Suggestion for a new bike

[Froze]

Well, it isn't clear to me where you got that idea. The shop I used to hang around all the time (until the proprietor passed away) was a frame builder and repairer so I saw broken frames a lot. Most of them weren't worth repairing. I probably know more about building and repairing frames than most of the shops around this area.

Ok, I may have been thinking of another forum member either here or at another forum that broke all nature of frames...according that person, not sure how that's possible but he claimed he had a basement full of broken frames he destroyed just riding and racing.

 

[cyclintom]

Ok, I may have been thinking of another forum member either here or at another forum that broke all nature of frames...according that person, not sure how that's possible but he claimed he had a basement full of broken frames he destroyed just riding and racing.

I personally have broken three forks but no frames.

 

[Froze]

I've never broken any frame or fork and I use to race, and did that in a mountainous area that is more brutal on frames and forks. The only frame and fork I damaged was when I hit a car and even then the frame and fork never cracked, they both just got tweaked enough to total the bike.

 

[cyclintom]

I've never broken any frame or fork and I use to race, and did that in a mountainous area that is more brutal on frames and forks. The only frame and fork I damaged was when I hit a car and even then the frame and fork never cracked, they both just got tweaked enough to total the bike.

Well, my memory is limited from that concussion but I would think I would remember if I broke a frame. As I say, I broke three forks. The first two were prototype carbon fiber. I don't remember the conditions of the first. But the second was improperly built with one leg not even glued on and only a rivet holding it on. It still lasted several years before breaking out around the rivet. The third was either broken by hitting a particularly bad bump on a fast descent (the more I think of this the less likely I consider this) or from that bump causing me to lose control and go off the road and end up on a 5' deep stone culvert at about 25 mph. That is probably what happened because I was sure I had broken every bone in my body judging from the pain. As it turned out no broken bones save a crack in a free floating bone on the front of my right shoulder. Can't remember the name of that bone.

Looking at all of the broken frame postings I see basically two kinds of failures: manufacturing errors - these often take years to show up and well outside of the warranty period. And then there are crash damage. There is a third type of failure that I have not determined the source of.- complete and total failure for no evident reason

This bike was going about 5 mph when it fell apart. The rider suffered a broken finger that never healed properly. He was lucky because 10 minutes later he would have been riding down into Sausalito at some 40 mph. This bike was never abused. Colnago refused to accept any responsibility at all for this failure claiming that their warranties are only good for 2 years. However - this was a failure in an area where UV damage was possible since it was a clear area of the paint and the rider always carried the bike on a roof rack so that it was subjected to a lot of sunlight. This was broken at the base of the lugs where you would expect the strength to be the greatest.

I should add - new CF bikes use a different type of resin that isn't sensitive to UV and also hardens under heat in the factory and not slowly over the life of the bike. So brittleness doesn't develop.

 

[Froze]

I don't like CF, I think you know that, but even though I don't like the stuff I had to accept it when I bought my Lynskey Ti bike since all it would come with is a CF fork so I got one that was over engineered for my weight by buying a ENVE 2.0 rated for 350 pound rider instead of the 1.0 rated for 224 pound rider, I only weigh 170. My hope is the stronger 2.0 will last a very long time.

Of course I know that CF has made some significant changes in the durability of the stuff but I still wonder about when my bike mechanic friend at my LBS says he won't own a CF bike?! He's been a mechanic for around 20 years and seen all the various materials, and the failure rate for CF has been significantly higher according to him then any other material.

While manufactures did build in UV protection, which they've done for quite awhile now, to prevent brittleness that really wasn't too much of a factor with bikes since the tube shapes are oval and not large flat panels and thus exposure to the sun is much more limited, but they decided that UV protection would be a selling point. However recent studies have shown that CF does go soft over usage and time, see: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/frames-going-soft/ A lot of this softness is from manufactures not building the CF frames the right way which is to aircraft standard which manufactures don't won't to spend the money to build bike frames like that, see:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpbR-O0J4uE
It's a little disconcerting to me when with CF you have to be extremely mindful of clamping pressures by using a torque wrench; and when I squeeze a top tube on a CF bike and can literally see and feel the sides beginning to cave in, I did squeeze thing with a number of CF bike frames and they all gave in a bit making me a bit nervous about applying too much pressure and crack the tube. The strange thing about this CF stuff is that mechanic guy I know says the older heavier CF bikes actually held up better than the newer lighter stuff, but that older stuff weighed between 18 to 20 pounds which didn't make it much lighter if any lighter then some steel bikes. Read more here: https://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/carbon-fibre-care-and-repair/ So really it's the same old problem of lack of proper construction (as that YouTube video points out) that eventually kills a many CF bikes as it did with steel, aluminium, and even Titanium bikes, manufactures are not going to build a bike to aircraft standards regardless of the material used, and so with lightweight construction and improper construction along with bad quality control leads to all sorts of problems with any material.

