I thought that's not an example of carbon failure, but a demonstration of the benefit of carbon. The monocoque carbon safety cage has protected the driver during a spin out crash. The root cause of the failure definitely wasn't carbon.Glenfiddich_Man said:yeah no kidding.
this is what carbon failure looks like
Exactly, I was going to make the same point. The carbon body of an F1 is not designed to withstand an impact like that...it's for lightweight aerodynamics (though BobbyOCR would probably suggest that F1 cars should use aluminiumsogood said:I thought that's not an example of carbon failure, but a demonstration of the benefit of carbon. The monocoque carbon safety cage has protected the driver during a spin out crash. The root cause of the failure definitely wasn't carbon.
).
But to be balanced. I think there is at present an over emphasis on everything carbon. There are some things where carbon when well designed make sense, while others the cost-weight-performance ratio just isn't there compared with other materials. In many areas, carbon is almost a core word for product marketing without regard for the technicalitie, and there are enough suckers out there who are more than happy to swallow it whole and pay the premium for that six letters CARBON.Walrus said:Exactly, I was going to make the same point. The carbon body of an F1 is not designed to withstand an impact like that...it's for lightweight aerodynamics (though BobbyOCR would probably suggest that F1 cars should use aluminium
I agree totally. We've all heard the rumours that carbon stocks are going to be depleted, thanks to other industries like air travel (for example by the Boeing A380 which uses a lot of carbon). If this happens (reading some of the reviews from Interbike, many commented that there's still plenty of carbon floating around), then the marketing dudes at Look, Giant, Trek, C'dale etc etc will come up with a spin on a "new and improved alloy that far outperforms carbon in all areas". The tide will turn, and carbon will become a retro 90's/00's thangsogood said:
.
- they're my winter trainers actually).
Yeah, R500s are my off-season trainers. The DT hubs are amazing, makes me wonder why people would go ceramic when they could have DTWalrus said:BobbyOCR...guess which wheels I ride?
DT Swiss Road Elite...same as you...
Mine were laced by Dirtworks in Sydney. Love em! Especially that 240s hub!!! I can roll down a hill faster than my mate who is 25kg heavier (he rides Shimano R550's, which are fine
. F1 cars should definitely be made out of carbon, I could go on forever explaining why, but I'm even boring myself , so I won't.
Actually an F1 car is made for impacts like that, the side pods have torn off and absorbed some of the impact and the driver pod remains intact. From memory the driver pod must be able to withstand a 100km frontal with a concrete wall and show no signs of damage. The F1 car is a good argument for carbon fiber except for one thing, last time i looked bicycles were still based on the triangle tube design, its my opinion that were not going to see carbon out do aluminium until the cycling community come out of the dark ages and allow bike designers to make radically differrent designs. Lets face it guys we are arguing about very small differances here, aerodynamics play a much bigger role in cycling than weight.Walrus said:Exactly, I was going to make the same point. The carbon body of an F1 is not designed to withstand an impact like that...it's for lightweight aerodynamics (though BobbyOCR would probably suggest that F1 cars should use aluminium
At the risk of being pedantic (and hijacking the thread) - a bloke called Newton reckoned that acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass - he wrote about it some 350 years ago.Walrus said:
Yeah but that doesn't change the fact that 240s are the best hub ever.nerdag said:At the risk of being pedantic (and hijacking the thread) - a bloke called Newton reckoned that acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass - he wrote about it some 350 years ago.
This is probably due to you being a smaller person and therefore having a smaller frontal area - just a guess. Hub friction may come into play, although aero differences would be far mroe significant.
As to the original question - no, stay away from any damaged carbon for essential controls. But I think you've already established this as the consensus answer
n
nerdag said:
Actually it's not true. It is well known and backed up by theoretical calc that a heavier rider using the same equipment would ride down faster. It has something to do with the fact that a bigger frontal area would only increase the air resistance by a tiny factor while the weight advantage is greater. I am sure there's a better written explanation on the net via Google than my rambling here.nerdag said:
I'm certainly no physics guru, but I would have thought that drag increases with a person who has a bigger frontal area.Strid said:
You're correct. The "k" in the equation is actually equal to Cd (coefficient of drag) times A (surface area normal to the flow.nerdag said:
I agree with every word of thisbobbyOCR said:
.
2. I am pretty sure, last time I checked, I have won 2 races. There is a loop course which is very commonly used for races around heres, and it includes one 1km hill average 8% (done 2 times) and one 3km hill, average 6-7%. Last time I raced there (and a similar situation previously) on the bigger hill, at the exact middle of the race, I jumped over the top and the group didn't catch me on the descent. I tried to TT to the smaller hill, made it there with what would have been a 30sec gap, on the descent I put another 10sec then tted to the finish. The other time I caught a break on the descent and sprinted for the win.mitosis said:
