# Are today's carbon road bikes really better than yesterday's



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Was thinking about this.
In light of the move away from threaded bb to press fit, or the move away from aluminum rear dropouts to carbon, or the elimination of aluminum sleeves in thee forks, I'm sure there are other examples, I'm starting to think that todays' bikes are less well made than the ones they replaced. Even internal wiring makes for a less serviceable bike and offers questionable performance advantage. Seems all the advances are geared to making bikes cheaper to produce


----------



## charlox5 (Jan 31, 2011)

I'm not sure you can generalize. Depends on case-by-case and the criteria.

But, I can't imagine that carbon bikes are going to be much better than my 585 is to me.

I will say that I will always prefer threaded BB over pressfit.


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

Back when carbon frames were the new frontier in frame material, I believe there was a tendency to overbuild. I recall a time when a Trek OCLV was considered state of the art at 1088 grams. Now the benchmark for a frame is 700 grams or less. Granted the type of carbon fiber and layup process factors into the equation as well. Moreover, evolving technology has allowed manufacturers to know the points where just the right amount of material is required to enhance durability, ride characteristics and minimize weight. Although I believe long term durability might be impacted. One could argue bike companies are hoping the cycling consumer will be more inclined to hold on to their bikes only until the style is no longer trendy versus keeping it as if it were a cheerished heirloom.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Retro Grouch said:


> Back when carbon frames were the new frontier in frame material, I believe there was a tendency to overbuild. I recall a time when a Trek OCLV was considered state of the art at 1088 grams. Now the benchmark for a frame is 700 grams or less. Granted the type of carbon fiber and layup process factors into the equation as well. Moreover, evolving technology has allowed manufacturers to know the points where just the right amount of material is required to enhance durability, ride characteristics and minimize weight. Although I believe long term durability might be impacted. One could argue bike companies are hoping the cycling consumer will be more inclined to hold on to their bikes only until the style is no longer trendy versus keeping it as if it were a cheerished heirloom.


I disagree that 700 grams makes a frame state of the art. There are many who argue an ultra light frame is a faustian bargain and that the weight savings comes at the expense of stiffness and durability.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> I disagree that 700 grams makes a frame state of the art. There are many who argue an ultra light frame is a faustian bargain and that the weight savings comes at the expense of stiffness and durability.


This has been a concern of mine for the last year or so now (as I started to question some of the cycling industry hype). It's one of the reasons I am not opposed to buying (and almost prefer at this point) some of the lower end carbon bikes made by the major manufacturers (Specialized Tarmac SL4 Sport or Elite, Roubaix Sl4 Sport or Comp, Cannondale Synapse Carbon (non hi-mod), Trek 400 or 500 OCLV, etc.). This and price have me really rethinking things lately….


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Colnago does aluminum drop-outs and aluminum sleeves in the fork on the top models. Their white paper claims durability. the difference between 750 and 950 grams is literally six ounces nothing that will slow you down or make a bike over-weight. I was curious about dropout construction and the frame builders acknowledge that aluminum dropouts are far stronger and more durable, but to do that requires more expertise and care in bonding carbon to metal(you don't want that bond to fail). It's far simpler and cheaper to just do carbon dropouts.""

I'm on a C-59, something that could be argued as over-engineered, but having gone through that option and surveying the remaining options, I think if I had to do it again I'd probably be forced to go Titanium with a custom U.S. builder such as Seven or Firefly. It seems to me one can still get a great quality product with a domestic Titanium produced frame but that the choices amongst Carbon built frames are becoming fewer and fewer. The pros can ride the 700 gram frames since the bikes get replaced anyway every year and even if there was an issue they have an army of professional mechanics ready to help. I even hear that the bike companies produce special versions of their bikes for the pros that are built a little strongerthan the ones they sell the public.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

The argument posited in this thread makes assumptions about inherent weaknesses in current production carbon frames, yet I haven't read any accounts of current production frames failing to any great degree, and certainly not more than carbon frames of yesteryear.

If you're going to posit a theory, then provide evidence to support it.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Trek_5200 said:


> Was thinking about this.
> In light of the move away from threaded bb to press fit, or the move away from aluminum rear dropouts to carbon, or the elimination of aluminum sleeves in thee forks, I'm sure there are other examples, I'm starting to think that todays' bikes are less well made than the ones they replaced. Even internal wiring makes for a less serviceable bike and offers questionable performance advantage. *Seems all the advances are geared to making bikes cheaper to produce*


They are. It is all about increasing profit margin...while prices only go up, increasing margin more.

There's practically zero reason for yearly model refreshes now...and everyone spends the money to change their colors year to year to do it (who knows about actual R&D). Retro Grouch is spot on about trendy fashion versus longevity. See it all the time with people who have last year's model wanting this year's model for no real tangible reason.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

I read something, I forget where, and have no idea if it is true or not. It was something to the effect of today's frames, both carbon and aluminum (but particularly carbon) being prone to unexpected and potentially life threatening failure. That because the bikes and frames are so light that you could be in the middle of a traffic situation with motor vehicles and a post or something could just crack out of the blue. 

Don''t get me wrong, I am in NO WAY, shape, or form saying any of that is true. Nor am I trying to stir the pot, so to speak, but it is a concern of mine, having read that and not having the knowledge or experience to confirm or refute it.

I figured this was as good a place to ask because you guys are all experts, and if there is a propensity toward unpredictable, unexpected structural failure of a part of a bikes frame other integral part, you guys would know about it.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ChiroVette said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am in NO WAY, shape, or form saying any of that is true. Nor am I trying to stir the pot, so to speak...


Yet the paragraph you wrote that precedes this comment has exactly that effect.



ChiroVette said:


> I figured this was as good a place to ask because you guys are all experts...


That's a fallacy, and a dangerous one at that.


----------



## SundayNiagara (Apr 17, 2014)

charlox5 said:


> I'm not sure you can generalize. Depends on case-by-case and the criteria.
> 
> But, I can't imagine that carbon bikes are going to be much better than my 585 is to me.
> 
> I will say that I will always prefer threaded BB over pressfit.


Felt's 2015 bikes will have threaded bb's. Read the last page on Ask Felt.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

tvad said:


> Yet the paragraph you wrote that precedes this comment has exactly that effect.


You know, I like this forum, I really do, but I notice an underlying defensiveness here. Now maybe it comes from trolls truly and deliberately coming here to stir **** up, start fanboy wars about one bike manufacturer or another, one material or another, one set of components or another, or whatever topic is sure to inflame and enrage. So when someone asks a question like I did, based on a genuine desire to know if something he or she heard or read is true, just a ridiculous rumor, or something in between, it is sometimes interpreted to have some underlying sinister intent.

In many cases, I'm sure it is. In my case, however, it is a very real concern, because I ride a lot in NY City and while I fully intend to buy a new bike (as I indicated in my thread) I cannot help but to worry about the question I raised because in my area, while weaving through rush hour traffic, a sudden, unexpected failure of frame or structure of a bike could have catastrophic and even fatal consequences for me.

So while you may have misinterpreted my intent, I will ask the question of you or anyone else who may be interested: Is what I read about the newer bike construction a ridiculous rumor, true, or somewhere in between?



tvad said:


> That's a fallacy, and a dangerous one at that.


Perhaps. But you folks know a helluva lot more than I do, and so in that spirit, I would like some feedback on this question, whether or not you can summon the will to not categorically assume I am trolling and trust that maybe, just maybe, the question is a sincere one coming from someone one step away from buying into the very technology I am asking about.

Thank you.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

I'm on my 4th generation of cf frames. None have failed or cracked in any way. Started with a trek 5000 oclv ( the original one). Then a trek 5200 oclv. Then a cervelo r3. Now a cervelo RCA. Each one got lighter, stiffer, more fun to ride. But they are all great bikes that each gave me many 10's of thousands of reliable km's. So buy what turns you on and enjoy!


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

goodboyr said:


> I'm on my 4th generation of cf frames. None have failed or cracked in any way. Started with a trek 5000 oclv ( the original one). Then a trek 5200 oclv. Then a cervelo r3. Now a cervelo RCA. Each one got lighter, stiffer, more fun to ride. But they are all great bikes that each gave me many 10's of thousands of reliable km's. So buy what turns you on and enjoy!


My gut instincts tell me that this is rumor regarding fragility and unexpected failure, but I would have been remiss if I didn't at least ask. I am going to two bike shops today and one tomorrow on my way home from work in the morning to ride some bikes and see what I like. But when I read that about the tendency to fail out of nowhere, it scare the bejesus out of me lol.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

To answer some of the questions and comments posted here. Carbon frames have improved and continue to improve. Knowledge and experience of carbon layups and behaviour of different combinations has also improved. The real limitations for carbon are in the resins. Naked carbon will effectively last for ever. It doesn't really degrade. However the epoxy resins used do. These have improved exponentially in the last few years and continue to do so. Once they have been resolved you could feasibly build carbon fibre buildings or bridges.

There are two reasons lighter frames are more expensive.

1. The manufacturer charges you more because they know there are idiot weight weenies like me :mad2: who will pay the extra mark up.
2. It does cost more to manufacture a lighter frame because the materials it has to be made from are more expensive (but not as much as the mark up charged to the client).

I have to agree with Trek5200. A 700g frame doesn't by definition have to be state of the art - it all depends on how well it is designed and what level of stiffness and comfort is put into the mix. But it will be pushing the boundaries current manufacturing knowledge and materials allow.

I disagree with Trek5200 on pro frames being replaced every year. I suggest you try and hunt out a team mechanic on a grand tour who will be frank and ask him how many failures (and I mean frame failure, not accidents) they have just during a TdF or Giro. the answer might be a sobering thought...


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ChiroVette said:


> I will ask the question of you or anyone else who may be interested: Is what I read about the newer bike construction a ridiculous rumor, true, or somewhere in between?


The answer to that question depends to a large degree upon where and what you've read about newer bike construction. Did you read it in this forum? Did you read it in an article published in a reputable cycling magazine? Did you read it in a manufacturer's technical paper?

In web forums, personal opinion or anecdote sometime gets misinterpreted as fact. One person's comment, repeated in several threads or on several different websites, can appear to be indicative of a larger issue experienced by more people, when it simply isn't so. 

Critical thinking skills become very important.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

tvad said:


> In web forums, personal opinion or anecdote sometime gets misinterpreted as fact. One person's comment, repeated in several threads or on several different websites, can appear to be indicative of a larger issue experienced by more people, when it simply isn't so.
> 
> Critical thinking skills become very important.


Gotta go with that!


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

tvad said:


> The answer to that question depends to a large degree upon where and what you've read about newer bike construction. Did you read it in this forum? Did you read it in an article published in a reputable cycling magazine? Did you read it in a manufacturer's technical paper?
> 
> In web forums, personal opinion or anecdote sometime gets misinterpreted as fact. One person's comment, repeated in several threads or on several different websites, can appear to be indicative of a larger issue experienced by more people, when it simply isn't so.
> 
> Critical thinking skills become very important.


I remember where I read it now, it was an article. The article was on Forbes.com:

2013 Bicycle Buyers Guide Part 2: Choosing A Road Bike - Forbes

Here is what the author said:



> One disadvantage of both materials is their fragility and fatigue over time. Aluminum is worse, with an expected lifespan of 5-10 years based on use. Carbon Fiber theoretically does not fatigue nearly as much, but is still a fragile and easily damaged material. *I had a carbon fiber seat post fail and sheer off in the middle of a ride, which could have been fatal, and I know someone whose carbon handlebars snapped off when he stood and put pressure on them. “Both aluminum and carbon fiber are subject to catastrophic failure without warning,” said Mike McCormack, a Colorado-based bike race and event organizer who also does marketing for various bicycle industry brands.*


That really sent a shiver down my spine as most or all of my riding takes place within the 5 boroughs of NY City, where motorists are both plentiful and very aggressive on the road.

Look, let's be honest for a sec: At my stage of understanding of this subject, I am the perfect example of how "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." So while it may be a "dangerous fallacy" as tvad put it, you guys still know a helluva lot more than I do. I just didn't know where else to ask this.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ChiroVette said:


> I remember where I read it now, it was an article. The article was on Forbes.com:
> 
> 2013 Bicycle Buyers Guide Part 2: Choosing A Road Bike - Forbes


Here's where critical thinking come into play. The author of the Forbes.com article mentioned two carbon fiber items breaking: one seat post, and one set of handle bars. He never mentioned a carbon fiber frame breaking. And...the gentlemen he quotes who offered comments about carbon did not offer any data about _frequency_ of carbon failure versus other materials. In other words, the comments are valid, but incomplete.