 

[rajput17]

I showed you an example of the sort of failure that I personally saw quite a few of. And it was a major brand that hopefully has changed their manufacturing process so I won't mention their name.Is a disk brake option out of the question? Its seems like a older model endurance bike or a disk brake bike is the only way to get everything on your list.

 

[mazenn]

I think, and it's just my opinion...howbeit based on what YOU said!! You already found the bike you've been looking for, the Bianchi Specialissima, your words were that when you rode it it was remarkable. Don't start running off and trying a few thousand bikes

 

[cyclintom]

I don't like CF, I think you know that, but even though I don't like the stuff I had to accept it when I bought my Lynskey Ti bike since all it would come with is a CF fork so I got one that was over engineered for my weight by buying a ENVE 2.0 rated for 350 pound rider instead of the 1.0 rated for 224 pound rider, I only weigh 170. My hope is the stronger 2.0 will last a very long time.

Of course I know that CF has made some significant changes in the durability of the stuff but I still wonder about when my bike mechanic friend at my LBS says he won't own a CF bike?! He's been a mechanic for around 20 years and seen all the various materials, and the failure rate for CF has been significantly higher according to him then any other material.

While manufactures did build in UV protection, which they've done for quite awhile now, to prevent brittleness that really wasn't too much of a factor with bikes since the tube shapes are oval and not large flat panels and thus exposure to the sun is much more limited, but they decided that UV protection would be a selling point. However recent studies have shown that CF does go soft over usage and time, see: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/frames-going-soft/ A lot of this softness is from manufactures not building the CF frames the right way which is to aircraft standard which manufactures don't won't to spend the money to build bike frames like that, see:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpbR-O0J4uE
It's a little disconcerting to me when with CF you have to be extremely mindful of clamping pressures by using a torque wrench; and when I squeeze a top tube on a CF bike and can literally see and feel the sides beginning to cave in, I did squeeze thing with a number of CF bike frames and they all gave in a bit making me a bit nervous about applying too much pressure and crack the tube. The strange thing about this CF stuff is that mechanic guy I know says the older heavier CF bikes actually held up better than the newer lighter stuff, but that older stuff weighed between 18 to 20 pounds which didn't make it much lighter if any lighter then some steel bikes. Read more here: https://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/carbon-fibre-care-and-repair/ So really it's the same old problem of lack of proper construction (as that YouTube video points out) that eventually kills a many CF bikes as it did with steel, aluminium, and even Titanium bikes, manufactures are not going to build a bike to aircraft standards regardless of the material used, and so with lightweight construction and improper construction along with bad quality control leads to all sorts of problems with any material.

Yes, you have to be extremely careful in applying pressure to carbon fiber. The material is so strong that they can make wall thickness really thin and so you need to use torque wrenches to tighten components such as seat post clamps and stem to handlebar connections.

This worried me after all of the Internet pictures of CF failures. When you investigated them closely you discovered that out of the blue failures of CF since 2010 or so are about the same as failures of AL or Steel. Aircraft grade Al can fail dramatically from overheating when arc welding. And steel can be injured by overheating while brazing. I remember that Reynolds 531 used to be famous for this. There was nothing wrong with the material itself but the workmanship had to be proper.

Now I posted a picture of an out-of-the-blue failure of my friend's Colnago C40 but the area that failed did not have any paint on it but rather clear coat. I suspect that since he carried his bike everywhere on a roof rack that it was exposed to UV very much for the 20 years it took it to fail. I have been unable to discover any C40's that "fell apart" that were painted. One famous bike with the downtube knocked out of it I emailed the owner and he said, "That car barely hit me." And almost all of the bike failures with pictures on the Internet were collisions so I discount all of those.

I'll ask you this - what are you going to have to say when they are building bike frames out of graphene perhaps 20 molecules thick? Without paint on them they will be transparent.

 

[Froze]

Again, you keep mentioning 531, but 531 actually had less failures than Columbus did back in the day, and people who lived back then and was involved in cycling, as I did, all knew this, but Columbus was the preferred tube type not because the failure rate was lower, which as already said it wasn't, but because it was lighter which attributed to the higher fail rate of Columbus, it wasn't until SL and SLX Columbus tubing came out did they finally have a decent tubeset. And like you and I also said a lot of failures were due to poor construction, either too much heat or the brazing was done incorrectly not because the material itself failed so much, like everything made in Italy the method of construction was done half haphazardly, look at the old Fiats (Fix It Again Tony) and Alfas, Ferrari's etc, they all had a lot of issues, and those construction issues went into their bikes as well which is why I stayed away from Campy stuff from back then because they didn't hold up as well as Japanese parts did, again this was well known, but Italian stuff had the special snob appeal.

