Buncha Carbon Fiber Suckers....



IronDonut...first off...I like posts like this gets everyone rowled up!!! This is what an open forum is all about. =)

To some extent I agree with you. Carbon is the latest and greatest material out there. Indeed, there is a lot of money being dropped into advertising the **** out of carbon and its "benefits". I myself have broken everything from frames, handlebars, cranks, wheelsets, carbon saddles, and stems by just riding and training really hard or just plain crashing in a Crit at 35 MPH. The components are indeed somewhat fragile compared to Ti or Steel for that matter.

But what I like about carbon, despite its somewhat short life span when abused, is the weight benefit and the plain cool flashy mystic that carbon offers guys with an ego. Heck, I'll be the first to admit that when I pull up to the line at a race...I want everyone and their grandmother checking my ride out. [And they do] My bikes are dressed in carbon from head to toe.

I too have a 2005 Ti Airborne Manhatten Project that I use when doing uphill training. The reason: THE BIKE WEIGHS ALMOST 17.5 lbs. decked with carbon everything. I liken it to running with a big fat ankle weight. Ti and Steel frames definitely have their uses too. But when I do the same run on my Fondriest Top Carbon or my Orbea Orca, I shave almost 2:00 minutes off on the same exact run when on a full carbon frame.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you have the money to pay the big bucks for a really nice carbon frame; I say GO FOR IT!!! A really high end carbon can do wonders for the phsyche. =)

As for TREK. I share your opinion. In my humble opinion and from what I have seen at our riding club, the overall opinion after riding an expensive Madone for any long period of time is "TREK SUCKS"!!! No matter what Lance rides. If Lance were racing on a freaking HUFFY from KMART, he'd still kick any of our butts on a Ti, Carbon, or Steel Frame. The bike is a mere extension of the person mounted on it. You still have to motor that sucker with your own legs. Carbon just makes it easier for some to motor longer and faster.

I think that Carbon definitely has its ups and downs. But for me...its more ups than downs. [I guess because I'm sponsored by a Carbon Manufacturer and I get parts either really cheap or FREE] So in the end, I guess its all a matter of preference.

Tailwinds,
Vector7

IronDonut said:
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.
 
I am a final year civil engineering student and as such have studied carbon fibre as a construction material. (reinforcing bridges etc) One of the biggest problems it has is that it can suffer severe degredation when exposed to UV light. I am not entirely sure if a paint job effectively protects the material although I do know that it reduces the effects. Carbon fibre is a good material and in the future when bonding techniqyes are improved it should be possible to develop very stiff tubing by cross wrapping the fibres. This is not necessarily desireable as one of the desireable features of CF is that it gives a very soft ride (this is due to the flexibility in the non weave direction.)

Steel can be manipulated by a skilled frame builder to make a reasonably light responsive ride (will never get below the 1kg mark mind..), and aluminium is like running your butt through hell and back. Ti is far too expensive for what you get imho although it is supposed to be very good.

Personally I will continue to ride my hardtail aluminium frame and then upgrade to an aluminium or carbon fibre full suss depending on what I can afford. The price differential between carbon and al means that al is much better value for money and if you have full sus many of the advantages of having carbon are lost (or that the problems associated with al are reduced).

So in summary is is possible to make very strong, stiff carbon fibre but that kind of defeats the purpose, otherwise people would just ride Al bikes which as mentioned is marginally lighter due to the thinner thicknesses required for equivalent strength.

I should add if it isn't already obvious that I am more of an mtb'er and I don't race because trail riding is just simply more fun!
 
IronDonut said:
These are mountain bikes and mountain bike racers jackass. None of the failures I've mention were with road bikes. Fisher Sugars and Trek OCLV mountain bikes.

All of the aformentioned mountain bike racers ride Litespeed and Lemond road bikes with zero failures. I don't have any direct exprience with the OCLV road bikes.

However, remember that fairly slow speed crash that Armstrong had when his handlebar hooked the bag while he was climbing? That pansy ass crash broke his seat stay.
We can discuss merits and disadvantages of CF all day long, but the fact is the MTB frames you rode weren't strong enough or durable enough for your application. Believe you're not so much a victim of material here as the hype surrounding light weight frames.

The marketers have been very skillful in promoting light weight as faster and "better", and have learned that they can sell the lightest, most marginal equipment for a higher profit. They know that 95% of MTB buyers will only ride them around town, or on smooth trails, so that's the plan for limiting warranty expenses.

