Carbon fork crack?

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Back in the day, we used to sell a ton of steel and aluminum road
bike forks (to people who had crashed and damaged them). There are
more people out riding now than there were then, and in all
likelihood, they crash just as often. And yet, we replace virtually
no forks anymore. Why?

I'm all about being safe here, but I think you answered your own question.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of forks are plenty strong
enough to take a crash and keep on truckin. What everyone's worried about
is the next crash that causes the fork to break catastrophically instead
of simply becoming internally damaged.

But with the number of forks out there, isn't the lack of carbon fork
replacement itself a data point? It is almost as if that fact is ignored
completely.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil: Unfortunately, there are an increasing number of "JRA" (Just Riding
Along) fork failures... failures of a very serious, and sometimes deadly
nature... where it has been credibly determined the damage had been caused
by an earlier crash, which the owner didn't think required attention.

The "next crash" may not be related to any impact whatsoever. It may truly
be a "JRA"-type failure, or at least seem so at the time. People *have*
crashed, severely. People *have* died. For doing nothing more than riding on
a fork that they thought was fine, but wasn't. If this sounds like I'm
trying to scare some sense into you, it's because I am.

As far as you know, does Trek just routinely replace a CF fork, etc.,
that has been crashed by one of their sponsored riders (e.g., Discovery
team, etc.) even if there is no visible/audible damage, rather than
risk a subsequent failure?

Quoted message said:

Yes, present generation carbon forks are much stronger than the steel and
aluminum forks that came before. That can be verified through testing. They
work. The problem is that people don't understand that they're not bomb
proof, they do get damaged, and that damage may not always be easy to find.

Common sense may save your life. If you've had a nasty crash, one in which
it's possible your fork, handlebar or stem took an impact, replace those
parts. Please. A failure of any of those items will lead to far more
excitement than you want.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:jtkZf.4783$fS6.4374@dukeread11...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> I've got a carbon fork with aluminum dropouts. The paint looks
> "stressed," at the dropout seam on just the outside on the right.
> It's not really cracked, but looks like it might be getting ready to
> flake off a little. The effected region is on about 1/3 of the
> circumference, and just on the outside, not the front where I'd
> expect braking stress to expose any weakness.

Has the fork ever been involved in a crash? Carried on a roof rack
that clamps the dropout? If the answer to either question is yes,
then you definitely need to look into things some more.

Back in the day, we used to sell a ton of steel and aluminum road
bike forks (to people who had crashed and damaged them). There are
more people out riding now than there were then, and in all
likelihood, they crash just as often. And yet, we replace virtually
no forks anymore. Why?

I'm all about being safe here, but I think you answered your own question.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of forks are plenty strong
enough to take a crash and keep on truckin. What everyone's worried about
is the next crash that causes the fork to break catastrophically instead
of simply becoming internally damaged.

But with the number of forks out there, isn't the lack of carbon fork
replacement itself a data point? It is almost as if that fact is ignored
completely.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Quoted message said:

As far as you know, does Trek just routinely replace a CF fork, etc.,
that has been crashed by one of their sponsored riders (e.g., Discovery
team, etc.) even if there is no visible/audible damage, rather than
risk a subsequent failure?

My assumption is yes, but I haven't looked into it. Very good question! They
don't replace frames that have been crashed, or at least haven't in the
past, but I've never asked about forks. They do take very good care of their
equipment (guess that should be obvious?) and I'd imagine that Julian (team
mechanic) has been taught what to look for. I will most certainly ask.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

> Back in the day, we used to sell a ton of steel and aluminum road
> bike forks (to people who had crashed and damaged them). There are
> more people out riding now than there were then, and in all
> likelihood, they crash just as often. And yet, we replace virtually
> no forks anymore. Why?

I'm all about being safe here, but I think you answered your own
question.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of forks are plenty strong
enough to take a crash and keep on truckin. What everyone's worried
about
is the next crash that causes the fork to break catastrophically
instead
of simply becoming internally damaged.

