The 1994 Edward DeMille Campbell Memorial Lecture
ASM INTERNATIONAL
Materials, Bicycles, and Design
M.F. ASHBY
If the selection of materials is to be integrated into engineering design, a procedure is needed to
identify, from among the enormous range of materials, the subset which most closely meets the
design requirements. The elements of such a procedure are here described and illustrated by using
it to select materials for bicycle frames.
I. INTRODUCTION
THE starting point of this article can be put in four short
sentences. Materials and processes underpin all engineering
design31~1 The computer (by which we mean "information
technology") has revolutionized the way the geometric,
thermomechanical, and manufacturing aspects of design are
tackled. [5,6] But the selection of material and process is
poorly integrated into this new technology. What can we
do about it?
M.F. ASHBY received his Bachelors degree and Doctorate in Natural
Sciences at the University of Cambridge and then joined the Institute for
Metal Physics at the University of Grttingen, Germany, working with
Professor P. Haasen from 1962 to 1965. From 1966 to 1973, he held the
post of Professor of Applied Physics in the Division of Engineering and
Applied Physics at Harvard University. Since 1973, he has been a member
of the Cambridge University Engineering Department, where he holds the
post of Royal Society Research Professor. Professor Ashby has been the
editor of Aeta Metallurgica since 1974. His research interests include
mechanisms of plasticity and fracture, methodologies for materials
selection and their integration into an integrated design framework, and
the modeling of material-shaping processes.
The Edward DeMille Campbell Memorial Lecture was established in
1926 as an annual lecture in memory of and in recognition of the
outstanding scientific contributions to the metallurgical profession by a
distinguished educator who was blind for all but two years of his
professional life. It recognizes demonstrated ability in metallurgical
science and engineering.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
II. M A T E R I A L S AND THE DESIGN PROCESS
Figure 1 helps clarify the problem. The central column
shows, much simplified, the stages of the design process.
A market need is identified. Concepts which might meet
the need are devised. The functional units of each concept
are identified and their viability is examined (left-hand col-
umns). Potentially practical concepts are selected and the
design proceeds to the embodiment stage in which a layout
is developed and approximate estimates of its overall per-
formance are made. If successful, the design passes to the
detail stage in which analysis and optimization lead to a set
of working drawings giving the size and layout of each
component; critical components are subjected to finite-ele-
ment analysis; and the performance of assemblies is
optimized using modeling or simulation tools, until the de-
sign is finally frozen. The output is a product specification:
a set of instructions for shape, material, and technology of
manufacture.t5,6]
An example may help. A need is perceived for a man-
powered ground transportation system. Concepts are de-
vised, allowing the imagination to range as freely as
possible; a small subset is sketched in Figure 2. The
concepts' viability is examined. The first (Figure 2(a))
might be thought in the 1990s to be socially unacceptable.
The most trivial of analyses reveals that the second (Figure
2(b)) is physically impractical. The third (Figure 2(c)) re-
quires unusual human skills. The fourth--if refined--might
just work.
VOLUME 26B, DECEMBER 1995--110l
 /
/

.j,.- j . 9 ii

- -\r" f -

//I ~,
?
Fig. 1 The design process, with design tools on the left and material and
\
process selection on the right. In the early stages, the emphasis is on
breadth; in the later stages, it is on precision.

Fig. 4 Detailed design: the arrows signify dimensions and angles.

(Concept modeler)

Function modeler
Material
1I
3-D solid modeler Product
"t" and =
FEM ... Simulate ...Optimize Specification
Process
8
DFA ... DFM ... Selector

Rapid prototyp~ng

Fig. 5 l)evclopnlcnts ill computer-aided design. Many of the

developments can be interfaced, allowing concurrent design; materials and
process selection are poorly integrated, at present.