Also, you'll notice that in his follow up review, he tested carbon fiber frames. He appears to be comfortable with carbon fiber despite his past experience with the seat post. 

If you're concerned enough about carbon fiber breaking unexpectedly that it will cause worry while you ride, then perhaps carbon fiber isn't the material for you. You can substitute an aluminum seat post and aluminum handle bars. You might also consider a titanium frame.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

ChiroVette said:


> My gut instincts tell me that this is rumor regarding fragility and unexpected failure, but I would have been remiss if I didn't at least ask. I am going to two bike shops today and one tomorrow on my way home from work in the morning to ride some bikes and see what I like. But when I read that about the tendency to fail out of nowhere, it scare the bejesus out of me lol.


I have seen 2 carbon forks fail One on a Scott and one on an orbea) and one frame (Pinarello - top tube cracked around whole circumference) but not catastrophic.

If you want to be much safer, buy steel or titanium. There are still 80 year old steel frames being ridden with no problems. Carbon is much more likely to suffer catastrophic failure than steel or Ti.

I disagree with alu lasting 5 or 10 years. The Kleins had and still have a lifetime guarantee - one of mine is 15 years old now and the other 14 both used and abused heavily.

For mountain biking carbon is much more susceptible to damage from stones, knocks than steel alu or Ti.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

When I think of what constitutes the best in Carbon frames today the two that jump out at me at the Parlee Z1 and the Colnago C-59. In both cases these are not designed/marketed in America frames built at the lowest cost in Asia.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Parlee frames have a lifetime warranty. For me, this instills confidence in their quality.


----------



## Ryder's (Oct 18, 2013)

Yes they are.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Trek_5200 said:


> Seems all the advances are geared to making bikes cheaper to produce


Compact cranks use less material than standard ones.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

I believe the z1uses Titanium rear drop outs, which is not only strong but if I understand correctly has expansion properties closest to carbon but is very difficulty to bond. Parlee is probably one of the few that has the expertise to do this properly. Lifetime warranties are great, but I still want my bike built to last.


----------



## eriku16 (Jul 27, 2011)

Carbon fiber frames and parts are very strong and durable for their intended application. One has to be careful in handling and working on them. As applied for use in bikes, carbon fiber does not fair well from sharp impacts, bending or compression forces. 

There's a reason for the importance of torque values listed on frames and components today. Before carbon fiber, the worst you could expect from overtightened parts is stripping the threads or snapping the fasteners. Can't do that working on carbon. Even still, a carbon fiber frame or part can just plain fail with no warning. Would that stop me from buying? No, I'm just aware of the material's limitations.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Trek_5200 said:


> Parlee is probably one of the few that has the expertise to do this properly. Lifetime warranties are great, but I still want my bike built to last.


1) How did you arrive at the conclusion that Parlee is one of the few companies that can properly bond titanium to carbon?

2) To me, a lifetime warranty is synonymous with "built to last". It would be a bad business decision for a small company like Parlee to open itself up to repair or replacement costs by offering a product that will not last.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

tvad said:


> If you're concerned enough about carbon fiber breaking unexpectedly that it will cause worry while you ride, then perhaps carbon fiber isn't the material for you. You can substitute an aluminum seat post and aluminum handle bars.


Better not. I had an aluminum seat post fail and saw a friend's aluminum bars break crossing railroad tracks which is exactly as much evidence as the Forbes article presents. But here's a dirty little secret; bicycle frames and components and frames have been failing as long as there have been bicycle components and frames.

So if someone has real data on rates of failures, fine, lets see it. Otherwise, it's just noise and fear mongering.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

asgelle said:


> So if someone has real data on rates of failures, fine, lets see it. Otherwise, it's just noise and fear mongering.


Perhaps that lack of real data has lead to all the fear mongering. Take the torque wrench prescription you see and hear presented as gospel so often in the context of carbon fiber. It's doubtful anyone really knows how much clamping force it would take to crush a carbon steerer with two stem clamp bolts.

If you've ever tried to crush the carbon steerer on a trashed fork just for laughs, you'd be amazed how strong carbon really is. Chances are good you'd strip the stem clamp threads before you damage the steerer.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

asgelle said:


> ...bicycle frames and components and frames have been failing as long as there have been bicycle components and frames.


True. 

Cycling is inherently dangerous compared to sofa surfing. Cycling requires concentration and awareness. Anything that interferes with concentration (like persistent worry about frame or component failure) can lead to accidents. 

We all choose our risk level and go from there.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

tvad said:


> Anything that interferes with concentration (like persistent worry about frame or component failure) can lead to accidents.


Now I understand. This is a faith-based, not an evidence based disagreement. It doesn't matter what the facts are with respect to equipment failure. All that matters is what I believe. As long as I think my equipment is unsafe, it is; no matter how unfounded that belief may be. Well then, there's no more to be said. No one can present evidence to counter a conclusion when the conclusion isn't founded on evidence in the first place.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

Hey, guys, honestly thanks a whole lot for indulging my little side track. I didn't want to start a new thread on this, so I saw this one and figured that it at least had the virtue of being somewhat close to the topic.

You all make great points. The inherent risks of cycling versus being a couch potato that *tvad *said, not to mention the lack of hard data. I honestly don't see anything that would prevent me from buying in at this time. Also, as *asgelle* says, bike components have been failing for...what...as long as there have been bicycles? 

Anyway, I appreciate all the info and educated opinions. I just wanted to bounce this off some people a helluva lot more knowledgeable than I am on the topic as a last minute concern before spending a couple of thousand on a bike. Truth be told, I was pretty certain this was what you all would say, but I just wanted to do my due diligence, particularly since I can't find anything conclusive on the web about this and I certainly don't have the knowledge to separate facts from fiction in discussions like this.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

asgelle said:


> Now I understand. This is a faith-based, not an evidence based disagreement. It doesn't matter what the facts are with respect to equipment failure. All that matters is what I believe. As long as I think my equipment is unsafe, it is; no matter how unfounded that belief may be. Well then, there's no more to be said. No one can present evidence to counter a conclusion when the conclusion isn't founded on evidence in the first place.


No. I think you and I agree. At least I agree with the points raised in your post.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

ChiroVette said:


> My gut instincts tell me that this is rumor regarding fragility and unexpected failure, but I would have been remiss if I didn't at least ask. I am going to two bike shops today and one tomorrow on my way home from work in the morning to ride some bikes and see what I like. But when I read that about the tendency to fail out of nowhere, it scare the bejesus out of me lol.


Although I'm a died in the wool steel bike kinda guy, I'll hazard the guess that more automobiles "come out of nowhere" and T-bone, door or just plain run into cyclists than carbon frames "failing out of nowhere".

I have no proof or data, this is just a Wildassedguess..


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ChiroVette said:


> I can't find anything conclusive on the web about this .


Good observation. I think the lack of hard data on the web is partly due to the fact that it would take a knowledgeable person 100 years to refute the amount of junk one uninformed person can put on the web in one day. So those in the know often just give up and go ride their bike instead.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

wim said:


> ...it would take a knowledgeable person 100 years to refute the amount of junk one uninformed person can put on the web in one day.


True.


----------



## Cooper1960 (Oct 14, 2010)

You know as recreational cyclist we are on the bottom end of the trickle down effect when it comes to engineering and frame development, yet are at the top end of suppling the financial capital required by bike companies to pay for that stuff. The pros get the best of R&D, we get what's able to be manufactured economically and sold for the highest profit margin. 

But here's the thing, even the trickle down technology makes our bikes better and better, and makes are riding experience better and better. What the pros ride may not be suitable for the masses, part of it is manufacturing expense, part of it is marketing, but a HUGE part of it is consumer safety. In this day and age of class action lawsuits no manufacture wants their business tarnished by a manufacturing issue that results in deaths or injuries. (except car manufactures, they don't seem to care). 

To answer the OP, I think frames of today are better and safer than yesterday, I think frames today are a direct result of what we consumers want and are willing to pay for. But I also think these same frames and components have become a little more sensitive to work on, speciality tools and exacting torque specifications are the norm, hammers and channel locks are to be used no more, I say this because I think many issues are caused by the consumer AFTER they own the bike. 

No I have no proof to back these statements up, that's why it's just my opinions.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Good call on those bass turd capitalists! 

It's obvious that the new Fords are no better than the model T's and they won't hold their value as well. Those new skis are junk compared to those screw-on metal edged models of the 50's.

Don't even get me started on those new junk Macs compared to the Commodore 64's. 

Thinking about moving to a place that _*gets it*_ --like Solmalia


Marc said:


> They are. It is all about increasing profit margin...while prices only go up, increasing margin more.
> 
> There's practically zero reason for yearly model refreshes now...and everyone spends the money to change their colors year to year to do it (who knows about actual R&D). Retro Grouch is spot on about trendy fashion versus longevity. See it all the time with people who have last year's model wanting this year's model for no real tangible reason.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> Good call on those bass turd capitalists!
> 
> It's obvious that the new Fords are no better than the model T's and they won't hold their value as well. Those new skis are junk compared to those screw-on metal edged models of the 50's.
> 
> ...


Because talking about needless yearly model refreshes is completely a fair comparison to 2014 Fords/Model T.

Trolls that bad are worthy of PO.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> When I think of what constitutes the best in Carbon frames today the two that jump out at me at the Parlee Z1 and the Colnago C-59. In both cases these are not designed/marketed in America frames built at the lowest cost in Asia.


the Parlee Z1 (and also the Z3, but which is not discontinued, I think) uses titanium bottom bracket insert and titanium dropouts. In term of build quality, I put the Z1 and Z3 above the C-59.

And as a sidenote: The Serotta Meivi (when Serotta was still in business), has titanium bottom bracket insert, at the rear dropouts, and at the fork dropouts. Furthermore, the joint connecting the chainstays and the seatstays of the Meivci was joint made of titanium; the joint is unique in the industry. Not to belittle Parlee Z1, but the Serotta Meivici was already incorporting more ti material, design innovation, into it than the Z1 is was. Real shame that Serotta went out of business.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

When carbon fiber first came out, the Chinese aren't doing it.

The fact that the Chinese are producing carbon fiber frame today that are just about as good as all the big name cookie cutter frames, and at a fraction of the cost,... tell me that:
1) carbon fiber is cheap to make (Chinese don't make things unless they can be made cheaply)

2) Doesn't require much know-how. A 15yr old girl can be trained

3) carbon fiber progress has pretty much climax in the bike industry. Progress now would only be in small steps

Now some folks will make the argument that the Chinese frames don't have the same amount of R&D into them. To this, i say "BLAH!!". When I see guys on Chinese frames wiping guys on Evo, Sworks, etc... then it ain't about the frame, but about the rider. To this end, a carbon frame today, any carbon frame, regardless of their cost or brand or supposed R&D... is 95% the same... it's down to the rider to make their frame look good! There is really nothing special or earth shattering about that C-59 or F8 or Sworks really, but if you have to make an argument of it because you own one or looking to own one, more power to you!


----------



## mjduct (Jun 1, 2013)

Did you ever think that maybe those Chinese frames are benefitting from the big companies R&D work either through reverse engineering or by using the same molds and making unbranded or house branded frames?


----------



## Cooper1960 (Oct 14, 2010)

mjduct said:


> Did you ever think that maybe those Chinese frames are benefitting from the big companies R&D work either through reverse engineering or by using the same molds and making unbranded or house branded frames?


Absolutely....in a world of global manufacturing and marketing most technology bounces back and forth across the oceans.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

mjduct said:


> Did you ever think that maybe those Chinese frames are benefitting from the big companies R&D work either through reverse engineering or by using the same molds and making unbranded or house branded frames?


Yes, of course they are. The Chinese frames wouldn't exist without the designs that already exist to copy and reverse engineer.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

mjduct said:


> Did you ever think that maybe those Chinese frames are benefitting from the big companies R&D work either through reverse engineering or by using the same molds and making unbranded or house branded frames?


That's pretty much what's happened to every industry that's outsourced production to China. The Chinese government has a willful disregard for IP because Chinese manufacturers/designers have not yet become bleeding edge designers.


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

Cooper1960 said:


> Absolutely....in a world of global manufacturing and marketing most technology bounces back and forth across the oceans.