Colnago CF stuff is a direct byproduct of their race cars starting in the very late 70's which then filtered down to high end sports cars in the 80's (then to bikes) that use a lot CF in them, so you would think they would have the best CF frames in the world...but they don't, seems Trek may have the lock on that, not sure though. Again no bike frame will use the same aerospace CF technology used in aerospace and aircraft, if they did bikes would be far too expensive. But even with Colnago using such experience I've read on the internet about galvanizing issues with the dropouts that have to be repaired at the cost of the owner because Colnago won't warranty it.

I can't prove this next thing but supposedly studies were done concerning UV issues and CF and the result was that UV damage was far overrated because bike tubes are round and the amount of sun a tube area would see would be very small vs large flat panels of CF like cars and airplanes have, and because the bike is constantly moving the sun changes position a lot. The reason for UV getting spot light was that the failures were due to inconsistent thickness of the CF and incorrect manufacturing process that led to frame failures, but they put the blame on UV so people wouldn't shy away from CF since the "fix" was easy and done.

 

[cyclintom]

I never saw a Columbus tubing failure. I never heard of one either though that's not saying much. I saw several Reynold's tubing failures but they were all 531 which apparently led them to develop higher grades.

Remember that I actually saw that C40 failure and it made no engineering sense whatsoever. The lugs which are the strongest component were torn through like paper. The bike was 20 years old. My C40 was a little younger but was not exposed to UV in those areas. I went off the road at 25 mph and dropped into a rock drainage ditch and struck the end at that speed. No lug failures and it was an extremely hard contact. Only the left fork dropout was cracked.

I am an EE but have to have general knowledge of all engineering practices and the only thing I can think of is UV exposure. It might be said that the new CF frames and forks are made from a different resin that is not UV sensitive plus it is heat hardened to prevent any changes in the resin after it is delivered,

Elsewhere someone with the next lower level of Colnago CF bike from mine from Taiwan had the right chain and seat stay break off as he turned a corner and started up a hill. The pictures he provided showed a hole of some sort in that area - perhaps a pathway for the electronic shifting. He also stated that the bike was making grinding noises from the time he received it. Apparently he did not look for problems. The failure was such that he simply stepped off the broken frame.

 

[Froze]

I've seen Columbus failure but haven't seen 531 failures...BUT, that could be due to the fact that most of the racing bikes I was around were Columbus due to the lighter weight issue. My first racing bike was a Trek TX900 that I bought as a frame and fork only in 76 and built it Nuovo Record because I got a deal for getting the Trek, but that bike was Columbus SP or SL I can't remember, but that bike had the fastback seat stay and I think those flexed more than the regular style? But that frame was flexy, not as bad as the Peugeot's but bad, but back in those days a lot of frames were flexy just some were worst than others. I sold that TX900 because girls thought it weird that my bike cost more than my car! My second racing bike was a Trek 412, yes it was a sport bike but after I tested a slew of bikes and found that the Trek 412 with the Ishiwata 022 tubing was the stiffest and of course the most responsive frame I found and yet it had a sport geometry?! Anywho, I never ran into anyone that ever had an issue with broken Ishiwata, not saying it never happened but I just never heard of it, and people that discovered the Ishiwata tubing were always surprised how responsive it was. I currently have a 84 Fuji Club VaLite quad butted that is the lightest steel frame I've ever owned and it feels very responsive but that frame was in the era of the mid 80's and steel frames by then had progressed quite away from the 70's and back and responsiveness and durability went up...maybe some of that had to do with machine brazing? Probably a combination of machine brazing and better metallurgy.

 

[cyclintom]

I've seen Columbus failure but haven't seen 531 failures...BUT, that could be due to the fact that most of the racing bikes I was around were Columbus due to the lighter weight issue. My first racing bike was a Trek TX900 that I bought as a frame and fork only in 76 and built it Nuovo Record because I got a deal for getting the Trek, but that bike was Columbus SP or SL I can't remember, but that bike had the fastback seat stay and I think those flexed more than the regular style? But that frame was flexy, not as bad as the Peugeot's but bad, but back in those days a lot of frames were flexy just some were worst than others. I sold that TX900 because girls thought it weird that my bike cost more than my car! My second racing bike was a Trek 412, yes it was a sport bike but after I tested a slew of bikes and found that the Trek 412 with the Ishiwata 022 tubing was the stiffest and of course the most responsive frame I found and yet it had a sport geometry?! Anywho, I never ran into anyone that ever had an issue with broken Ishiwata, not saying it never happened but I just never heard of it, and people that discovered the Ishiwata tubing were always surprised how responsive it was. I currently have a 84 Fuji Club VaLite quad butted that is the lightest steel frame I've ever owned and it feels very responsive but that frame was in the era of the mid 80's and steel frames by then had progressed quite away from the 70's and back and responsiveness and durability went up...maybe some of that had to do with machine brazing? Probably a combination of machine brazing and better metallurgy.