/ ....
: ~ 7 _ . _
Fig. 2 (a) through (d) Concepts for man-powered transport.
Fig. 3 - - A n embodiment of the concept in Fig. 2(d).
Analysis and development of a function structure (mode
of propulsion and mechanisms of motion, steering, braking,
etc.) lead to a sophisticated embodiment (Figure 3). Optim-
ization of frame shape and section, bearings, gearing, and
other critical components leads ultimately to a three-dimen-
sional geometric model, fully dimensioned, for each com-
ponent; in total, a detailed specification (Figure 4).
Sophisticated tools are available to the designer to help
with these tasks (extreme left column of Figure 1, and Fig-
ure 5). Shape is captured by 3-dimensional solid-modeling
tools which allow perspectives, projections, elevations, and
sections to be explored and which interface directly with
finite element, optimization, and simulation codes; the op-
1
timized geometry can be passed to numerically controlled
_ = machining, pattern-making, or prototyping equipment. Un-
der development are function modelers which exploit in-
tbrmation about thc function of a component or assembly
(rather than merely its shape) to generate and scale geo-
metric models and suggest assemblies. On the horizon are
concept modelers, using associative logic to suggest new
conceptual solutions to problems. Increasingly, these tools
are interfaced to allow concurrent rather than sequential de-
sign, minimizing development time and allowing the de-
signer to make changes in shape or configuration and to
watch the consequences of the changes cascade through the
chain of linked tools.
Material and process selection (Figure 1, right-hand col-
umns) have failed to keep pace with these developments.
They appear in the "sequential" position of the second box
of Figure 5. New designs generally make use of materials
and processes already familiar to the designer. Could not
their selection be integrated into the design framework? To
answer this, it is valuable to examine first the causes of
their separation. Look for a moment, then, at the design
history of the bicycle.
IlL THE DESIGN HISTORY OF THE BICYCLE
You could fill a small library with writings about the
bicycle (a selection is listed as References 7 through 13).
As an example of design, the bicycle is a happy choice:
today the bicycle is almost exactly 200 years old and en-
joying its second great peak of popularity. The hobby

1102--VOLUME 26B, DECEMBER 1995 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B

Fig. 6 - - T h e history of the bicycle: there was a period of intense technical development around 1890; today we are currently experiencing an intense
period of material development.
horse---our concept in Figure 2(d)--was first in general use
around 1795. By 1815, it had acquired steering, the inven-
tion of a German--the Count von Draise--with the quite
unexpected additional benefit that one could now balance
on a moving bicycle. By 1838, pedals--<lirect power to the
front wheel--had been added, devised, according to the
French, by a Frenchman, Pierre Michanx. Thereafter (Fig-
ure 6), new concepts and their technical development fol-
lowed rapidly. The ball bearing, the spoked wheel, the
tubular frame, the chain drive, the free wheel, gears and
differentials, and finally, in about 1890, Dnnlop's pneu-
matic tire were all invented for the bicycle. By 1895, the
bicycle had acquired the form and functionality of the bi-
cycle of today: it had a diamond frame, pedal power, chain
drive, and pneumatic tires; in technical specification, there
is nothing to distinguish today's bicycle from that one. And
the perfection, so to speak, of the bicycle, was not the only
outcome of this remarkable burst of technical innovation.
It created the infrastructure necessary for the development
both of the automobile and the airplane: Henry Ford and
the Wright brothers--among others--were bicycle builders
before they moved on to larger and (for the Wright broth-
ers, at least) higher things.
The automobile all but killed the bicycle. Between 1900
and 1950, the bicycle's popularity declined, and there was
little incentive to develop it further. Indeed, it is arguable
that in the 100 years that have elapsed since 1895, there
have been no conceptual or technical developments in the
bicycle that remotely compare in their importance with the
invention of steering, of pedal power, of the chain drive,
or of the pneumatic tire. Yet, we live today in what is the
second great era of the bicycle: and the innovation, this
time, is materials. Since 1950, the conventional materials
of which bicycles were made--wood, iron, and mild
steel--have been replaced by a portfolio of newer materi-
als, many of them derived from the aerospace industry that
was itself first nucleated by the bicycle: low-alloy steels
(now the bike industry standard), filled polymers, alloys of
aluminum, magnesium, and titanium, and--most recently--
advanced composites. Surveying this range, one is tempted
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
to ask: can all these materials be equally good for making
bicycles? But before delving into that, we should examine
what can be learned from this history.
The most obvious lesson is this: technical development
comes first and innovation in the use of materials follows
later. Understandable. If you are a designer struggling to
devise concepts, develop embodiments, analyze detail, and
plan product manufacture, you choose materials you know.
Unfamiliar materials carry risks: a program to develop a
new material carries heavy risks. But the sequence we see
here, though understandable, is undesirable. A design, once
frozen, constrains the use of materials; the potential of a
new material may never then be realized.
An example is as follows. The standard bicycle frame is
made of 1-in. tubing. An accessory industry has grown tip
around this dimension: all the things you clip, clamp, or
screw onto bicycle frames are designed for 1-in. tubes. An
innovative designer seeking to employ a new material is
under pressure to retain this tube diameter: failure to do so
divorces the new design from all the accessories available
to the old one. Yet the constraint of 1-in. tubing m a y - -
indeed does--prevent the most effective use of many al-
ternative materials, as we shall see subsequently. So we
return to the question: can materials selection be integrated
into the design process? We need a design-led materials
selection procedure.
IV. DESIGN-LED M A T E R I A L S S E L E C T I O N
The essentials of a design-led materials selection sys-
tem E~4,I5~are sketched in Figure 7. Its inputs are design re-
quirements: function, constraints, and objectives. Function
defines the purpose of the component: to carry bending mo-
ments, to transmit heat, etc. Constraints are conditions that
must be met in performing the function: first, functional
constraints such as a limit on elastic deflection or the re-
quirement that the component does not fail; and second,
geometric constraints which prescribe certain dimensions.
The objective describes the quantity to be minimized or
maximized: the weight, the cost, the life, etc.
VOLUME 26B, DECEMBER 1995--1103
 ICons,ra' o,sI I Objective
I
.,-"-3 n RIDER
IMPACT / , ~ 'k"J ~WEIGHT
Function
(Carry bending ~ ] (Limitdeflection, ],_-~] ( Minimizewt.
moment) minimizecost)

