CFRP drawbacks

Chalo said:

A Muzi said:

Chalo said:

But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting
fools from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit
like the one Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.

"publicly owned"?? [censored] Burke sold Trek?

Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.

Successful = Cancerous? She's not in office YET, you know! LOL

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.

Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had their
lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?

Aluminum yes, steel not usually and titanium I don't know. But I've
seen lots of dented steel frames in use for years afterwards with no
failures.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm unable
to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon, titanium,
steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths and
know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses. But
somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy" frame
materials when trashing the new stuff.

"Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.

Thing is, for 99% of cyclists it makes not one whit of difference in
terms of perceptible ride quality or performance if the frame weighs 3.5
pounds or 2.5 pounds. The difference it makes is in talking points and
self-aggrandizement.

About 10-12 years ago, on a club training ride, one of the masters
racers showed up with a then top-of-the-line and state of the art Look
CF frame, a KG-whatever. The racer in question worked for the MN
Department of Agriculture as an inspector and was (in)famous for doing
lunch hour intervals and 100 mile training rides daily, pretty much
dominating his category. My friend Mark was curious and chatted with
the guy about his bike, commenting that it was the first Look frame he'd
seen being ridden by a non-professional. The guy turns and thunders at
Mark "whaddya mean a non-professional!?!?!?!?" Mark was a bit taken
aback and later- on his lugged steel Rodriguez- dropped the offensive
masters racer good and proper up the biggest hill on the ride.

It cracks me up that some people get all twisted up about folks wearing
pro team jerseys when they haven't "earned them" by being good enough to
be pros, but not about people riding "pro level" bike when they are 55
years old and 30 pounds overweight and can't even average 18 mph on
rolling terrain...

Oh, I would not mind running one of those professional frames
on descents. Optimized frame, wheels, and tires can turn
granny into a madman on the go-down parts. And even on the
flats most people can learn to propel themselves fast enough
to benefit from a sharp handling bicycle.

--
Michael Press

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

A Muzi said:

"publicly owned"?? [censored] Burke sold Trek?

Quoted message said:

Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.

Successful = Cancerous? She's not in office YET, you know! LOL

No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
founder can say asinine [censored] like the following:

"We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."

Charming, eh?

Chalo

Chalo said:

jim beam said:

epoxys are used extensively
in engineering - bridges, a/c componentry and architecture for example.

Yes, I understand that the failure of the epoxy coating on steel rods
was what caused pieces to fall out of the ceiling of that freeway
tunnel in Boston.

wasn't there just a steel bridge collapse out minnesota way? no epoxies
there. if big dig components failed, it means there was a project
problem. it doesn't mean there's a fundamental problem with an epoxy
system itself.

Quoted message said:

The examples I know of for epoxy used in civil engineering projects
are anti-corrosion coatings on structural elements-- not as the
structural elements themselves.

Chalo

not for structural elements of buildings, that's right. but when you
have a building clad in granite [for example] that cladding is mounted
using brackets that are epoxied onto the rear of each panel.
[structural applications are just a matter of time.] epoxies are also
used extensively in bridge retrofits - simply glue in reinforcement.
and modern composite planes couldn't fly at all if it weren't for
reliable epoxies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The epoxy that holds the fibers together will not last long enough to
support your prediction. It's just not that stable. I have art
pieces I made in college fifteen to twenty years ago which were
assembled partly with epoxy, and they have fallen apart. Look at the
original plastic bits on the interior of a twenty- or thirty-year-old
car.

LOL. Because the hardware store epoxies you mixed and used by hand
in uncontrolled conditions 20 years ago have failed, and a variety of
unrelated cheap consumer plastics eventually do the same, modern CF bikes
(and other commercial epoxy constructions, like boats) will fall apart.
Right :-)

Well, um, yeah! I mean, who wouldn't make that extrapolation, based upon
those Crazy Glue commercials of yesteryear, when they'd show one drop of the
stuff being able to lift a pickup truck... meanwhile, your experiences at
home were that you couldn't even get a broken coffee cup repaired. What, you
think that doing everything the way you're supposed to should actually make
a difference???

(On the other hand, Crazy Glue/Cyonacrolyte or whatever it's called
certainly has revolutionized model building. It sure is a whole lot better
than that glue that some people used to sniff, although I found the best use
for it was as a fuse... really cool the way you could draw a bead with it,
light it, and watch it slowly burn up to whatever it was you were trying to
ignite... almost burned down my tree fort once!)

