Broken Carbon Bars

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident. You seem to be asking whether the bars were suitable for 'cross,
or whether they had been crashed and not replaced because of expense.

We don't know whether they were crashed, no mention was made of it, so I'm
thinking not.

"I hopped up to ride on the grass alongside the sidewalk, and BOOM - hit a
hole. As I was headed off my bike,..."

Sounds like a crash to me!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>
>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>
>> Dumb application.
> My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
> going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
> they've been impacted but appear OK).
But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross
bikes).

Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon
fiber handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a
mountain bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite
making it sometimes).

Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too
big for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+
pound guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do
we draw the line?

Ultimately, the line is drawn by consumers and lawyers. Not me, not
people on rbt.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident. You seem to be asking whether the bars were suitable for 'cross,
or whether they had been crashed and not replaced because of expense.

We don't know whether they were crashed, no mention was made of it, so I'm
thinking not. I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely place
for crash damage. If they were crashed, that gets us into the whole "can
CF be inspected" thing, and what constitutes a "crash" over normal wear
and tear.

As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.

raelwelcome raelwelcome said:

Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

or

http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

Was the hubby attempting to "off" the wife? Or does he just deserve
the Darwin Award? I really don't understand why anyone would want to
mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.

This belongs to a category of "beyond clueless" or "particularly
diabolical."

damyth said:

I really don't understand why anyone would want to
mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.

Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
question, right?

Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
years.

I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy [censored], Easton and
others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.

Doug Taylor said:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth

Quoted message said:

I really don't understand why anyone would want to
mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.

Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
question, right?

Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
years.

I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy [censored], Easton and
others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.

Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
as 3 months of use, and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
CX and road bikes.

Easton should count themselves lucky when their bars break in such a
short time. The risk comes when people get lulled into a false sense
of confidence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy [censored], Easton and
others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.

Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
as 3 months of use, and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
CX and road bikes.

The reason they get away with it is that it's considered cool to break stuff
in DH events. It shows you're an animal etc. One of those guy things. We
have customers like that, and I just don't get it. Then again, I can't see
myself doing a lot of things that might put me in the air unexpectedly.

(One other reason they get away with it is the typical warning that says, if
you use the bar for its intended use, you've voided all warranties and are
likely to kill yourself. You can do that for off-road stuff without scaring
people away. Thankfully, the on-road folk are a bit more reasonable.)

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug Taylor said:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth

Quoted message said:

I really don't understand why anyone would want to
mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.

Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
question, right?

Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
years.

I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy [censored], Easton and
others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.

Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
as 3 months of use, and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
CX and road bikes.

Easton should count themselves lucky when their bars break in such a
short time. The risk comes when people get lulled into a false sense
of confidence.

damyth said:

Quoted message said:

Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
question, right?

Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
years.

I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy [censored], Easton and
others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.

Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
as 3 months of use,

I ventured a guess. You are asserting facts. It is incumbent on you
to support them; otherwise they're nothing more than pure,
unadulterated b.s.

As anecdotal evidence to the contrary, check generally favorable
reviews on mtbr.com
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Handlebar/product_21843.shtml

Also tests on Easton website:

http://www.eastonbike.com/FLASH-SWF/bar%20test.swf

Quoted message said:

and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
CX and road bikes.

LMAO. Yeah, because of suspension, mountain bike bars don't take a
beating.

Quoted message said:

Easton should count themselves lucky when their bars break in such a
short time. The risk comes when people get lulled into a false sense
of confidence.

Now THAT'S a fine piece of logic. You defeat yourself.

Doug Taylor said:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth

Quoted message said:

I really don't understand why anyone would want to
mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.

Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
question, right?

Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
years.

And those are specifically designed for such stresses. The FSA K-Wings
are designed for regular road use.

There's an attribution problem below. I think Peter Cole wrote the
questions Mike is answering.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

I guess what you're saying is that CF is fine for 'cross if the bars are
adequately strong to begin with? Or that CF isn't good for 'cross because
crashes are part of the game (and CF doesn't crash well)?

