Buncha Carbon Fiber Suckers.... - Page 3

Actually, for the record I find your posts quite entertaining. I pick up a lot of useful tidbits of information on these forums, and many of them come from you.

For now I've decided to go out and break my OCLV mtn bike. Never did like the color, so I'm figuring that if I can break it, I'll get a shot at a better color on the warranty replacement.

__________________
my bike page - my journal

I am just one of the many students of the forums as well... glad somebody gets my sense of humor though.

Just remember unless you happen to be IronDonut or any of his buddies who are capable of repeatedly snapping them just by riding along, you will want to try some of the more well established ways of breaking frames you already mentioned such as hitting a tree, telephone pole, curb, etc., or entering the garage with the bike on your roof rack, cleaning with a blow torch, running it over with your car, jumping with your motocross buddies, drilling some weight saving holes in the tubing... feel free to be creative with this (I am afraid you will have to be if you really want it to break).

I vote for the roof rack option. A free frame will never be worth doing a face plant into a pile of twisted metal.

Okay, so you had two carbon frame models fail and one case of an aircraft part failing. Overwhelming empirical evidence you have there. I guess we should write off composites all together based on you and your friends’ experience with two bikes… oh and one plane? You post reviews of Fishers vs. Moots – how many people do you think own Fishers vs. Moots? How many cases of failures in any industry do you think I can dig up that can be attributed to metal fatigue/failure? You demonstrate isolated cases, not an epidemic. I like carbon, but maybe you have some valid points. I don’t know. But c’mon, you’ve got to bring better evidence to the table if you’re going to make your point by calling other people idiots.

You want to see another catastrophic carbon fiber failure? See this thread and check out the pics on page 2. But you know what? It's once again an isolated case. I’d still buy those wheels for my motorcycle, if I could only afford them.

__________________

..:: M t T a m B i k e s ::..

Plus I've already done hundreds of faceplants and have no free frame to show for it.

__________________
my bike page - my journal

Don't care much about lab tests. In the real world with my bunch of riding pals we've had a 100% Trek and Fisher failure rate. Both alum and carbon. I did talk to one guy this weekend that broke a Litespeed Ti hard tail. I think the Tsali model? Can't remember exactly. Any material can fail but alum and carbon seem to fail a lot more than Ti and steel.

Further; I just talked to a girl who had a 3 day old Trek Fuel 100. After 3 days the abrasion from one of the cables rubbing on the frame dug a groove into the carbon material. 3 days old. I'm looking for a little more durability than that. It's great if you are in the business of selling bikes. Who wants to ride a beat up looking grooved up bike? But if you spend some money and you want your bike to perform and look great for the long haul carbon and alum aren't the best suited materials.

Some are Ti... some are Ti carbon matrix... some are alum..

I am going to be blunt here: I believe you are lying.

Being a mechanical engineer and understanding failure statistics (failure probability distribution) it is impossible to correlate that a large team like USPS could ride so many races throughout 6-1/2 seasons and not have a very, very large number of catastrophic failures of the same equipment in which your pals have experienced a 100% failure rate. Even if USPS gave the riders new bikes for every single day!

I repeat: I believe you are lying.

It might be a Trek thing... The majority of the failures were Fishers and Treks.

With the carbon itself... it's fragile. I'll give you a perfect example. I was running a Thompson aluminum seatpost in my Fisher Sugar 2 for a good year. I lightened it up some with an Easton carbon fiber seatpost. After maybe two weeks? Maybe 3 of riding the post broke in two where it joined the frame. Here is the problem the sharp edge of the alum cut though the carbon post until it broke in two.

The solution was to run a dremel tool around the outside of the seat tube to take the sharp edge off of tube.

Point is metal was strong enough to deal with that imperfection carbon wasn't. Further when the carbon seatpost broke it did so in a catastrophic manner. It cracked and then instantly lost all of it's strength.

There is also the issue of carbons inability to deal with lubricants and solvents and in some cases moisture...




[QUOTE=Blasp]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.
QUOTE]

These are mountain bikes and mountain bike racers jackass. None of the failures I've mention were with road bikes. Fisher Sugars and Trek OCLV mountain bikes.

All of the aformentioned mountain bike racers ride Litespeed and Lemond road bikes with zero failures. I don't have any direct exprience with the OCLV road bikes.

However, remember that fairly slow speed crash that Armstrong had when his handlebar hooked the bag while he was climbing? That pansy ass crash broke his seat stay.

IronDonut...first off...I like posts like this gets everyone rowled up!!! This is what an open forum is all about. =)

To some extent I agree with you. Carbon is the latest and greatest material out there. Indeed, there is a lot of money being dropped into advertising the crap out of carbon and its "benefits". I myself have broken everything from frames, handlebars, cranks, wheelsets, carbon saddles, and stems by just riding and training really hard or just plain crashing in a Crit at 35 MPH. The components are indeed somewhat fragile compared to Ti or Steel for that matter.

But what I like about carbon, despite its somewhat short life span when abused, is the weight benefit and the plain cool flashy mystic that carbon offers guys with an ego. Heck, I'll be the first to admit that when I pull up to the line at a race...I want everyone and their grandmother checking my ride out. [And they do] My bikes are dressed in carbon from head to toe.

I too have a 2005 Ti Airborne Manhatten Project that I use when doing uphill training. The reason: THE BIKE WEIGHS ALMOST 17.5 lbs. decked with carbon everything. I liken it to running with a big fat ankle weight. Ti and Steel frames definitely have their uses too. But when I do the same run on my Fondriest Top Carbon or my Orbea Orca, I shave almost 2:00 minutes off on the same exact run when on a full carbon frame.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you have the money to pay the big bucks for a really nice carbon frame; I say GO FOR IT!!! A really high end carbon can do wonders for the phsyche. =)

As for TREK. I share your opinion. In my humble opinion and from what I have seen at our riding club, the overall opinion after riding an expensive Madone for any long period of time is "TREK SUCKS"!!! No matter what Lance rides. If Lance were racing on a freaking HUFFY from KMART, he'd still kick any of our butts on a Ti, Carbon, or Steel Frame. The bike is a mere extension of the person mounted on it. You still have to motor that sucker with your own legs. Carbon just makes it easier for some to motor longer and faster.

I think that Carbon definitely has its ups and downs. But for me...its more ups than downs. [I guess because I'm sponsored by a Carbon Manufacturer and I get parts either really cheap or FREE] So in the end, I guess its all a matter of preference.

Tailwinds,
Vector7

I am a final year civil engineering student and as such have studied carbon fibre as a construction material. (reinforcing bridges etc) One of the biggest problems it has is that it can suffer severe degredation when exposed to UV light. I am not entirely sure if a paint job effectively protects the material although I do know that it reduces the effects. Carbon fibre is a good material and in the future when bonding techniqyes are improved it should be possible to develop very stiff tubing by cross wrapping the fibres. This is not necessarily desireable as one of the desireable features of CF is that it gives a very soft ride (this is due to the flexibility in the non weave direction.)

Steel can be manipulated by a skilled frame builder to make a reasonably light responsive ride (will never get below the 1kg mark mind..), and aluminium is like running your butt through hell and back. Ti is far too expensive for what you get imho although it is supposed to be very good.

Personally I will continue to ride my hardtail aluminium frame and then upgrade to an aluminium or carbon fibre full suss depending on what I can afford. The price differential between carbon and al means that al is much better value for money and if you have full sus many of the advantages of having carbon are lost (or that the problems associated with al are reduced).

So in summary is is possible to make very strong, stiff carbon fibre but that kind of defeats the purpose, otherwise people would just ride Al bikes which as mentioned is marginally lighter due to the thinner thicknesses required for equivalent strength.

I should add if it isn't already obvious that I am more of an mtb'er and I don't race because trail riding is just simply more fun!

We can discuss merits and disadvantages of CF all day long, but the fact is the MTB frames you rode weren't strong enough or durable enough for your application. Believe you're not so much a victim of material here as the hype surrounding light weight frames.

The marketers have been very skillful in promoting light weight as faster and "better", and have learned that they can sell the lightest, most marginal equipment for a higher profit. They know that 95% of MTB buyers will only ride them around town, or on smooth trails, so that's the plan for limiting warranty expenses.

It takes guys like you to reverse the trend here. Get a stronger frame that will hold up for you, and forget about saving the last 300 grams. If you like the way steel stands up to abuse you give it, then that's what you should ride.

The coatings (clear coat) can protect it very well assuming it's stabilized sufficiently (plastics guy here). UVA's (ultra-violet absorbers) when used in the coating, will absorb the uv light before it ever reaches the carbon fiber. I've never looked into it, so I'm not sure how much it would take at "x" coating thickness to provide protection for "x" years, but it's certainly done.

Also, paint (pigmented coatings) will go a long way in protecting it from uv degradation also. Carbon black is an excellent absorber, as is titanium dioxide (white). There are others that either reflect, absorb, and/or completely transparent to uv light so it depends on what's chosen.

The best of both worlds is a combination of both.

OK... here is a solution:

*Use Carbon if :1. its a road bike, esp. for Time-trial purposes... tubes can be shapped to maximize aero-dynamics , and esp. if your not abusive on your equipment.
*Use Aluminum: 1. if your a sprinter... and NEED that rigid/stiff frame to maximize your every effort . 2. For Full-Suspention Frames.... Alum. offers great value for the money... and is the industry standard for FS frames.
*Use Steel: 1. If your looking for a durable HT X-country frame ... and weight is not an issue w/you. 2. For road bikes... its the industry standard, and what everything else is compared against. Just be sure and keep your ride indoors/garage... and not get rained on.
*Use Titanium: 1. Great for X-country MTB 2. Great for Road riding.. soaks up all the vibration . Overall, a great/durable/lightweight material..... esp. when the welds + tubing quality goes up

.... just my .03

__________________
*The energy efficiency of a bicycle is second only to a bird in flight ;-)
*Its NOT a mechine, its a tool. A human using a bicycle as a tool-as intended .. now thats one wicked Mechine (ex. legs = pistons, mouth/airway = air intake)
*"Good people try to help others with their knowledge rather than beating them on the head because they are ignorant." -Insight Driver