iMPACT

Translator [
(materialindices)

Bending Torsion
Material Fig. 9 - - T h e loading on the bicycle frame: (a) bending and (h) torsionJ TM
Selector
M M

IShort list of materials

Fig. I0 A tube, loaded in bending.
t

adequately stiff--a frame which flexes too much dissipates

-'-t Iterate t-'--
Fig. 7 Design-led materials selection: lhe inpuls are function and shape:
and the output is a short list of possible materials and processes.
Compound Properties Function
ProDerties
Fixed radius [ Fixed shape
'Density p ._._
E1/2/ p Stiffness
Modulus E~ E / p
~..a e/P Oe2/3/p Strength
Strength ae/
Fig. 8---Simple and compound properties.
The first step is to translate these requirements into a
specification for material selection. This we do by deriving
"material indices," combinations of material properties
which, if maximized, optimally meet the design require-
ments. These become the inputs to the materials selector,
the output of which is a short list of candidate materials
and data describing them. Figure 8 gives an idea of what
they look like. Materialperformance is described by simple
properties (left-hand column): the lightest unit cube of a
material is that with the lowest density p, and the stiffest
is that with the highest modulus E. Component performance
is measured by compound properties or indices (central col-
umns): combinations like specific stiffness E/p or a specific
endurance limit ~flp. These indices look simple but they
are remarkably powerful: they capture function, constraints,
and objective.
One example is a lightweight frame for a competition
bicycle. It must bear service loads safely (that is without
failure), be as light as possible, and at the same time be
the rider's energy. Figure 9 shows the important loads. The
forks, for obvious reasons, are loaded in bending. The
frame, less obviously, carries bending and torsional loads
created by impact and by out-of-plane pedaling forces, and
it is these which are most important in choosing its strength
and stiffness. We take bending as an example; the results
of torsion are the same.
And here we need a model. The simplest model which
just captures the essentials is laid out below.
A. Translation: Design Requirements to Material Indices
Most bicycles have tubular frames. The tube diameter,
for an ordinary "street" bike, is standard (roughly 1 in.;
25 mm), allowing standardization of accessories. Consider
this first.
The design requirements can now be stated formally: a
material is sought for a light, strong, tubular beam of fixed
outer diameter (Figure 10). The function is to carry bending
moments. The objective is to minimize the mass m of the
frame. Expressed per unit length L of tube, the mass is
m
-- = 2 ~ r t p [1]
L
where r is the outer radius of the tube, t is the wall thick-
ness, and p is the density of the material of which it is
made. This is the objective function, the quantity to be min-
imized.
The first constraint is that of strength: the tube must not
fail. Mechanical failure could be by plastic collapse, by fast
fracture, by buckling, or by fatigue caused by repeated cy-
clic loads. Take fatigue as an example. The cyclic bending
moment Ms the tube can withstand with infinite life is
Ms - [2]
r
where % is the endurance limit and I is the second moment

1104--VOLUME 26B, DECEMBER 1995 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B


