Recommendations For Carbon Fiber Bicycle

[Froze]

Trek's got a great reputation for warranty replacements.

Nobody advertises CF as "delicate".

Well if you google Trek frame warranty issues you get a load of them. But in all fairness that would probably be true with any bike company. Remember the warranty is only good for as long as the frame is still available, after that you might as well forget it. Anyway, there is no way to attach a number of problems with a particular brands warranty problems. I have heard a lot of horror stories from warranty issues with Italian companies, so maybe stay away from Italian bikes if you want a warranty that works.

 

[Froze]

I don't think "delicate" is the right word you are looking for there. Light? Sure! But not "delicate". I really don't trust my butt on anything that would fall to pieces while I am screaming downhill. I know CF can be really robust so I would have no problem riding one, but not if it's advertised as "delicate".

pretty delicate vs steel; see: http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/carbonomas2015-1.htm watch the video.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

Carbon fiber frames do not suffer rough handling. Stuff that a Ti, steel or even an aluminum frame of reasonable wall thickness would shrug off would damage a carbon frame either by seriously chipping, cracking or outright breaking. Carbon is a very strong material in tension and the yield is pretty amazing. Life cycle from deflection/fatigue cycle is also excellent. Impact resistance...not so much.

It is also a fairly difficult material to manufacture with. Frame assembly processes can be prone to voids, inclusions, cold shuts, delamination, etc.

Overall, I'm sold on carbon as a frame/fork and component material. It absolutely HAS to be done 'right', but the advantages are difficult to argue against.

 

[Froze]

Carbon fiber frames do not suffer rough handling. Stuff that a Ti, steel or even an aluminum frame of reasonable wall thickness would shrug off would damage a carbon frame either by seriously chipping, cracking or outright breaking. Carbon is a very strong material in tension and the yield is pretty amazing. Life cycle from deflection/fatigue cycle is also excellent. Impact resistance...not so much.

It is also a fairly difficult material to manufacture with. Frame assembly processes can be prone to voids, inclusions, cold shuts, delamination, etc.

Overall, I'm sold on carbon as a frame/fork and component material. It absolutely HAS to be done 'right', but the advantages are difficult to argue against.

Actually there is controversy about CF fatigue that has popped up it's ugly head here in the last year or two, read this: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/frames-going-soft/

There is even some doubt rising up in the aircraft industry about the long term prospects of CF being used in the 787 and the Dreamliner; for one such example see: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228376-300-report-questions-long-term-safety-of-composite-planes/#.VLz8jNJp9Ko
And because of these doubts concerning CF new aircraft designers are shying away from composite and are looking at aluminum-Lithium alloy; see:http://airinsight.com/2010/10/18/will-aluminum-lithium-beat-composites-for-narrow-body-airliners/ This new material makes me wonder if the new "wonder" material will be aluminum-lithium alloy?

Just for fun, this is funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvk63bmVpck

 

[CAMPYBOB]

I've yet to see any CF fatigue damage or loss of stiffness in real life. Granted, I only put around 30K miles on my first el cheapo CF frameset and around 1/2 that on the second el cheapo Wilier (replaced a cracked one, but I've cracked a steel Colnago too), but nothing discernable at those points. Neither have I witness any of my carbon fibers delaminating from my resin...although it is certainly possible.

I don't know what the German mad scientist video is trying to show, but it's certainly a retarded video.

We probably should tell Honda the new HondaJet is a failure right off the drawing board and get GKN Aerospace to stop manufacturing CF fuselages and wing assemblies. And Boeing. And Airbus. And every manufacturer of military fighters on the planet. Love it or hate it, CF has become the go-to material for many applications for some pretty good reasons.

Those huge CF fan blades on the front end of Rolls-Royce, G.E., Pratt & Whitney high bypass turbines? Better not get aboard any of the planes flying those fan blades. They could delaminate and asplode. Just like all the superalloys (Hastelloy, Incoloy, Greek Ascoloy, Yttrium, Tantalum, Beryllium Copper, etc) do with surprising regularity.

In your 2011 article, I see only concerns in regards to the capacity to assess damage and repair CF as used in aircraft structures...nothing is presented that says there is anything inherently unsafe about the material, itself. And it's a GAO report...I have zero faith in the GAO in its ability to report on anything. Not even matters of accounting.