But with the number of forks out there, isn't the lack of carbon fork
replacement itself a data point? It is almost as if that fact is
ignored
completely.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil: Unfortunately, there are an increasing number of "JRA" (Just Riding
Along) fork failures... failures of a very serious, and sometimes deadly
nature... where it has been credibly determined the damage had been
caused
by an earlier crash, which the owner didn't think required attention.

The "next crash" may not be related to any impact whatsoever. It may
truly
be a "JRA"-type failure, or at least seem so at the time. People *have*
crashed, severely. People *have* died. For doing nothing more than riding
on
a fork that they thought was fine, but wasn't. If this sounds like I'm
trying to scare some sense into you, it's because I am.

As far as you know, does Trek just routinely replace a CF fork, etc.,
that has been crashed by one of their sponsored riders (e.g., Discovery
team, etc.) even if there is no visible/audible damage, rather than
risk a subsequent failure?

Quoted message said:

Yes, present generation carbon forks are much stronger than the steel and
aluminum forks that came before. That can be verified through testing.
They
work. The problem is that people don't understand that they're not bomb
proof, they do get damaged, and that damage may not always be easy to
find.

Common sense may save your life. If you've had a nasty crash, one in
which
it's possible your fork, handlebar or stem took an impact, replace those
parts. Please. A failure of any of those items will lead to far more
excitement than you want.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:jtkZf.4783$fS6.4374@dukeread11...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> I've got a carbon fork with aluminum dropouts. The paint looks
>> "stressed," at the dropout seam on just the outside on the right.
>> It's not really cracked, but looks like it might be getting ready to
>> flake off a little. The effected region is on about 1/3 of the
>> circumference, and just on the outside, not the front where I'd
>> expect braking stress to expose any weakness.
>
>
> Has the fork ever been involved in a crash? Carried on a roof rack
> that clamps the dropout? If the answer to either question is yes,
> then you definitely need to look into things some more.
>
> Back in the day, we used to sell a ton of steel and aluminum road
> bike forks (to people who had crashed and damaged them). There are
> more people out riding now than there were then, and in all
> likelihood, they crash just as often. And yet, we replace virtually
> no forks anymore. Why?

I'm all about being safe here, but I think you answered your own
question.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of forks are plenty strong
enough to take a crash and keep on truckin. What everyone's worried
about
is the next crash that causes the fork to break catastrophically
instead
of simply becoming internally damaged.

But with the number of forks out there, isn't the lack of carbon fork
replacement itself a data point? It is almost as if that fact is
ignored
completely.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[email hidden] wrote:

..
<snipped>

-on CF forks and future marketing trends-

Quoted message said:

But most frame failures are unlikely to be catastrophic
or dump the rider (less so than forks, anyway). So you
and we should consider using carbon fiber frames with
steel forks. It's the next great marketing trend!

But, the marketeers will have to come up with a fancy, techno name for
the fork material. "Steel" is soooo boring. "Special Ultra Lightweight
Ferrous Alloy Unobtanium"?

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

And what about those little bar tape scrapes that happen instead to the
carbon fiber, i.e. little carbon fiber scrapes?â

If you're only scratching the painted finish, and it's only a scratch,
probably not an issue. It's not as if carbon fiber is a reactive material
that, once exposed to air, decomposes or rusts or whatever. The problem is
that the scratch may be an indication of something significant happening to
it. In other words, sometimes a scratch isn't just a scratch. Sometimes it
might be the only visible indication of previous trauma.

I don't know if Trek uses the same carbon/epoxy combination as
Northrop-Grumman, but wasn't one of the problems with the B-2 that a
scratch on the surface would allow moisture to penetrate the wing,
leading to debonding?