Planar slice
0 B. Material Property Space
Q.
E E/p and EVZp can be examined. More generally, one can
if)
Simple property P2
Fig. 11--A planar slice throughmaterialpropertyspace.
of area, given, for a thin-walled tube, by
I = "rrr3t [3]
There is a second constraint, this time one of geometry: the
tube radius, r, is as fixed. The wall thickness is free; we
choose it so that it will just support MB. Substituting Eqs.
[3] and [2] into Eq. [1] gives the mass per unit length in
terms of design parameters and material properties:
m
= O [41
L r
The lightest tube which performs the function and meets
the constraints is therefore that made from the material with
the greatest value of the compound property or "index."
M~ = - - [5]
P ily of lines identifies these. The indices give a method for
A change of function, objective, or constraints changes the
index. If the function were transmission of heat rather than
mechanical load, thermal conductivity would appear in
place of endurance limit. If the objective were to minimize
cost rather than weight, the density p would be replaced by
Cmp, where C~, is the cost per kilogram of the material.
More relevant here, if the first constraint is that of stiffness
rather than strength, is that the index (derived in a similar
way) becomes
E we choose are themselves indices, the procedure allows se-
M2 = - [6]
P
And if the second constraint--that of fixed tube radius--is
relaxed and replaced by that of fixed tube shape (r/t fixed)
then--reiterating the derivation--the index for strength be-
comes
Ore2/3
M3 - [7]
P
and that for stiffness becomes
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
El/2
M4 = [8]
P
We need these results subsequently. For now, note that in-
dices capture function, constraints, and objectives; they
translate design requirements into prescriptions for select-
ing material.
Property combinations like those of Eqs. [5] through [8]
suggest the idea of plotting one property--E, say--against
another--p, for instance--such that combinations such as
think of a "material property s p a c e " - - a hyperspace with
values of material properties as coordinates. The space is
populated with blobs, each describing a class of materials:
metals, woods, composites, etc. Each contains a large num-
ber of smaller blobs, each describing one member of the
class. Figure 11 is a schematic slice through this space. One
material property PI (the modulus, for instance) is plotted
against another P2 (the density, perhaps) on logarithmic
scales. The slice intersects the blobs, as shown.
Indices divide the space and allow the part of it contain-
ing materials well suited to a given application to be iso-
lated. Think, for a moment, of P1 as E and P2 as p. The
condition
E
--= C
P
or taking logs,
log E = log p + log C [9]
defines a family of straight parallel lines of slope 1, one
line for each value of the constant C. The condition
EI/2
=C
P
defines another set with slope 2. We want the subset of
materials with the largest values of C; the appropriate fam-
optimal selection. Any one of the indices given previously
(and there are many more) can be used in this way, plotting
it on the appropriate slice through property space. We shall
call these slices "material selection charts."
Figure 11 is a planar slice. We learn more if we examine
nonplanar slices. Figure 12 shows the idea. If each of the
axes of the chart is not made up of simple properties but
instead functions of two or more of them, then the chart
projects a curved surface through the space, again inter-
secting the material blobs, as shown. And if the functions
lection of materials which maximize two different indices
at the same time. As an example, if the two indices M 3 and
M4 (Eqs. [7] and [8]) are chosen, then the materials which
lie near the top right of Figure 12 are those which have
large values of both. In the examples which follow, we
have used curved sections to make the selections.
C. Selection of Materials for Bicycle Frames
The method is best illustrated by example. The standard
bike made of the standard material (steel) has 1-in. tubes.
VOLUME 26B, DECEMBER 1995--1105
 steels, the alloys of aluminum, magnesium, and titanium--
I
Non-planar slice lie almost on top of each other; to separate them, the box
in which they lie has been expanded horizontally to the
right. It contains the alloys commonly used for bicycle
frames: the low alloy steels 531 and 753; the aluminum
V
alloys 7075, 2024, and 6061 in the T4 or T6 condition; the
relatively low-strength B265 titanium; and the magnesium
alloy AZ61. All have almost identical values of M, and M2;
e,) at fixed tube radius, there is almost nothing to choose be-
o tween them. Even CFRPs offer very little if fabricated as
1-in. tubing; the additional weight of the nodes needed to
-O connect the tubes offsets the weight savings offered by the
E material itself.
0 The potential of light alloys and composites is unlocked,
Q.
so to speak, when the constraint on tube radius is relaxed;
E fat-tube bikes can exploit their advantages more fully. In-
0
o dices for tubing of constant shape (r/t) rather than constant
size (r) were derived earlier; they are listed in the third
Compound property g(P3,P4 ...) column of Figure 8. Calling the database again and forming
these new compound properties gives the slice through
Fig. 12 A curved slice through material property space. property space shown in Figure 14. And this time things
have changed, if we take 531 (it lies near the lower left)
500 as the benchmark, we find that all the other metals offer
FRAME MATERIALS: gains, both in stiflhess and in strength. The designer now
7" ,2 s
has an option: i f - as in a mountain bike--strength is more
E
important than stiffness, the best choice might be those met-
o~200 als which lie highest on the strength axis: high-strength
WOODS
titanium and metal-matrix composites. If, instead, stiffness
GFRP.s ri ALLOYS~.~,,~
L is the over-riding consideration (as in a track bicycle), then
100 it is the metals lying furthest to the right which are most
M9A,Lt OYS ELS
r aO attractive: magnesium alloys and, above all, beryllium. The
o. 6O F(ALLOYS AZ6I 707
B265 753