This is a true statement in the world of hardware. the technology and ideas for true innovation seem to be bouncing in one direction. LVBob hit the nail on the head "the Chinese govt has a willful disregard for IP". Of course, the US govt (and most other countries) also has a willful disregard for many things as well. 

It doesn't have to be a one world bicycle economy. Buy from a small American (if you live here) frame builder and you can do your little bit to balance the trade imbalance.

to the OP - My 2000 Calfee Tetra is still going strong, but it is a 3 lb frame (60cm). It has many 1000's of fast, rough pavement miles - riding on the earthquake tortured roads of the Santa Cruz mts in central California. Maybe I'm a fan of over-engineered when 'my frame' is the one that will suffer from a crash. Please, don't save me a pound if reliability suffers.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

tvad said:


> 1) How did you arrive at the conclusion that Parlee is one of the few companies that can properly bond titanium to carbon?
> 
> 2) To me, a lifetime warranty is synonymous with "built to last". It would be a bad business decision for a small company like Parlee to open itself up to repair or replacement costs by offering a product that will not last.


I looked into the lifetime guarantee issue a while back when looking at guarantees for my own brand. You will usually find that the lifetime guarantee only applies to the original owner and often will not cover racing (which I have never understood). Most cyclists don't tend to keep their frames for more than a few years before they either buy a newer model and rarely use the older one or sell the older model or to buy a new one, so that actual exposure is minimal. I'd love to know how many lifetime guarantees Trek for instance have had to cover for the Klein brand, which made carbon frames towards the end.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

Trek_5200 said:


> Was thinking about this.
> In light of the move away from threaded bb to press fit, or the move away from aluminum rear dropouts to carbon, or the elimination of aluminum sleeves in thee forks, I'm sure there are other examples, I'm starting to think that todays' bikes are less well made than the ones they replaced. Even internal wiring makes for a less serviceable bike and offers questionable performance advantage. Seems all the advances are geared to making bikes cheaper to produce


Yes, I have noticed a dramatic improvement in carbon bikes over the years, starting with my 2000 Look KG231. They are lighter, and stiffer. Before you got one or the other. Also many builders seem to understand the effects of geometry and design on ride quality better now. This understanding has improved all bikes, regardless of material. But as all things in design, there will always be a series of compromises a designer has to weigh. But with developments in carbon construction technique, the designers compromises aren't between light and flimsy or heavy and strong.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

mambo said:


> You will usually find that the lifetime guarantee only applies to the original owner and often will not cover racing (which I have never understood). Most cyclists don't tend to keep their frames for more than a few years before they either buy a newer model...


Fortunately, for owners like me who keep their frames for a long time and use them frequently, a lifetime warranty is valuable, and an indicator (at least to me) of a well made product.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Seems to be a trend to move into threaded bottom brackets which sound good to me. As was pointed out the new Felts will all have threaded bottom brackets. As far as Carbon bikes in general I do not know if they are better or worse.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

In this whole thread, not one story of a carbon frame owned by the poster that catastrophically failed on the poster. What is the failure rate on carbon forks? I wouldn't worry about it. In fact, I'm going out on a ride on my taiwan carbon bike!


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I somehow feel obligated to refer people to:

Busted Carbon

Having done that, I ride carbon. And steel. And Titanium. And Alumin(i)um. My next frame purchase will be Ti again. I like the look and ease of maintenance. Thankfully most Ti frames still come with a threaded BB.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

asgelle said:


> Better not. I had an aluminum seat post fail and saw a friend's aluminum bars break crossing railroad tracks which is exactly as much evidence as the Forbes article presents. But here's a dirty little secret; bicycle frames and components and frames have been failing as long as there have been bicycle components and frames.
> 
> So if someone has real data on rates of failures, fine, lets see it. Otherwise, it's just noise and fear mongering.


This is the point. People in this thread have been using words like "tendency" and "prone" and "much more likely" as if carbon fiber components actually pose a significant risk to riders. Nonsense. Failures - as far as any credible, unbiased source I've read as well as my personal anecdotal evidence - are very, very rare for all materials. And there's no real data anyway.

People who actually "worry" or "are concerned" about this stuff are really unrealistic, imho.



ChiroVette said:


> ...Anyway, I appreciate all the info and educated opinions. I just wanted to bounce this off some people a helluva lot more knowledgeable than I am on the topic as a last minute concern before spending a couple of thousand on a bike. ...


Seriously, why would you think that information on a forum like this about a subjective topic is actually informed/expert? It is not, it's just a bunch of guys who know how to use computers who have opinions, most of which are poorly founded.

WHen it comes to mechanical/repair issues and stuff like that, there are certainly credible information. But opinions on stuff like this - no more "expertise" here than anywhere else.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

LVbob said:


> That's pretty much what's happened to every industry that's outsourced production to China. The Chinese government has a willful disregard for IP because Chinese manufacturers/designers have not yet become bleeding edge designers.


yep! China is the Great Thief, and the mother of copycats. Plenty of Chinese in the US conducting industrial espionage, and stealing intellectual properties. You dance with the devil, you know that you must pay some price, and US businesses are willing to accept some loss in IP at a gain of profits. But... someday... the chicken will come home to roost. It always does, and probably is already doing so..

There are some think-tank arguments and point of views that see that had the US not outsource so strongly to China, then China's manufacturing industry, especially the electronic hardware and the heavy industries, would be 10-20 years behind their current status. US businesses, in their rush for quarterly profits, has created a stronger global competitor sooner than later. I mean China was going to develop anyway and become a strong competitor to the US, but it's always desirable not to assist your competitor develop faster eh!


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I think carbon frames are great. Lightweight and ready to perform but I just don't want one.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

"I'd love to know how many lifetime guarantees Trek for instance have had to cover for the Klein brand, which made carbon frames towards the end."

I have no idea as to how many of those frames they had to cover under warranty but I wanted to point out that those were Trek frames made in Waterloo by Trek employees. Klein did make carbon forks and handlebars in the Chehalis (actually, Mary's Corner) plant that were designed by Klein engineers - and these designs preceded the purchase of Klein by Trek. All carbon fiber frames with the Klein logo were Trek designed and manufactured. 

I feel that it is reasonable for a manufacturer to stipulate that the warranty is for the original owner only. I've seen people bring in Trek frames from the 1970s and 80s that they purchased third and fourth-hand for which they were trying to claim warranty. Why should somebody who bought a used bike for $100 receive a full new replacement because the thirty year old frame finally gave way... 

I do recall laughing at the Trek warranty when I bought my first 510 back in 1978 - due to their "warranty void if the bike is raced". There is nearly no way that they can ever tell that a frame was raced unless you are a pro and they saw the bike on television. Anyway, that provision is no longer in their warranty (unless they brought it back - I haven't looked recently). 

What is more important than whether the bike was raced is what caused the damage. Was the damage due to a manufacturer's defect or was it because the frame was subjected to more force than for which it was designed (crash, crushed, etc)?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

The Parlee Warranty does not restrict an owner from racing the frame, but the warranty does not cover crash damage. Parlee will offer a crash replacement frame within the first three years of ownership at a 25% discount from retail (which is pretty good if you know the small margins on Parlee frames).


----------



## mjduct (Jun 1, 2013)

Racing= rubbing in my neck or the woods, if you are good a rubbing and not ending up on the deck good for you. I wouldn't rave any bike that I care about in a CAT5 crashfest, the only way to stay safe is to jump at the line and hold it till the end...


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Camilo said:


> This is the point. People in this thread have been using words like "tendency" and "prone" and "much more likely" as if carbon fiber components actually pose a significant risk to riders. Nonsense. Failures - as far as any credible, unbiased source I've read as well as my personal anecdotal evidence - are very, very rare for all materials. And there's no real data anyway.
> 
> People who actually "worry" or "are concerned" about this stuff are really unrealistic, imho.


Seriously, have you ever seen a "busted", steel Ti or alu website?

I have been testing carbon frames and individual tubes for manufacture at high stress levels for many months now. That is, in a proper industry testing machine. For fun, I also tested a couple of unused old steel frames and one Ti that were lying around in the workshop. The carbon frames fail and when they do it is often catastrophically. You will rarely if ever see a steel or Ti frame snap completely. Steel and Ti will bend and buckle and still be in a get you home condition. I have no data for aluminium frames as the only one available was my Klein Quantum Pro and there was no way I was putting that in the machine. Even the best hand built frames could feasibly have a poor batch of epoxy/carbon in one of the joints and fail. Ditto mold manufactured frames.

If you believe what you wrote, then you don't have a clue or just prefer to delude yourself.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> I somehow feel obligated to refer people to:
> 
> Busted Carbon
> 
> Having done that, I ride carbon. And steel. And Titanium. And Alumin(i)um. My next frame purchase will be Ti again. I like the look and ease of maintenance. Thankfully most Ti frames still come with a threaded BB.


Wow that is incredibly scary! Some of those pics are downright terrifying when you imagine weaving through motorist traffic while riding at 15+ MPH. This really puts a crimp in my enthusiasm over my new bike purchase yesterday. I wonder if there is any way to predict a possible failure. I also have to wonder if a good chunk of those carbon frame and post failures were the result of owner abuse of some kind, perhaps unintentional and the owner unaware of what they were doing?

I ride in NY City and while I am not going to let this stop me, I am definitely more than a little concerned now.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

ChiroVette said:


> Wow that is incredibly scary! Some of those pics are downright terrifying when you imagine weaving through motorist traffic while riding at 15+ MPH. This really puts a crimp in my enthusiasm over my new bike purchase yesterday. I wonder if there is any way to predict a possible failure. I also have to wonder if a good chunk of those carbon frame and post failures were the result of owner abuse of some kind, perhaps unintentional and the owner unaware of what they were doing?
> 
> I ride in NY City and while I am not going to let this stop me, I am definitely more than a little concerned now.


The first three I looked at said: "after incident with a car at 35mph", " bottle got jammed somehow between the blades" and "victim of the roof carrier system and garage combination".

If you think another material would be fine in those situations....good luck with that.

And who knows the real truth behind the 'just riding alone" ones.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> The first three I looked at said: "after incident with a car at 35mph", " bottle got jammed somehow between the blades" and "victim of the roof carrier system and garage combination".
> 
> If you think another material would be fine in those situations....good luck with that.
> 
> And who knows the real truth behind the 'just riding alone" ones.


Yeah I had seen the bottle one and chuckled at that. And obviously a bike against car won't work out well for the cycle no matter what material. But it looked like a lot of those breaks were posted by people who had their frames just fail, if I remember the captions.

Look, not saying that I know about any of this, and you know what? Some of those pics could even be posted by fanboys who don't like carbon, because, like you said, who knows the real truth behind the "riding alone" ones? So I am definitely not stirring the pot here. lol Obviously I like carbon as I spent bunch of money on a bike yesterday. I just want to see if I can find out if the claims about "sudden unexpected failure" are true or not, because that could have truly catastrophic results on a city street where cars are flying around you.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> I'm starting to think that todays' bikes are less well made than the ones they replaced. Even internal wiring makes for a less serviceable bike and offers questionable performance advantage. Seems all the advances are geared to making bikes cheaper to produce


Internal cables are nothing new. My 2004 Klein is Alum w/ CF seat stays. It has internal cables.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

DrSmile said:


> I somehow feel obligated to refer people to:
> 
> Busted Carbon


Anyone notice that the last bike posted was July 8, 2011. This site is proof positive that all problems with modern carbon has be solved. 

But since we're sharing anecdotal broken stuff.... Is this a catastrophic failure? 
(Notice the titanium broke... but the CF fork didn't)


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

mambo said:


> Seriously, have you ever seen a "busted", steel Ti or alu website?
> 
> I have been testing carbon frames and individual tubes for manufacture at high stress levels for many months now. That is, in a proper industry testing machine. For fun, I also tested a couple of unused old steel frames and one Ti that were lying around in the workshop. The carbon frames fail and when they do it is often catastrophically. You will rarely if ever see a steel or Ti frame snap completely. Steel and Ti will bend and buckle and still be in a get you home condition. I have no data for aluminium frames as the only one available was my Klein Quantum Pro and there was no way I was putting that in the machine. Even the best hand built frames could feasibly have a poor batch of epoxy/carbon in one of the joints and fail. Ditto mold manufactured frames.
> 
> If you believe what you wrote, then you don't have a clue or just prefer to delude yourself.


