u/Free-Engineering6759

I have been working in the automotive related industry for a couple of years, and I have always been flabbergasted by the lack of basic understanding of strength, stiffness and CFD of the average designer.

We have designers that have auto sport backgrounds, but usually they just "make a thing" in CAD and then throw it to FEA and CFD guys. Usually the thing has no thought given about load introduction, supports, optimal geometry or manufacturing (the last bit always puzzles me, that I, a FEA guy, have to ask if the designer thought about how the hell it is manufactured). Not to mention thought given to corrosion.

CFD and cooling is also something that goes over the head of most. Designers are one thing, but Chief Engineers and Senior Engineer Managers are another. Because they want light, simple, cheap and fast things. Every project is done in a rush, with a tight budget. Then comes the reclamation that something isn't working, or has broken. Because it wasn't tested and it was the first idea that came to CE's or SEM's or designer's mind and they just put that into the production. The first FEA and CFD is usually done after the reclamation. And because it is already in production, it cannot be altered much. Only "a quick cheap fix" is allowed. Which usually ends up not working, because it was not designed properly in the first place, and trying to fix something fundamentally wrong with 5c fix does not make it work.

Is this like this everywhere, or am I unlucky?

I came across this "game" of naval design. I have found nearly no demonstrations or gameplay of it. Has anyone tried it? Drach has mentioned it a couple of times over the years.

http://www.springsharp.com/

I'm 190 cm and a 100 kg guy. I'm looking for a bike to commute. I have been looking at Dew for some years, I even tested one few years back but back then ended up with Orbea Alma.

Now, after my Orbea continued to her new proud owner, I am once again looking for a bike. However, I am also intrigued by the gravel bike option, and Kona Rove fits my budget.

I bought Orbea while living in a hilly area, where the climbing ability was more important than long-distances or speed.

Now, when living in a less hilly place, I am looking for a bike to commute, and occasionally to take longer trips (30-40 km).

Orbea had a hickup in an otherwise good bike for me: it caused me lower back and wrist pain with its aggressive geometry. Thus, gravel bikes cause me to hesitate a bit.

Which one would you recommend? Or something totally else?

I'm doing a bit human experiment on myself. I have had the problem of accumulating fatigue too quickly and getting pains/aches after few weeks while following general gym programs.

Also I want to test theories of mechanical tension and metabolic stress on hypertrophy. Not very scientific, but hey, experimenting and being wrong or right is always fun!

*The Program*

I'm doing 3x a week, full-body program. It consists of 1) main movements 2) assistance movements.

Nothing extraordinary, as you can see.

However, I approach this a bit differently than the most programs I have tested.

1. Main movements 1x 6 - 8 @RPE 7-8

squat/ front squat: 2x a week

OHP: 3x a week

deadlift: 1x a week

row: 3x a week

The rep range allows for a little adjustment (say in OHP, as the smallest jump available is 2,5 kg, I can microload by doing one or two reps more). I try to hit 8 reps before increasing the weight next time, although RPE is also a metric ( if it feels like RPE10 but I hit 8 reps, I don't increase the weight).

2. Assistance movements 1x20-30 @RPE9-10

This includes leg extensions, leg curls, machines, tricep extensions etc. The focus is "bodybuilding". Da Pump, like the Big Arnold said. I chase the pump, not the weight. I try to fail in the rep range of 20 - 30; if I hit 30, next time I use more weight. Slow, controlled reps. Feel the burn. Or other way: find the lightest weight you can fail with.

*Why*

Why am I doing this? Well, because I have tried multiple programs over the 7 years of lifting. And this is different. This also kinda combines the SBS article about powerbuilding principles of low-volume strength specific movements, combined with high-volume bodybuilding movements. IRC, the article pointed out that the volume work should be something totally different than the strength specific work (aka volume should be say leg press and not light squat, as lifting heavy is a skill in itself).

Why am I using 20-30 rep range? Well, firstly because I have not used that rep range before. Only thing that came close was T3 work with GZCL OG program with its 25 rep final sets. Secondly, I want to see if this work can spare my tendons, as it seems I have the problem of getting aching tendons with volume of heavy work (and maybe it boosts the blood flow). Thirdly, I wanted to see the effect of metabolic stress. Fourthly, as I'm doing only one set, it is a time-effective way of getting volume (it is at least my hypothesis).

*Summary*

Will this be the most effective, most efficient way for hypertrophy? Probably not. I have no idea how it will work in a long term. But thusfar it has felt good, and refreshing. And in the end I hope I learn something about myself, and programming in general.

