# Colnagos asplode ? ... not



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I feel safer now


----------



## Jbartmc (Sep 14, 2007)

That is the benefit of a heavier frame, in addition to style, comfort and performance. Save grams elsewhere.


----------



## fxx (Aug 17, 2010)

But seriously, are they still rideable?


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

fxx said:


> But seriously, are they still rideable?


Have you ever ridden a Colnago?

Maybe I am not understanding your question. Do you think they are not rideable because they weigh a little more than other frames? Or, are you talking about that specific frame in the video still being rideable after taking that kind of abuse?

With any carbon frame, they say you should get it x-rayed or MRI'ed after a collision of any sort. That is why my carbon frames stay home on race day.


----------



## fxx (Aug 17, 2010)

What I meant was these sorts of videos on CF impact testing are everywhere, Storck has a similar video, the CF frames and forks may not appear to break on impact, but are they actually ok?. ie. Able to be put through their natural fatigue life cycles? Or are they actually compromised?

I would like to see a video, followed by the frame being put through a fatigue testing rig straight after the impact and going the 150 - 200k stress cycles.

No point if they are actually throwing away the frame off video, after conducting the impact test.


----------



## strathconaman (Jul 3, 2003)

Actually I am OK with the frame going in the garbage after this. If you had an impact like this with a steel bike (known for their anti-asplodablility) you would probably end up with a bent fork and ripples on the downtube and top tube. So carbon isn't much different, only lighter.


----------



## BikeNerd2453 (Jul 4, 2005)

That's EN-R impact test, all of the bikes on the market, at least any of them that want to be sold in Europe, pass that test.
Still not sure I'd ride it afterwards though!


----------



## fxx (Aug 17, 2010)

strathconaman said:


> Actually I am OK with the frame going in the garbage after this. If you had an impact like this with a steel bike (known for their anti-asplodablility) you would probably end up with a bent fork and ripples on the downtube and top tube. So carbon isn't much different, only lighter.


But you would not have to bin the steel frame and fork, a few ripples or even a bent fork can still be ridden like nothing happened.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

A carbon tube's yield strength is similar to most metals used in frame construction. However, it's deformation limit is orders of magnitude higher. What that means is that for a given stress, a carbon frame is far less likely to be permanantly deformed since it can bend and rebound over a far greater distance (thought the deformation limit tends to be catastrophic i.e. it assplodes).

The test shown here is trivial for any properly constructed CF unit. What kills CF is point failure. A metal's strength is defined at the atomic and grain level. If some portion of a metal structure is compromised (say you were to drill a hole in it), the remaining material is not nesessarily "aware" of the damage. With CF, the material is a fabric. Strength comes almost entirely from the *form* of the material. If the form is compromised in any way, a catastrophic failure will result at some point.

As long as the CF frame material is properly constructed, it will not assplode. What happens in most cases is that the general riding public (including MTB'ers, which is insane IMO) is being served a diet of CF and are treating/caring for it like aluminum.

The reason Colnago's don't assplode is that those who buy them tend to treat them with 
respect and have some understanding of the limitations of the material.

/end rant


----------