No. What I'm saying is that it's dumb to use a carbon-fiber bar that was
designed primarily to be light, in an application where it's normal to have
crashes. And that particular bar isn't in any way reinforced for 'cross
application. It's got a cool shape that people like, and it's substantially
lighter than a similar aluminum bar would be.

Quoted message said:

I don't know much about 'cross equipment, but I thought 'cross riders
usually used road bars. Wrong?

They use heavier road bars, not the stupid-light stuff. People break
stupid-light aluminum parts all the time in 'cross use. Smart people know
better. But with carbon fiber, I don't know that you even have the choice of
something beefed-up for 'cross use, and using a standard road bar is just
asking for trouble. But, some people have more money than sense, and figure
what the heck, they want the advantage, they just won't crash. In 'cross.
Sure.

The word that jumped out at me in that thread was "used." Which, along
with "big hole," pretty much tells you all you need to know.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

Note that later in the post, there's another victim of...a used set of
carbon bars!

Again, it's easy to blame the material for the sins of the designers and
builders. But carbon is full of terrible temptations for the new user:
"make the handlebars 175 grams! Your customers will love you...."

However, I don't take the view that the impure thoughts of designers are
sufficient reason to avoid tasty carbon parts. It is rather a case of
making sure that the designer's wayward impulses are curbed, and that
they stay true to their FEA, or whatever it is that designers are
supposed to do so their stuff doesn't break.

We're still talking about bike parts, right?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Jim Behning said:

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> raelwelcome wrote:
>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran
>> across this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>
>> or
>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>
> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>
> Dumb application.
One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
cross bike after that.

strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.

I doubt that any single individual's experience represents a
statistically meaningful sample.

disregard anything that doesn't agree with your preconception! typical
peter cole.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption.

You must have the "microscope plug-in" for your browser. No way you can
make out that level of detail.

you must have the "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
preconception" module plugged into your browser - the jagged ends of the
fracture are /clearly/ evident.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

no way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.

You know this, how? She doesn't mention a prior crash, she doesn't
mention creaking or flex.

so how exactly is that inconsistent with "not paying attention to the
warning signs"???

Quoted message said:

"Blame the user", where have I heard that before?

where have we seen "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
preconception" behavior before?

Quoted message said:

I thought your claim was that all CF bars failed from over-clamping?

no, not "all". that's you putting words in my mouth.

Quoted message said:

Or
crappy Chinese process control?

no. although it's a prime candidate.

Quoted message said:

It looks like simple brittle failure to
me.

saying that /proves/ you don't know what you're looking at!

Quoted message said:

Where's that "headroom"?, that "impact tolerance"?

define "impact". oh, you won't? what a surprise.

Hank Wirtz said:

jim beam said:

strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.

How many aluminum bars have you had?

maybe 20.

Quoted message said:

How many carbon bars?

2.

Quoted message said:

I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.

er, that's a null argument if you haven't used any.

i've had two carbon forks start to fail. neither just shattered like
glass and fell apart. same model, same [dud] manufacturer.

none of the other carbon forks [8], carbon brake levers [2], carbon seat
posts [5] that i've used in the last 10 years have ever shown the
slightest integrity problem.

Quoted message said:

That's because I don't want to spend more on bars than I do on a set
of wheels, especially when so many very good aluminum bars are
available at a small fraction of the price of FSA K-Wings.

shop sales then. i think my carbon mtb bars were under $50. new.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

It's like all the
stupid-light mountain bike forks of yesteryear, that would fail in use.
Riders wanted stupid-light, but eventually lawyers got involved and forks
are now heavier, and much stronger, than they used to be.

Hmm. We should remember that next time we're tempted to complain
about lawyers!

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy [censored], Easton and
others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.

Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
as 3 months of use, and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
CX and road bikes.

The reason they get away with it is that it's considered cool to break stuff
in DH events. It shows you're an animal etc. One of those guy things. We
have customers like that, and I just don't get it. Then again, I can't see
myself doing a lot of things that might put me in the air unexpectedly.

Most of the time, they expect to be there.

Quoted message said:

(One other reason they get away with it is the typical warning that says, if
you use the bar for its intended use, you've voided all warranties and are
likely to kill yourself. You can do that for off-road stuff without scaring
people away. Thankfully, the on-road folk are a bit more reasonable.)