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

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

A Muzi wrote:
>
> "publicly owned"?? [censored] Burke sold Trek?

Quoted message said:

Evidently not. But that makes me wonder why Trek went cancerous.

Successful = Cancerous? She's not in office YET, you know! LOL

No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
founder can say asinine [censored] like the following:

"We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."

Charming, eh?

Sounds honest and sincere to me. (Assuming it's true, of course.) Aren't
"evil corporate types" supposed to lie and obfuscate at every turn?

I'll look for your reply to Mike's questions, including: "What, exactly, is
the evidence that Trek moved from being a 'sane and outwardly ethical
company' (or evidence that it ever was that in the first place) to a
'grotesque marketing-driven mutant?'"

Seems to me that they've helped fuel (not "Fuel"😉 the cycling boom in the
last 7-8 years, at great expense and risk. The fact that it paid off should
be applauded and admired, not jeered and derided.

Bill "Unless you hate capitalism, that is. Oh, wait" S.

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
founder can say asinine [censored] like the following:

Quoted message said:

"We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."

Quoted message said:

Charming, eh?

Sounds honest and sincere to me. (Assuming it's true, of course.) Aren't
"evil corporate types" supposed to lie and obfuscate at every turn?

Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
company a profit, are somehow not serious.

The fact that a gigantic nation of accustomed and experienced cyclists
can't find much use for Trek's products at Trek's asking prices speaks
for itself, I think.

Chalo

Chalo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Chalo said:

No, Trek was a successful company before, according to appearances
anyway. But now they are the sort of company where the chairman and
founder can say asinine [censored] like the following:

Quoted message said:

"We're losing money in China, but not a lot. Eventually the Chinese
will have the time and the money to take up cycling seriously."

Quoted message said:

Charming, eh?

Sounds honest and sincere to me. (Assuming it's true, of course.)
Aren't "evil corporate types" supposed to lie and obfuscate at every
turn?

Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
company a profit, are somehow not serious.

The fact that a gigantic nation of accustomed and experienced cyclists
can't find much use for Trek's products at Trek's asking prices speaks
for itself, I think.

Well, this is the first time I've read or considered that quote, so perhaps
you're right. Just seems to me that he was giving an honest assessment of a
MARKET, rather than commentary on WORTHINESS.

If Trek used their manufacturing clout to flood China with really cheap
BSOs, what would you say then? Are they providing a service (cheap bikes
for the needy masses) or just manipulating and dominating a marketplace?

Perhaps they can't win with you.

Just a thought.

Michael Press said:

Oh, I would not mind running one of those professional frames
on descents. Optimized frame, wheels, and tires can turn
granny into a madman on the go-down parts.

They're nothing compared to a big gut on someone who gets strong
dragging it up hills, though. There's a big guy I ride with who blows even
A-graders off his wheel when he hammers downhill.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Well, um, yeah! I mean, who wouldn't make that extrapolation, based upon
those Crazy Glue commercials of yesteryear, when they'd show one drop of the
stuff being able to lift a pickup truck... meanwhile, your experiences at
home were that you couldn't even get a broken coffee cup repaired.

It's always been incredibly good at glueing skin to almost anything,
though :-)

Chalo said:

Perhaps you missed (or perhaps you agree with) the implication I took
exception to, which is that Trek buyers are somehow "serious" about
their cycling, whereas Chinese who cycle in much greater numbers and
for transportation, and who don't buy enough Treks to make that
company a profit, are somehow not serious.

Apparently they're so serious about cycling that they're all scrambling to
get cars instead, and bikes are rapidly disappearing from cities.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

"Legacy" frame

Quoted message said:

materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.

That's not what I said.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

I know, it's what I said. Imply is what I implied. Ya gotta admit
Mike, and rightly so cuz that's what you sell, but you 'imply' carbon
is the material of the future, just like aluminum and ti was viewed in
the past. It's just a different way of doin the same thing.

Quoted message said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had their
lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is entirely about how the material is being used. If someone wanted
to
make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being
knocked
over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
sort.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But where would the market be for such a frame? Incredibly small, I'd
think.
You'd be building a frame both stronger and far more expensive than a
market
exists for. Better to use a cheaper material and settle for something
that's
strong enough for the task at hand.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm
unable
to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon, titanium,
steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths and
know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses. But
somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy"
frame
materials when trashing the new stuff.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Quoted message said:

"Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> jim beam wrote:
>> _ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
>>>>>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
>>>>>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
>>>>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
>>>>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
>>>>> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
>>>>> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
>>>> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel,
>>>> but
>>>> rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame
>>>> from
>>>> carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would
>>>> likely
>>>> be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these days.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
>>> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
>>> difference
>>> to
>>> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have
>>> lasted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were
>> as
>> over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
>> wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and
>> it
>> wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Michael Warner said:

Michael Press said:

Oh, I would not mind running one of those professional frames
on descents. Optimized frame, wheels, and tires can turn
granny into a madman on the go-down parts.

They're nothing compared to a big gut on someone who gets strong
dragging it up hills, though. There's a big guy I ride with who blows even
A-graders off his wheel when he hammers downhill.

What? No hard curves? Or is he also an expert in the turns?

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Michael Warner said:

Michael Press said:

Oh, I would not mind running one of those professional frames
on descents. Optimized frame, wheels, and tires can turn
granny into a madman on the go-down parts.

They're nothing compared to a big gut on someone who gets strong
dragging it up hills, though. There's a big guy I ride with who blows even
A-graders off his wheel when he hammers downhill.

What? No hard curves? Or is he also an expert in the turns?

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chalo said:

> But in the meantime, that plastic trash has done its job parting fools
> from their money, and that's all that counts to an outfit like the one
> Trek has become in its publicly owned incarnation.

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

#1: Trek is not a publicly-owned company. It never has been.

Chalo said:

I believe you, but that's very strange to me. It is owned by private
equity perhaps? Whatever it is, it's not the same sane and outwardly
ethical company that was making lugged steel bikes in Wisconsin not so
very long ago. It has undergone the same sort of transformation that
changed Cannondale from a profitable, modest, and innovative American
manufacturer into a grotesque marketing-driven mutant, and that _was_
the result of taking the company public.

-snip vicissitudes of age re:epoxy -

Staring insolvency in the eye, especially when management are pricipals,
makes for great change. Trek is consistently profitable now.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

"Legacy" frame

Quoted message said:

materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame
material worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well,
clone-ish.

That's not what I said.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

I know, it's what I said. Imply is what I implied. Ya gotta admit
Mike, and rightly so cuz that's what you sell, but you 'imply' carbon
is the material of the future, just like aluminum and ti was viewed in
the past. It's just a different way of doin the same thing.

Umm, does thinking carbon is the "material of the future" mean it's the
"only frame material worth designing into a bicycle"?!?

MIKE IS NOT A CLONE! (Note, no 'W'.)

Bill "butting in" S.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the difference
> to
> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.

jim beam said:

the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were as
over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and it
wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.

The adhesives and plastics degrade and outgas over such a time span.

I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Perhaps it is becuase these plastic frames are not old enough (or break
before from other causes) for such failures to show up. Brazed steel
frames have been around for at least a century - not the method, but the
actual frames.

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Andrew Muzi mused:

Quoted message said:

...
I did note that a 50+year life for a ($29 new) bicycle may not be a
requirement for most riders....

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

According to the government's inflation calculator, that is $225 in 2007
dollars, or about as inexpensive as you will find a real [1] new bicycle.
[1] Opposed to a bicycle shaped object (BSO).

I did not start with the idea of a perpetual bike. I've owned quite a
few, albeit only a couple at a time, just never found anything which
rides as well for my usual errands and commute.

To make a classic Raleigh Sports or similar machine today, (brazed
lugged steel, running gear of forged steel with 4-layer plate, etc)
would cost a fortune. Today's bikes are of radically more efficient
manufacture, cheaper, lighter generally.

Perhaps the point should be that you don't need to make that bike today -
the ones they made 50 years ago are still as durable today as they were
when first out of the factory.

Michael Press said:

What? No hard curves? Or is he also an expert in the turns?

They don't slow him down, if that's any indication :-)

Michael Press said:

What? No hard curves? Or is he also an expert in the turns?

They don't slow him down, if that's any indication :-)