I do find it odd that forks are supposedly losing stiffness that 99% of high end steel, aluminum and titanium bikes are still sold or equipped with carbon forks. Weird. Better go inspect my forks for delamination...that only occurs from the inside-out? Right?

The third link is interesting.

One of the main points being:
"Damage Tolerance
Airframes are subject to ground damage, often from baggage loaders and carts that may inadvertently strike the airframe during routine operations. Carbon fiber composites..."

Yes. Impact damage. But the main point of the article was the use of the new alloys on short haul jet structures where the ability to tolerated rough handling is an advantage...one of my original points. Additionally, the cheaper manufacturing processes involved with and aluminum alloy are the reason we'll always see alloy Walmart bikes and lower cost airliners made from it.​ Certainly Li-Al offers the airfame builder a competitive alternative to CF. One with distinct advantages and distinct drawbacks.

Frankly speaking, the miracle steels, aluminums and titaniums have always been 'competitive' for bike frames. But, 'competitive' is never enough when you're striving to be the best. 11-speeds is better than 10. Lighter is better than heavier. At least when it comes to racing bikes. And with all the tradeoffs, compromises, advantages and disadvantages were weighed, CF came out on top. Was marketing a factor? Certainly. But sound scientific facts are what drove the decision that CF was going to be King for a few years. At least for production quantity builds.

When they get LiAl or whatever material leads the next step in the development of the racing bike sorted out, I'll be in line to try one out.

BTW, a buddy of mine is a steel freak. He has a collection of modern, ultra-thin walled TIG welded bikes that is to die for. He just built up a Campy Record English and has an awesome custom built and custom painted SpeedVagon ready for assembly. Both are drool worthy.

http://www.englishcycles.com/

His English road racer is the same color of blue as the mtn. bike on the home page. Stunning!

 

[oldbobcat]

BTW, a buddy of mine is a steel freak. He has a collection of modern, ultra-thin walled TIG welded bikes that is to die for. He just built up a Campy Record English and has an awesome custom built and custom painted SpeedVagon ready for assembly. Both are drool worthy.

http://www.englishcycles.com/

His English road racer is the same color of blue as the mtn. bike on the home page. Stunning!

And the forks of several of these bikes are made of . . . carbon.

Actually, I had a Giant TCR that "went soft" around the end of my second season with it. Talking with industry insiders, I leaned that troubles with this frame were well known. I didn't learn until after I had parted it out that Giant was aware of the problem and was replacing them with new TCRs, pretty *****-nilly. I might have qualified for a free frame even though I bought the bike used. I'd been told the problem was micro-gaps forming in the resin that bonded the layers of carbon.

Properly executed, though, carbon fiber is very durable against torsional forces, the sort of thing that happens during normal riding and falling. Impacts, from hard blunt objects or projectiles, and crushing forces, as from over-tightening a seat post clamp, are a different story. Of course, these forces would damage any tube this thin but, as many have stated, the failures of steel are usually less catastrophic.

 

[Froze]

BTW, a buddy of mine is a steel freak. He has a collection of modern, ultra-thin walled TIG welded bikes that is to die for. He just built up a Campy Record English and has an awesome custom built and custom painted SpeedVagon ready for assembly. Both are drool worthy.

http://www.englishcycles.com/

His English road racer is the same color of blue as the mtn. bike on the home page. Stunning!

Don't forget too that with aerospace, military, and aircraft industry, they have to x-ray those CF parts after so many hours, depending on the discipline, for signs of cracks and or delamination, if any is found the part is replaced.

Your friend should look into the Rodriguez Outlaw tig welded steel bike at R + E Cycles, I wish I had the coin for one those. http://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html

 

[CAMPYBOB]

Military inspection cycles are 3x, 5x, 10x or over 100x the cycles of civilian/commercial aviation. Two of my friends own helos (the one guy owns 3 OH-58's) and one of them picked up a deal on an helo that was located in Iraq. It cost more to ship back than the purchase price and more to cert flight worthy than both the purchase price and shipping combined.

The only carbon that needed replaced were the rotor blades. Hour'ed out, but in perfect condition otherwise. Ti engine components (and other super alloys) cost over $120,000 to replace and alloy and steel controls and airframe parts that were hour'ed out or in need of replacement due to wear and damage were insane. I just wish I had the $650/Hr. in dry maintenance costs and $250/Hr. in operational costs it took to put one of those in the air.

They make bike games look downright cheap.