I think that's because off-road stuff that was built to withstand all
"forseeable" impacts would be several times as heavy as the current
stuff. Indeed, the weight gains might be so great as to be
self-defeating, as the now-heavier bike package started slamming into
the ground with even more energy than before.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

jim beam said:

Hank Wirtz said:

On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.

Quoted message said:

How many aluminum bars have you had?

maybe 20.

Quoted message said:

How many carbon bars?

2.

Quoted message said:

I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.

er, that's a null argument if you haven't used any.

That's my whole point. Al bars are so common, and C bars are so
expensive and therefore rare, that pretty much any failure rate
comparisons for an individual rider are meaningless. Of course more Al
bars have failed on you, because you've had 10 times as many Al as C
bars. And any statistician will tell you that two specimens cannot
yield a meaningful sample.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Peter Cole said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>
>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>
>> Dumb application.
> My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
> going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
> they've been impacted but appear OK).
But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).

Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
sometimes).

Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
the line?

Ultimately, the line is drawn by consumers and lawyers. Not me, not people
on rbt.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident. You seem to be asking whether the bars were suitable for
'cross, or whether they had been crashed and not replaced because of
expense.

We don't know whether they were crashed, no mention was made of it, so
I'm thinking not. I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
place for crash damage. If they were crashed, that gets us into the
whole "can CF be inspected" thing, and what constitutes a "crash" over
normal wear and tear.

As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.

She says "I hopped up to ride on the grass alongside the sidewalk"
leading me to surmise that she pulled up on the bars.

--
Michael Press

Hank Wirtz said:

jim beam said:

Hank Wirtz said:

On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
How many aluminum bars have you had?

maybe 20.

Quoted message said:

How many carbon bars?

2.

Quoted message said:

I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.

er, that's a null argument if you haven't used any.

That's my whole point. Al bars are so common, and C bars are so
expensive and therefore rare, that pretty much any failure rate
comparisons for an individual rider are meaningless. Of course more Al
bars have failed on you, because you've had 10 times as many Al as C
bars. And any statistician will tell you that two specimens cannot
yield a meaningful sample.

er, /my/ whole point is that you can't say that if you haven't used them!

the facts are that aluminum fatigues, carbon otoh pretty much doesn't.
the only reason for failure is accident, abuse or manufacturing defect.
and each of those are just as much of a risk with aluminum. put
another way, one is guaranteed to break jra [eventually], the other only
if crashed, abused or defective. sounds like an easy choice to me.

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.

But since you're a proven liar and fraud, that statement really amounts to
nothing.

Quoted message said:

the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption. no way
that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then broken
later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.

Sure. Learned that from "metarials skool", did we?

Idiot.

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Jim Behning wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> raelwelcome wrote:
>>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran
>>> across this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>>
>>> or
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>
>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>
>> Dumb application.
> One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
> pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
> cross bike after that.

strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.

I doubt that any single individual's experience represents a
statistically meaningful sample.

disregard anything that doesn't agree with your preconception! typical
peter cole.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption.

You must have the "microscope plug-in" for your browser. No way you can
make out that level of detail.

you must have the "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
preconception" module plugged into your browser - the jagged ends of the
fracture are /clearly/ evident.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

no way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.

You know this, how? She doesn't mention a prior crash, she doesn't
mention creaking or flex.

so how exactly is that inconsistent with "not paying attention to the
warning signs"???

Quoted message said:

"Blame the user", where have I heard that before?

where have we seen "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
preconception" behavior before?

Quoted message said:

I thought your claim was that all CF bars failed from over-clamping?

no, not "all". that's you putting words in my mouth.

Quoted message said:

Or crappy Chinese process control?

no. although it's a prime candidate.

Quoted message said:

It looks like simple brittle failure to me.

saying that /proves/ you don't know what you're looking at!

Quoted message said:

Where's that "headroom"?, that "impact tolerance"?

define "impact". oh, you won't? what a surprise.

Here we go again, perfect example of beamboy getting caught out and
providing no useful response whatsoever.

Idiot.