Pat

Email address works as is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>If you've had a nasty crash, one in which it's possible your fork,
>handlebar or stem took an impact, replace those parts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

Impacts happen. IMHO if a product can't withstand what

are essentially

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

normal foreseeable impacts without risk of subsequent

catastrophic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

failure resulting in serious injury or death, that

product has no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

business being on a bicycle. It is precisely for that

reason that I do

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not and never will own a bike with carbon fiber frame,

fork, stem or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

handlebars. In my opinion the material is unsuited for

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

applications.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

But most frame failures are unlikely to be catastrophic
or dump the rider (less so than forks, anyway). So you
and we should consider using carbon fiber frames with
steel forks. It's the next great marketing trend!
I'm a little puzzled by the direction the thread has taken,
although it seems plausible. When CF forks were introduced,
conservative types feared a rash of failures, and that didn't
happen. (I seem to recall Andrew Muzi saying this.) Now
Mike says that in fact, there could be or are a

significant number

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of crash-damaged CF forks out there that could cause
near-JRA failures. That's not inconsistent - even a small
number of near-JRA failures is worrisome - it's just odd
that the perspective seems to have changed. Are the
failures that were once expected finally showing up in
a slow trickle 10 years later?

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

It's not the failures that some expected to see 10 years ago... it's the
lack of failures that has caused the problem. Yes, I know that sounds really
odd, but I just don't know how to put it. We've been trained, essentially,
to think that there's not an issue, because it's not visual.

The things people worried about 10 years ago weren't crash-related, but
rather true JRAs. Those (thankfully) haven't materialized. The forks are
very, very strong. And very reliable. We can say stronger than what came
before. But they aren't bomb-proof. They do get damaged when impacted;
people just aren't looking for it.

I'm with Mike.
(well, maybe not on usage. 'impacted'??)

I, and I think most LBS owners, expected a torrent of broken
carbon forks when cheap generic carbon forks hit the market.
Didn't happen.
Which is not to say they are indestructible.

And I believe there are compromised forks (both crashes and
car racks) which should have been replaced and will fail
'suddenly'. This is not at all common.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Alex Rodriguez said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

-In the old days, the classic fork bender was collision with some twerp
opening a car door in traffic. Nowadays more an d more riding is being
herded off the roads and on to bike paths (non-existent back in those
days), and even for riders on the roads, accidents of that type are no
longer as common as they used to be. Most bicycle riding today is done
in bicyc le friendly environments, or at least, infinitely more friendly
than say 20 years ago. Sure most places are still not bicycle friendly,
but most riding is no longer done there. In the old days, there was
nowhere else to go.

Since when are bi ke lanes bike friendly? Bikes lanes are usually crowded with
non-bike riders and with bike riders that don't know how to ride, which is why
they are not on the road. In cities with bike lanes you are more likely to
get doored riding in the bik e lane than riding in a regular lane of traffic.
Conditions may be a bit different, but they are not bicycle friendly as you
describe.

Let me put that a different way, and add a new point which I previously
forgot. Bike paths (not lanes) may not be friendly to performance
cycling, but they are friendlier to poseurs and others similarly
unskilled who buy $3-5K status symbols. But all of this is no matter:
what I should have said is, the dramatic change from the old days is
the massive decline in the popularity of road bikes and road riding, in
favour of MTBs. MJ's store may buck the trend, but this was a colossal
shift, on the order of today's shift from film to digital cameras, and
no data can be compared across eras without taking that into account.

We are on the verge of a possible new trend in the other direction.
Let's see what happens to the fork replacement rates now. Nevertheless
CF forks are definitely stronger per se and must fail less upon simple
impact.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But with the number of forks out there, isn't the lack of carbon fork
replacement itself a data point? It is almost as if that fact is ignored
completely.

Technically no, it is not a data point. Data are reports of facts, and
a non-fact is, as the name suggests, not a fact. No fact, no data.

That is not true; it's not a lack of data at all, it's radically changed
data. If you go from selling 30 road forks a year to 3 or 4, that *is* data.
It's a greater-than-80% reduction in aftermarket fork sales for existing
bikes.

