Buncha Carbon Fiber Suckers....

[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 **** 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.

 

[TKOS]

My you are an anngry boy aren't you. Now take a deep breath and relax. Ahhh isn't taht better.

 

[cydewaze]

Interesting. And here I am with around 30,000+ miles on my 93 OCLV, not to mention that my 97 OCLV mountain bike has been through hell and back. Both frames have outlasted at least one groupset.

You must either be really beating the **** out of your stuff (curbs, potholes) or you have a black cloud hanging over you. Maybe you should try a different sport before you maim yourself or something.

 

[IronDonut]

You are clearly not riding hard enough.

The guys I race with have broken 100% of their Trek/Fisher mountain bikes. Every single guy has at least one (some two, one three) Trek/Fisher bikes replaced because of a failure.

Two of them have switched to Titus Racer-X bikes and I went Litespeed. For light duty they seem to hold up. If you really beat the living hell out of them and race... not so much. The Racer-X guy hasn't had a single problem with his Titus.

The uber-fast Trek pro riders of course race Trek bike but they get their stuff for free.

Interesting. And here I am with around 30,000+ miles on my 93 OCLV, not to mention that my 97 OCLV mountain bike has been through hell and back. Both frames have outlasted at least one groupset.

You must either be really beating the **** out of your stuff (curbs, potholes) or you have a black cloud hanging over you. Maybe you should try a different sport before you maim yourself or something.

 

[wilmar13]

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... Suckers.

Hmmm well, not that I disagree with your carbon fiber is mostly bling rant, but I have to wonder why someone would buy a 2nd frame after "breaking" the first, then only to repeat this process three times...who is the sucker in this story?

 

[IronDonut]

Trek/Fisher replace broken frames for free. So everyone has gotten new replacement frames. It's a great policy and I appriciate that they do stand behind their product, but at the same time it would be better if they just didn't break in the first place. In season there are weekend races back to back so downtime could knock you out of the series.

Under racing use 100% of these bike have failed. Those would be the older OCLVs and the Fisher Sugars. Most of those have been replaced with the newer OCLVs 100s, 110s and the last iteration of the Sugars. We'll see how they hold up.

Hmmm well, not that I disagree with your carbon fiber is mostly bling rant, but I have to wonder why someone would buy a 2nd frame after "breaking" the first, then only to repeat this process three times...who is the sucker in this story?

 

[cydewaze]

 

[waxbytes]

If someone wants to buy the same bicycle as their favorite rider, what's the problem?

 

[meehs]

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 **** 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.

Ummmm..... yeah.

 

[Doctor Morbius]

Ummmm..... yeah.

Bill Lumbergh, is that you? Did you evern give Milton his stapler back?

 

[wilmar13]

Bill Lumbergh, is that you? Did you evern give Milton his stapler back?

Classic!

 

[JohnO]

Whassa matter? Daddy won't buy you a titanium frame after you tore up all those carbon frames?

 

[Cyclist14]

Carbon isn't fragile, and it's a lot lighter than Titanium

 

[cydewaze]

Whassa matter? Daddy won't buy you a titanium frame after you tore up all those carbon frames?

I'm also under the impression that this person has had some sort of bad experience with a carbon frame, albeit under dubious circumatances.

What I can't get my head around is this:

He claims his racer friends kept using carbon frames, at least for a while, because they were replaced for free. But he also said that they had a 100% failure rate, which implies they broke during every race. How many times would this have to happen to a logical person before they just sold the warranty replacement frame and bought something else?

Also, with 100% breakage, you would think there would be significant injuries (or even death) resulting from said breakage. Yet I've never seen nor heard of a failure-related lawsuit. Surely if so many of these frames broke, someone would be bound to get injured.

As for myself not riding hard enough, I'm a horrible mountain biker, and I'm pretty breakneck. I've wrecked hundreds of times, and broken helmets, handlebars, wheels, brake levers, just about anything on the bike. Never had a carbon frame failure though. Broke my old aluminum bike, but the carbon has held up well, and I had serious reservations about buying it (but the price was right).

A few minutes ago I gave calls to 2 LBSs I deal with, as well as my friend's bike shop up in PA. All three deal some sort of carbon frame, so I asked about warranty returns for failure. The two locals had had a few in the past several years, but they were either bike vs vehicle accidents or car rack mishaps. The PA shop had one race failure, when a guy in a crit went up a curb, through a hay bale, and into a hydrant.

Not saying there aren't other types of failures out there, but the 100% seemed a little steep.

 

[wilmar13]

Also, with 100% breakage, you would think there would be significant injuries (or even death) resulting from said breakage. Surely if so many of these frames broke, someone would be bound to get injured.

Hmmmm what about the possibility that this guy incessantly pestered Trek so bad for sponsorship that they purposely gave him bad frames HOPING the above would happen?

