Buncha Carbon Fiber Suckers....

IronDonut · #16 05-17.-2005

Don't be such an idiot.

100% failure rate means exactly that. All of our Trek / Fisher bikes failed and were replaced at least once. A couple twice and one three times.

Follow along if you can; Once the two most abusive riders switched to Titus Racer-X bikes they had no more problems. These are state and regional champion level riders. Very good riders.

On your other point; Typically, almost always actually when a frame fails it doesn't just fall apart. You'll usually get crack in one of the joints typically around the bottom bracket. I know all of the fishers but one failed at the swingarm where it joins the bottom bracket. The one that didn't fail came so far out of alignment that you couldn't keep it in gear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cydewaze

I'm also under the impression that this person has had some sort of bad experience with a carbon frame, albeit under dubious circumatances.

What I can't get my head around is this:

He claims his racer friends kept using carbon frames, at least for a while, because they were replaced for free. But he also said that they had a 100% failure rate, which implies they broke during every race. How many times would this have to happen to a logical person before they just sold the warranty replacement frame and bought something else?

Also, with 100% breakage, you would think there would be significant injuries (or even death) resulting from said breakage. Yet I've never seen nor heard of a failure-related lawsuit. Surely if so many of these frames broke, someone would be bound to get injured.

As for myself not riding hard enough, I'm a horrible mountain biker, and I'm pretty breakneck. I've wrecked hundreds of times, and broken helmets, handlebars, wheels, brake levers, just about anything on the bike. Never had a carbon frame failure though. Broke my old aluminum bike, but the carbon has held up well, and I had serious reservations about buying it (but the price was right).

A few minutes ago I gave calls to 2 LBSs I deal with, as well as my friend's bike shop up in PA. All three deal some sort of carbon frame, so I asked about warranty returns for failure. The two locals had had a few in the past several years, but they were either bike vs vehicle accidents or car rack mishaps. The PA shop had one race failure, when a guy in a crit went up a curb, through a hay bale, and into a hydrant.

Not saying there aren't other types of failures out there, but the 100% seemed a little steep.

IronDonut · #17 05-17.-2005

You're a real genius aren't you? Trek didn't sponsor anyone; they simply built the bikes. They had no idea where the bikes were going or to whom. Stop being such a jackass.

Isolated case? Don't think so, every single one of our Fisher Sugars failed. All of them. 2 out of 2 of the OCLV frames failed as well.

Check out some stories by other folks;

http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_ful...t_121118.shtml

Now tell me how many Moots or Titus failures you see;

http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_ful...t_121883.shtml

http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_ful...t_122331.shtml

Whats that? No failures? Thats why good quality welded metal beats carbon fiber for offroad bikes. Durability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilmar13

Hmmmm what about the possibility that this guy incessantly pestered Trek so bad for sponsorship that they purposely gave him bad frames HOPING the above would happen?

Most likely though, it is just an exageration of an isolated case... the sad part is when people do that it totally discredits any reasonable complaint they originally had, at least in my mind.

IronDonut · #18 05-17.-2005

Here is the problem with carbon fiber. It's super light that for sure. The price? It's super fragile. Unlike metal which is strong in all directions carbon fiber is only strong in it's design plane. Which means if you are riding a carbon fiber frame dirt bike and you crash it and that crash happens to transmit energy into the frame in a way the frame wasn't designed to handle? It's going to fail.

Check out this spectacular carbon fiber failure that brought down flight 587 over Queens NY. The pilot went hard over with the rudder pedal and the tail snapped off because it's carbon fiber attachment points failed. You might note the metal rods that went though the carbon that held the tail to the airplane were 100% intact.

In engineering there is always a tradeoff. If you get something you have to give back something else. No free lunches. Of course none of that matters if you can get all of the lemmings to jump off cliff together and buy your crap.

IronDonut · #19 05-17.-2005

Flight 587 link;

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/7948/7948notw4.html

Metal Attachment points vs Carbon Fiber Tail (carbon loses)

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tailcomp.htm

Catabolic_Jones · #20 05-17.-2005

Hey iron...

Seems like you are quite the maverick. I admire your love of titanium. I'd like you to tackle the claims made by Cervelo, however; specifically, I'm talking about the R2.5 and the EFBe testing.

From cervelo.com:

Today was the first day the world got to see Cervélo's new superlight carbon frame, the first sub-1000g frame to receive the coveted EFBe certification. This certification is given only to frames that withstand the toughest fatigue tests, and is quite rare for any frame to receive. Most manufacturers don't dare to send their frames to EFBe, and of all frames tested by EFBe roughly two-thirds fails the test. The fact that the R2.5 is not only one of the lightest, but also one of the strongest frames is a testament to the design efforts of Vroomen-White-Design at Cervélo

I'm especially interested in the answer, as I know that .. . A) After the introduction of the R2.5, CSC still stuck by the Soloist (largely) and that B) Cervelo has now introduced the carbon Soloist.

53-11 · #21 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catabolic_Jones

Hey iron...

Seems like you are quite the maverick. I admire your love of titanium. I'd like you to tackle the claims made by Cervelo, however; specifically, I'm talking about the R2.5 and the EFBe testing.