~ 40
"-7 Mg ALLOYS
g 1
~ 2o POLYMERS At ALLOYS
I
L_J
lo.
t 111
), ' 6 8 lo z
I0
PROPERTY GROUP E/#
Fig. 13 A selection chart for strength and stiffness, with fixed tube
radius, r, but tube wall thickness free.
Accessories fit this frame size, so there is an incentive--as
already mentioned--to retain it. With this constraint, what
gain in performance, in the sense of strength and stiffness
per unit weight, do alternative materials offer? Figure 8
tabulates the indices. The second column gives those for
fixed tube radius--they are the indices MI and M2 derived
in Section A.
Imagine, now, a database of material properties contain-
ing information about the materials that are, or could be,
used for bicycle frames. From it, we call the simple prop-
erties E, O-e, and p. With these, we form the compound
properties in the second column of Figure 8 and plot them
as a material selection chart. Figure 13 shows the result.
The horizontal axis shows specific stiffness, and the vertical
one gives specific fatigue strength. Polymers and short-fiber
composites lie to the lower left; they are poor by both cri-
teria. Continuous carbon-fiber composites (CFRPs) lie
toward the upper right, good by both criteria. Metals--
531
CFRPs (and wood, too) are outstanding by both criteria;
only the problem of joining has to be overcome to exploit
6 -EL them fully.
,, A[ALLOYS-~"~ I
U
~I
STEELS
V. COMPUTER-AIDED MATERIAL SELECTION
2~ J3 2" 2.~ 2'6 2.7
All this is perfectly practical.tt~J,,} Focus for a moment
[
I I L
~o 60 80 too
i I I
zoo on Figure 14 (the materials charts for fixed shape) and the
(GPo/Mg.m "3) light alloys it contains. Figure 15 is the output of a com-
puter-based selection system [a6] which implements the pro-
cedure I have described here. The figure shows the same
curved slice through property space. Data, in this instance,
were drawn from a database for light alloys, so steel wood
and CFRP are not there, but otherwise, it looks very much
like the previous figure. The large ovals span the range of
properties of each alloy class: aluminum, magnesium, tita-
nium, and beryllium. The smaller bubbles within them de-
scribe individual alloys, in specified states of heat
treatment; some of those relevant to the bicycle frame are
labeled. The software allows selection lines to be con-
structed, isolating subsets of materials with attractive values
of both indices, and weighted, if desired, in the direction
of strength or the direction of stiffness. This subset can then
be passed to further selection stages in which other con-
straints (adequate toughness, availability in tubular form,
weldability, etc.) can be applied, identifying the small set
of materials which satisfy all the design requirements. More
important, the method can be integrated into the design
framework. The inputs, as we have seen, are design spec-
ifications: function, constraints, and objectives. The output
is a short list of candidate materials, with property data

1106--VOLUME 26B, DECEMBER 1995 M E T A L L U R G I C A L AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B


