RowToTri wrote:
Ai_1 wrote:
RowToTri wrote:
Shambolic wrote:
It's not an advantage and not cheating so I imagine second wouldn't want to win knowing he was second best based on a very minor technicality. At least I wouldn't.Whether or not it really was an advantage - they *thought* it was an advantage. Otherwise, why would they do it?
And it for sure weakened the helmet - no doubt. If I learned one thing in engineering school, it was that if you drill holes in a piece of material, you have weakened it. And it did not pass the certification tests with the holes in it, so it is not a certified helmet any longer.
Actually that one thing you learned is not necessarily true in all cases. Just saying. ;)
Without any other specifications, like changing the shape or discussing directional strength, what is a case that does not fit that description? I'm drawing a blank. I'm talking about taking an existing piece of material and putting holes into it. In at least some directions/moments, it will be weaker than it was before the holes were in it... unless I'm just totally blanking on something? I suppose drilling a hole to remove a stress concentration! In that case it would make it stronger! OK... stream of consciousness ending in 3.... 2.... 1....
You appear to have just agreed with me.
I said "not necessarily true" - and you just pointed out some of the cases where it's not so we appear to be on the same page. "Weakness" is not really an engineering term unless you define the mode of failure. Adding flexibility/reducing stress concentrations, or removing material from a completely unloaded area of a structure may not "weaken" the component depending on how you define that term which presumably would depend on the application. You're apparently aware of this.......I was just messing with you by the way. I thought the ;) might have tipped you off.