Carbon fiber mountain bike frames, whay aren't they around much anymore?

I have 2 carbon fiber bikes a Jamis Diablo pro and a Schwinn homegrown both full sus. I have had the
Jamis for a year and just bought the Schwinn . I love the Jamis and have beat the crud out of it
with no problems. But I have noticed that carbon fiber bikes seem to have taken a downturn in the
last few years? Does anyone Know why? Willy

 

[email protected] (Willy) wrote in news:[email protected]:
> But I have noticed that carbon fiber bikes seem to have taken a downturn in the last few years?
> Does anyone Know why?

Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.

 

Ken wrote:
>
> Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
> expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.

Then why does Trek's top of the line Fuel use an OCLV carbon front triangle? <G>

Barry

 

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
>> expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.
>
> Then why does Trek's top of the line Fuel use an OCLV carbon front triangle? <G>

Because "top of the line" means "don't care about price". Sometimes it also means "add fancy
non-functional features just for fun".

 

Ken wrote:
>
> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
> >> Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
> >> expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.
> >
> > Then why does Trek's top of the line Fuel use an OCLV carbon front triangle? <G>
>
> Because "top of the line" means "don't care about price".

Bingo!

> Sometimes it also means "add fancy non-functional features just for fun".

Not so true in this case, try one out and you'll see.

Barry

 

For the weight weenies. I guess if you race, you may worry about the extra weight loss with carbon.

--
- Zilla (Remove XSPAM)

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
> > expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.
>
>
> Then why does Trek's top of the line Fuel use an OCLV carbon front triangle? <G>
>
> Barry

 

"Zilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> For the weight weenies. I guess if you race, you may worry about the extra weight loss
> with carbon.
>
> --
> - Zilla (Remove XSPAM)
>
>
> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ken wrote:
> > >
> > > Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
> > > expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.
> >
> >
> > Then why does Trek's top of the line Fuel use an OCLV carbon front triangle? <G>
> >
> > Barry

So basically its a cost thing not a quality thing, correct? They aren't as popular just because the
cost for the carbon isn't cost effective compared to performance? Willy

 

Zilla wrote:
>
> For the weight weenies. I guess if you race, you may worry about the extra weight loss
> with carbon.
>

But weight loss _is_ a benefit to weight weenies. Personally, I'd pass, but I wanted to make the
point that there area carbon full bounce bikes out there.

Barry

 

Willy wrote:
>
>
> So basically its a cost thing not a quality thing, correct? They aren't as popular just because
> the cost for the carbon isn't cost effective compared to performance? Willy

Right. For weight weenie racers with the proper billfold, it's out there.

Barry

 

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Willy wrote:
> >
> >
> > So basically its a cost thing not a quality thing,
correct?
> > They aren't as popular just because the cost for the
carbon isn't cost
> > effective compared to performance? Willy
>
> Right. For weight weenie racers with the proper billfold,
it's out
> there.

AFAIK, Trek still makes its OCLV hardtails, and they're just as light and expensive as ever -- maybe
the lightest frame out there.

It's true, though, that most people spending that much these days are buying dual suspension. So the
market for expensive hardtails has shrunk.

Also, mid-range hardtails are really good these days. And I think people are discovering that --
they don't need to spend thousands to get a good bike.

Carbon frames need not be really expensive when produced in volume, but an aluminum frame is still
cheaper, and practically as light.

Matt O.

 

"Ken" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Willy) wrote in news:[email protected]:
> > But I have noticed that carbon fiber bikes seem to have taken a downturn in the last few years?
> > Does anyone Know why?
>
> Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
> expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.

What about the alleged "infinite fatigue life" (RaceFace's words, not mine) of carbon fiber? Since
aluminum frames - especially very lightweight XC-racing types in the same vein as the Fuel 100 being
discussed in this thread - are weak and easily cracked, isn't a carbon frame of the same weight
stronger and longer lasting? And, is it not true that damaged carbon can be reapired, whereas
damaged aluminum is trash?

Don't think I'm taking any particular stance here, i.e. arguing for carbon...just wondering what any
frame builders/carbon experts could add to the discussion.

Chris

 

"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ken" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Willy) wrote in news:[email protected]:
> > > But I have noticed that carbon fiber bikes seem to have taken a downturn in the last few
> > > years? Does anyone Know why?
> >
> > Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
> > expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.

Right. It's harder to make all of the fiddly small parts out of carbon, or bond them to carbon, so
they just weld the whole thing up out of aluminum, which is dirt cheap.