As I say this is a technical point, of interest mainly to philosophers
and others so inclined. But let me explain as follows. Simplifying to
two adjacent years marking the difference, there would be two data
points (well, 33 or 34 if you really wanted to be precise), the selling
of 30 road forks one year, and say 3 the next. The 27 forks that were
not sold are not data. That the sales dropped by 90%, or that the data
from one year are different from that of another year in any way, is
also not data, it is instead a conclusion drawn from the data.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Apart from the technical philosophical issue, not, it is still not a
data point. It's not just bicycling and bicycles that have changed so
much since those days; it is behaviour and the bicycling environment.
Consider these factors:

-Most people who buy such things are poseurs buying expensive toys.
Most of them are probably hardly ever ridden.

Untrue for our customers. We're not a boutique shop; we sell product that
people actually ride. There is no reason to suspect that the number who buy
and don't ride is any different today than it was 20 years ago

Indeed there is: the rise of disposable income and the increase in
price of these status symbols.

Apart from any of these issues though, as I say in another reply, I
should have said, we must consider the impact of the massive shift from
road bikes to mountain bikes. Even if individual stores still doa good
business in road bikes, the overall pool to draw on for repairs is that
much smaller.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-Perhaps MJ can clarify, but don't forget, he didn't say "we replace
almost no carbon forks these days", he said they replace almost no
forks, period.

I should have limited that more specifically to road bikes. We do still
replace a small number anywa y, probably 3-4/year, vs perhaps 30-40
previously.

To clarify a little more: is it also true that you see almost no
aluminum or steel road forks coming in for repair? Of course it must
be, because you see almost none of any kind. Three of four is too small
a sample to allow for meaningful conclusions, but just for fun: what is
the breakdown of what you are having to replace, carbon steel aluminum?
What is the breakdown of what people are actually using on the roads?

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:51:51 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wasn't referring to any of my own equipment, and I also wasn't referring
to catastrophic crashes where there was more than just a little bar tape
scrape.

And what about those little bar tape scrapes that happen instead to the
carbon fiber, i.e. little carbon fiber scrapes?â

If you're only scratching the painted finish, and it's only a scratch,
probably not an issue. It's not as if carbon fiber is a reactive material
that, once exposed to air, decomposes or rusts or whatever. The problem is
that the scratch may be an indication of something significant happening to
it. In other words, sometimes a scratch isn't just a scratch. Sometimes it
might be the only visible indication of previous trauma.

I don't have a lot of experience with CF bike goodies, but the ones I've met,
mostly Girvin forks are so freeking rugged that a serious scar would indicate a
pretty severe incident.

Ron

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're only scratching the painted finish, and it's only a scratch,
probably not an issue. It's not as if carbon fiber is a reactive material
that, once exposed to air, decomposes or rusts or whatever. The problem is
that the scratch may be an indication of something significant happening
to
it. In other words, sometimes a scratch isn't just a scratch. Sometimes it
might be the only visible indication of previous trauma.

I don't know if Trek uses the same carbon/epoxy combination as
Northrop-Grumman, but wasn't one of the problems with the B-2 that a
scratch on the surface would allow moisture to penetrate the wing,
leading to debonding?

The B-2 fuselage goes through a marginally wider temperature range than does
your bike. I wonder if water intrusion in that environment might be a whole
lot more dangerous than what you'd see on a bike?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

And what about those little bar tape scrapes that happen instead to the
carbon fiber, i.e. little carbon fiber scrapes?â

If you're only scratching the painted finish, and it's only a scratch,
probably not an issue. It's not as if carbon fiber is a reactive material
that, once exposed to air, decomposes or rusts or whatever. The problem is
that the scratch may be an indication of something significant happening
to
it. In other words, sometimes a scratch isn't just a scratch. Sometimes it
might be the only visible indication of previous trauma.

