Broken Carbon Bars

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> 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.

 

[damyth]

On Oct 8, 2:49 pm, raelwelcome <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

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."

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 ****, Easton and
others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.

 

[damyth]

On Oct 9, 1:50 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 ****, 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.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy ****, 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 9, 1:50 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 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 ****, 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.
>

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:07:46 -0700, damyth
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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 ****, 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 test.swf


>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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdXcitOUzY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVAccWTrnIQ

>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.

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 9, 1:50 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

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

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> > 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 protected] 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]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Jim Behning wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
>>> <[email protected]> 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.


>
>
>> 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.


>
>> 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"???


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

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



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

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

> Or
> crappy Chinese process control?

no. although it's a prime candidate.

> It looks like simple brittle failure to
> me.

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


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

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

 

[jim beam]

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

maybe 20.


> How many carbon bars?

2.


>
> 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.

>
> 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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 9, 12:50 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy ****, 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.

> (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 protected] 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

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 9, 8:57 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>
> > How many aluminum bars have you had?
>
> maybe 20.
>
> > How many carbon bars?
>
> 2.
>
>
>
> > 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.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>> 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

 

[jim beam]

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Oct 9, 8:57 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>>> How many aluminum bars have you had?
>> maybe 20.
>>
>>> How many carbon bars?
>> 2.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.

 

[Jambo]

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

> 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.

 

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Jim Behning wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
>>>> <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>>
>>> 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"???
>
>
>>
>> "Blame the user", where have I heard that before?
>
> where have we seen "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
> preconception" behavior before?
>
>
>
>>
>> I thought your claim was that all CF bars failed from over-clamping?
>
> no, not "all". that's you putting words in my mouth.
>
>> Or crappy Chinese process control?
>
> no. although it's a prime candidate.
>
>> It looks like simple brittle failure to me.
>
> saying that /proves/ you don't know what you're looking at!
>
>
>> 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.