I was over on the RBR forums the other day and the old **** morons over there 'debating' "plastic bikes" in the classic forums were just insane. Ti as a 'lifetime' frame. I raughed. Hard.

I deal with manufacturing in Ti every day and in the repair of damaged Ti aerospace and aviation components both structural and in turbomachinery. People just ain't got a freakin' clue. I'll stick with my 'plastic throw away' junk until something better comes along...and it eventually will. LiAl...some more durable thin-wall steel...debugged magnesium...I'll gladly try it out.

Check out the new 'Post 75th Anniversary' Schwinn Paramount's from Waterford. $3,600-$5,200 for the frames plus options and $400-$600 for a steel fork to match. Absolutely killer looking and I'll bet they ride like a dream. As far as durability goes...that's going to be a question mark, especially for those...er...'larger' old, wealthy farts that buy them to actually ride (as opposed to display).

 

[CAMPYBOB]

"I'd been told the problem was micro-gaps forming in the resin that bonded the layers of carbon.

That is a manufacturing problem. Not a material problem. No properly molded and cured CF would come undone in a couple years of riding by an amateur or pro.

That issue would be no different than a steel frame that was brazed with too much heat or in the chrome tank too long, a Ti frame that had the weld cleanup undercut the tubes in finishing or a bonded alloy steerer come unglued due to insufficient clearance in the socket.

Any of the popular frame materials used in sufficient quantity for the rider and assembled with proper techniques should survive many, many years and tens of thousands of miles before any noticeable 'softening' or failure becomes an issue. Well, maybe I should qualify that a little...I still feel it takes a lot of the lesser grades of aluminum in order to manufacture a frame or fork that will be safely useable for those riders that keep the same bike for a decade or more. The true Scandium alloys 'may' be better for those guys seeking a 'lifetime' frame (a term I still think of as moronic).

 

[oldbobcat]

That is a manufacturing problem. Not a material problem. No properly molded and cured CF would come undone in a couple years of riding by an amateur or pro.

Fersure.

Remember that at the same time Giant was making manky TCRs, they were also making perfectly reliable OCLV frames for Trek, and carbon frames for at least several other unnamed brands.

Last summer I cut this frame apart to try to find any obvious clues to its demise. It was assuring to see how well constructed it was. The most highly stressed junctures--the head tube to the top and down tubes, the seat cluster, and the bottom bracket to the seat and down tubes--were all molded as units. Except for scraps of bladder left from the molding process, this frame looked as clean and modern as the raw samples I'd seen from Trek and Scott.

 

[Froze]

"I'd been told the problem was micro-gaps forming in the resin that bonded the layers of carbon.

The true Scandium alloys 'may' be better for those guys seeking a 'lifetime' frame (a term I still think of as moronic).

I disagree with this, I've had a Scandium frame and it cracked at the headtube, plus I knew of another person where his cracked at the stay going into the BB; plus I found out later that the material is more prone to dents. I think the problems with scandium was more than what was let on because manufactures backed off on this stuff fast, it never made it into the major leagues.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

Who made your Scandium frame's tubing and was it really Scandium?

Scandium, the term, was never trademarked and many manufacturers of both tubes and frames throw the term around in a meaningless fashion.

"When Jim Easton inked a deal with the world’s only source of refined scandium, the rare element found only in Soviet missiles and fighter planes became available to the world of sports. When added to Easton’s 7000-series aluminum, Scandium aligned and tightened the grain structure to create home run-hitting baseball bats and race-winning bicycle frames. Unfortunately, Easton naively used “Scandium” to identify their revolutionary new alloy, thus paving the way for counterfeiters and con-artists. Because international law won’t protect the name of an element, anything can be branded Scandium, even if it doesn’t contain a single molecule of this expensive alloying element.


While Easton's Scandium is a worthy challenger to titanium and carbon tubesets, various builders, magazine test editors and consumers who've only experienced non-Easton “Scandium” haven't a clue. If you're seeking real performance instead of “fool’s gold,” insist on Scandium from Easton."


The alloying of the many so-called Scandium tubing on the varies so widely the definition of Scandium Aluminum is next to worthless. But I do agree that even if your frame was manufactured with the 'good stuff' it can still crack and split and indeed it just might have done so.

See also: http://www.scandium.org/Sc-Al.html

Furthermore, the manufacturing processes and quality control to build a durable Al-Sc frame is STILL as rigorous as working with Ti or the super steels that have been heat treated. Precipitation aging, solution heat treating, weld joint controls...getting that stuff right in some dirt floored hut in China is just as tricky as getting the carbon layup schedule perfect and molded without voids or lamination gaps.