I don't know if Trek uses the same carbon/epoxy combination as
Northrop-Grumman, but wasn't one of the problems with the B-2 that a
scratch on the surface would allow moisture to penetrate the wing,
leading to debonding?

Pat

Email address works as is.

Mike Reed said:

Michael Press said:

What will you do with the fork in question? If you test it
destructively please report your test protocols here. 🙂

Excellent point. I suppose I should come up with a way to test them to
failure. I need to get a fish scale that I can use to apply some torque
with a lever arm...

Don't do that. Be more creative. I suggest the following:

1. Test, hopefully not to failure, the two legs, to some standard
torque they should be able to withstand.
2. That test passed, get some coarse sandpaper or a coarse brick and
give a scrape or two, then torque to standard value. See how much
needed before JRA failure.
4. With other leg, test similarly after water debonding test, UV lamp
exposure test.
3. If anything left, repeat with e.g. razor blade or awl or cigarette
lighter, to simulate local juvenile delinquent.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

........

There are a *lot* of dangerously-weakened carbon forks out on the road.
Please, anyone reading this, use some common sense. If your bike had a
serious crash, *assume* that the fork may have been damaged.

A friend of mine was killed when his carbon fork failed during a fast
descent on Thanksgiving Day, 2005. He had two high-end bikes, one of
which had been in a crash and he was still riding it. I don't know if
his crashed bike was the one he was riding that day but in all
likelihood it was.

Mike makes a very good point. Don't be like my friend.

Tom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I should have limited that more specifically to road bikes. We do still
replace a small number anywa y, probably 3-4/year, vs perhaps 30-40
previously.

To clarify a little more: is it also true that you see almost no
aluminum or steel road forks coming in for repair? Of course it must
be, because you see almost none of any kind. Three of four is too small
a sample to allow for meaningful conclusions, but just for fun: what is
the breakdown of what you are having to replace, carbon steel aluminum?
What is the breakdown of what people are actually using on the roads?

I can say, in all truthfulness, that we're replacing more bent steel forks
on touring & hybrid bikes than we are carbon fiber forks on road bikes...
and that we sell far, far greater numbers of bikes with carbon forks. That's
real time, right now, not making comparisons of bikes with steel forks 20
years ago vs carbon forks now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Untrue for our customers. We're not a boutique shop; we sell product that
people actually ride. There is no reason to suspect that the number who
buy
and don't ride is any different today than it was 20 years ago

Indeed there is: the rise of disposable income and the increase in
price of these status symbols.

Or, the increase in leisure time since then would mean people have more time
to ride.

Quoted message said:

Apart from any of these issues though, as I say in another reply, I
should have said, we must consider the impact of the massive shift from
road bikes to mountain bikes. Even if individual stores still doa good
business in road bikes, the overall pool to draw on for repairs is that
much smaller.

Speak for the stores you're familiar with; for us, road bikes have always
sold in far greater numbers than mountain bikes. Our customers ride
primarily on... roads. Why would we sell them a mountain bike for that? :>😉

But as far as the "overall pool of repairs" being smaller for road bikes, I
think the opposite is true, since most people who buy mountain bikes get
very little use out of them, due to limited opportunities for actual
off-road riding, and the fact that they're a lot of work on the road. The
road bike rider, on the other hand, is far more likely to adopt a lifestyle
of cycling, and actually wear out parts.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

> But with the number of forks out there, isn't the lack of carbon fork
> replacement itself a data point? It is almost as if that fact is
> ignored
> completely.

Technically no, it is not a data point. Data are reports of facts, and
a non-fact is, as the name suggests, not a fact. No fact, no data.

That is not true; it's not a lack of data at all, it's radically changed
data. If you go from selling 30 road forks a year to 3 or 4, that *is*
data.
It's a greater-than-80% reduction in aftermarket fork sales for existing
bikes.