It takes guys like you to reverse the trend here. Get a stronger frame that will hold up for you, and forget about saving the last 300 grams. If you like the way steel stands up to abuse you give it, then that's what you should ride.
 
davebee said:
I am a final year civil engineering student and as such have studied carbon fibre as a construction material. (reinforcing bridges etc) One of the biggest problems it has is that it can suffer severe degredation when exposed to UV light. I am not entirely sure if a paint job effectively protects the material although I do know that it reduces the effects. Carbon fibre is a good material and in the future when bonding techniqyes are improved it should be possible to develop very stiff tubing by cross wrapping the fibres. This is not necessarily desireable as one of the desireable features of CF is that it gives a very soft ride (this is due to the flexibility in the non weave direction.)

Steel can be manipulated by a skilled frame builder to make a reasonably light responsive ride (will never get below the 1kg mark mind..), and aluminium is like running your butt through hell and back. Ti is far too expensive for what you get imho although it is supposed to be very good.

Personally I will continue to ride my hardtail aluminium frame and then upgrade to an aluminium or carbon fibre full suss depending on what I can afford. The price differential between carbon and al means that al is much better value for money and if you have full sus many of the advantages of having carbon are lost (or that the problems associated with al are reduced).

So in summary is is possible to make very strong, stiff carbon fibre but that kind of defeats the purpose, otherwise people would just ride Al bikes which as mentioned is marginally lighter due to the thinner thicknesses required for equivalent strength.

I should add if it isn't already obvious that I am more of an mtb'er and I don't race because trail riding is just simply more fun!
The coatings (clear coat) can protect it very well assuming it's stabilized sufficiently (plastics guy here). UVA's (ultra-violet absorbers) when used in the coating, will absorb the uv light before it ever reaches the carbon fiber. I've never looked into it, so I'm not sure how much it would take at "x" coating thickness to provide protection for "x" years, but it's certainly done.

Also, paint (pigmented coatings) will go a long way in protecting it from uv degradation also. Carbon black is an excellent absorber, as is titanium dioxide (white). There are others that either reflect, absorb, and/or completely transparent to uv light so it depends on what's chosen.

The best of both worlds is a combination of both.
 
OK... here is a solution:

*Use Carbon if :1. its a road bike, esp. for Time-trial purposes... tubes can be shapped to maximize aero-dynamics , and esp. if your not abusive on your equipment.
*Use Aluminum: 1. if your a sprinter... and NEED that rigid/stiff frame to maximize your every effort . 2. For Full-Suspention Frames.... Alum. offers great value for the money... and is the industry standard for FS frames.
*Use Steel: 1. If your looking for a durable HT X-country frame ... and weight is not an issue w/you. 2. For road bikes... its the industry standard, and what everything else is compared against. Just be sure and keep your ride indoors/garage... and not get rained on. ;)
*Use Titanium: 1. Great for X-country MTB 2. Great for Road riding.. soaks up all the vibration . Overall, a great/durable/lightweight material..... esp. when the welds + tubing quality goes up :)

.... just my .03
 
Thats exactly what the bike shop owner said. Because most of the bikes will not be ridden hard most of them won't break. Trek will limit their expense by just replacing the ones ridden hard.

As for the carbon mountain bikes it seems like they have to overbuild the frames to such a degree (because of all of the random stresses in a dirt bike vs the more predictable stresses in a road bike) that the carbon mountain bikes really don't have the weight advantage that the carbon road bikes have. Carbon has the disadvantage of being weak in compression as compared to metal despite it's huge amount of strength in tension. Only stands to reason, it's made of fibers. Because of that it has to be overbuilt for compression loads which are abundant in off road bike.



dhk said:
The marketers have been very skillful in promoting light weight as faster and "better", and have learned that they can sell the lightest, most marginal equipment for a higher profit. They know that 95% of MTB buyers will only ride them around town, or on smooth trails, so that's the plan for limiting warranty expenses.
 
It's fun getting everyone riled up.

I really like those airborne bikes. Very well executed and great looking.

Are you doing hill climbs? What does your Orca weigh?



Vector7 said:
IronDonut...first off...I like posts like this gets everyone rowled up!!! This is what an open forum is all about. =)

I too have a 2005 Ti Airborne Manhatten Project that I use when doing uphill training. The reason: THE BIKE WEIGHS ALMOST 17.5 lbs. decked with carbon everything. I liken it to running with a big fat ankle weight. Ti and Steel frames definitely have their uses too. But when I do the same run on my Fondriest Top Carbon or my Orbea Orca, I shave almost 2:00 minutes off on the same exact run when on a full carbon frame.
 
IronDonut said:
Thats exactly what the bike shop owner said. Because most of the bikes will not be ridden hard most of them won't break. Trek will limit their expense by just replacing the ones ridden hard.

As for the carbon mountain bikes it seems like they have to overbuild the frames to such a degree (because of all of the random stresses in a dirt bike vs the more predictable stresses in a road bike) that the carbon mountain bikes really don't have the weight advantage that the carbon road bikes have. Carbon has the disadvantage of being weak in compression as compared to metal despite it's huge amount of strength in tension. Only stands to reason, it's made of fibers. Because of that it has to be overbuilt for compression loads which are abundant in off road bike.
You may get one replacement frame out of Trek, but they are under no obligation to replace frames which fail due to normal wear and tear, or fatigue damage, or abuse. The local dealer told me they are pretty liberal with a casual rider, but aren't in business to supply free frames for life to racers.

As you know, any lightweight frame will fatigue and break if ridden long enough and hard enough...which shouldn't be tough on a MTB. In addition to the usual lifetime warranty on defects, the local custom builder offers a 1 year fatigue warranty on full-suspension MTB, and a 2 year warranty on the others, whether built of AL, AL/CF, full CF, or steel. His road bikes come with a 3 or 5 year fatigue warranty, depending on materials and tubeset weights.
 
To give you an idea of the difference between alum and titanium, Litespeed offers a 3 year warranty on their aluminum bikes and a lifetime warranty on their titanium bikes.

Here is what I don't understand if you've ever flown on a commercial airliner and looked at the wings they flex a lot and the entire wing structure, skin, spars everything is aluminum. How can an airplane be made of aluminum and last for decades flexing like crazy but an aluminum bike can't?

Is it just that they overbuild the airplane to such a degree and underbuild the bikes (for weight)? Or do the major structural components of the airframes (spars) get replaced?

There is a lot of titanium in airplane but it's mostly limited to high speed rotational parts in the engines. Carbon fiber is taking over a larger and larger role in the airframe structure and the fan assembly of the new 777 engine. Carbon fiber blades (I think they have a titanium leading edge)



dhk said:
As you know, any lightweight frame will fatigue and break if ridden long enough and hard enough...which shouldn't be tough on a MTB. In addition to the usual lifetime warranty on defects, the local custom builder offers a 1 year fatigue warranty on full-suspension MTB, and a 2 year warranty on the others, whether built of AL, AL/CF, full CF, or steel. His road bikes come with a 3 or 5 year fatigue warranty, depending on materials and tubeset weights.
 
IronDonut said:
Here is what I don't understand if you've ever flown on a commercial airliner and looked at the wings they flex a lot and the entire wing structure, skin, spars everything is aluminum. How can an airplane be made of aluminum and last for decades flexing like crazy but an aluminum bike can't?
Airplanes are inspected daily for cracks, and parts do get replaced. There's nothing inherently better about titanium, and it's not the answer to everything (square taper bb spindles anyone?). A material is only as strong as its application. You can build a weak frame out of titanium just as easily as you can build a bomber one out of carbon. Perhaps easier. The fact is that you and your friends bought the wrong bikes for the riding that you do, and you're looking to hold everyone accountable but yourselves. Get over it.
 
Do some reading on materials. Like anything in engineering each choice is a balance of tradeoffs. The fundamental advanatage that both steel and titanium have over aluminum is fatigue resistance. So as long as steel and titanium flex is kept within the design parameters of the metal they will last forever. Thats why you will never see an aluminum spring. A perfect example of this is a valvespring inside of a combustion engine. A car with 100,000 miles on it will have compressed and released each valve spring hundreds of millions of times. Steel and titanium can do that. Aluminum and carbon fiber can't. Titanium has the advantage over steel of being both less dense and pound for pound stronger. Titanium also has the advantage of being corrision resistant. The cost of titanum is the cost, it's expensive and it's difficult to work with. Both machining and welding titanium are difficult. Where a trained monkey can weld steel.

Carbon fiber has an exceptional strength to weight ratio in tension exceeding that of all the metals. However it's very weak in compression and it doesn't stand up to harsh environmental conditions very well and unlike titanium and to a lesser degree steel, carbon breaks it doesn't bend and spring back. This is why the carbon fiber mountain bikes don't have a weight advantage over their metal counterparts. Unlike road bikes where the loads are fairly predictable mountain bike loads are fairly random. To overcome the disadvantages of carbon fiber (compression loads) carbon mountain bike frames have to be overbuilt to such a degree that it negates the inherent weight advantage of the material.