Rather than just "believing" what you wrote, why don't you post some pics/video of this industry testing machine along with the testing procedures and data you collected while testing all these frames. Sounds like it would be great to review.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

tlg said:


> Anyone notice that the last bike posted was July 8, 2011. This site is proof positive that all problems with modern carbon has be solved.
> 
> But since we're sharing anecdotal broken stuff.... Is this a catastrophic failure?
> (Notice the titanium broke... but the CF fork didn't)


Good points, tlg. Also, something else I was wondering: How many of the unexpected failures of carbon frames or forks or seat posts were truly and objectively unexpected? There could have been some trauma and insult to the material that may have not damaged it cosmetically but caused enough sheering forces or stress that it may have seemed to be unexpected when, six months after a seemingly innocuous a collision, it "just fails."

As I mentioned in a post above, owner abuse could also be a factor, as can racing collisions and such. I also did a Google search on this, and while there are a few things I came across accusing carbon fiber of being inherently prone to sudden and unexpected failure, it wasn't like a huge glut of people are posting warnings from their hospital beds or scientists are coming out in droves and warning the public about the dangers of carbon fiber in bicycles.

One site I saw a few minutes ago talked about failure happening when too much weight is put on the bike, far more than one would reasonably expect it to hold. You know what? Maybe I am just deluding myself so I can justify spending so much money on my new bike, but as you hinted at, if Carbon Fiber is so statistically unsafe, then where are all the lawsuits against manufacturers of these bikes? Where are all the recalls, which the governments of most nations would DEMAND if there were a lot of problems? Where are all the geeks armed with tons of scientific evidence against carbon bikes posting in depth warnings with charts, graphs, weight testings, and so forth? Where are all the bike safety activists demanding that manufacturers make their "unsafe carbon bikes" safe again or cease and desist in using the "faulty material?"

I am still worried about this, don't get me wrong. But I am starting to wonder if you can't find a crapload of Chicken Little's on the web clucking about how bad carbon is for bikes...meaning, if the Internet doesn't want a piece of this, then how statistically significant can this problem of sudden. unexpected failure really be?


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

Sorry to double post, but I just found a thought-provoking article admonishing us about the misconceptions with regard to this topic:

Carbon Bicycle Forks: Cautions, Facts and Misconceptions | IsolateCyclist

A few points of interest from the article:



> Fifteen years ago, dire warnings were made about aluminum forks. In spite of those warnings, the aluminum fork failure rate isn’t significantly worse than any other fork material.





> I learned some interesting things. For instance, most of the “unexplained catastrophic carbon fork failure” reports are located on personal websites or in bike forums. There aren’t well-known consumer or professional cycling websites warning consumers about the “dangers” of carbon forks.


This supports the contention I made in my last post.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

tlg said:


> Anyone notice that the last bike posted was July 8, 2011. This site is proof positive that all problems with modern carbon has be solved.
> 
> But since we're sharing anecdotal broken stuff.... Is this a catastrophic failure?
> (Notice the titanium broke... but the CF fork didn't)


That looks like a failure in the welds rather than the material choice. As I understand it, Ti is very difficult to weld and contamination in the welds can lead to this sort of failure.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

ChiroVette said:


> if Carbon Fiber is so statistically unsafe, then where are all the lawsuits against manufacturers of these bikes? Where are all the recalls, which the governments of most nations would DEMAND if there were a lot of problems?


Recalls | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

There are other industry publications that inform on recalls. These are a much more common occurrence than people think.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

mambo said:


> Recalls | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News
> 
> There are other industry publications that inform on recalls. These are a much more common occurrence than people think.


If carbon is such an inherently dangerous material then why are you looking to build carbon frames? 

Now you're going to start with your Italian carbon BS.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

tlg said:


> Rather than just "believing" what you wrote, why don't you post some pics/video of this industry testing machine along with the testing procedures and data you collected while testing all these frames. Sounds like it would be great to review.


Below are photographs of frames being tested on the machine I mentioned, tubes and a tube interior so you can see how clean the interior of carbon tubes used for hand built frames are, as opposed to the bladder residues in monocoque constructed frames. (I have masked out areas of the photographs for confidentiality reasons).

Essentially the machine is able to test individual tubes and whole frames. The tubes/frames can be subjected to stress in different areas at different levels and different types of torsion. For us the use of this machine in design has been essential, as apart from being able to measure overall frame stiffness, it has been valuable to learn how each tube behaves under stress and how different combinations of tubes work under differing stress loads. 

It is able to load frames well beyond the stresses they would suffer in real life riding situations.

For comparison purposes, we also tested frames and forks from other manufacturers, we found discrepancies between those manufacturers advertised stiffness figures and our results.

Don't get me wrong, I want people to buy carbon frames because after all we will be manufacturing them, but I firmly believe that properly welded steel and Ti frames are less likely to fail catastrophically. I also believe but can't prove (as only time will do that, and cf frames haven't been around for long enough) that given the level of epoxy technology, currently steel and Ti will outlast a carbon frame.
Are carbon frames safe - absolutely; and even more with the continual advances in resins and epoxies and how to apply them to building a bicycle frame.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

mambo said:


> That looks like a failure in the welds rather than the material choice. As I understand it, Ti is very difficult to weld and contamination in the welds can lead to this sort of failure.


So if I follow your whole point here ti and steel are a better choice than carbon but only ti and steel that hasn't been welded. Where's the list of of ti and steel bike choices that don't have welding?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

mambo said:


> That looks like a failure in the welds rather than the material choice. As I understand it, Ti is very difficult to weld and contamination in the welds can lead to this sort of failure.


Not to me. The weld is entirely intact on the headtube. The weld didn't fail, the tube did.



mambo said:


> Don't get me wrong, I want people to buy carbon frames because after all we will be manufacturing them, but I firmly believe that *properly welded steel and Ti * frames are less likely to fail catastrophically.


Ahhh and there's the rub. How does one know when shopping for a steel or Ti frame that it's been properly welded. Obviously it's hard to do. That's a litespeed Ti frame that broke. Litespeed is well known for their Ti frames. So you're implying even they can't do it right.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

I disagree, to me the weld failed. I have asked one of my frame builders to look at the photo (he has built with Ti and steel for more many more years than carbon and he believes that the weld failed). Apart from one small piece of Ti tube attached to the upper right hand of the weld, the rest of the tubes are intact. It looks as if they came away from the tube, the weld at the area of still attached tube was stronger and the tube ripped at that point after being over stressed by the rest of the tube coming away from the head tube.

How do you know that any frame is perfect? Like I said earlier, problems with the materials that are not readily apparent on inspection, or the frame builder losing concentration whilst welding or laying up material can lead to weak points that may fail at a later stage.

I have noticed that steel and Ti tend to fail at the welds and usually if there has been a problem with the welding as appears to be the case in the photo of the Litespeed. It is very rare to see actual tubes snap. Because of the inherent properties of carbon that in many ways make it such an ideal material for frame construction, when it does fail it will usually be along the tube because the joints tend to be well reinforced and the tubes as used to construct bicycle frames do not bend in the same way as steel or Ti will on impact.
I have crashed 2 steel frames over the years. On the first one I bent the forks so that the front wheel was touching the frame. I pulled them back out and rode home and was still able to use the bike to commute for years. The second crash bent the frame buckling the top tube - again I was still able to get home. In both these cases, I believe that the equivalent carbon tubes would have snapped completely -catastrophic failure.

Rolls Royce make some of the best aeroplane engines in the world - they are maintained meticulously yet they sometimes fail.

Does what I've said make any sense?


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Jay Strongbow said:


> So if I follow your whole point here ti and steel are a better choice than carbon but only ti and steel that hasn't been welded. Where's the list of of ti and steel bike choices that don't have welding?


I have never said that Ti and steel are better choices than carbon. People prefer each material for many different reasons all of which are right! Some people prefer the ride of steel or Ti over carbon, others prefer the low maintenance of Ti and its resilience. I believe that carbon is the absolute best currently available material to build light, stiff and comfortable no compromise racing bikes. 
What I am saying is that assuming frames constructed with all three materials are correctly manufactured, Ti and steel will tend to behave differently on failure than carbon. I also _personally_ believe that Ti and steel will last longer, but that is just my own opinion.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mambo said:


> Below are photographs of frames being tested on the machine I mentioned, tubes and a tube interior so you can see how clean the interior of carbon tubes used for hand built frames are, as opposed to the bladder residues in monocoque constructed frames. (I have masked out areas of the photographs for confidentiality reasons).
> 
> Essentially the machine is able to test individual tubes and whole frames. The tubes/frames can be subjected to stress in different areas at different levels and different types of torsion. For us the use of this machine in design has been essential, as apart from being able to measure overall frame stiffness, it has been valuable to learn how each tube behaves under stress and how different combinations of tubes work under differing stress loads.
> 
> ...


That's is a pretty impressive facility and equipment you have over there!
It looks cleaner than the Parlee facility shown in one of those Youtube videos (I was shocked to see a top rated builder like Parlee can have such a messy facility).

And you seem to know what you're talking about. People can debate all day regarding steel and carbon, but the fact is when steel fails, it doesn't snap like carbon. Steel is flexy and it'll give, it'll creak, it'll moan, before it'll blow out completely. Carbon fiber? Sure it'll stiff, but ah see, one draw back of stiffness is, like a diamond, it's can also be brittle. CF gives very little warning before a kaboom! Steel is flexy but strong. CF is stiff and brittle.

Here's my personal anecdote. I have an early 90s Casati frame made of thinwalled chromoly. Bike was involved in a crash where the down tube (tradiitonal sized steel tube, not oversized) was completely dented and cracked, at the midway point, with the length of crack about a *quarter way around the circumference* of the tube. I mean the crack was a large gapping crack, no question about it. I was still able to ride it home. And in fact, I was even still able to ride the frame, even on the mountains. (But to be fair, I weighed under 130 lbs at the time, so lightweight, and yes I was taking risks!). If that was a carbon frame, it would have been game over way before a crack of that size develop. Eventually, I got a welder to weld in a metal plate at the crack region, and the frame is still ridable in every way today, even on aggressive mountain descend. That is steel for ya, flexy but strong.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> The first three I looked at said: "after incident with a car at 35mph", " bottle got jammed somehow between the blades" and "victim of the roof carrier system and garage combination".
> 
> If you think another material would be fine in those situations....good luck with that.
> 
> And who knows the real truth behind the 'just riding alone" ones.


You've been around this place long enough to know that bad **** always happens when someone is "JRA".


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

Aren't the better bikes the ones with the newer, fancier paint jobs? Why ride a bike with 2013 paint if you can have one with 2014 paint?

One has to question the broken bike photos taken out of context. The Lightspeed photo earlier apparently has been bouncing around the web for a while, and notes indicate that it was involved in a wreck, although I didn't see the specific details of the accident. I.E. was it catastrophic failure upon impact with a car?

No doubt it is frustrating to have one's very expensive bicycle in pieces after an accident. However, the forces involved are beyond the design specs, and could severely damage just about any bike other than the cast-iron Schwinns, no to mention wheels and other components.

Having a bike on a roof rack, and driving it into the side of a house, and you don't expect at least some damage?

Optimally a manufacturer would go through a decade or two of history and try to figure out what works,and what doesn't work. 

Early carbon bikes with titanium lugs look cool, but probably wouldn't be any better than the newer full carbon frames.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> That's is a pretty impressive facility and equipment you have over there!
> It looks cleaner than the Parlee facility shown in one of those Youtube videos (I was shocked to see a top rated builder like Parlee can have such a messy facility).


Thanks for the comment. That machine was alone was over £100,000 but is the only way to confirm the R & D theory actually works in practice. A lot of people assume that a messy facility is detrimental to carbon production, but it's not really that important. I think Calfee make very nice bikes. 

In an ideal world I would race on carbon, tour on steel and mountain bike on titanium, the latter because you can fix scratches with a bit of abrasive pad. But I weigh 65kg and ride a small sized frame.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

tvad said:


> 1) How did you arrive at the conclusion that Parlee is one of the few companies that can properly bond titanium to carbon?


Yeah in reality that is a pretty silly assertion. There's no such thing as secret bonding methods! Just read any fabrication magazine and there will be how to articles, or call up an industrial adhesives supplier and they will be happy to show you how. In exchange for selling you a pallet of their stuff...