As I say this is a technical point, of interest mainly to philosophers
and others so inclined. But let me explain as follows. Simplifying to
two adjacent years marking the difference, there would be two data
points (well, 33 or 34 if you really wanted to be precise), the selling
of 30 road forks one year, and say 3 the next. The 27 forks that were
not sold are not data. That the sales dropped by 90%, or that the data
from one year are different from that of another year in any way, is
also not data, it is instead a conclusion drawn from the data.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Apart from the technical philosophical issue, not, it is still not a
data point. It's not just bicycling and bicycles that have changed so
much since those days; it is behaviour and the bicycling environment.
Consider these factors:

-Most people who buy such things are poseurs buying expensive toys.
Most of them are probably hardly ever ridden.

Untrue for our customers. We're not a boutique shop; we sell product that
people actually ride. There is no reason to suspect that the number who
buy
and don't ride is any different today than it was 20 years ago

Indeed there is: the rise of disposable income and the increase in
price of these status symbols.

Apart from any of these issues though, as I say in another reply, I
should have said, we must consider the impact of the massive shift from
road bikes to mountain bikes. Even if individual stores still doa good
business in road bikes, the overall pool to draw on for repairs is that
much smaller.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-Perhaps MJ can clarify, but don't forget, he didn't say "we replace
almost no carbon forks these days", he said they replace almost no
forks, period.

I should have limited that more specifically to road bikes. We do still
replace a small number anywa y, probably 3-4/year, vs perhaps 30-40
previously.

To clarify a little more: is it also true that you see almost no
aluminum or steel road forks coming in for repair? Of course it must
be, because you see almost none of any kind. Three of four is too small
a sample to allow for meaningful conclusions, but just for fun: what is
the breakdown of what you are having to replace, carbon steel aluminum?
What is the breakdown of what people are actually using on the roads?

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I should have limited that more specifically to road bikes. We do still
replace a small number anywa y, probably 3-4/year, vs perhaps 30-40
previously.

Quoted message said:

I can say, in all truthfulness, that we're replacing more bent steel forks
on touring & hybrid bikes than we are carb on fiber forks on road bikes...

Ah, this was confusing me, to me, a touring bike is a road bike, and a
hybrid bike without suspension is too. Anyrate, I take it you are not
replacing any aluminum forks either.

Quoted message said:

and that we sell far, far greater numbers of bikes with carbon forks. That's
real time, right now, not making comparisons of bikes with steel forks 20
years ago vs carbon forks now.

As we all agree, carbon forks are stronger per se and must suffer
visible damage less frequently during pure impacts. Somehow that turns
out to be not necessarily a great thing.

Quoted message said:

Our customers ride
primarily on... roads. Why would we sell them a mountain bike for that? :>😉

Well, apart from the "we" as in your shop, this is a question a great
many of us have been scratching our heads or pulling our hair out over
for some decades now.

Quoted message said:

But as far as the "overall pool of repairs" being smaller for road bikes, I
think the opposite is true, since most people who buy mountain bikes get
very little use out of them

I meant in absolute terms, not relative. I know your sales of road
bikes are fine, but the total number of people using road bikes (not
just your customers) must be lower today than it was 20 years ago.

A Muzi said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

It's not the failures that some expected to see 10 years ago... it's the
lack of failures that has caused the problem. Yes, I know that sounds really
odd, but I just don't know how to put it. We've been trained, essentially,
to think that there's not an issue, because it's not visual.

The things people worried about 10 years ago weren't crash-related, but
rather true JRAs. Those (thankfully) haven't materialized. The forks are
very, very strong. And very reliable. We can say stronger than what came
before. But they aren't bomb-proof. They do get damaged when impacted;
people just aren't looking for it.

I'm with Mike.
(well, maybe not on usage. 'impacted'??)

I think that means "stuck in someone's colon".