As far as picking the wrong bikes? We bought Fisher XC race bikes and raced them in XC races... Let me know what we did wrong... I will admit that the replacement bikes have mostly held up. Only 20% or so of the replacement bikes have failed. The owners of the 2nd set of broken bikes bought Titus bikes and haven't had any problems since. But Titus is a small company of craftsmen that handbuild their products. Trek is a giant that stamps out bikes as quickly as possible.


artmichalek said:
Airplanes are inspected daily for cracks, and parts do get replaced. There's nothing inherently better about titanium, and it's not the answer to everything (square taper bb spindles anyone?). A material is only as strong as its application. You can build a weak frame out of titanium just as easily as you can build a bomber one out of carbon. Perhaps easier. The fact is that you and your friends bought the wrong bikes for the riding that you do, and you're looking to hold everyone accountable but yourselves. Get over it.
 
IronDonut said:
As far as picking the wrong bikes? We bought Fisher XC race bikes and raced them in XC races... Let me know what we did wrong... I will admit that the replacement bikes have mostly held up. Only 20% or so of the replacement bikes have failed. The owners of the 2nd set of broken bikes bought Titus bikes and haven't had any problems since. But Titus is a small company of craftsmen that handbuild their products. Trek is a giant that stamps out bikes as quickly as possible.
It's nice to know that the 100% failure rate that you insisted on earlier has improved. By the way, I have a whole shelf of materials books here. Which one do you recomend I start with?
 
I recommend that you take them off the shelf and read one they aren't doing you any good sitting on the shelf.



artmichalek said:
It's nice to know that the 100% failure rate that you insisted on earlier has improved. By the way, I have a whole shelf of materials books here. Which one do you recomend I start with?
 
IronDonut said:
I recommend that you take them off the shelf and read one they aren't doing you any good sitting on the shelf.
I don't know. It's an awfully boring wall back there. :p
 
IronDonut said:
The fundamental advanatage that both steel and titanium have over aluminum is fatigue resistance. So as long as steel and titanium flex is kept within the design parameters of the metal they will last forever.

This is a gross oversimplification. In order for fatigue to occur in ANY material, there has to be an initial small crack - usually so minute it can't be detected with the naked eye. The initial crack can be caused by a grain irregularity, an impurity, a change in cross section, or microscopic damage from machining, welding, or trauma. Again, this is for ANY material.

So steel and titanium have a fatigue strength as a material property and aluminum doesn't, but a STRUCTURE made out of steel or ti can and will fatigue under any number of scenarios.

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. The real reason steel still has a following today is mostly tradition. Most of the people I know who like titanium are steel converts who want lighter weight.
 
DiabloScott said:
So steel and titanium have a fatigue strength as a material property and aluminum doesn't, but a STRUCTURE made out of steel or ti can and will fatigue under any number of scenarios.
The same goes for the brittle/ductile failure theory. A bar of titanium pulled in tension will elongate quite a bit (some alloys up to 2000%!), but a contaminated weld will fracture without warning.
 
IronDonut said:
To give you an idea of the difference between alum and titanium, Litespeed offers a 3 year warranty on their aluminum bikes and a lifetime warranty on their titanium bikes.

Here is what I don't understand if you've ever flown on a commercial airliner and looked at the wings they flex a lot and the entire wing structure, skin, spars everything is aluminum. How can an airplane be made of aluminum and last for decades flexing like crazy but an aluminum bike can't?
IronDonut said:
Have you read the Litespeed warranties? As I said above, the Litespeed Ti "lifetime" warranty (like most major brands) is for defects in materials and workmanship only. It specifically excludes "normal wear and tear".

Of course, for what Litespeed charges for a Ti frame, they can probably afford to eat the cost of a fatigue failure every now and then. It's certainly in their interest to keep up the myth that Ti is a fatigue-proof frame.

Commercial aircraft are made of aluminum because aluminum is the best material for building a light, strong and fatigue-resistant structure at a reasonable cost. Properly designed and built aluminum bikes can last for decades as well. Again, the problem gets back to marketing of thin-wall, ultralight equipment to people like you who need something heavy-duty.
 
wilmar13 said:
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.
I have had three trek/GF frames break. Just beacause you havent heard ofanyone getting hurt doesnt mean the frames arent breaking. All of my frames have cracked near the BB shell. They were still rideable but they were broken. I guess I just have to much power. Maybe I should be on Discovery getting paid to break Treks piece of **** frames.
 
most ppl dont know but lance dont ride an "off the shelf" frame, the teams bikes are modified alot. esp in the bottom bracket area.
 
Ti?
So far evryone in our 200+ member club that has owned a Ti frame has had them crack.
CF and Ti are both over rated.
Read the warning about installing CF products.
Not many suggestions for torque settings huh?

IronDonut said:
Oh BTW; aluminum sucks too.Ti for life. Suckers.
 

Similar threads