The old EFBE site used to have lots of photos of bikes they broke in testing, and commentary. I can't find it now. Don't know if it is still around or if it has been removed. In their testing carbon bikes did very well. 
I raced in the 1970s and early 80s and remember lots of broken steel bikes and forks. No way is steel some magical indestructable solution.
Testing methodology is important too. 
If you are just bending something until it breaks, what does that prove? Especially if the breaking point is far beyond any load the tube/frame is going to experience in use.
The EFBE test where an entire frame undergoes stress cycles replicating actual use seems more relevant.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

mambo said:


> Seriously, have you ever seen a "busted", steel Ti or alu website?
> 
> I have been testing carbon frames and individual tubes for manufacture at high stress levels for many months now. That is, in a proper industry testing machine. For fun, I also tested a couple of unused old steel frames and one Ti that were lying around in the workshop. The carbon frames fail and when they do it is often catastrophically. You will rarely if ever see a steel or Ti frame snap completely. Steel and Ti will bend and buckle and still be in a get you home condition. I have no data for aluminium frames as the only one available was my Klein Quantum Pro and there was no way I was putting that in the machine. Even the best hand built frames could feasibly have a poor batch of epoxy/carbon in one of the joints and fail. Ditto mold manufactured frames.
> 
> If you believe what you wrote, then you don't have a clue or just prefer to delude yourself.


so just so I understand, you think carbon fiber has a tenancy to fail and possess a significant danger that should actually be worried about by bike riders?


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Camilo said:


> so just so I understand, you think carbon fiber has a tenancy to fail and possess a significant danger that should actually be worried about by bike riders?


No. I think it is clear from the comments in this thread. Carbon generally fails differently when it does and that failure is more likely to be catastrophic - it is more likely to snap under certain stresses than steel.

ANY frame can fail for various different reasons. What I have discussed with our frame builders (who have built frames for over a century between them - including more than 30 years with carbon) is that the incidence of repairs required for NON-CRASHED carbon frames is much higher than it was in the days when steel was the material of choice. Is this because back in the day, most steel frames were hand-built and most carbon frames are mass built and perhaps lack a level of quality control or personal interest from the frame builder? Who knows.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mambo said:


> No. I think it is clear from the comments in this thread. *Carbon generally fails differently when it does and that failure is more likely to be catastrophic* - it is more likely to snap under certain stresses that steel.
> 
> ANY frame can fail for various different reasons. What I have discussed with our frame builders (who have built frames for over a century between them - including more than 30 years with carbon) is that the incidence of repairs required for NON-CRASHED carbon frames is much higher than it was in the days when steel was the material of choice. Is this because back in the day, most steel frames were hand-built and most carbon frames are mass built and perhaps lack a level of quality control or personal interest from the frame builder? Who knows.


bingo!

the modality of failure is different between carbon fiber and steel. Look at Formula1, when carbon fiber breaks, it not only breaks, but it can also break spectacularly. Steel doesn't explode into bits and strands when it breaks. And this difference may just be enough to allow the user to detect a failure early enough to prevent him from riding into a total crash. And btw, a bicycle doesn't need to explode, it'll just need to snap and kaboom, down she goes.

I akin carbon fiber to diamond when it comes to breaking. It's all hard and stiff, until you ping the right point, then it gives spectacularly. I'm obviously exaggerating, but you get my drift.

Come to think of it, I had a steel bmx bike that developed a crack in the chainstay. It started out as a hairline crack, but I didn't notice. Keep jumping it (luckily small jumps) and the crack grew bigger, making the frame creak and sream, which got my attention, and of course once I discovered the crack, it had grown to a sizable crack (with a visible gapping rift!). I stopped riding the bike of course. It that was carbon fiber, I believe I would have eaten pavement in a faceplant in some spectacular crash already. So that's 2 experiences I've had with steel failure that I was able to detect. Don't think carbon fiber would have given me such warning before she blows.

(btw, I have a steel Cinelli XCR coming in just over 2 weeks time. Steel is still good eh)


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

Well this thread is disturbingly informative. Honestly, if carbon fiber has that predilection toward unexpected and unpredictable catastrophic and spectacular failure (as *Mambo *and *aclinjury* are saying) then it makes me wonder if here are going to be huge lawsuits coming over the next few years as a result. Sounds like carbon fiber at least has the potential to me more dangerous than metals and alloys.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

With the exception of alloy bikes made way to light, the general rule I believe is that Steel and Titanium are the least prone to stress or failure. Aluminum given enough usage can fatigue, something that steel and titanium are unlikely to experience.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Those of us old enough to have raced in the steel days will remember, when you crashed, the first thing you looked at was how much you'd scratched your Campagnolo gruppo, then you looked to see if you'd scratched the frame.

Nowadays, when you crash on carbon, the first thing you look for is if there are any cracks or fissures.

Which reminds me of a chap who crashed in front of me in a race many, many years ago. He deliberately turned so that he would land on his back and pushed the bike in the air as his feet were still attached to the pedals (toeclip days). After the race I asked him why he had taken the road rash deliberately. His answer was one that has stayed with me:- "Skin heals mate, Campagnolo doesn't!". Some years later I found myself doing exactly the same thing going downhill on my brand new Klein Quantum Pro; went off on a bend and I deliberately turned and landed in the mud on my back to avoid damaging my day old frame.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

*Mambo*, would you say that sudden, unexpected, possibly catastrophic failure would be less of a concern to an everyday rider, who isn't crashing his or her bike all the time and putting the kind of hard miles on their bikes that racers are?

lol Or am I just deluding myself because I just spent a nice chunk of change on a carbon fiber bike?


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

ChiroVette said:


> *Mambo*, would you say that sudden, unexpected, possibly catastrophic failure would be less of a concern to an everyday rider, who isn't crashing his or her bike all the time and putting the kind of hard miles on their bikes that racers are?
> 
> lol Or am I just deluding myself because I just spent a nice chunk of change on a carbon fiber bike?


I don't have any figures for carbon fibre breakages so it's difficult to say. I don't hear of that many failures so I wouldn't say it's a huge concern. Also you need to factor in the number of second hand frames that may fail that the original owner sold after a crash that did not produce any visible damage. You spent your money so enjoy it. The frame is very unlikely to fail. 
Obviously, the industry doesn't want people to know breakage figures and often recalls only appear in the industry publications. For instance, Mike Sinyard of Specialized made a statement as to why his lawyers _overreacted_ during the 'Cafe Roubaix' debacle. He basically said they were aggressive because of the fakes out there and gave an example of a returned frame that had failed catastrophically being a fake once they checked it. What followed made me laugh, it was along the lines of "I was so shocked that one of our frames would break......." (he later took that bit out of his second official statement. 

I visited a factory some months ago that carrries out frame repairs and one of the things I noticed was that some brands tend to fail in the same place. I was able to look at about 50 broken frames - including some from the bigger brands. As an example, there were three frames from one brand that had broken seat stay junctions - their design has the seat stays join the seat tube about 3/4 of the way up the seat tube, so one has to conclude that there has to be a design fault there.

The people who really have real data on frame failures are pro team mechanics. If you can grab one at a race who will talk to you honestly (difficult) the answer will be eye opening.

Once of the services I plan to offer is carbon frame repair so I hope to have more data in the next 24 to 36 months.

I do believe that the source of many frame failures is a lack of quality control in some Asian factories and of course the fakes that are not necessarily produced to the same standards.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ChiroVette said:


> Well this thread is disturbingly informative. Honestly, if carbon fiber has that predilection toward unexpected and unpredictable catastrophic and spectacular failure (as *Mambo *and *aclinjury* are saying) then it makes me wonder if here are going to be huge lawsuits coming over the next few years as a result. Sounds like carbon fiber at least has the potential to me more dangerous than metals and alloys.


Dont get me wrong, I do ride a carbon bikes! and didn't mean to sound like an alarming Susan (or whatchumacallit!)... those are just my anecdotal experiences with steel failure.

to be fair, there are plenty of carbon mountain bikes that are very tough and can take a helluva beating. But the issue to me is not that carbon fiber is tough or not, the issue is the modality of failure. I used to ride a 2007 Specialized carbon Enduro mountain bike. The front triangle was carbon fiber, but the rear tri was aluminum. I beat the crap outta that thing, crashed many times earning me 3-4 months off the bike, yet it didn't break. But... one time it was tipped over and hit a big rock at the top tube, and that really left a big gnaw scar on the tube... and a great source of eyesore! But that frame was overbuilt, and today it would be a at least a pound heavier than an equivalent all aluminum frame.

I think with mountain bike carbon frame, they tend to over build it, because a carbon mtb frame is not that much lighter than an equivalent aluminum frame. 

But for the roadie world, where weight is a much more of a major consideration than in the mtb world, they tend to make the carbon frame almost paper thin! I mean, when I flick a screwdriver onto the mtb carbon frame, versus flicking it on a carbon road frame,... it's very obvious that the mtb road frame is over built with plenty of thickness... and the sound of the screwdriver hitting is a thump, not so on the road. It is the so-called "sl" (superlight) models of carbon road frames that I'm particular against, and would avoid pretty much at all cost. A thinwalled carbon tube is much more susceptible to crack then a thicker walled, and I think that once a crash develop in a thinwalled carbon tube, it will much more likely to fail in spectacular fashion than a thicker-walled carbon tube, and definitely more than a steel tubing.

I have a Serotta Ottrott and Meivici. The Ottrott is made out of a combo of ti and carbon. The carbon tubes here are not the lightest. They are made of the mid-modulus, and thicker than what you would find in these "sl" bikes. The result? Hmm, let's see, I give up a bit of stiffness to an equivalently sized "sl" frames out there. I give up 100 - 150 grams to an "sl" frame (absolutely not a big deal for me). But the benefits? The carbon frames are stronger (not stiffer) and much more resistent to impact (yep, lower modulus carbon is more impact resistant). 

Take a look at the Meivici, and you'll notice that the carbon tubes are not a huge oversized plumbing tunnels. They are only slightly oversized, but they are thicker. The result is not only a much more impact resistant frame, but a frame that will absorb the road with a "thump" due to more flexing and simply more frame material. Serotta didn't build this bike for the racerboy weightweenie, but they build it to last. Now, this is the sort of carbon fiber bike that endears me.











As for the lawsuits. The bike makers have it covered concerning its usage. For example, if you buy a mountain bike, the manufacturers will write something into their disclaimers that you can't use it to jump anything higher than 4"! You heard it, ya can't use it to jump over 4" or else you can't sue. Very ridiculous disclaimer. That is why you will hardly see any lawsuit of guys breaking mtb frame. Who in the world buys an mtb and not take a drop bigger than 4"??? Even the most timid females can easily roll down a 1ft rock without blinking. The lawyers have it covered man.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> Take a look at the Meivici, and you'll notice that the carbon tubes are not a huge oversized plumbing tunnels. They are only slightly oversized, but they are thicker. The result is not only a much more impact resistant frame, but a frame that will absorb the road with a "thump" due to more flexing and simply more frame material. Serotta didn't build this bike for the racerboy weightweenie, but they build it to last. Now, this is the sort of carbon fiber bike that endears me.


I like round tubes. Most of the models we will be offering will be round for two reasons. They are nicer to look at (IMHO) and more importantly, stronger.

However, whilst thicker-walled tubes will generally be more resistant to knocks, it gets a whole and I mean whole lot more complicated when you are trying to balance comfort, stiffness and rideability. That 'recipe' has been our biggest headache. The thicker tubes sometimes just won't absorb that 'thump' and they may turn out to be more flexible than a wider tube that does absorb the 'thump'. Then you get into the type of carbon used for each tube and the 'recipe' (and it is really akin to putting together a recipe) becomes even more complicated...It could _almost_ be, light, stiff, comfortable - choose two! But of course, you can dial things in to a frame in some areas and then balance them out in others. For us that has been the most interesting part of the whole learning process.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

mambo said:


> I don't have any figures for carbon fibre breakages so it's difficult to say. I don't hear of that many failures so I wouldn't say it's a huge concern. Also you need to factor in the number of second hand frames that may fail that the original owner sold after a crash that did not produce any visible damage. You spent your money so enjoy it. The frame is very unlikely to fail.


You know what? While I am riding my new bike, I do nothing but enjoy it. I put these thoughts out of my head, or I would go insane while out for a leisurely Sunday ride! However, while reading the forums, and thinking about it while relaxing at my computer, the wheels start a-churning and I worry. I am sure you're right, but I can't dismiss the concerns of guys like *aclinjury* either.
*
______________________________________________________________*


Okay, you covered a lot in your post, *aclinjury*, so I will try to pick the parts that apply mostly to me:




aclinjury said:


> Dont get me wrong, I do ride a carbon bikes! and didn't mean to sound like an alarming Susan (or whatchumacallit!)... those are just my anecdotal experiences with steel failure.