Jasper

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But as far as the "overall pool of repairs" being smaller for road bikes,
I
think the opposite is true, since most people who buy mountain bikes get
very little use out of them

I meant in absolute terms, not relative. I know your sales of road
bikes are fine, but the total number of people using road bikes (not
just your customers) must be lower today than it was 20 years ago.

I honestly don't believe that to be true. In my opinion, the road bikes of
20 (or 30) years ago were road bikes by default, a good many of them were
rarely ridden. People didn't buy a road bike because they wanted a road
bike; they bought a road bike because it was all that existed. So even if
road bike sales were considerably lower today than back then, I believe the
typical road bike is now ridden a far greater number of miles, because it
was a choice that someone bought it, as opposed to just a bike.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

> I should have limited that more specifically to road bikes. We do
> still
> replace a small number anywa y, probably 3-4/year, vs perhaps 30-40
> previously.

Quoted message said:

I can say, in all truthfulness, that we're replacing more bent steel
forks
on touring & hybrid bikes than we are carb on fiber forks on road
bikes...

Ah, this was confusing me, to me, a touring bike is a road bike, and a
hybrid bike without suspension is too. Anyrate, I take it you are not
replacing any aluminum forks either.

Quoted message said:

and that we sell far, far greater numbers of bikes with carbon forks.
That's
real time, right now, not making comparisons of bikes with steel forks 20
years ago vs carbon forks now.

As we all agree, carbon forks are stronger per se and must suffer
visible damage less frequently during pure impacts. Somehow that turns
out to be not necessarily a great thing.

Quoted message said:

Our customers ride
primarily on... roads. Why would we sell them a mountain bike for that?
:>😉

Well, apart from the "we" as in your shop, this is a question a great
many of us have been scratching our heads or pulling our hair out over
for some decades now.

Quoted message said:

But as far as the "overall pool of repairs" being smaller for road bikes,
I
think the opposite is true, since most people who buy mountain bikes get
very little use out of them

I meant in absolute terms, not relative. I know your sales of road
bikes are fine, but the total number of people using road bikes (not
just your customers) must be lower today than it was 20 years ago.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

But as far as the "overall pool of repairs" being smaller for road
bikes, I think the opposite is true, since most people who buy mountain
bikes get very little use out of them, due to limited opportunities for
actual off-road riding, and the fact that they're a lot of work on the
road. The road bike rider, on the other hand, is far more likely to
adopt a lifestyle of cycling, and actually wear out parts.

This may be true with your customers, but where I'm from the mountain
bikers definitely get their trail hours in, and consume parts at an
alarming rate. This might not be apparent to a bike shop owner though,
because most of these folks do their own wrenching (partly out of
necessity, because mountain bikes need a lot of cleaning and tinkering).
When they need new parts, they may shop mail order, because they don't
need your help finding what they need. (No sarcasm or slight intended,
it's just an observation.) So you may rarely see these folks. They're
definitely out there though.

OTOH, few road riders I know do much besides clean and relube, or fix
flats. Then again, compared to mountain bikes, road bikes need very
little attention. There's less incentive to become one's own mechanic.

Matt O.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

I honestly don't believe that to be true. In my opinion, the road bikes
of 20 (or 30) years ago were road bikes by default, a good many of them
were rarely ridden. People didn't buy a road bike because they wanted a
road bike; they bought a road bike because it was all that existed. So
even if road bike sales were considerably lower today than back then, I
believe the typical road bike is now ridden a far greater number of
miles, because it was a choice that someone bought it, as opposed to
just a bike.

There may be more "sport" riders around now than ever, doing longer
rides. What are fewer are casual cyclists, using bikes to get around
town, etc.

20-30 years ago, the typical bike was a Schwinn Varsity "10 Speed" with a
cargo rack and a few tennis balls stuck in the spokes. Now it's an
$800-plus mountain bike, or race-styled road bike.

I wonder how much more expensive this is though, in inflation-adjusted
terms. And I bet a $150 Walgoose today is more reliable than a Varsity
was, most of which had only a couple of gears that worked!

Matt O.

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 06:45:44 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

OTOH, few road riders I know do much besides clean and relube, or fix
flats. Then again, compared to mountain bikes, road bikes need very
little attention. There's less incentive to become one's own mechanic.

Matt O.

This greatly depends on the number of miles and the environment the road
bikes are ridden in.
Those that only get ridden in the summer, dry conditions, etc, need little
more than lube and flat fixes and maybe a rebuild yearly.

Those of us that slog along during the winter, generally disregarding the
rain, sleet, road-grime, etc tend to wear things MUCH faster.
We also have to clean the drivetrain thoroughly, rebuild bearings more
frequently, replace cables and more, or things tend to quit working.

I actually know a large number of road cyclists in this category, but then
again a lot of them are fairly dedicated racers or ex-racers, so my
demographic may not be repsentative:-]

-pete

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

I meant in absolute term s, not relative. I know your sales of road
bikes are fine, but the total number of people using road bikes (not
just your customers) must be lower today than it was 20 years ago.

I honestly don't believe that to be true. In my opinion, the ro ad bikes of
20 (or 30) years ago were road bikes by default, a good many of them were
rarely ridden. People didn't buy a road bike because they wanted a road
bike; they bought a road bike because it was all that existed. So even if
road bike s ales were considerably lower today than back then, I believe the
typical road bike is now ridden a far greater number of miles, because it
was a choice that someone bought it, as opposed to just a bike.

Let's distinguish between:
-the number of bikes
-the number of bike owners
-the number of people riding bikes
-the number of hours those bikes are ridden
-the number of miles those bikes are ridden
-what proportion of any of these are on mountain or road bicycles.

Whatever we are talking about, surely we have to agree that every
statistic having to do with MTBs skyrocketed. They did not even exist
back then, and are ubiquitous now. Q

Quoted message said:

Whatever we are talking about, surely we have to agree that every
statistic having to do with MTBs skyrocketed. They did not even exist
back then, and are ubiquitous now. Q

This is not true. MTB sales are down substantially from four years ago,
while road bike sales have gone up, up, up and further UP. And I honestly
don't feel this is all due to the "Lance" effect. Rather, I think MTBs
changed too much, too often, so they no longer fit into the "durable goods"
category. You bought a high-end mountain bike, and were led to believe it
was obsolete within days of leaving the sales floor, typically because the
fork was no longer the coolest around. Road bikes, on the other hand, evolve
far more slowly. Even if you want to keep up with the latest & greatest, at
most you'd be buying a new bike every three years, more likely every five.
It's far easier to rationalize spending big bucks on something that's going
to be around for at least a short while after you've finished paying for it.

Also, road bikes are, simply, easier to understand. There's very little
hidden technology (as you find in suspension components) that differs
markedly from bike to bike.

But, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that people haven't become more
sensible, and figured out that they ride on "roads", so a "road" bike makes
more sense for them.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

I meant in absolute term s, not relative. I know your sales of road
bikes are fine, but the total number of people using road bikes (not
just your customers) must be lower today than it was 20 years ago.

I honestly don't believe that to be true. In my opinion, the ro ad bikes
of
20 (or 30) years ago were road bikes by default, a good many of them were
rarely ridden. People didn't buy a road bike because they wanted a road
bike; they bought a road bike because it was all that existed. So even if
road bike s ales were considerably lower today than back then, I believe
the
typical road bike is now ridden a far greater number of miles, because it
was a choice that someone bought it, as opposed to just a bike.

Let's distinguish between:
-the number of bikes
-the number of bike owners
-the number of people riding bikes
-the number of hours those bikes are ridden
-the number of miles those bikes are ridden
-what proportion of any of these are on mountain or road bicycles.

Whatever we are talking about, surely we have to agree that every
statistic having to do with MTBs skyrocketed. They did not even exist
back then, and are ubiquitous now. Q