" The aftermath of the infamous musette bag crash during stage 15 of the 2003 Tour de France " cyclingnews.com (what everyone fears on a CF frame) 
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
cracked Trek
- Thread starter vspa
- Start date
There have been several incidences reported wherein a ProTour rider finished a race or stage on a broken CF frame.....and I don't mean that they crashed 100m from the finish. Some will argue that the picture you posted shows how fragile CF really is, but I think it shows just how strong it is. After all, Armstrong remounted and pedaled the bike to the top and to victory, and I'm sure he was putting significant stress on that chain stay. The advances in the application of CF to bike bits have been happening at a pretty fast pace, and a lot has been advanced since 2003. Unfortunately, some people don't keep apace of the advances and will judge some technologies, like CF in cycling, by old standards that don't advance with time. While not really related to cycling, I'll bet that very few in the public were thinking about an airliner mostly made from carbon fiber. We really have to thank the people and companies that have been pushing the CF envelope in cycling for making stuff like we have now a possibility. FWIW, I rode a century this past Sunday, and I saw quite a few CF frames from the "old days". I've seen 3 Giant Cadex bikes since I've been in Tucson (8 years) and several 20th century Looks. CF frames aren't the disposable pieces that some make or made them out to be, and with so many CF repair capable shops coming online, CF frames are even less disposable. Note that it is, of course, still critical to remember that a CF fork can explode at any time.
My six year old carbon fibre Trek Madone failed recently. The aluminium section that joins the chain stay and seat stay cracked just forward of the skewer.
The cracked DS rear dropout seems to be a typical failure mode on lots of bikes these days, not just Treks. And six years isn't bad for any ultra-light frame if you're racing or just riding it hard. Met a guy in the east TN mountains who broke his Madone that way in two years of hard climbing. He's 6'3", lean, and spends alot of time climbing out of the saddle. He estimated he got 18K miles out of the frame.
If you're the original owner, you might get Trek to warranty it, or at least sell you a replacement frame at a discount. Their warranty doesn't cover fatigue damage or wearout (neither do other major brands), but they might help out under their customer goodwill policy. Still, the frame is six years old: they design their race bikes to be ultralight and stiff, not to last forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhk2 .
The cracked DS rear dropout seems to be a typical failure mode on lots of bikes these days, not just Treks. And six years isn't bad for any ultra-light frame if you're racing or just riding it hard. Met a guy in the east TN mountains who broke his Madone that way in two years of hard climbing. He's 6'3", lean, and spends alot of time climbing out of the saddle. He estimated he got 18K miles out of the frame.
If you're the original owner, you might get Trek to warranty it, or at least sell you a replacement frame at a discount. Their warranty doesn't cover fatigue damage or wearout (neither do other major brands), but they might help out under their customer goodwill policy. Still, the frame is six years old: they design their race bikes to be ultralight and stiff, not to last forever.
Trek were very good and they replaced the frame. Unfortunately for me their new frames don't have an English bottom bracket, so in order to use my SRM I had to do a deal with LBS to get a different brand of frame that does have an English bottom bracket. I ended up with a Colnago CX-1 which is already unridable as one of the rivnuts that holds the inline barrel adjuster bracket has a stripped thread.
Originally Posted by dhk2 .
The cracked DS rear dropout seems to be a typical failure mode on lots of bikes these days, not just Treks. And six years isn't bad for any ultra-light frame if you're racing or just riding it hard. Met a guy in the east TN mountains who broke his Madone that way in two years of hard climbing. He's 6'3", lean, and spends alot of time climbing out of the saddle. He estimated he got 18K miles out of the frame.
If you're the original owner, you might get Trek to warranty it, or at least sell you a replacement frame at a discount. Their warranty doesn't cover fatigue damage or wearout (neither do other major brands), but they might help out under their customer goodwill policy. Still, the frame is six years old: they design their race bikes to be ultralight and stiff, not to last forever.
Trek were very good and they replaced the frame. Unfortunately for me their new frames don't have an English bottom bracket, so in order to use my SRM I had to do a deal with LBS to get a different brand of frame that does have an English bottom bracket. I ended up with a Colnago CX-1 which is already unridable as one of the rivnuts that holds the inline barrel adjuster bracket has a stripped thread.