From cervelo.com:

Today was the first day the world got to see Cervélo's new superlight carbon frame, the first sub-1000g frame to receive the coveted EFBe certification. This certification is given only to frames that withstand the toughest fatigue tests, and is quite rare for any frame to receive. Most manufacturers don't dare to send their frames to EFBe, and of all frames tested by EFBe roughly two-thirds fails the test. The fact that the R2.5 is not only one of the lightest, but also one of the strongest frames is a testament to the design efforts of Vroomen-White-Design at Cervélo

I'm especially interested in the answer, as I know that .. . A) After the introduction of the R2.5, CSC still stuck by the Soloist (largely) and that B) Cervelo has now introduced the carbon Soloist.

That EFBe test is a great test. But You have to realize that it only applies force in one direction (1100 N against the pedals at the min. 1300N for top preformance rating)

Adam-from-SLO · #22 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

I'm thinking that this carbon fiber frame trend is the latest in a long series of consumer sucker plays.

I hope you dont ride a Carbon fork... then

.... or a Carbon Seatpost

On the road bike side of the house development is near stagnant. Sure there have been some refinements here and there wheels have gotten better, they added a couple of cogs to the rear cluster but really since Shimano brought STI shifting out in the early 90s there really hasn't been a significant roadie development. In fact if you hung those new light wheels on say an original decade+ old Litespeed or Merlin Ti frame you would realise no better or worse results than if you had the latest unobtanium bling bling frame of the day.

you forgot... also of much importance in the last 15 years:
*ERGO shifting- in many people opinion... its much more user-friendly then STI (ie. better Ergo-nomics

) .... plus they happen to be partially CARBON

*Duel-pivot Break Calipers- shimano + Campy
*saddles that are MUCH more friendly to "Mr. Happy"

, that have the center recessed section(ie. Terry, Selle Italia, etc.) + Gel + Carbon/and or Ti. Rails. Its all about comfort on the bicycle...... and a proper saddle is a big key to that riddle + frame sizing + nice pair of bibs +++

Oh BTW; aluminum sucks too.

Ti for life. Suckers.

These last two statements... I do however agree with.

Adam-from-SLO · #23 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

Here is the problem with carbon fiber. It's super light that for sure. The price? It's super fragile. Unlike metal which is strong in all directions carbon fiber is only strong in it's design plane. Which means if you are riding a carbon fiber frame dirt bike and you crash it and that crash happens to transmit energy into the frame in a way the frame wasn't designed to handle? It's going to fail.

Check out this spectacular carbon fiber failure that brought down flight 587 over Queens NY. The pilot went hard over with the rudder pedal and the tail snapped off because it's carbon fiber attachment points failed. You might note the metal rods that went though the carbon that held the tail to the airplane were 100% intact.

In engineering there is always a tradeoff. If you get something you have to give back something else. No free lunches. Of course none of that matters if you can get all of the lemmings to jump off cliff together and buy your crap.

If you beat your tool around.... then I would not suggest Carbon- ANYTHING.
If you are over 200 pounds.... I do not suggest Carbon(frames, seatposts, seat-rails, rims).

Carbon is not really any more lighter then Aluminum... but people seem not to have a problem w/buying Aluminum

, it STiff , light, non-corrosive ---- however, every peeble in the road- YOU FEEL

No doubt , Ti. is sweet..... when its done right( Ibis, Moots, Seven, *Lightspeed/Merlin in there hay-day*, and heck- even a Mongoose- as long as the rider is under 190lbs

"Unlike metal which is strong in all directions carbon fiber is only strong in it's design plane." ........ well then, why not go with a real Carbon frame and get a C-40 or C50... that takes that very fact into consideration, and makes each tubing directional specific- thus stress/strain/torque directional forces onto each tubing under acceleration + breaking + cornering, etc. is MINIMIZED.

"In engineering there is always a tradeoff. If you get something you have to give back something else. No free lunches."

Your right... there are several tradeoffs engineers make, and also in considering which bike to buy(price, weight, durability, shock-absorption(higher.. the better, ie. Carbon or Ti. .... even Steel is very good) , looks, etc. Everyone has there own price-point, will it be Huffy.... or Ibis

Just because you have had bad luck/experience with Carbon frames in the past.... doesn't mean that "Joe-Smuckateli" who is 160 lbs . ... and goes out to buy his Carbon Corima frame-set ..... and rides it 5K+ miles per year... that its only going to last him 3 yrs. If you take care of your equipment.. it will take care of you in the end.

Blasp · #24 05-18.-2005

I weight 90+ kg and I'm riding LOOK carbon frame more than 4 years and so far I had no problem with it. I also have one older AL ano one steel frame. From my experiences I will buy new steel frame for my secondary bike this winter and I will buy again carbon fibre frame to my racing bike.

I have never heard, that anybody had any problems with carbon frames, except those, who have Trek frames. Many people are buying Trek frames, because Lance rides it. In most cases, they say that the frame is great. But there are several people, that have the same experiences as IronDonut. They get new frame every year, because it breakes down. But as I wrote before - I have never heard of any other carbon frame, with similar problems.