I guess we get what we pay for...at least sometimes. And I do firmly believe that there will always be a quality difference, regardless of material choice, in a hand built frame as opposed to a frame built in production quantities. And yet years ago I realized my bikes were bought to be abused and I dialed in the quality range I needed instead of snagging the bestest stuff out there. If it looked good, rode like a racing bike should and held together for a few years...good enough. I'll be buying another one, sooner rather than later, anyway.

Maybe that's why I'm not holding out for Al-Li alloys or whatever does come down the pike in a few years. I'm happy on my junk carbon 'cookie cutter' or whatever other derogatory term the dweebs and dumb old ***** at RBR or some other forum throw at it. I'll drop their fat asses up the next climb anyway and won't have to listen to them go on and on and on about how some Romanian dwarf in the Silver Forest of East Bergan, New Joisey took their $7,500 to build them the Reynold 10053 series steel frames that's only .0035" thick at the butts...and is rapidly disappearing in my over the shoulder glances.


Oh, and one last thing...

I should correct your statement about Scandium alloys being 'more prone' to denting (than 'other' aluminum alloys I'm assuming you mean).

No. No it is not more prone to denting. Most aluminum ball bats of any quality at all are made with Scandium alloys. And those bats, despite coming into brute force contact with round, hard objects...repeatedly...at very high velocities do NOT dent when used as intended.

Any denting you may be referring to comes from a reduction in wall thickness associated with the thinner, lighter, stronger Scandium tubesets used for frame building. Scandium allowed builders to achieve weld joints less prone to cracking at the heat zone as opposed to the more conventional 6xxx and 7xxx series aluminum alloys in various tempers and the demand was always for thinner, lighter tubesets so that aluminum frames could stay somewhat competitive in terms of weight, strength, stiffness and longevity with carbon, Ti and the super steel frames.

Beer canning or denting is a function of tube diameter vs. wall thickness.

 

[Froze]

Who made your Scandium frame's tubing and was it really Scandium?

Ridley

 

[CAMPYBOB]

I wonder if Ridley used Easton or Deda Scandium tubesets? A quick websearch only came up with "Ridley Scandium Tubing", but we know Ridley doesn't manufacture or alloy tubing.

I've cracked a Colnago (Colnago marked, not a Campy 1010B) steel right rear dropout and a Wilier (Toraya Japanese carbon prepreg + chicom labor) right rear chainstay. I never owned an aluminum bike other than that Santana Easton 7005 tandem I just bought, but I'm guessing I could somehow manage to destroy one of those too. The Santana may see a little mega power loading when I put some of my friends on it and do some local TT's, but I doubt it sees enough hours of service life to kill it.

I only rode my Titanium bike for a season (it was too flexible to train on, let alone try to go racing on it), but I often wonder how well it would have held up. I wasn't impressed with the welds and it was plain round tubing (no hydroforming). And some of the 3Al2.5V tubesets used by Litespeed were as suspect as Scandium alloys as far as cracking/splitting goes. The internet has lots of pictures of killed Ti frames so who knows?

 

[Froze]

I wonder if Ridley used Easton or Deda Scandium tubesets? A quick websearch only came up with "Ridley Scandium Tubing", but we know Ridley doesn't manufacture or alloy tubing.

I've cracked a Colnago (Colnago marked, not a Campy 1010B) steel right rear dropout and a Wilier (Toraya Japanese carbon prepreg + chicom labor) right rear chainstay. I never owned an aluminum bike other than that Santana Easton 7005 tandem I just bought, but I'm guessing I could somehow manage to destroy one of those too. The Santana may see a little mega power loading when I put some of my friends on it and do some local TT's, but I doubt it sees enough hours of service life to kill it.

I only rode my Titanium bike for a season (it was too flexible to train on, let alone try to go racing on it), but I often wonder how well it would have held up. I wasn't impressed with the welds and it was plain round tubing (no hydroforming). And some of the 3Al2.5V tubesets used by Litespeed were as suspect as Scandium alloys as far as cracking/splitting goes. The internet has lots of pictures of killed Ti frames so who knows?

Ridley Ultralight Scandium tubeset had part of the name in common with Easton...Ultralight Scandium, so I would venture a guess that's who made it, but I could be wrong.