Buncha Carbon Fiber Suckers....

Insight Driver · #61 12-11.-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; aluminum sucks too.

Ti for life. Suckers.

http://www.velonews.com/media/easton_bolt.pdf

You are ignornant and the qualities of carbon fiber, dude. You are spewing anger obviously. I think you are just like the wolf in the fable, calling the grapes sour because you can't have any.

IronDonut · #62 12-11.-2005

Yes you are right. Carbon fiber bolts would be much better than metal bolts.

You're right I have two $6,000 Litespeeds (Niota and Vortex) because I can't affort a $1200 carbon bike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insight Driver

http://www.velonews.com/media/easton_bolt.pdf

You are ignornant and the qualities of carbon fiber, dude. You are spewing anger obviously. I think you are just like the wolf in the fable, calling the grapes sour because you can't have any.

Adam-from-SLO · #63 12-12.-2005

children.... children.... play nicely with your bicycles

FasterthanU · #64 12-20.-2005

The problems of induction....

triguy98 · #65 12-20.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiabloScott

The real reason steel bikes were the norm for so many years had more to do with ease of assembly and availability, not material properties.

Namely, the welding techniques and equipment weren't widely available for a long time. I saw an example of early Alum welding, wasn't pretty (still holding up fine 10 years later, tho) and I wouldnt pay for a frame welded like that. The modern gas shielded MIG machines are what allowed alum to take the place of steel.

Insight Driver · #66 12-21.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

Yes you are right. Carbon fiber bolts would be much better than metal bolts.

You're right I have two $6,000 Litespeeds (Niota and Vortex) because I can't affort a $1200 carbon bike.

Obviously, obviously, didn't read the link..

It's about how dumb wrenches don't follow torque specs and over-torque the **** out of their bikes. Try over-tightening some plumbing. You'll learn, first-hand, about a property of a material like copper when it's over-tightened.

You have a good grasp of some material properties, but not enough knowledge to make intelligent decisions. You love titanium..woo hoo. It's 1/3 the strength of steel and it's modulus is one third of steel's also. Thing is, design is all about knowing the properties of the material you use and designing correctly for the application.

Now, for the NTSB link about the plane, if you actually went deeper into the investigation you would have learned that the joint that failed was stronger than the metal joint that would have been there if they did not use carbon fiber. The real fault was over-reaction by the pilots and a control system that allowed it to happen. Basically they broke their plane by slamming the rudder up and down violently. It was not a weakness in the carbon fiber, as you are implying. You have cherry-picked what strengthens your case, only.

IronDonut · #67 12-21.-2005

I don't think there are a lot of MIG welded bike frames. Most of them are TIG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triguy98

Namely, the welding techniques and equipment weren't widely available for a long time. I saw an example of early Alum welding, wasn't pretty (still holding up fine 10 years later, tho) and I wouldnt pay for a frame welded like that. The modern gas shielded MIG machines are what allowed alum to take the place of steel.

IronDonut · #68 12-21.-2005

Steel is a great materials with two problems. It rusts and it's strength to weight ratio is poor. Finish is part of durability and a painted steel finish is no better than painted carbon or alum.

About that plane... Thats what Airbus said regards their carbon fiber tail connection points. It's bull****. Of course they are going to say whatever is required to dodge responsibility.

Carbon fiber has an amasing strength to weight ratio in tension but in compression it's lousy. The messy thing about the real world is that structures are often subject to loads outside of their design intent. My problem with carbon fiber as a structural material is that it isn't as forgiving as metal when it comes to these random stresses. The carbon fiber mountain bike frames are a perfect example of the weaknesses of this material. Consider this; carbon fiber mountain bike frames have no weight advantage over their aluminum and titanium counterparts. Zero. In fact they are often at a weight disadvantage and it's because of carbon structures don't resist random loads well and metal does. So they have to overbuild the mountain bike frames to such a high degree that the carbon structures weigh more than their metal counterparts.

Don't think I'm totally anti-carbon. I'm not. I'm in favor of using the right material for the job. I have carbon bars on my mountain bike because they are so much lighter than the metal ones. I have a carbon seatpost on my road bike to make it ride a little softer but a metal post on my mountain bike because the carbon posts aren't durable enough for that duty.

The frames are all titanium for durability. It doesn't rust, there is no paint to scratch, it isn't soft like carbon and my shifter cables won't rub furrows into the frame and it doesn't fatigue like aluminum. And maybe most importantly I can run the bikes clean without gaudy decals and brand names all over my bike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insight Driver

Obviously, obviously, didn't read the link..

It's about how dumb wrenches don't follow torque specs and over-torque the **** out of their bikes. Try over-tightening some plumbing. You'll learn, first-hand, about a property of a material like copper when it's over-tightened.

You have a good grasp of some material properties, but not enough knowledge to make intelligent decisions. You love titanium..woo hoo. It's 1/3 the strength of steel and it's modulus is one third of steel's also. Thing is, design is all about knowing the properties of the material you use and designing correctly for the application.