I think the term you're looking for is nervous Nellie. lol



aclinjury said:


> to be fair, there are plenty of carbon mountain bikes that are very tough and can take a helluva beating. But the issue to me is not that carbon fiber is tough or not, *the issue is the modality of failure.*


That's what concerns me as well. Because I have owned many bikes made out of metal, and they bend, creak, make noise, get misshapen, and can absolutely fail, but as many have said, there tends to be warnings, such as collisions and such. My thing is that I know there is inherent risk in everything. Hell, I live and bike in NY City, and I am more concerned about being hit by a maniac driver than my frame suddenly exploding. So if the risk of failure is one in ten million frames and forks, let's say, then, yeah, it kind of adds a new dimension of danger, but is a more than acceptable risk. Otherwise I should just stay on my couch, get fat, and eventually die of a heart attack in peace, with no risk, right?

But if the risk is, say, one in a thousand carbon bikes fail catastrophically and suddenly, then that traverses into the realm of a less than acceptable risk.



aclinjury said:


> *But for the roadie world, where weight is a much more of a major consideration than in the mtb world, they tend to make the carbon frame almost paper thin!* I mean, when I flick a screwdriver onto the mtb carbon frame, versus flicking it on a carbon road frame,... it's very obvious that the mtb road frame is over built with plenty of thickness... and the sound of the screwdriver hitting is a thump, not so on the road. It is the so-called "sl" (superlight) models of carbon road frames that I'm particular against, and would avoid pretty much at all cost. A thinwalled carbon tube is much more susceptible to crack then a thicker walled, and I think that once a crash develop in a thinwalled carbon tube, it will much more likely to fail in spectacular fashion than a thicker-walled carbon tube, and definitely more than a steel tubing.


This is my issue. I just purchased a very light (at least by my standards) Scott Foil 30. Here is a pic:



Now I don't know much about bikes, so maybe that isn't one of the SL bikes you are referring to? If it is, what are my risks on city streets like here in the Big Apple? I am not racing. I don't tend to crash up my bike, and I don't ride my bikes hard. 



aclinjury said:


> Serotta didn't build this bike for the racerboy weightweenie, but they build it to last. Now, this is the sort of carbon fiber bike that endears me.


Same quesion as above, but restated: Is my bike, to your knowledge, a "weight weenie" bike?



aclinjury said:


> As for the lawsuits. The bike makers have it covered concerning its usage. For example, if you buy a mountain bike, the manufacturers will write something into their disclaimers that you can't use it to jump anything higher than 4"! You heard it, ya can't use it to jump over 4" or else you can't sue. Very ridiculous disclaimer. That is why you will hardly see any lawsuit of guys breaking mtb frame. Who in the world buys an mtb and not take a drop bigger than 4"??? Even the most timid females can easily roll down a 1ft rock without blinking. The lawyers have it covered man.


Not sure how they will get around road bike lawsuits, if what you're saying is true. I mean, I never signed a contract when I brought my bike. I never waved my right to a lawsuit, was never handed a disclaimer of ANY kind whatsoever. I was never asked to abdicate my rights to safety. And to use me as an example, what can they accuse me of if my bike "fails" catastrophically? "Oh, he rode his bike on a street with...gasp...cars on it and there are cracks on the road!"


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mambo said:


> I like round tubes. Most of the models we will be offering will be round for two reasons. They are nicer to look at (IMHO) and more importantly, stronger.
> 
> However, whilst thicker-walled tubes will generally be more resistant to knocks, it gets a whole and I mean whole lot more complicated when you are trying to balance comfort, stiffness and rideability. That 'recipe' has been our biggest headache. The thicker tubes sometimes just won't absorb that 'thump' and they may turn out to be more flexible than a wider tube that does absorb the 'thump'. Then you get into the type of carbon used for each tube and the 'recipe' (and it is really akin to putting together a recipe) becomes even more complicated...It could _almost_ be, light, stiff, comfortable - choose two! But of course, you can dial things in to a frame in some areas and then balance them out in others. For us that has been the most interesting part of the whole learning process.


no doubt. that's the nature of carbon fiber, you have too many variables to play with. It's finding that magical needle in haystack recipe that counts, and make it work for all sizes, not just a "medium". I ride size xs (51.5cm effective top tube) in most brands, so frame *stiffness* has never been an issue for me. Frame *weight* has never been an issue to me too, since it's xs. So that's 2 important variables for manufactures that I'm not personaly overly concerned about due to my sizing. What is important to me is some *comfort* (any size xs frame can use comfort!) and *impact resistance.* And of course, round tubing will still look like a classic long after these "organic & aero" whizbangs grow out of fashion.

One of my pet peeve in riding a size xs frame that is superlight and thinwalled is... the vibration really ping to my feet. From the various frames I've ridden, I notice that when weight is not a variable (and it is *not* for me), then it's easier to make a frame that give that "thump" on rough road. BTW, the Meivici in the pic on 25mm wide tires, Dura Ace alu rims, ride smoother than all the superbikes I've tried, no ping to the feet and hands! How smooth you ask? Let's say the cdale Evo, spesh Tarmac, Pina 65.1, Colnago C59 would feel a tad uncivilized rough pavements with chipseals.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

mambo said:


> I like round tubes. Most of the models we will be offering will be round for two reasons. They are nicer to look at (IMHO) and more importantly, stronger.


I can't think of a single major bike manufacturer that is still using round tubing. All the tubing is shaped in some respect. Even Parlee uses shaped tubes from Enve for their bespoke frames.

I'm not an engineer, and I can't properly debate a decision to use only round carbon tubing on a new production bike frame, but I have to believe the rest of the frame manufacturers have abandoned round tubes for good reasons...and I believe this directly correlates to the question of whether today's carbon bikes are better than yesterday's.

With respect, and considering where the rest of the carbon bike industry has gone with tube shapes, I have a very difficult time accepting the conclusion that round tubes are stronger.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ChiroVette said:


> You know what? While I am riding my new bike, I do nothing but enjoy it. I put these thoughts out of my head, or I would go insane while out for a leisurely Sunday ride! However, while reading the forums, and thinking about it while relaxing at my computer, the wheels start a-churning and I worry. I am sure you're right, but I can't dismiss the concerns of guys like *aclinjury* either.
> *
> ______________________________________________________________*
> 
> ...


I would not worry about your bike cracking while riding normally! But if you get into a crash, then gotta inspect it thoroughly. In fact, inspect I would inspect it every so often to make sure your tubes are acousticaly consistent. I know, it's not a scientific method of checking for crack, but let's face it, you and I are not experts, we don't have a test facility,.. but using some low-tech test like finger flicking and listen to consistency of the acoustic... and visual checking... is better than zero checking. I check my frames, all frames, not just carbon, often. Hey, it's very therapeutic to rub your loved ones right?

Maybe Mambo can give some more tips on how a home user can check his carbon frame. He seems to know a bit about this carbon stuff.

As for the lawsuits. Well when you buy a bike, there is no 5000-page lawyer book next to the bike right? Yet, you can always ask your LBS for a copy, or ask the LBS to ask the manufac for a copy, right? I'm not sure of the laws. And furthermore, to make matter more confusing, each locality will probably have different laws at the point of sale too. But if a there exist a disclaimer saying that mountain bike can't be used to jump higher than 4", then would it surprise you if there would also be some disclaimer like... "if the steerer breaks at speed faster than 15 mph on pavement with chipseals protruding upward more than 3mm tall, then sorry sir but you're screw." Back in 2009, when I was into mtb and crashing and taco'ing my wheels and frames, I found out that the various disclaimers in the mtb industry is ridiculous. I'd imagine the same lawyers to wrote the disclaimers for the mtb wrote it for the road bikes too. Expect ridiculous disclaimers.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> no doubt. that's the nature of carbon fiber, you have too many variables to play with. It's finding that magical needle in haystack recipe that counts, and make it work for all sizes, not just a "medium". I ride size xs (51.5cm effective top tube) in most brands, so frame *stiffness* has never been an issue for me. Frame *weight* has never been an issue to me too, since it's xs. So that's 2 important variables for manufactures that I'm not personaly overly concerned about due to my sizing. What is important to me is some *comfort* (any size xs frame can use comfort!) and *impact resistance.* And of course, round tubing will still look like a classic long after these "organic & aero" whizbangs grow out of fashion.
> 
> One of my pet peeve in riding a size xs frame that is superlight and thinwalled is... the vibration really ping to my feet. From the various frames I've ridden, I notice that when weight is not a variable (and it is *not* for me), then it's easier to make a frame that give that "thump" on rough road. BTW, the Meivici in the pic on 25mm wide tires, Dura Ace alu rims, ride smoother than all the superbikes I've tried, no ping to the feet and hands! How smooth you ask? Let's say the cdale Evo, spesh Tarmac, Pina 65.1, Colnago C59 would feel a tad uncivilized rough pavements with chipseals.


I also ride a small frame. My new one will be a 50.3 center to top and 54 top tube. hand building them means the frame builder can tailor the ride more easily than with monocoque frames. It will be super stiff but comfortable. It's like designing a stereo - I designed mine around Ella Fitzgerald's voice knowing that everything else would sound just fine!


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

ChiroVette said:


> You know what? While I am riding my new bike, I do nothing but enjoy it. I put these thoughts out of my head, or I would go insane while out for a leisurely Sunday ride! However, while reading the forums, and thinking about it while relaxing at my computer, the wheels start a-churning and I worry. I am sure you're right, but I can't dismiss the concerns of guys like *aclinjury* either.
> *
> ______________________________________________________________*
> 
> ...


You can sleep comfortably in the knowledge that you are FAR more likely to die as a result of a car than your frame failing. 

The aero for the Scott Foil was designed by Simon Smart who is a very nice guy. If I remember correctly the first ones had a problem with failure in the seat post area but they seem to be OK now.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> I would not worry about your bike cracking while riding normally! But if you get into a crash, then gotta inspect it thoroughly. In fact, inspect I would inspect it every so often to make sure your tubes are acousticaly consistent. I know, it's not a scientific method of checking for crack, but let's face it, you and I are not experts, we don't have a test facility,.. but using some low-tech test like finger flicking and listen to consistency of the acoustic... and visual checking... is better than zero checking. I check my frames, all frames, not just carbon, often. Hey, it's very therapeutic to rub your loved ones right?
> 
> Maybe Mambo can give some more tips on how a home user can check his carbon frame. He seems to know a bit about this carbon stuff.


Sounds like a plan, thanks! 



aclinjury said:


> As for the lawsuits. Well when you buy a bike, there is no 5000-page lawyer book next to the bike right? Yet, you can always ask your LBS for a copy, or ask the LBS to ask the manufac for a copy, right? I'm not sure of the laws. And furthermore, to make matter more confusing, each locality will probably have different laws at the point of sale too. But if a there exist a disclaimer saying that mountain bike can't be used to jump higher than 4", then would it surprise you if there would also be some disclaimer like... "if the steerer breaks at speed faster than 15 mph on pavement with chipseals protruding upward more than 3mm tall, then sorry sir but you're screw." Back in 2009, when I was into mtb and crashing and taco'ing my wheels and frames, I found out that the various disclaimers in the mtb industry is ridiculous. I'd imagine the same lawyers to wrote the disclaimers for the mtb wrote it for the road bikes too. Expect ridiculous disclaimers.


Here's the thing: While I am not a lawyer, I do have some limited legal experience. There is something in law called an unenforceable contract. Basically what that means is that certain contracts are deemed so absurd and feckless that when cases involving them are brought before a judge, the judge will simply toss the contract out and the case will proceed on what is reasonable and measured for that particular suit.

A completely ridiculous example of an unenforceable contract would be if you sold yourself to me in slavery. If you then violated the terms of enslavement in your contract, it simply could not be enforced were I to sue you for loss of slave services or something.

Less extreme examples are many standard disclaimers that ask people to give up basic civil rights or their ability to sue: Some doctors will actually make their patients sign contracts saying that that can't sue even in the case of malpractice. I don't know of anyone who has done this, but it happens. I suspect that any contract that states a customer cannot jump more than four inches on a bike or cannot ride on a road with more than ten millimeter crack heights would be summarily laughed out of court if someone sued a bike manufacturer because of its sheer lunacy.