Fig. 1 4 ~ A selection chart for strength and stiffness, with shape, r/t, fixed
but radius, r, free.
Fig. 15--The output of a computer-aided selection system for a fixed tube
shape when weight is to be minimized.
which can be passed to downstream tools for simulation,
finite element analysis, etc. Properly integrated for other
design tools, the designer could select any one of these
candidates and watch the consequence of the choice cas-
cade through the linked chain of design tools and, if the
results are unsatisfactory, could pick an alternative candi-
date and follow the consequences again.
We have limited ourselves thus far to the performance-
related objective of minimizing weight. Suppose, as a final
example, material cost rather than weight was the objective,
then, drawn from the same database, the appropriate slice
through property space is created, as shown in Figure 16.
The vertical axis is
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS B
Fig. 16--The output of a computer-aided selection system for a fixed tube
shape when material cost is to be minimized.
M5 =
Ore2/3 [10]
Gp
where Cm is the cost of the material per kilogram; M5 meas-
ures the strength per unit cost, for fixed tube shape. The
horizontal axis is
E~/2
M6 = - - [11]
Cmp
It measures stiffness per unit cost. And now, steels deci-
sively win: although not shown here, they are better than
any of the light alloys (531 lies just off the top right comer
of the figure). The light alloys themselves form a clear
ranking; aluminum alloys offer the best value for the
money, so to speak, in this application; they are followed
by magnesium and, then far behind, by titanium and be-
ryllium. All this can be done very quickly, offering the
designer the same sort of flexibility that he expects from
the design tools already at his disposal.
gI. CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that in mechanical design, technical
innovation precedes innovation in material and process.
While this is understandable, it is undesirable; when a new
material is introduced into an already detailed design, its
potential may never be fully realized.
The computer has greatly changed the design world. So-
phisticated tools exist to capture function and geometry; to
simulate, model, and analyze; to optimize, both for me-
chanical performance and manufacturability; and more. No
such tools exist for the selection of materials and processes,
with the result that their selection is poorly integrated into
the design stream. There is, today, a sense that the achieve-
ments of material science have outstripped the ability o f the
engineer to apply them; and this divergence relates, at least
in part, to the problem we have just defined: the inability
of the designer to explore the potential of altemative ma-
terials in his design. A strategy is needed to deal with it.
The outlines of a design-led materials selection system
VOLUME 26B, DECEMBER 1995--1107
have been developed in this article. The scheme takes, as
input, design requirements: function, constraints, and ob-
jectives. It delivers, as outputs, a subset of viable materials
with data for their properties. This input/output scheme has
the features necessary for integration into the larger design
framework, allowing the designer to explore, early in the
design process, the selection of material and its conse-
quences. And although we have not discussed it here, it
appears possible that a parallel scheme could be developed
for selecting manufacturing processes.
A full implementation poses many challenges. The re-
sources required are considerable; but so they were before
the development of the solid modeling software which, to-
day, is in general use. And the rewards are considerable.
Above all, it is the route to a convergence of two of the
main streams of engineering: materials science and me-
chanical design.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support
of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
of the United Kingdom through a rolling grant to the En-
gineering Design Centre of the Cambridge University En-
gineering Department, and to thank Dr. D. Cebon,
Professor C.A. McMahon and Drs. H.R. Shercliff and
M.P.F. Sutcliffe for stimulating discussions and documents
which have helped to shape this article.
1108--VOLUME 26B, DECEMBER 1995
REFERENCES
1. G.E. Dieter: Engineering Design, a Materials and Processing
Approach, McGraw-Hill, London, 1983.
2. F.A. Crane and J.A. Charles: Selection and Use of Engineering
Materials, ButterwortAa and Co., London, 1984.
3. M.M. Farag: Selection of Materials and Manufacturing Processes for
Engineering Design, Prentice-Hall, London, 1990.
4. G. Lewis: Selection of Engineering Materials, Prentice-Hall, London,
1990.
5. G. Pah| and W. Beitz: Engineering Design, The Design Council,
London, 1984.
6. D.G. Ullman: The Mechanical Design Process, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, 1992.
7. A. Sharp: Bicycles and Tricycles, an Elementary Treatise on their
Design and Construction, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.
8. R. Watson and M. Gray: The Penguin Book ~[ the Bicycle, Penguin
Books, Harmondesworth, United Kingdom, 1978.
9. F.R. Whitt and D.G. Wilson: Bic3,cfing Science, 2nd ed., The MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.
10. K. Kobayashi: Histoire du Vg'loeipbde de Drais h Michaux, Bicycle
Culture Centre, Tokyo, 1903.
I I. W. Ulrich: f'ahrrad ~k'g/Zeit, The Technical Museum, Vienna,
1990.
12. C.J. McMahon, Jr. and C.D. Graham, Jr.: Introduction to Engineering
Materials; The Bi~Tele and the Walkman, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1993.
13. Engineering Materials: An lntr~duction, Unit I I, Bike Frames, The
()pen University, Mihon Keynes, UK, 1982.
14. M.F. Ashby: Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Pergamon
Press, Oxlbrd, United Kingdom, 1992.
15. D. Cebon and M.F. Ashby: Met. Mater., 1992, Jan., pp. 25-3(I.
16. CMS Materials Selection Sr (iranta Design Ltd., 20
Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IQA, United Kingdom.
METALLURGICALAND MATERIALSTRANSACTIONSB