Now, for the NTSB link about the plane, if you actually went deeper into the investigation you would have learned that the joint that failed was stronger than the metal joint that would have been there if they did not use carbon fiber. The real fault was over-reaction by the pilots and a control system that allowed it to happen. Basically they broke their plane by slamming the rudder up and down violently. It was not a weakness in the carbon fiber, as you are implying. You have cherry-picked what strengthens your case, only.

artmichalek · #69 12-21.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

The frames are all titanium for durability. It doesn't rust, there is no paint to scratch, it isn't soft like carbon and my shifter cables won't rub furrows into the frame and it doesn't fatigue like aluminum. And maybe most importantly I can run the bikes clean without gaudy decals and brand names all over my bike.

Titanium doesn't fatigue?

http://www.serotta.com/pages/current.html#Dec12
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05550.html
http://www.bikepro.com/recalls/ericksonrecall.html

SilentShifter · #70 12-21.-2005

I wish everyone would just get over themselves. Who gives a rats ass what someone else rides?

You like steel? then ride steel
You like CF? then ride CF
You like aluminium? then ride aluminium
You like Ti? then ride ti

Why does everyone feel the need to trash other frame materials. Just like training routines, what works for one person may not work for another. Just ride what you want and leave other people be.

Besides no one in here (or any other related thread) has been able to bring scientific laboratory controlled proof that one fame material is more comfortable, resilient, stronger, lighter, stiffer, etc. It has been nothing more than personal opinions.

Just ride your bike its as simple as that.

triguy98 · #71 12-21.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDonut

I don't think there are a lot of MIG welded bike frames. Most of them are TIG.

And what did TIG evolve from? The gas shielding is what allows alum and titanium to be welded. Turn off your gas when welding them and try it. Can you say "splatter"? A steel bike can easily be welding MIG. Alum, you could. It's not the prettiest job, that's one of the benefits of TIG welding, nice clean welds.

I think you mas produced frames are MIG welded. TIG is hand and labor intensive. MIG is faster and cheaper, hence the lower end frames having big welds. As you get into nicer higher end bikes, you get nicer looking welds.

bikeguy · #72 12-21.-2005

Hi,

I would just like to say after buying a bike with a carbon fiber front fork
and a wheel with a carbon profile (Zipp 404) I've noticed that these two
transmit vibration considerably more than the completely aluminum bikes I've ridden on. When I go over a bump (a thumbnail sized rock will do) with a Zipp 404 it's a huge jolt, a jolt that is much less on the other alu front fork, alu wheeled bike I ride on. Seems to me that carbon fiber doesn't give, it doesn't flex, when you hit a bump it throws the bike up much more than alu. That said, the Zipp 404 is nice and light and the fork lightens up the bike too. I haven't had any problems with either even though I've hit a few potholes hard. I also had a alu rimmed Kysrium equipe, which disintegrated in the course of 9 months and maybe 6000 km (the rim was cracking in the middle). I wasn't impressed with that! Here's hoping the Zipp holds together a bit longer.. for the record I ride my bikes hard... I like to jack rabbit start and I usually ride pretty fast, I'm capable of a 38 km/hr 40 km TT, no aerobars.

-Bikeguy

Traffic Jammer · #73 12-21.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentShifter

I wish everyone would just get over themselves. Who gives a rats ass what someone else rides?

You like steel? then ride steel
You like CF? then ride CF
You like aluminium? then ride aluminium
You like Ti? then ride ti

Why does everyone feel the need to trash other frame materials. Just like training routines, what works for one person may not work for another. Just ride what you want and leave other people be.

Besides no one in here (or any other related thread) has been able to bring scientific laboratory controlled proof that one fame material is more comfortable, resilient, stronger, lighter, stiffer, etc. It has been nothing more than personal opinions.

Just ride your bike its as simple as that.

Here here...I've just been reading this and if it's only Trek frames having these difficulties.... follow me here...... and they have been made oh so popular because of Lance. No comment on riding what your hero rides.

Could it possibly be a manufacturing issue as it seems that these frames must be pretty darned popular these days? Rushing them out the door to hungry consumers?.....happens in every industry.

friedmikey · #74 12-21.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikeguy

Hi,

I would just like to say after buying a bike with a carbon fiber front fork
and a wheel with a carbon profile (Zipp 404) I've noticed that these two
transmit vibration considerably more than the completely aluminum bikes I've ridden on...

A Zipp 404 has a 58mm rim profile - more than double the 25mm profile of your Equipes. I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption that it's going to tranmit more jolts. It would be interesting to hear your review after riding on a 58mm aluminum rim, if there even is such a thing.

bikeguy · #75 12-21.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by friedmikey

A Zipp 404 has a 58mm rim profile - more than double the 25mm profile of your Equipes. I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption that it's going to tranmit more jolts. It would be interesting to hear your review after riding on a 58mm aluminum rim, if there even is such a thing.

You've got a point about the rim depth - the longer the spokes I guess
the more flex and even though the Zipp only has 18 spokes they are very tight and the wheel is stiff, but when I was riding with a standard rim depth alu wheel the front carbon fiber fork still transmits shock much more than the other bikes I've ridden with alu front forks. Not that it really matters, you do get used to the extra vibration. It just seems like carbon is way "harder" than alu, I feel like I'm rolling on round rock wheels and fork, which is fine if the road is smooth.

Mountainbiking with carbon fiber? --- OW! No way!

-Bikeguy

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