Plus, in cases like this, even if the contract were deemed enforceable somehow, the manufacturer would have to prove that the customer can and should have been reasonably expected to read said contract, or at least had the contents read to them aloud and verbally agreed to the contents.

In the case of a person who buys a bicycle, there is no signed contract, no initialed waver, not even a traceable verbal agreement. The customer whose bike fork fractures into a thousand pieces and sues from the bed of his ICU after cracking his head on the ground post-catastrophic-failure, could be said to have absolutely no reason to have even seen such a contract. The onus, in my opinion, would be on the bike manufacturer to prove that somewhere, somehow, at some time, absent a signature that the customer agreed to the contract, even if it were just a matter of nodding their head after a bike salesman read it to them.

So it seems to me (and you would have to ask a lawyer about this to be sure) that any contract absolving a bike manufacturer of damages due to injury, loss of income, or pain and suffering due to gross negligence in manufacturing or just plain selling an unsafe product, would have a double whammy against it:

First, is it really an enforceable contract?
Second, can the bike manufacturers prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the purchaser of the bike could be reasonably expected to have read said contract?

You know what? When I bought my bike this week, there was no sign with a disclaimer on it. I signed or read no contract. No salesman read me the proverbial riot act about the manufacturer not being responsible. I was not given anything to initial in twelve places. I was not provided with so much as a pamphlet, email, or anything that freed the manufacturer from responsibility.

By the way, the so-called unenforceable contract is used all the time in business. You would be surprised at how many times you probably signed one! The reason lawyers, who do know better, create these contracts is not because they are legally enforceable. They are created to dissuade the average person who gets injured in some way, then slaps their head and says, "Doh! I can't sue. I signed a contract. Damn!"

Most people are scared off by the contract they signed or by threats from the lawyers of potential defendants. And that's what the people creating these contracts count on. User stupidity.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tvad said:


> I can't think of a single major bike manufacturer that is still using round tubing. All the tubing is shaped in some respect. Even Parlee uses shaped tubes from Enve for their bespoke frames.
> 
> I'm not an engineer, and I can't properly debate a decision to use only round carbon tubing on a new production bike frame, but I have to believe the rest of the frame manufacturers have abandoned round tubes for good reasons...and I believe this directly correlates to the question of whether today's carbon bikes are better than yesterday's.
> 
> With respect, and considering where the rest of the carbon bike industry has gone with tube shapes, I have a very difficult time accepting the conclusion that round tubes are stronger.


Me <- not a mechanical engineer.

Having said that. the bike industry are going more with square of variant of square tubings (ie, they might pinch an oval tube to make it more square).

Mechanically, a square tube give more bending resistance, while round tube gives more torsional resistance. This is assuming the same (radius) / (wall-thickness) ratio. If a square tube has the same radius and wall-thickness as a round tube, then the square one will be generally weaker. So what they do is make a square tube oversized (much larger inner radius), and this will give it better bending resistance while at the same time equal the torsional resistance of a smaller round tube.

But square tubes will also have more edge stress, and so it's weaker than a round tube when it comes to impact resistance at the edges.

If you're heavy rider capable of generating huge amount of torque (not power), then a square downtube makes sense. But if you're a smaller rider producing lesser torque (but could be higher in power due to higher rpm), then round tubes make sense. 

And as a smaller rider who rides in size xs frame (small frame are inheritedly more rigid than larger frame), I really have zero desire to ride a square downtube that the big boys ride. So the tubing must fit the application.

... oyy... they don't make square automobile drive shafts for a reason! It would snap kaboom style.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ChiroVette said:


> Sounds like a plan, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm considering suing you for hurting my head!! But seriously I'm not going to argue with you because I think you're right, and you're from NYC (used to live there so I know you guys can argue). But you're right, they're using scare tactic to scare the potential users who think about sueing. Betcha it works a lot since most of those who fail, I mean fall, would just rather just lick their wounds for a few weeks! NYC, now that's scarry.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> I'm considering suing you for hurting my head!! But seriously I'm not going to argue with you because I think you're right, and you're from NYC (used to live there so I know you guys can argue). But you're right, they're using scare tactic to scare the potential users who think about sueing. Betcha it works a lot since most of those who fail, I mean fall, would just rather just lick their wounds for a few weeks! NYC, now that's scarry.


Hahaha yeah, we New Yorkers love to argue! 

But in this case, if you argued my assertion about the bike manufacturer's disclaimers, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on (or a pedal to ride on?) because I am not a lawyer and was only giving an opinion.

Still, I will be taking my brand spanking new carbon "deathtrap" out for a ride tonight after work and will hopefully live to tell the tale. Hahaha


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

tvad said:


> I can't think of a single major bike manufacturer that is still using round tubing. All the tubing is shaped in some respect. Even Parlee uses shaped tubes from Enve for their bespoke frames.
> 
> I'm not an engineer, and I can't properly debate a decision to use only round carbon tubing on a new production bike frame, but I have to believe the rest of the frame manufacturers have abandoned round tubes for good reasons...and I believe this directly correlates to the question of whether today's carbon bikes are better than yesterday's.
> 
> With respect, and considering where the rest of the carbon bike industry has gone with tube shapes, I have a very difficult time accepting the conclusion that round tubes are stronger.


Cannondale use round tubes - are they major enough to qualify?

I will keep my reply simple. We tested square tubes vs round. The square tubes failed first. We prototyped square tubed frames, they supplied no discernible ride qualities that we could not achieve with round tubes. Also as we are building tube-to-tube, depending on rider characteristics, we can use a different tube and add or reduce carbon wrap in the joints to achieve the result we want. The monocoque mold method is less flexible on a frame by frame basis due to the inherent $40k cost of each mold.

and the round tubes are prettier!


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Yeah in reality that is a pretty silly assertion. There's no such thing as secret bonding methods!


There are and they are protected zealously by the persons who have developed those proprietary methods.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

mambo said:


> I will keep my reply simple. We tested square tubes vs round. The square tubes failed first. We prototyped square tubed frames, they supplied no discernible ride qualities that we could not achieve with round tubes.


You tested square vs. round? 

I don't know of any carbon fiber bikes made from square tubes (other than "squarish" tube like Cervelo's Squoval). Do you? 

Was that the extent of the testing? Square vs. round? You didn't test, say, the many varied shapes available from Enve Composites or other carbon tube fabricators?

Perhaps when you state you intend to use round tubes, you don't mean actually round, but rather more round in shape than square (e.g. Cervelo Squoval)?


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

tvad said:


> You tested square vs. round?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Giant. Both in Alu and carbon.

Give me some credit...we have developed an aero frame that does not have round tubes for obvious reasons. We source from an Italian aerospace industry manufacturer.

I mean round - did you look at the photo's I posted? Here's another.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> Maybe Mambo can give some more tips on how a home user can check his carbon frame. He seems to know a bit about this carbon stuff.


One of the problems with carbon is that sometimes you can't see the damage. This is why Handlebar manufacturers recommend you discard a crashed handlebar even if it shows no signs of damage.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> I have a Serotta Ottrott and Meivici.


Guess what Ben Serotta is riding?

A Formigli Italian custom bike!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

mambo said:


> I mean round - did you look at the photo's I posted? Here's another.
> 
> View attachment 296947


OK. Thanks for the clarification. Best of luck with the endeavor.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mambo said:


> One of the problems with carbon is that sometimes you can't see the damage. This is why Handlebar manufacturers recommend you discard a crashed handlebar even if it shows no signs of damage.


carbon handlebars,.. definitely one of those carbon whizbang that shouldn't have strayed from aluminum. But you can't deny the sexiness of say a Cinelli Ram! Definitely not racing with carbon handlebars though.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mambo said:


> Guess what Ben Serotta is riding?
> 
> A Formigli Italian custom bike!


Interesting. Is he looking to come back to the building business? He had such a bitter fallout with the takeover/buyout of his brand. You what's interesting is lots of pros when you ask them what they like to ride, they always prefer some custom boutique brand, and not their sponsor brand that they're trying to get consumers to buy. Last time I read Ben's blog was that he was glad to finally be able to take time off and just enjoy life. Good to know. I'm glad I was able to get the 2 Serottas before everything changed hands though. But now I'm excited to see my Cinelli XCR frame in 2 weeks time, after almost half year waiting! I had the XCR customized to my geo (might as well for addition $300 usd). I believe Cicli Barco builds the XCR. So excited! Haven't been this excited about a steel frame since I got my chromoly Blackmarket dirtjumper years ago.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> Interesting. Is he looking to come back to the building business? He had such a bitter fallout with the takeover/buyout of his brand. You what's interesting is lots of pros when you ask them what they like to ride, they always prefer some custom boutique brand, and not their sponsor brand that they're trying to get consumers to buy. Last time I read Ben's blog was that he was glad to finally be able to take time off and just enjoy life. Good to know. I'm glad I was able to get the 2 Serottas before everything changed hands though. But now I'm excited to see my Cinelli XCR frame in 2 weeks time! I had the XCR customized to my geo (might as well for addition $300 usd). I believe Cicli Barco builds the XCR. So excited! Haven't been this excited about a steel frame since I got my chromoly Blackmarket dirtjumper years ago.


I don't believe he is for now, but I do know someone else in a similar scenario who is:thumbsup:. ....watch this space....

As I understand it he was gifted this frame by Formigli as they needed publicity to help them in the US. He is saying nice things about it, but so would I if they gave me one for free!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> Was thinking about this.
> In light of the move away from threaded bb to press fit, or the move away from aluminum rear dropouts to carbon, or the elimination of aluminum sleeves in thee forks, I'm sure there are other examples, I'm starting to think that todays' bikes are less well made than the ones they replaced. Even internal wiring makes for a less serviceable bike and offers questionable performance advantage. Seems all the advances are geared to making bikes cheaper to produce


Bikes are getting better and better. 

They are lighter, stronger, stiffer, faster, more aero...and on and on. 

Believe what you like. Just don't go test riding anything new if you plan on hanging on to the nostalgia.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

ChiroVette said:


> ______________________________________________________________[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. It was designed as an aero bike. Because of the tube shapes, aero bikes are inherently heavier and much more difficult to make stiff. It is getting better though.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Here's some food for thought. We will be sending out a detailed questionnaire to our customers. The most important question is. "What would you change about your current bike?" This is a question most people should be asking themselves before handing their hard-earned over. Any bike you purchase should hopefully resolve those issues.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

mambo said:


> No. It was designed as an aero bike. Because of the tube shapes, aero bikes are inherently heavier and much more difficult to make stiff. It is getting better though.


Shows how much I know! Because I think the bike is super amazing light every time I pick it up. lol But then again, I am used to a Chromoly Trek 750 Hybrid I bought new in 1996, which is not only over 25 pounds by itself, but I have it outfitted with probably another 8 pounds: two heavy chains and locks, two saddlebags, one on the front and back, lights, pump, ect. etc.

Anyway, my glib answer aside, are you saying that I should be pretty safe on this bike since even though it is fully carbon fiber, it is not a SL?

Thanks for taking the time, by the way! 

Oh, by the way, what does "Aero Bike" mean?


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

ChiroVette said:


> Shows how much I know! Because I think the bike is super amazing light every time I pick it up. lol But then again, I am used to a Chromoly Trek 750 Hybrid I bought new in 1996, which is not only over 25 pounds by itself, but I have it outfitted with probably another 8 pounds: two heavy chains and locks, two saddlebags, one on the front and back, lights, pump, ect. etc.
> 
> Anyway, my glib answer aside, are you saying that I should be pretty safe on this bike since even though it is fully carbon fiber, it is not a SL?
> 
> ...


You're over-thinking this. Enjoy your new bike. If something happens you can test the language of the warranty. Scott will, no doubt, at least offer a crash-replacement frame (well, not if you sue).


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

LVbob said:


> You're over-thinking this.


Straight up.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

ChiroVette said:


> Anyway, my glib answer aside, are you saying that I should be pretty safe on this bike since even though it is fully carbon fiber, it is not a SL?
> 
> Thanks for taking the time, by the way!
> 
> Oh, by the way, what does "Aero Bike" mean?


Even if it were an 'SL' type frame it would still be safe. Scott make decent bikes. I know several riders who are very happy with their Scott Foils and I also know the aero designer who used to be an aerodynamicist at the Red Bull F1 team and knows a thing or two about aero design as well as being a keen cyclist himself!