Most likely though, it is just an exageration of an isolated case... the sad part is when people do that it totally discredits any reasonable complaint they originally had, at least in my mind.

 

[IronDonut]

Don't be such an idiot.

100% failure rate means exactly that. All of our Trek / Fisher bikes failed and were replaced at least once. A couple twice and one three times.

Follow along if you can; Once the two most abusive riders switched to Titus Racer-X bikes they had no more problems. These are state and regional champion level riders. Very good riders.

On your other point; Typically, almost always actually when a frame fails it doesn't just fall apart. You'll usually get crack in one of the joints typically around the bottom bracket. I know all of the fishers but one failed at the swingarm where it joins the bottom bracket. The one that didn't fail came so far out of alignment that you couldn't keep it in gear.

I'm also under the impression that this person has had some sort of bad experience with a carbon frame, albeit under dubious circumatances.

What I can't get my head around is this:

He claims his racer friends kept using carbon frames, at least for a while, because they were replaced for free. But he also said that they had a 100% failure rate, which implies they broke during every race. How many times would this have to happen to a logical person before they just sold the warranty replacement frame and bought something else?

Also, with 100% breakage, you would think there would be significant injuries (or even death) resulting from said breakage. Yet I've never seen nor heard of a failure-related lawsuit. Surely if so many of these frames broke, someone would be bound to get injured.

As for myself not riding hard enough, I'm a horrible mountain biker, and I'm pretty breakneck. I've wrecked hundreds of times, and broken helmets, handlebars, wheels, brake levers, just about anything on the bike. Never had a carbon frame failure though. Broke my old aluminum bike, but the carbon has held up well, and I had serious reservations about buying it (but the price was right).

A few minutes ago I gave calls to 2 LBSs I deal with, as well as my friend's bike shop up in PA. All three deal some sort of carbon frame, so I asked about warranty returns for failure. The two locals had had a few in the past several years, but they were either bike vs vehicle accidents or car rack mishaps. The PA shop had one race failure, when a guy in a crit went up a curb, through a hay bale, and into a hydrant.

Not saying there aren't other types of failures out there, but the 100% seemed a little steep.

 

[IronDonut]

You're a real genius aren't you? Trek didn't sponsor anyone; they simply built the bikes. They had no idea where the bikes were going or to whom. Stop being such a jackass.

Isolated case? Don't think so, every single one of our Fisher Sugars failed. All of them. 2 out of 2 of the OCLV frames failed as well.

Check out some stories by other folks;

http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_full_suspension/product_121118.shtml


Now tell me how many Moots or Titus failures you see;

http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_full_suspension/product_121883.shtml

http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2003_full_suspension/product_122331.shtml


Whats that? No failures? Thats why good quality welded metal beats carbon fiber for offroad bikes. Durability.

Hmmmm what about the possibility that this guy incessantly pestered Trek so bad for sponsorship that they purposely gave him bad frames HOPING the above would happen?

Most likely though, it is just an exageration of an isolated case... the sad part is when people do that it totally discredits any reasonable complaint they originally had, at least in my mind.

 

[IronDonut]

Here is the problem with carbon fiber. It's super light that for sure. The price? It's super fragile. Unlike metal which is strong in all directions carbon fiber is only strong in it's design plane. Which means if you are riding a carbon fiber frame dirt bike and you crash it and that crash happens to transmit energy into the frame in a way the frame wasn't designed to handle? It's going to fail.

Check out this spectacular carbon fiber failure that brought down flight 587 over Queens NY. The pilot went hard over with the rudder pedal and the tail snapped off because it's carbon fiber attachment points failed. You might note the metal rods that went though the carbon that held the tail to the airplane were 100% intact.

In engineering there is always a tradeoff. If you get something you have to give back something else. No free lunches. Of course none of that matters if you can get all of the lemmings to jump off cliff together and buy your ****.

 

[IronDonut]

Flight 587 link;

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/7948/7948notw4.html


Metal Attachment points vs Carbon Fiber Tail (carbon loses)

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tailcomp.htm

 

[Catabolic_Jones]

Hey iron...

Seems like you are quite the maverick. I admire your love of titanium. I'd like you to tackle the claims made by Cervelo, however; specifically, I'm talking about the R2.5 and the EFBe testing.

From cervelo.com:

Today was the first day the world got to see Cervélo's new superlight carbon frame, the first sub-1000g frame to receive the coveted EFBe certification. This certification is given only to frames that withstand the toughest fatigue tests, and is quite rare for any frame to receive. Most manufacturers don't dare to send their frames to EFBe, and of all frames tested by EFBe roughly two-thirds fails the test. The fact that the R2.5 is not only one of the lightest, but also one of the strongest frames is a testament to the design efforts of Vroomen-White-Design at Cervélo

I'm especially interested in the answer, as I know that .. . A) After the introduction of the R2.5, CSC still stuck by the Soloist (largely) and that B) Cervelo has now introduced the carbon Soloist.