Here is just one example. This one appears to be from hardening because of overheating the braze. But I have seen them crystalized from overheating of the same sort. And all of the failures I've seen are in the same area.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-157.html

 

[Froze]

Here is just one example. This one appears to be from hardening because of overheating the braze. But I have seen them crystalized from overheating of the same sort. And all of the failures I've seen are in the same area.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-157.html

Who cares about one example? One example is not proof of an epidemic! So big deal, here's a Columbus frame: http://www.primateframes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/p2210030.jpg

Summary of Results

Thousands of load cycles
The results in detail: there are two parts to the test, the first with 100,000 load cycles at 1,200 N and the second with another 100,000 at 1,300 N. The potential for damage in the second part is significantly greater than in the first. A frame which withstands the complete test is therefore much more robust than one which breaks after 100,000 load cycles. All of the tested bicycles are durable compared with “common” recreational bicycles. Cannondale, Principia and Trek withstood the test without failure, and the machine was turned off.

See those last three, well cheap Nishiki, ie Japanese steel Tange Prestige, lasted longer in fatigue test than either of the Columbus top of the line SLX tubing. Since that test came out it was later shown that the test was in error. http://www.tomsarazac.com/tom/opinions/frame-test.html

And your example simply tells the person who knows that the main tube was heated too much during the brazing process, which goes back to the builder being the problem and not the steel.

Here's another Columbus frame failure: http://forums.mtbr.com/attachments/...1271219786-road-frame-repairable-bianchi1.jpg

So I showed you two examples of Columbus frame failures, I showed twice as many as you did...BIG FUKING DEAL! it's not an epidemic either!!! I rarely saw a steel frame break, not like I did when AL came out, when AL came out I saw a lot of frames crack, lately though AL frame failures have all but disappeared as technique improved, now my LBS sees a lot of CF stuff breaking. Percentage wise my LBS that has been in business for 40 years has seen a lot more CF stuff break than any other material; most of the workers there don't care because they want a light frame because they do racing, which I find odd because a broken frame could mean injury but they sell their frames after every season, but one mechanic there won't buy a CF frame.

 

[cyclintom]

Who cares about one example? One example is not proof of an epidemic! So big deal, here's a Columbus frame: http://www.primateframes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/p2210030.jpg

Summary of Results

Thousands of load cycles
The results in detail: there are two parts to the test, the first with 100,000 load cycles at 1,200 N and the second with another 100,000 at 1,300 N. The potential for damage in the second part is significantly greater than in the first. A frame which withstands the complete test is therefore much more robust than one which breaks after 100,000 load cycles. All of the tested bicycles are durable compared with “common” recreational bicycles. Cannondale, Principia and Trek withstood the test without failure, and the machine was turned off.

See those last three, well cheap Nishiki, ie Japanese steel Tange Prestige, lasted longer in fatigue test than either of the Columbus top of the line SLX tubing. Since that test came out it was later shown that the test was in error. http://www.tomsarazac.com/tom/opinions/frame-test.html

And your example simply tells the person who knows that the main tube was heated too much during the brazing process, which goes back to the builder being the problem and not the steel.

Here's another Columbus frame failure: http://forums.mtbr.com/attachments/...1271219786-road-frame-repairable-bianchi1.jpg

So I showed you two examples of Columbus frame failures, I showed twice as many as you did...BIG FUKING DEAL! it's not an epidemic either!!! I rarely saw a steel frame break, not like I did when AL came out, when AL came out I saw a lot of frames crack, lately though AL frame failures have all but disappeared as technique improved, now my LBS sees a lot of CF stuff breaking. Percentage wise my LBS that has been in business for 40 years has seen a lot more CF stuff break than any other material; most of the workers there don't care because they want a light frame because they do racing, which I find odd because a broken frame could mean injury but they sell their frames after every season, but one mechanic there won't buy a CF frame.

Who cares about one example? I said that I personally saw several of these failures in the same area near the bottom bracket lug. And you said that you'd never seen any. At least be honest.

That chart you show is pretty interesting. It shows that carbon fiber has a very high number of load cycles.

In the meantime I've discovered that at least early in the development of carbon fiber frames they used Vectran in the mix because the carbon fibers were short and you can make very long Vectran fibers. So you can weave a cloth easier. The trouble with this is that Vectran loses it's molecular structure when exposed to UV. All of this suggests that my suspicion of it being UV failures over time is probably true. So doing a load test over a short period of time indoors on a machine doesn't give you are really accurate example of the sort of wear to expect.

I couldn't find the exact composition that Colnago used but that doesn't change my suspicions.