufacturers then as they list the springs in N/m not N/mm. So it would suggest they measure the springs in newton metres
No, not by a thousandth......by an indeterminate, inaccurate, amount. Either N/mm or N/m would suffice. (force divided by length) But not Nm or Nmm. (force multiplied by length). In fact, any unit of force DIVIDED by any unit of length would do, as long as it was specified ..eg pounds (force) per inch. But any unit of force MULTIPLIED by any unit of length would be wrong.
Oh I am so fucking sorry I neglected the / between N & m but everyone else knew exactly what we were talking about. I now see what your post was getting at, pendantic is a gross understatement
There is also 10.0 kg front and 100 nm rear . Any explanation for that ? I ll just say 9.5 front and 90 rear. ...
Well, I'll take the smiley as a sign of pleasantness but I may be being generous. Actually, its only pedantic to those of a non-technical nature. Most technicians would see it as crucial, because without the / the two units are multiplied rather than divided. My engineering lecturers would have been horrified at such a basic error. And more to the point, it adds further confusion to the already mysterious world of suspension settings, which was why I mentioned it. At a quick guess I'd say that was probably due to the 10kg quoted being ever so slightly inaccurate (risking pedant accusations here too) in that it actually refers to kg force rather than kg mass. The force due to a 10kg load would be 10x9.81 Newtons (where 9.81 is the acceleration due to gravity, a constant equalling 9.81m/sec sq.). This gives 98.1 Nm, which is as near as dammit the same as the 100Nm quoted for the rear. Except of course, it should be N/m. See how unnecessarily confusing it can get if you're careless with your units ? Also, and crucially, the maths don't work when you do that. But I'm not a member of the pedantic society. Actually, its the "Society of Pedants".
My engineering lecturer would have probably caned me. Everything is written short hand these days text speak used in emails and forums.
When applying a smack to Cupid's botty, should we use newton-metres or newtons per metre as our measurement of suitable admonishment?
I don't want to come across as being excessively concerned with minor details; however, I think you will find it's "The society for the promotion of pedantry"..... just saying.
You are wrong. Newtons are a unit of Force where F = m.a For a force of 1N: F = 1N = 1 kg.m/(s squared) [you are correct up to this point] Therefore, Force due to a 10kg mass: F = 10 x 9.81 = 98.1 kg.m/(s squared) = 98.1 N There is no "m" involved in the units as N already "includes" the effect of the "m". Please therefore stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
