A buncha carbon fiber suckers?

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.

ok well whatever, how did you break the trek frames firstly ? if crashing then so what what do you expect ? even a crashed alloy frame that looks alright i wouldnt trust again. if under too much pedalling stress how much do you weigh and can you actually ride a road bike propperly (not a MTB pedal masher)?

i would never buy a carbon mountain bike frame myself.. i just dont like carbon, doesnt ride all that nice (yes.. thats my opinion so whatever..) and theyre harder to resell (2nd hand carbon is pretty suspect esp. a mtb frame also it wouldnt take long being a mtb and being chucked arounad and going through some rough stuff for the frames to soften up

i wouldnt buy a Ti bike either, too expensive for what they are again dont seem to ride that great considering the cost and i know someone that has had a couple and had problems with other metals seizing into the frame because of corrosion and parts fusing togeather (esp. Al.)

alloy is alright, they dont ride the best but arent stupidly expensive, most bikes are made of it obviously because its cheap, reasonably light, wont corrode and is pretty strong

now if i was to buy a new road or mountain bike frame (hardtail) i'd buy a steel frame, if youve never ridden one you dont know **** and have no opinion, steel is reasonably light (when good alloys are used) though more expensive than even Ti. a good steel alloy is reasonably light (which i think is irelivant anyway), damn strong, and most importantly rides nicely

oh yes and wow your the man you ride a Ti bike WOW. nobody cares

__________________
GT Ruckus SS
2006 Giant Trance 1
Giant TCR Euro

I rode a steel Eddy Merckx road bike into the early 90s before I switched it out for the Ti road bike I have now. It still looks and rides as good now as it did 13 years ago. The steel bike was a heavy ass boat anchor.

Ti and steel have the same (exlud crashes) failure rate. That is ridden within their design parameters they will last forever. Obviously the finish on steel is more fragile (paint) and steel corrodes. If you really sweat a lot and that gets down into the seat tube it'll rust from the inside out. Not an issue with Ti.

Problem with a steel mountain bike is finding one and weight. I guess you could find a decent steel hardtail or have one made. I don't know I've never looked at hardtails. But full suspension? Can you even buy a good high end full suspension steel frame? Seems to me they are all alum, ti, or carbon.

And will full suspension unlike a road bike where the material defines the ride. With a mountain bike the suspension defines the ride. So the frame material really only effects cost, availability and durability.

I look at everything based on lifetime cost. When you include longevity into the mix Ti starts looking cheaper. Never have to re-finish it. Unless you do something really stupid it's not going to fail like carbon and alum. Which there is a ever so slight weight penalty over carbon the reality is that extra half pound isn't going to mean anything to 99% of riders out there.

The Trek / Fisher frames generally cracked at the bottom bracket or the rear triangle came so far out of alignment that shifting was impossible. One of the hardtail OCLV frames failed up top but I can't remember what the exact failure was. It wasn't my bike.

Interesting note; one of the bike rags actually did some kind of pedaling test. Can't remember which one. But they found that on average mountain bike racers had developed the smoothest pedaling style because of the need to control wheelspin climbing.

All of the mountain bike racers I know spend at least an equal amount of time on road bikes riding with the road racers.

I think Carbon buyers know what they're getting themselves into. They're largely weight weenies who would resort to grinding off metal parts deemed unnecessary to shave a few grams of weight.

I have no doubt that the current crop of carbon fibre will give up the goat long before their steel, ti, and AL counterparts do. But remember that carbon fibre composites are a relatively new material. They starting to brew batches with short length carbon nano-tubes. When those nano-tubes get long enough, carbon fibre will be stronger (and stiffer) than any metal.

I personally believe that carbon fiber will eventually replace aluminum as the uber-leightweight material of choice. But steel and titanium will be around forever because of their springiness.

And ironically a lot of them are also 20lbs overweight.

I don't know about others but I will probably buy one good bike at a minimum of every 3-5 years. An aluminium frame should last that long. I think most come with a 3 year warranty. Thus having a bike that lasts forever isnt really a priority for me. I ride XC and am unlikely to snap a frame through impact.

There's another sort who rides CF bikes. Those who build bikes themselves. Welding is a pain in the ass- the equipment, tools, materials, and required skill level all make building frames of steel, aluminum, sodium, valium, magnesium, or titanium a tough thing to do. CF can be put together by just about anyone, and it allows a lot more creativity in the shape and look of the final product.

Check out Jim Scozzafava's or Damon Rinard's web pages or many of the other folks who build CF bikes. There's a lot to be said for CF.

TD

__________________
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."