Aero bikes: Are bikes that are designed to cut through the air more cleanly, allowing you to ride faster. The front profile of the frame will be designed for this and the frame tubes are designed to smooth the airflow. They may have other features, such brakes hidden from the wind (behind the forks, underneath the chainstays, incorporated into the frame and forks) strips on the down tube to break up the airflow around the tube, slots in the forks kamm tail tube shapes (these are airfoil tubes with a truncated tail, which tricks the air into acting as if the trail wasn't truncated).
Aero bikes present a whole set of unique design challenges but that makes them interesting to design. I still remember when I first sat down with our frame designers. We had just finalised the design of our "SL" bike (which will be around 690g in a 53cm size) and in my ignorance I just said "Ok now do me an aero one that weighs about the same". Once they had spat their coffee out and stopped laughing at me, they just said it was "impossibile". The tube shapes don't allow you to reduce the weight of the frame to those levels.
This is why you will often see pro teams using aero bikes on the flat stages and light bikes on the mountain stages. (Ridley generally use the Noah Fast on the flat and the helium in the mountains).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mambo said:


> Here's some food for thought. We will be sending out a detailed questionnaire to our customers. The most important question is. "What would you change about your current bike?" This is a question most people should be asking themselves before handing their hard-earned over. Any bike you purchase should hopefully resolve those issues.


This is gonna depends a bit on the age group and type of rider. But I suspect most will say "fit" as #1. Then the "racing" folks will say "stiffness", whereas the century folks will say "comfort". 

Personally, I would say fit, geo, comfort for a touring/weekend bike. And fit, geo, stiffness for a purely racing bike. I don't believe there's a do-it-all bike, because a do-it-all bike is good at nothing. Stiffness is usually not a hard thing for a framebuilder to make for a person like me who rides xs frame though. But,.. when I'm raging 5 W/kg in the big ring up a hill using low cadence, I can definitely feel the flex in my ti frame even in size xs.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

mambo said:


> The most important question is. "What would you change about your current bike?"


The rider?


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

mambo said:


> Even if it were an 'SL' type frame it would still be safe. Scott make decent bikes. I know several riders who are very happy with their Scott Foils and I also know the aero designer who used to be an aerodynamicist at the Red Bull F1 team and knows a thing or two about aero design as well as being a keen cyclist himself!
> 
> Aero bikes: Are bikes that are designed to cut through the air more cleanly, allowing you to ride faster. The front profile of the frame will be designed for this and the frame tubes are designed to smooth the airflow. They may have other features, such brakes hidden from the wind (behind the forks, underneath the chainstays, incorporated into the frame and forks) strips on the down tube to break up the airflow around the tube, slots in the forks kamm tail tube shapes (these are airfoil tubes with a truncated tail, which tricks the air into acting as if the trail wasn't truncated).
> Aero bikes present a whole set of unique design challenges but that makes them interesting to design. I still remember when I first sat down with our frame designers. We had just finalised the design of our "SL" bike (which will be around 690g in a 53cm size) and in my ignorance I just said "Ok now do me an aero one that weighs about the same". Once they had spat their coffee out and stopped laughing at me, they just said it was "impossibile". The tube shapes don't allow you to reduce the weight of the frame to those levels.
> This is why you will often see pro teams using aero bikes on the flat stages and light bikes on the mountain stages. (Ridley generally use the Noah Fast on the flat and the helium in the mountains).


This is great to know, thanks so much! 



LVbob said:


> You're over-thinking this. Enjoy your new bike. If something happens you can test the language of the warranty. Scott will, no doubt, at least offer a crash-replacement frame (well, not if you sue).


I appreciate the post, and for the record, I have absolutely not stopped enjoying my new bike, particularly while riding it. But bear in mind that this is a forum, so here is where I come to express those niggling doubts I have while reading a thread like this that gives a ton of information about why the bike I longed for and spent the price of a low end used car on might just explode from carbon fiber into carbon fiber*s* and possibly send me flying head first into the car in the opposing lane coming at me at 50 miles per hour. Like I said, am have gone riding every day since I bought the bike (even managed to beat the rain today on a short ride) and am absolutely enjoying it. But when I read things like that, since this is a forum, I will ask questions, click on links, Google the topic, and discuss it at length. Honestly? What else am I going to do here other than read threads about stuff way above my knowledge base, which I do as well. 

I think some people forget that this is a text based medium, so pretty much all we have is words. No body language, inflection, tonal qualities to help you tell the difference between me asking a bunch of questions out of intellectual curiosity and a healthy amount of concern verses actually being on the verge of panic. lol


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

I think that sometimes those of us who have been into cycling for a long time can easily forget how daunting and confusing the wealth of information out there can be to a newbie.

There used to be a time when your LBS and a few experienced riders were your only source of real world information. You just sort of went along with their version of the "gospel".

Some bike shops can be very haughty or offhand (especially in the UK for some reason) in the way they deal with beginners and certainly, I would have expected the salesman - if there was one - to have explained that the Scott Foil was an aero bike and a little more info. Judging from the number of ill fitting bikes I see around, many bike shops still don't seem to have a clue about measuring up clients for a bike either.

Recently I have seen beginners asking perfectly valid questions on the forum and for some reason being flamed. 

I just don't get it....


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Aren't most airplanes built from carbon? I don't hear much on them exploding mid-flight due to material failure.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

ChiroVette said:


> I appreciate the post, and for the record, I have absolutely not stopped enjoying my new bike, particularly while riding it. But bear in mind that this is a forum, so here is where I come to express those niggling doubts I have while reading a thread like this that gives a ton of information about why the bike I longed for and spent the price of a low end used car on might just explode from carbon fiber into carbon fiber*s* and possibly send me flying head first into the car in the opposing lane coming at me at 50 miles per hour. Like I said, am have gone riding every day since I bought the bike (even managed to beat the rain today on a short ride) and am absolutely enjoying it. But when I read things like that, since this is a forum, I will ask questions, click on links, Google the topic, and discuss it at length. Honestly? What else am I going to do here other than read threads about stuff way above my knowledge base, which I do as well.
> 
> I think some people forget that this is a text based medium, so pretty much all we have is words. No body language, inflection, tonal qualities to help you tell the difference between me asking a bunch of questions out of intellectual curiosity and a healthy amount of concern verses actually being on the verge of panic. lol


I understand your concern. I am a new rider (all of six weeks since I was a kid) riding a carbon frame that I've crashed. I checked it out, the LBS checked it out but no one can really say, for sure, that the frame is not damaged without having it X-rayed. I can either let the possibility that the frame might explode at the next moment or I can enjoy my bike.

Just my perspective.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

A new cyclist, or a rider getting back on a bike after decades of not riding...and perhaps a rider new to clipless pedals might be wise to buy a frame made of a material resistant to damage in a "crash" (or fall).

If it were me in this scenario, I'd buy a titanium frame equipped with aluminum bars and either a carbon or aluminum seat post, and I definitely wouldn't buy a carbon frame...simply because of the anxiety of wondering if the frame had been damaged (which it likely it hadn't been, but why deal with the angst?).


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

tvad said:


> A new cyclist, or a rider getting back on a bike after decades of not riding...and perhaps a rider new to clipless pedals might be wise to buy a frame made of a material resistant to damage in a "crash" (or fall).
> 
> If it were me in this scenario, I'd buy a titanium frame equipped with aluminum bars and either a carbon or aluminum seat post, and I definitely wouldn't buy a carbon frame...simply because of the anxiety of wondering if the frame had been damaged (which it likely it hadn't been, but why deal with the angst?).


Ortho told me to get a carbon frame because I have spinal issues. It's done and I enjoy my bike. The bike is insured for crashes so I don't sweat it.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

LVbob said:


> Ortho told me to get a carbon frame because I have spinal issues. It's done and I enjoy my bike. The bike is insured for crashes so I don't sweat it.


Understood. My comment wasn't really pointed at you, although your post did trigger the thought regarding carbon frames for new, novice, or "re-discovering riding" riders.

Enjoy.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

LVbob said:


> I understand your concern. I am a new rider (all of six weeks since I was a kid) riding a carbon frame that I've crashed. I checked it out, the LBS checked it out but no one can really say, for sure, that the frame is not damaged without having it X-rayed. I can either let the possibility that the frame might explode at the next moment or I can enjoy my bike.
> 
> Just my perspective.


And a valid one. Just to repeat, I am not obsessing about this so much as talking about it on the forum, asking questions, and responding to posts like yours, which are thoughtfully crafted, and which I appreciate, by the way. 

When I am on the bike, I am enjoying the crisp, almost-summer air and the aesthetics of the bike, not wringing my hands at every block terrified that something will just explode into carbon bits. lol

By the way, I am a chiropractor and I have an X-Ray machine in my office. So if you are in the NY City area, the office is in Midtown Manhattan, and I would gladly X-Ray your bike free of charge.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Camilo said:


> so just so I understand, you think carbon fiber has a tenancy to fail and possess a significant danger that should actually be worried about by bike riders?





mambo said:


> No. I think it is clear from the comments in this thread. ...


Thanks for clarifying - but it's strange - that's exactly what I said - that there is no "tendency" to fail and that it is nothing to actually worry about as actual failures of any material are rare.

But you said I was deluding myself if I thought that. I thought that was pretty harsh comments for a civil discussion. But you seem to agree with me, so we'll have to enjoy a mutual delusion. Or maybe you didn't actually read or understand the point of my comments. That's OK, we all make mistakes.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ChiroVette said:


> And a valid one. Just to repeat, I am not obsessing about this so much as talking about it on the forum, asking questions, and responding to posts like yours, which are thoughtfully crafted, and which I appreciate, by the way.
> 
> When I am on the bike, I am enjoying the crisp, almost-summer air and the aesthetics of the bike, not wringing my hands at every block terrified that something will just explode into carbon bits. lol
> 
> By the way, I am a chiropractor and I have an X-Ray machine in my office. So if you are in the NY City area, the office is in Midtown Manhattan, and *I would gladly X-Ray your bike free of charge*.


hey can you xray your bike and what it'll show? i'm curious now


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> hey can you xray your bike and what it'll show? i'm curious now


I don't usually bike to work because the new office is a little on the small side. With my other bike, I used to lock the frame and wheels on the street and take all the accessories off and toss 'em in a knapsack becuause bikes weren't allowed in the building, oddly enough. But this office is smaller andeven though bikes are allowed in the building I presume, I would stil have to lock the bike on the street for the day, which I am willing to do with my older bike and not the newer one. 

I could totally bring a bike upstairs to the office (we are on the 9th floor) for quick X-Ray, but to leave it there all day would get a little tight, so bringing the new bike into work is not going to happen, unless I can find space to leave in the office it while I work. 

Ha! can you imagine me leaving the new bike locked to a midtown pole only to come back ten hours later and find the lock attached to what's left of a frame that was stripped to the bones? lol


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

ChiroVette said:


> I don't usually bike to work because the new office is a little on the small side. With my other bike, I used to lock the frame and wheels on the street and take all the accessories off and toss 'em in a knapsack becuause bikes weren't allowed in the building, oddly enough. But this office is smaller andeven though bikes are allowed in the building I presume, I would stil have to lock the bike on the street for the day, which I am willing to do with my older bike and not the newer one.
> 
> I could totally bring a bike upstairs to the office (we are on the 9th floor) for quick X-Ray, but to leave it there all day would get a little tight, so bringing the new bike into work is not going to happen, unless I can find space to leave in the office it while I work.
> 
> Ha! can you imagine me leaving the new bike locked to a midtown pole only to come back ten hours later and find the lock attached to what's left of a frame that was stripped to the bones? lol


They would probably find a way to take the frame too.


----------



## ChiroVette (Jun 7, 2014)

LVbob said:


> They would probably find a way to take the frame too.


lol Yeah, all you need is a large bolt cutter! You know something? There are guys who walk around Manhattan with these baseball bat sized bolt cutters literally slung onto their shoulders. They walk the streets completely un-accosted by the police because right up until the moment they cut through some poor shmuck's chain or lock and rode off with their bike to sell to someone they technically haven't broken any laws.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Pg. 76

http://media.cannondale.com/media/Manuals/14_Cannondale_Owners_Manual.pdf

Cannondale owners manual seems to indicate that there is at least some cause for reasoned concern, they even include, "you are trading weight for longevity" in the section.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

^^That Cannondale Owner's Manual contains some helpful and reasoned information.


----------