I guess I'm the sicko freak here because I would never buy either a carbon bike or a aluminum bike. Had a aluminum racing bike and it cracked at the top of the head tube extending downward about an inch for no known reason to me, I never hit anything, Schwinn wouldn't replace saying it was fatigue. they say aluminum fails suddenly too, yet I rode that bike with that crack for a few times after that and the crack didn't get any bigger that I tell. I did make $1.20 at the recycler off the frame! Maybe my frame's aluminum made it into one of your bikes? Anyone's head tube crack lately?
Actually, yes, a buddy here had a frame which died due to a head tube crack. The frame was built from the lightest-possible "scandium" aluminum tubeset. The bike lasted him 10 years and over 75K miles. Mine was built by the same builder, but uses the heavier Columbus Zonal 7005 megatubes, so in theory it ought to last a bit longer, in fact, probably longer than I'll ride it.
Your experience with one Schwinn doesn't mean all aluminum frames have poor fatigue life, or indicate that steel or ti frames don't have these kinds of problems. And you proved to yourself that aluminum doesn't always fail suddenly. The fact that aluminum has been used in aircraft for the better part of a century now ought to tell you it works for building lightweight structures whose safety is critical.
vspa,no disrespect to steel or ti intended. You'll be happy to know I've still got my 1975 Raleigh Gran Sport, built of real Reynolds 531 steel, lugged and brazed. Believe it's likely one of the last to come out of the Carlisle frameworks, before the sun set on british bike manufacturing....and before the weight-wienie craze got us all.
I'd never let a plumber touch a steel bike of mine. With that said, I've never worried about any frames I've had, no matter the material from which each of those frames were made. There is no reason to fear any bike because of the material from which it's made. The idea of certain materials being inferior does make great fodder for bike forum gossip and worrymongering.vspa said:
My Schwinn was Scandium too.
Anyway the comparison of AL used in bikes and airplanes is way off base. It's a rationalization handed down by bicycle marketing reps to sales people in LBS's and then on to you so it must be true...incorrect, it's not true.
Read this excerpt from: http://www.nordicgroup.us/bikerec/#Why Steel Frames are Preferable to Aluminum Frames In fact read the whole thing when you get a chance, plus the many sites about aluminum. Anyway's here's the excerpt about aircraft:
[SIZE=small]"Invariably, when the aluminum versus steel debate pops up, someone chimes in with an analogy about airplanes. They ask why we're not worried about aluminum airplanes falling out of the sky, but we're worried about aluminum bicycle frames breaking. I'm convinced that buried somewhere in the sales training from Trek, Cannondale, and/or Specialized, there is an FAQ that tells salespeople to use the airplane analogy to address concerns from customers about aluminum framed bicycles.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]Like most analogies, it's a poor one. The fact is that we are worried about airplanes falling out of the sky. Recall the 1988 incident in Hawaii where an Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 suffered a structural failure. This was an inter-island plane, which had an abnormally high number of compression/decompression cycles, which fatigued the aluminum skin, causing stress cracks that propagated from rivet locations. Amazingly, only one person was killed (a flight attendant who was sucked out during the decompression). Of course the solution here was not to make airplanes out of steel, it was to increase inspections, and limit the number of stress cycles before an aircraft is taken out of service.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]http://www.anvilbikes.com/story.php?news_ID=16&catID=3 states: "When discussing aluminum, someone always brings up airplanes. Airplane design showcases what aluminum does best: acceptable strength and a low relative weight. But, aluminum's lack of a fatigue limit is one very good reason why there is stringent monitoring of dynamically or cyclically stressed aluminum structures."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]Also see: http://plane-truth.com/fatigue_details.htm, http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news04/041204_news_bright.shtml, [/SIZE][SIZE=small]http://www.navioneer.org/Information/Aviator/Aviator-Jun-2002.pdf, and http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2001/Jan/18/118localnews1.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]The very best part about the airplane argument, is that when after it is debunked, the person who brought it up in the first place invariably says something like, "well you can't compare airplanes with bicycles!""[/SIZE]
Choosing a best material is a subjective choice. It is always is as it takes someone to define the parameters of what is best, and those choices aren't inherently subjective. Therefore it is not possible to say objectively that steel or any material is the best material. Clearly, Cannondale have shown that aluminum is a perfectly suitable material for a bicycle through their many iterations of the CAAD series. In fact, what Cannondale have done has arguably done away with the idea that aluminum frames are short lived and must ride harsh. Ti, Aluminum, CF, and magnesium are just as real as steel.
Most Raleigh's we're built in Nottingham, Ilkeston or Worksop. I've never heard of Raleigh having a facility in Carlisle - unless you're referring to a Carlisle somewhere other that England. Raleigh were still building steel frames into the 90's - after I stopped racing in England I stopped taken notice of what was going on with bike stuff overthere. Not sure why you thought that the mid 70s were the end of british bike manufacturing - Raleigh built zoetmelk's tour winning bike in 1980 as well as the rest of the all conquering TI Raleigh teams bikes in Ilkeston and would go onto build Fignons' "I lost the tour by 8 seconds" bikes at either Ilkeston or Nottingham - cant remember when their special bikes division moved... It was around then.dhk2 said:
The factory is called Carlton, don't know if it is a town. I bought a Super Course 12 the year they closed up. I believe it was 1980 or 81. I have the original receipt somewhere. The Super Course was a replacement for my first road bike which was a Raleigh Record in 1972. all my friends where riding Schwinn Varsities which were built like tanks and were about as heavy as 
When I first show up to with the Record it was like having a Ferrari. I still have the Super. Had the frame cold stretched and upgraded to all Campy Record carbon 10spd and carbon fork. Its never been in the rain and rides real smooth. Not as much as I used to due to the second bike being a Pinarello F4:13.
When I first show up to with the Record it was like having a Ferrari. I still have the Super. Had the frame cold stretched and upgraded to all Campy Record carbon 10spd and carbon fork. Its never been in the rain and rides real smooth. Not as much as I used to due to the second bike being a Pinarello F4:13.
Froze, we obviously disagree about the utility of aluminum for building aircraft and bike frames. I do think the fact that aluminum has been used successfully in aircraft for decades indicates it's not entirely worthless for building lightweight and fatigue-resistant structures. The fact that you had to go back many years to find even one in-service fatigue failure in the world's airline fleet indicates just how safe, strong and trustworthy these aluminum structures are, as long as they receive just a minimal properly-designed scheduled inspection program.
The airline failure you mention was in fact a wake-up call to the industry. IIRC, that aircraft had far more ground-air-ground cycles than average, due to the short duration of its inter-island flights. In fact, no one really was looking at this a/c the way they should have been, knowing it was the "lead-the-fleet" in terms of gag cycles. To me, the incident was a failure of aviation maintenance engineering, not a failure of the base metal or design. Further, unless you've got experience in the airline industry, I think you'd be surprised at how little major inspection of the airframes actually occurs. An airliner endures years and many tens of thousands of flight hours between heavy maintenance checks, where major structural parts are opened up and examined.
So for me, your lone example certainly doesn't make the case for me that aluminum structures are unsafe or prone to fatigue, in fact, just the opposite. Airline fatigue failures in-service are very rare, but of course when they do happen they tend to be spectacular. I'll certainly stick by my analogy, as I think it's a pretty strong endorsement for aluminum in bike frame construction.
Still, the greatest flaw in your argument against aluminum bike frames is the implication that steel or ti frames automatically last longer. No doubt the old heavy-walled 531 tubesets could build some tough lugged frames and forks. But few of us seem to want to buy stuff that heavy anymore, so to me the question of which material is best for frames and forks has to be related to weight. Any meaningful comparison of materials has to include weight, and that's where the steel-to-aluminum strenght/life advantage gets unclear.
I don't think using aluminum aerospace applications as proof that aluminum is a find material for cycling really works. Aircraft have to be built to pass certain tests, regulations, and company requirements for safety factor. As such there is some measure of overbuilding that goes into the production of such things. It would be very tough given, say, the construction of an alloy aircraft component in a high stress location that sees heavy cycling and large load variations to compare that with a bicycle frame or other aluminum component. The direct comparison isn't there. I think that it's sufficient to just look at all of the old aluminum bikes that are out there and say that is representative of how well the material works in bicycles. The fact is that there are loads of old aluminum bikes still out there. Cannondale has built an enviable history and reputation on their CAAD frames alone. Some would argue that the continuing popularity of aluminum frames after more than 35 years since their introduction is solely based on how inexpensive they are to produce. There's no proving such a statement. It's purely subjective, but that's alright because determining if what materials are best for bike frames and components is largely--perhaps even mostly--subjective. Even if steel and ti frames last longer, that doesn't mean those materials are better. All that matters is that a frame last as long as the owner wants or needs it to. Somewhere someone is arguing that wood studs are better for framing home than metal studs and that wood siding is better brick. In a lab I used to work in, we had a launch and space-qualified prototype of a primary mirror for a space telescope. This was from the days leading up to the decision to select what became Hubble as the design of choice for that telescope. The mockup was fully functional and had a 2mm thick active mirror mounted on hundreds of solenoids which were fastened, along with their wiring harness, to machined carbon fiber support structure. This was no small contraption. The distance from opposing vertices on the hexagonal mirror was on the order of 2m. This was big, but the weight of the entire setup--support structure, wiring, glass, and other hardware was significantly less than 100 pounds. I dare say the CF support structure would take just about anything you could throw at it, but I wouldn't say that it's existence and specs said anything about CF bicycle frames. Cross-species comparisons of material use is potentially full of pitfalls and carries a great risk of reaching unsupportable conclusions.dhk2 said:
I knew my opinion wouldn't be popular, too many people own AL bikes, all those people are not going to agree with someone who is against their bikes! But I've known more failures with AL and CF bikes then I ever saw with steel, not saying I never saw steel fail, just saying I never saw anywhere near the failure rates as there are today.
And to say there are old AL bikes around doesn't mean a lot, because just like two steel bikes I bought used that were both built in the 80's that had less then 250 miles on one and 5 miles on the other, AL bikes will get bought and rarely get rode and then sit for years. But I wonder how many AL bikes are still around that were produced 35 years ago that averaged 5,000 miles a year for 35 years? I doubt if you'll find many, if any. Cannondale use to say right in their warranty that their AL frames were only good for 2 years of competitive riding, but they changed their wording on that when they sent their bike manufacturing to China. Cannondale was all to aware of fatigue issues with AL.
But again, this is my opinion, supported however by a large industry of bike builders as you can read about in the earlier post I gave. Having had an AL bike fail, knowing others who have as well, I'm not one to go and buy something that I may have to replace in 5 to 10 years. And that goes for CF bikes as well. I'll stick with steel and TI unless something really great comes along. Somec is designing a honeycombed CF tubing instead of hollow tubing which is said to give CF frames a very long life expectancy and superior strength, formula cars CF frames have been designed like that for years. Another concept was a lattice of TI subframe then covered with CF, also supposedly giving it superior strength. And then there's Delta 7; see: http://www.delta7bikes.com/ascend-road-bike.htm
And to say there are old AL bikes around doesn't mean a lot, because just like two steel bikes I bought used that were both built in the 80's that had less then 250 miles on one and 5 miles on the other, AL bikes will get bought and rarely get rode and then sit for years. But I wonder how many AL bikes are still around that were produced 35 years ago that averaged 5,000 miles a year for 35 years? I doubt if you'll find many, if any. Cannondale use to say right in their warranty that their AL frames were only good for 2 years of competitive riding, but they changed their wording on that when they sent their bike manufacturing to China. Cannondale was all to aware of fatigue issues with AL.
But again, this is my opinion, supported however by a large industry of bike builders as you can read about in the earlier post I gave. Having had an AL bike fail, knowing others who have as well, I'm not one to go and buy something that I may have to replace in 5 to 10 years. And that goes for CF bikes as well. I'll stick with steel and TI unless something really great comes along. Somec is designing a honeycombed CF tubing instead of hollow tubing which is said to give CF frames a very long life expectancy and superior strength, formula cars CF frames have been designed like that for years. Another concept was a lattice of TI subframe then covered with CF, also supposedly giving it superior strength. And then there's Delta 7; see: http://www.delta7bikes.com/ascend-road-bike.htm
Not to diminish the experience of frame builders, but there could be several things influencing their opinions:
- Steel has been used a lot longer than other frame materials, therefore:
- There is a romantic, emotional, habitual, or similar bias
- People are comfortable with it
- There's a long history of its use, a history at least 2-3 times as long as that of any other frame material
- I'd venture to say that most small frame builders haven't applied pure materials science and physics modeling to their frames with various materials
- Everyone has their own ideas about what criteria the perfect frame material needs to meet
Similar threads