> What about the alleged "infinite fatigue life" (RaceFace's words, not
mine)
> of carbon fiber?

Wow. Infinity is a very long time....

> Since aluminum frames - especially very lightweight XC-racing types in the same vein as the Fuel
> 100 being discussed in this thread - are weak and easily cracked, isn't a carbon frame of the same
> weight stronger and longer lasting?

Hmm. That's funny. I have a 3lb Klein Attitude hardtail. When was the last time you heard of a Klein
failing? It's pretty rare. Engineering, my friend, not materials.

> And, is it not true that damaged carbon can be reapired, whereas damaged aluminum is trash?

Both can be repaired. Neither of them is likely to be pretty when repaired. Want easy repairs? Go
with lugged steel. Replacing bent or dented tubes is quite easy, and looks like new after it is
repainted.

> Don't think I'm taking any particular stance here, i.e. arguing for carbon...just wondering what
> any frame builders/carbon experts could add
to
> the discussion.

Carbon could be (or perhaps, is) the ultimate frame material. It can be engineered to provide very
finely adjusted ride characteristics more than any other material. It is, however, fairly labor
intensive. TiG welded aluminum is easy to tool-up, and produces "good enough" results that seem to
satisfy demand.

I'm sure we'll go through the aluminum phase, and you'll start to see carbon frames make a comeback
again. Already we're seeing more carbon parts added to aluminum frames.

-Barry

 

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:46:37 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Willy wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > So basically its a cost thing not a quality thing,
>correct?
>> > They aren't as popular just because the cost for the
>carbon isn't cost
>> > effective compared to performance? Willy
>>
>> Right. For weight weenie racers with the proper billfold,
>it's out
>> there.
>
>AFAIK, Trek still makes its OCLV hardtails, and they're just as light and expensive as ever --
>maybe the lightest frame out there.
SNIP
>
>Carbon frames need not be really expensive when produced in volume, but an aluminum frame is still
>cheaper, and practically as light.
>
>Matt O.
>

The expense of producing the jigs, fixtures, mandrels and such for a CF frame are significantly more
expensive than any other type.. which is why monocoq CF has virtually disappeared from the MTB
market. When any minor change in frame style/size/geometry involves major expense to the builder you
want your final product to have a design life significantly longer than the one or two years they
would get now...

 

"B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Chris" <chrismccrearyKILLSPAM[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Ken" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > [email protected] (Willy) wrote in news:[email protected]:
> > > > But I have noticed that carbon fiber bikes seem to have taken a downturn in the last few
> > > > years? Does anyone Know why?
> > >
> > > Everyone is buying dual suspension mountain bikes these days. Compared to aluminum, carbon is
> > > expensive and that cost doesn't have any benefit on a dual suspension bike.
>
> Right. It's harder to make all of the fiddly small parts out of carbon, or bond them to carbon, so
> they just weld the whole thing up out of aluminum, which is dirt cheap.
>
> > What about the alleged "infinite fatigue life" (RaceFace's words, not
> mine)
> > of carbon fiber?
>
> Wow. Infinity is a very long time....
>
> > Since aluminum frames - especially very lightweight XC-racing types in the same vein as the Fuel
> > 100 being discussed in this thread - are weak and easily cracked, isn't a carbon frame of the
> > same weight stronger and longer lasting?
>
> Hmm. That's funny. I have a 3lb Klein Attitude hardtail. When was the last time you heard of a
> Klein failing? It's pretty rare. Engineering, my friend, not materials.
>
> > And, is it not true that damaged carbon can be reapired, whereas damaged aluminum is trash?
>
> Both can be repaired. Neither of them is likely to be pretty when repaired. Want easy repairs? Go
> with lugged steel. Replacing bent or dented tubes is quite easy, and looks like new after it is
> repainted.
>
> > Don't think I'm taking any particular stance here, i.e. arguing for carbon...just wondering what
> > any frame builders/carbon experts could add
> to
> > the discussion.
>
> Carbon could be (or perhaps, is) the ultimate frame material. It can be engineered to provide very
> finely adjusted ride characteristics more than any other material. It is, however, fairly labor
> intensive. TiG welded aluminum is easy to tool-up, and produces "good enough" results that seem to
> satisfy demand.
>
> I'm sure we'll go through the aluminum phase, and you'll start to see carbon frames make a
> comeback again. Already we're seeing more carbon parts added to aluminum frames.
>
> -Barry

So basically manufacturing is going the cheap way out, yet again! Both my full sus. bikes are carbon
fiber with alluminum swing arm and I have beat the crud out of them and no problems yet!