With hindsight, and compared to other warring nations, how good training did Japanese soldiers get at squad and platoon level? Were they able to "overcome material deficiency by level of training" as it is sometimes stated? Are there still some lessons we could use in modern warfare?

I remember playing Destroyer Command as a kid. It was quite fascinating, as an offshoot of SH2, to have surface vessels. And of surface vessels have the destroyers.

I mostly played it as RTS, as the graphics weren't that good, and most of the time you couldn't handle formations if you were doing nitty-gritty shooting with guns.

It got me thinking that there could be a potential for 2D style naval RTS that would concentrate on smaller vessels: destroyers, gunboats, escorts etc. A lot of skirmishes and such happened during the war on that level, and you could easily include smaller countries and navies.

I'm asking a bit help, because I have feel like I'm clueless what is happening and why.

- 32 yo male, 190 cm and 99 kg, some visible muscle especially legs, biceps but no abs

- trained since 2019, peaked with Starting Strength in 2020 S/B/DL/OHP 150, 100, 190, 50 kg as working sets

- Have since tried GZCL, SBS and some Bromley's programs

- My lifts are basically declined since 2020 steadily

- My recovery ability has tanked. Before I could do 3x per week gym and 20 km per week running, now I can barely keep going for 3 weeks before aches and at 6 weeks I plateau

I get that as I'm over 30, my recovery ability is worse than when I was 25. But it feels like it has been quite fast decline. All the blood work (testos, thyroid, hemoglobin etc) are in normal range.

No major eating habit or lifestyle changes since 2020.

How should I approach programming to get back on track?

I had a thyroid surgery in 10.4. After 4 weeks of not going to the gym, I devised a recovery program that was based on few principles.

Main lifts:

Squat, deadlift, press and bent over row (yes, I take rows seriously).

4x6 RPE6, weight progression is by the day, I use the warm-ups to estimate the weight for today.

Assistance:

Leg extension, leg curl, Bulgarian split squats, tricep pushdowns, front raise, seated DB press, DB row, cable row, lat pulldown.

3x10 RPE8.

I organised these as A/B/C format:

A:

Squat 4x6 RPE6

Leg extension 3x10 RPE8

OHP 4x6 RPE6

DB press 3x10 RPE8

Bent row 4x6 RPE6

Cable row 3x10 RPE8

B:

Deadlift 4x6 RPE6

Leg curl 3x10 RPE8

OHP 4x6 RPE6

Front raise 3x10 RPE8

Bent row 4x6 RPE6

DB row 3x10 RPE8

C:

Squat 4x6 RPE6

Bulgarian split squat 3x10 RPE8

OHP 4x6 RPE6

Tricep pushdown 3x10 RPE8

Bent row 4x6 RPE6

Lat pulldown 3x10 RPE8

RPE is new to me, but I wanted to be able to undulate the intensity depending on recovery and get my feet wet on the principle.

After 6 weeks, I swapped front raises to laterals, cable rows to upright rows and squats to front squats. After week 7 I started to increase assistance work from 3 sets to 4.

Within the 6 weeks, I gained +15 kg in squat, +12,5 kg in OHP, +30 kg in DL and around +15 kg in row. Although one could argue it's because I started very cautiously, and my lifts to begin with are very bad for the guy of my training history (7 years), size (190 cm and 99 kg) and consistency (3-4 times a week).

But, I have made progress. And considering being alive and somewhat functional after the botched surgery recovery in the first week, everything is a plus.

I have noticed some fatigue creep in, so that's why I changed to front squats, although due to kyphosis and ankle anterior impingement they have always been a pain in the butt. I changed front raises to laterals bc the latter seemed to work better.

Feel free to comment and discuss.

Ukrainians used some tractors in the early stages of the war, for logistics and troop carrying. Finnish Defence Forces are famous (or infamous) for relying a lot on tractors for war-time mobility of troops.

The question is, why haven't we seen more use of tractors being used in Ukraine by both sides? They offer off-road mobility and versatility that most trucks aren't capable of. And both countries have national production lines for tractors.

I have been following Project 171 in YT. Of course, the makers are not exactly your normal DIYers: they are uni professionals who have done their lifework with vehicle design and dynamics, and use advanced computer modeling as they go.

But, when they talked about aerodynamics, and how CFD is nice to have but not important, I thought: how well can you get aerodynamics right just by feel? Or other way around: if I design a car just by looks, what I think is aerodynamic, how much of a change there is it's anywhere near aerodynamic? Back in the day they thought a teardrop shape is the most aerodynamic, or a wing (apparently causing a bit of problem with lift, well, because obviously).