I'm happy owner of LOOK carbon frame and I will buy another one in several years.

mitosis · #25 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

I'm thinking that this carbon fiber frame trend is the latest in a long series of consumer sucker plays.

On the road bike side of the house development is near stagnant. Sure there have been some refinements here and there wheels have gotten better, they added a couple of cogs to the rear cluster but really since Shimano brought STI shifting out in the early 90s there really hasn't been a significant roadie development. In fact if you hung those new light wheels on say an original decade+ old Litespeed or Merlin Ti frame you would realise no better or worse results than if you had the latest unobtanium bling bling frame of the day.

Thats because all of this new frame crap they are pedaling (ha) is a crock. And in fact the carbon craze lead by Trek (maker of in my experience of the most fragile bikes made I've broken 3 out of the 4 Treks frames I've owned) using the logic "Well Lance rides it, it must be good". Is simply the latest sucker fad designed to part the average consumer with his money. You can't compare a pro racer with the average weekend job-bob racer or rec rider. Here is why; to a pro racer longevity is irrelevent. If they break a bike a new one appears out of thin air. If they just don't like the bike they get a new one for free.

Contrast that with your average weekend racer or rec rider who pays $1000-2000-3000 for a frame. Too much for a fragile as eggshels carbon frame which is easily damaged. Oh don't leave it out in the sun UV rays!!! Don't drop it!!! You know how I got the stickers off of my Ti frame last week? A propane torch and a metal scraper. Try that with your pansy ass carbon frame.

Now enter mountain biking. Contrasting the glacial pace of change on the road bike side mountain biking has undergone some radical improvements over the course of the last 10 years. And it is the last place that you should have a carbon frame. Come on do you really want something that fragile on a dirt bike you are going to beat the living hell out of? Just stupid.

To sum up; if you are a pro who gets bikes for free carbon is great. If you have to pay for your own stuff and want it to last for a while carbon sucks. If you have a dirt bike and you are considering carbon you should have your head examined.

Oh BTW; aluminium sucks too.

Ti for life. Suckers.

You were going OK for awhile until I read that Al sucks.

You may be right about carbon being a new gimmick to sell more bikes (as going from 5 - 10 on the rear cluster has over the last 20 years. Its hard to believe that you need 10 on the back when most racers are still only using 2 chain rings) but there's nothing wrong with metal bikes.

Al can be made rigid or flexy, lighter than any other frame or solid. If it starts to sag it can be retempered.

Then again the same can be said for steel, or Ti.

People buy what the pros ride and what they get *sold* by the marketting department.

cydewaze · #26 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

Don't be such an idiot.

Follow along if you can;

It's statements like this that are making people question your motives for this rant. You're just too angry to not have an ulterior motive. I have a feeling there's something you're not telling us.

When you start firing things like "idiot" the second someone questions you, it's either because you're worried that you'll get a question you weren't prepared for, or you don't think people should be allowed to disagree with you.

There are probably people on this forum who have forgotten more about bikes than you may ever know. They're not all going to agree with everything you say. Grow a pair and deal with it like an adult.

artmichalek · #27 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

Don't be such an idiot.

Strong words from someone who cleans his bike with a propane torch.

meehs · #28 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

Follow along if you can; Once the two most abusive riders switched to Titus Racer-X bikes they had no more problems.

Follow along with this if you can Einstein... The Racer-X that you continue to rave about is made of <gasp!> ALUMINUM! Which as you so eloguently and pragmaticly put it; "sucks". What gives?

wilmar13 · #29 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

Check out this spectacular carbon fiber failure that brought down flight 587 over Queens NY. The pilot went hard over with the rudder pedal and the tail snapped off because it's carbon fiber attachment points failed. You might note the metal rods that went though the carbon that held the tail to the airplane were 100% intact.

Ahh yes and if only it was Ti it wouldn't have failed even if improperly designed

wilmar13 · #30 05-18.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

You're a real genius aren't you? Trek didn't sponsor anyone; they simply built the bikes. They had no idea where the bikes were going or to whom. Stop being such a jackass.

Whispered only to IronDonut: It was a sarcasm. For the record it is well documented I am an asshole, I suppose the terms are interchangeable though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

Isolated case? Don't think so, every single one of our Fisher Sugars failed. All of them. 2 out of 2 of the OCLV frames failed as well.
Check out some stories by other folks;
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_ful...t_121118.shtml
Now tell me how many Moots or Titus failures you see;
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_ful...t_121883.shtml
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_ful...t_122331.shtml
Whats that? No failures? Thats why good quality welded metal beats carbon fiber for offroad bikes. Durability.

Ahhhh N=1 the perfect example of a definitive study. Funny how in your first post you mention buying a Ti bike after owning your fisher for over 2 years with no mention of these 3 extreme failures, guess it wasn't pertinent at the time

. Sorry but I stand by my statement if you really did ever have a problem at this point you have no credibility because of the tone and exaggeration of your posts. Carbon Fiber has pros/cons and design constraints same as all the other materials you mention. There is nothing inherently bad with it...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode