# High-modulus vs intermediate modulus carbon frame



## albi007 (Apr 14, 2012)

Is there an effecient way to know wich type of carbon (high vs intermediate modulus) a bike frame is made of? On recent custom build I'm not sure I got the quality paid for... A potentially unhappy cyclist ...


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

The high modulus will be more vertically compliant and laterally stiff than the low modulus...

Seriously, I don't think there is any way to tell without having two otherwise identical bikes, and even then it probably would take instrumented measurement rather than seat-of-the-pants to discern the difference considering that the difference between drastically different frame materials can be difficult to discern at times. What attributes or benefit do you feel accrue from the use of high modulus CF? Does your bike exhibit those? Could you even tell? 

On the other hand, it may be possible to take a very small sample of the material and have it analyzed, though I don't know how easily it would yield to analysis. It's probably not something done routinely and the cost would likely be prohibitive, and possibly inconclusive.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

albi007 said:


> Is there an effecient way to know wich type of carbon (high vs intermediate modulus) a bike frame is made of? On recent custom build I'm not sure I got the quality paid for... A potentially unhappy cyclist ...


Bike frames are made of a combination of both. These are the things that affect stiffness, ride quality, and weight.

In all fairness though, if you are going to get a custom frame, you should have asked those questions BEFORE you purchased.


----------



## albi007 (Apr 14, 2012)

It is tandem that we ordered en December, the project is 2 months late. The cotation was for the high end full carbon frame (for NOW I will not give the compagny name). After two weeks asking for pictures we had one, but the sticker on the frame is the one for the mid-range frame. We specifically asked for high-modulus and paid for that. Now the picture shows that the frame is the mid-range (intermediate modulus) carbon fiber. "Sticker" error from the mechanics they said... I'm trying to put some pressure on the rep and I want to have some credible argument about the quality of carbon that we're going to have...


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

albi007 said:


> I'm trying to put some pressure on the rep and I want to have some credible argument about the quality of carbon that we're going to have...


Agree that you should get the exact frame you asked for. But I'm not sure if carbon fiber modulus has a direct bearing on the quality of a bike frame. The term is used often by marketing writers who may not know what it really means. To present a credible argument, I'd do some research on what "modulus" means in this context and how it relates or doesn't relate to the quality of a bike frame. Full disclosure: I have no idea how modulus relates to quality in this context.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

albi007 said:


> It is tandem that we ordered en December, the project is 2 months late. The cotation was for the high end full carbon frame (for NOW I will not give the compagny name). After two weeks asking for pictures we had one, but the sticker on the frame is the one for the mid-range frame. We specifically asked for high-modulus and paid for that. Now the picture shows that the frame is the mid-range (intermediate modulus) carbon fiber. "Sticker" error from the mechanics they said... I'm trying to put some pressure on the rep and I want to have some credible argument about the quality of carbon that we're going to have...


My guess would be that you're talking about the Calfee Dragonfly vs. Tetra tandems. 

Just have them weigh the frame. You can tell the weight difference between the two.

As wim said, this isn't a question of "quality". It's about ride characteristics and weight. You pay more for the lighter carbon, but keep in mind that your bike will be made of a combination of both high and intermediate modulus fibers.


----------



## albi007 (Apr 14, 2012)

You got the right names here ! My wife and I both ride hi-mod Cannondale frames. We ride hard and fast and want to have precise handling with maximum confort for the stroker.

After a long research the two final tandems were a Dragonfly or a Paketa to replace our old Burley alu frame tandem. The plan was to have the Dragonfly for early springs, for now we have a long list of excuses explaining the delays (sounds like my teenagers !!). After many request we finally had a picture of the rig: with a Tetra sticker on it... The rep said that we have a Dragonfly and there was a sticker "mistake" by one of there staff. Should I believe them ? Don't want to regret not going for Paketa...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

PaxRomana said:


> My guess would be that you're talking about the Calfee Dragonfly vs. Tetra tandems.
> 
> Just have them weigh the frame. You can tell the weight difference between the two.
> 
> As wim said, this isn't a question of "quality". It's about ride characteristics and weight. You pay more for the lighter carbon, but keep in mind that your bike will be made of a combination of both high and intermediate modulus fibers.


That's not accurate; if it is the dragonfly tandem, it's built entirely with 66 msi carbon fiber. There's no intermediate modulus materials in that frame. If I were paying over 7k for a tandem frame, I'd want absolute guarantees that it was the right material (especially since you're paying 2k more for it over the other model). I'd want to see it hanging from a scale and an absolutely clear demonstration that it is in the range of 250 grams lighter than the corresponding model. And of course it is a question of quality. That's the whole point of grading CF


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

IMO, using high modulus carbon is marketing hype generated by bike companies to distinguish their frames vs others. Also, the weight of the frame is almost entirely driven by the amount of epoxy remaining in the frame, not the modulus of the fabric. Making a frame lighter is largely about eliminating any excess epoxy, not optimizing the fabric. The design of the frame and shape of the tubes is what drives ride quality and stiffness. If you're not happy with the frame, it's because of these two characteristics, not the carbon's modulus.

Sidenote: lower modulus carbon is generally much stronger than higher modulus carbon. Bike manufacturers generally use almost entirely intermediate modulus fabric to make the frames stronger and perhaps mix in a little higher modulus stuff so that they can put a decal on the frame.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

stevesbike said:


> That's not accurate; if it is the dragonfly tandem, it's built entirely with 66 msi carbon fiber. There's no intermediate modulus materials in that frame. If I were paying over 7k for a tandem frame, I'd want absolute guarantees that it was the right material (especially since you're paying 2k more for it over the other model). I'd want to see it hanging from a scale and an absolutely clear demonstration that it is in the range of 250 grams lighter than the corresponding model. And of course it is a question of quality. That's the whole point of grading CF


Well, the Dragonfly is built with 66msi and boron fibers. They apparently use boron fibers instead of intermediate mod. Building a bike just from 66msi fiber would result in a relatively brittle and easily cracked frame. Does that mean it's high-quality? Of course not. The quality lies in the combination of the materials into the end product.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Calfee is good, trustworthy company. If they make a mistake, they fix it. They absolutely do not swindle their customers. We were a Calfee dealer for many years.

It is a lot more likely that an entry level sticker worker made a mistake than the company used the wrong materials to make your bike.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

PaxRomana said:


> Well, the Dragonfly is built with 66msi and boron fibers. They apparently use boron fibers instead of intermediate mod. Building a bike just from 66msi fiber would result in a relatively brittle and easily cracked frame. Does that mean it's high-quality? Of course not. The quality lies in the combination of the materials into the end product.


that's not accurate - the solution to using high mod CF is not to somehow mix it with intermediate fibers. The solution lies in the resin binders. Hy-Bor (the boron material Calfee uses) is used as a reinforcement in the resin matrix (it is also a high modulus material = 58 msi). There are many frames made exclusively from high modulus CF (e.g., M40) with appropriate resin formulations (nanotubes, Toray's nanoalloy etc). If I were paying over 7k for a frame, I'd want to make sure I was getting exactly what I ordered - something using nasa-like technology. +1 re Calfee comment from Kontact.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Pay them the price of the Tetra instead of the Dragonfly and explain that there was a "check -writing mistake" by your accounting staff.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

stevesbike said:


> that's not accurate - the solution to using high mod CF is not to somehow mix it with intermediate fibers. The solution lies in the resin binders. Hy-Bor (the boron material Calfee uses) is used as a reinforcement in the resin matrix (it is also a high modulus material = 58 msi). There are many frames made exclusively from high modulus CF (e.g., M40) with appropriate resin formulations (nanotubes, Toray's nanoalloy etc). If I were paying over 7k for a frame, I'd want to make sure I was getting exactly what I ordered - something using nasa-like technology. +1 re Calfee comment from Kontact.


Nasa-like technology? LOL. "nano-" is just a marketing term. You know what Toray calls "nano-alloy"? Impact-resistant plastic. That doesn't sell bikes though. Nanoalloy does.

Please stop with the nonsense. Every company has access to the same stuff. It's not the materials, it's the workmanship that makes the quality. What makes Calfee special is their work, not the materials.

Here is what Cervelo says about the "myth of modulus":


> The easy answer is this: We use all kinds of fibers in every frame we make.
> 
> The answer most people are looking for is far too complicated to sum up in a frame sticker or fancy marketing name. Whereas the term high modulus has become a symbol for the idea of ‘light and stiff’, it fails to address other important characteristics like, ‘strength and comfort’.


Ask the Engineers - News - The myth of modulus - Cervélo


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

PaxRomana said:


> Nasa-like technology? LOL. "nano-" is just a marketing term. You know what Toray calls "nano-alloy"? Impact-resistant plastic. That doesn't sell bikes though. Nanoalloy does.
> 
> Please stop with the nonsense. Every company has access to the same stuff. It's not the materials, it's the workmanship that makes the quality. What makes Calfee special is their work, not the materials.
> 
> ...


I said NASA because a friend of mine works on the development of this technology at NASA's Langley Research Center. The development of Boron fiber technology comes from there and aerospace industry. And yes, materials science involves nanotechnology/nanoscale structures. And yes, it is applied to bike frame technology. The nanoalloy polymers Toray developed utlizes nanoparticles (they are in the range of 20nm). There is nothing fake about the name applied to this technology. 

It's just not true that materials don't play a central role in determining frame quality/characteristics. It is the combination of workmanships and materials that make quality - why do you think Calfee uses such expensive and high grade materials? I wonder what grade CF Cervelo uses in their R5CA - I'm betting all high modulus. How else do you make a sub-700 gram frame that is 25% stiffer than an R3? 

You're missing the bigger point: the OP paid for an expensive, exotic frame. The cost is due, in part, to the cost of the materials. It is ridiculous to suppose those materials don't play a role in determining the quality of the frame.


----------



## Longhair-NL (Mar 31, 2012)

albi007 said:


> You got the right names here ! My wife and I both ride hi-mod Cannondale frames. We ride hard and fast and want to have precise handling with maximum confort for the stroker.
> 
> After a long research the two final tandems were a Dragonfly or a Paketa to replace our old Burley alu frame tandem. The plan was to have the Dragonfly for early springs, for now we have a long list of excuses explaining the delays (sounds like my teenagers !!). After many request we finally had a picture of the rig: with a Tetra sticker on it... The rep said that we have a Dragonfly and there was a sticker "mistake" by one of there staff. Should I believe them ? Don't want to regret not going for Paketa...


If you are not happy now, then chances are you are not going to be happy when the thing arrives.

Get your money back and chalk it up to a learning experience.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

stevesbike said:


> I said NASA because a friend of mine works on the development of this technology at NASA's Langley Research Center. The development of Boron fiber technology comes from there and aerospace industry. And yes, materials science involves nanotechnology/nanoscale structures. And yes, it is applied to bike frame technology. The nanoalloy polymers Toray developed utlizes nanoparticles (they are in the range of 20nm). There is nothing fake about the name applied to this technology.
> 
> It's just not true that materials don't play a central role in determining frame quality/characteristics. It is the combination of workmanships and materials that make quality - why do you think Calfee uses such expensive and high grade materials? I wonder what grade CF Cervelo uses in their R5CA - I'm betting all high modulus. How else do you make a sub-700 gram frame that is 25% stiffer than an R3?
> 
> You're missing the bigger point: the OP paid for an expensive, exotic frame. The cost is due, in part, to the cost of the materials. It is ridiculous to suppose those materials don't play a role in determining the quality of the frame.


You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying. First, of course the quality of the carbon plays a role in the cost. Hi mod is much more expensive. What you don't seem to realize is that frames are not just made of very high modulus fibers because they are too brittle. 

Since you asked about the R5Ca, here is the info:



> Although the exact layup of the R5ca frame is proprietary, Guichard says the fiber architecture, for the most part, is carbon/epoxy prepreg, typically 80 g/m2, made with 6K MR60 intermediate-modulus carbon fiber supplied by Newport Adhesives and Composites Inc. (Irvine, Calif.). Newport also supplies HR40 high-modulus fiber for certain areas of the frame.


Cervelo solidifies their dominance in composite technology « Venture Sports

This is what I am trying to explain to you. Some parts of the frame are high-mod, some are intermediate mod. Moreover, without stating the Young's Modulus, hi-mod can be misleading. Do you now think the R5CA is any worse because it uses intermediate mod fibers?

Seriously stop with the nano stuff. It's just not that fancy when we're taking about carbon. It's marketing. Nothing really much more than that. You're buying into it for no reason.

I'm not debating whether the OP should get the model for which he paid. Of course he should. However, this talk about "high-mod", etc., etc. is mostly marketing crap. Do you know what separates hi-mod from medium-mod? Ultra high from high? 

Don't buy into the marketing stuff. That's my main point.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

not only lighter, but thinner, which will make the bike feel more "alive" instead of dead, lifeless, and heavy..
i have ridden and owned both types and will always go for at least intermediate to high.
just my lousy 2 cents...


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

I would agree that "nano" is a misapplied buzz word. Lot's of materials exist in nano-scale particles, but that doesn't mean that any sort of nanotechnological engineering was required to produce them. You can pulverize graphite with stone age level tech to "nano" scale.

The higher the modulus, the more brittle the fibers. Higher mod fibers are those that are essentially baked longer, forcing the impurities that make the fibers flexible out. With that flexibility gone, you have to make up for it by using other materials. Whether that's some sort of filler in the epoxy, lower mod fibers or some other material like boron, you have to add something to make up for what was taken away from the fibers or the resulting bike will act like a piece of glass. It is similar to the problem of making a knife blade too hard - it will work great for cutting, but have no durability.

Boron composites are used in aerospace - they pre-date carbon fiber by several years. They're pretty neat-o, but only for straight tubing. You can't bend boron fibers like carbon cloth. FYI, Klein was using boron in the '80s.


Overall, lay-up and shape matters the most, as can be clearly seen by the R5CA.

Don't believe anyone who tells you that frame design centers on any one particular factor. In the case of high modulus bikes, I would mainly view that as a limitation: With that sort of rigidity, making anything but a harshly stiff bike would be very difficult. Super light steel and ti bikes have the same problem - you can only get rid of that much material by oversizing everything to prevent any sort of damaging flex to thin, brittle tube walls.

Anyway, most "high modulus" carbon fiber advertised isn't. It's medium.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

PaxRomana said:


> You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying. First, of course the quality of the carbon plays a role in the cost. Hi mod is much more expensive. What you don't seem to realize is that frames are not just made of very high modulus fibers because they are too brittle.
> 
> Since you asked about the R5Ca, here is the info:
> 
> ...


Craig Calfee on the dragonfly: "We use high modulus carbon fiber (66msi) in all the tubes as well as the lug areas." 

My point is that you keep saying the frame (dragonfly) in question is a mix of intermediate and high CF and that is not true. It is all high modulus CF. The resin is reinforced with Boron, which itself has a high modulus. A high modulus CF is 55 msi and higher. There is no intermediate modulus CF in the frame. I have no idea what the modulus of the Newport CF is. Yes, the iteration of frame design will be to use successively higher modulus materials with evolving resin formulations. 

Re nanotechnology and materials science, I have no idea what justifies your description of it as marketing crap. If a technology utilizes structural materials that have been engineered at the nano scale - like those from Xyvex Technologies etc.or the nanoalloys from Toray, then they use nanotechnology. Maybe consumers don't know what that means, but it's just wrong to call it marketing crap.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

stevesbike said:


> Craig Calfee on the dragonfly: "We use high modulus carbon fiber (66msi) in all the tubes as well as the lug areas."
> 
> My point is that you keep saying the frame (dragonfly) in question is a mix of intermediate and high CF and that is not true. It is all high modulus CF. The resin is reinforced with Boron, which itself has a high modulus. A high modulus CF is 55 msi and higher. There is no intermediate modulus CF in the frame. I have no idea what the modulus of the Newport CF is. Yes, the iteration of frame design will be to use successively higher modulus materials with evolving resin formulations.
> 
> Re nanotechnology and materials science, I have no idea what justifies your description of it as marketing crap. If a technology utilizes structural materials that have been engineered at the nano scale - like those from Xyvex Technologies etc.or the nanoalloys from Toray, then they use nanotechnology. Maybe consumers don't know what that means, but it's just wrong to call it marketing crap.


 You're clearly hanging on to a single point that the Dragonfly is 100% high modulus, since I've explained to you that a "hi-mod" bike is not 100% hi-mod carbon. Something is added, whether it be intermediate-mod carbon or boron. 

I've explained to you what the R5CA contains. The Dragonfly has a mix of hi-mod and boron. All hi-mod would be too brittle. They have to add something in there. They obtain this combination directly from Enve. Of course they use hi-mod carbon but it's mixed with boron.

The nanotechnology stuff is marketing bs. Ask most riders what that means and they'll give you a blank stare. But, they'll pay extra for it.

BTW, good info, Kontact. I didn't know the straight-tube issue with boron.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

PaxRomana said:


> You're clearly hanging on to a single point that the Dragonfly is 100% high modulus, since I've explained to you that a "hi-mod" bike is not 100% hi-mod carbon. Something is added, whether it be intermediate-mod carbon or boron.
> 
> I've explained to you what the R5CA contains. The Dragonfly has a mix of hi-mod and boron. All hi-mod would be too brittle. They have to add something in there. They obtain this combination directly from Enve. Of course they use hi-mod carbon but it's mixed with boron.
> 
> ...


this is not correct. As I have repeatedly stated, the Boron is part of the resin matrix. That is the solution for using all high modulus CF. You also keep missing the point that the Boron fibers in the resin matrix are themselves high modulus. THERE ARE NO INTERMEDIATE FIBERS IN THE FRAME. An alternative is to use carbon nanotubes or the nanoalloys used in the Pinarello Dogma, which appears to be all 60msi CF. There is no intermediate CF in these frames. The Xenith SL uses all M40, which is also high modulus. 

What cyclists know about nanotechnology has no bearing on whether it is really nanotechnology or not. Calling it BS reveals an equal lack of understanding.


----------



## albi007 (Apr 14, 2012)

Thank you all for this very interesting- and entertaining- display of knowlege on carbon fiber. I though I have done my homework well before the purchase, I'll go sleeping more "intelligent" tonight. The point is in the discussion with the rep at Calfee he said that we should go on buying a Dragonfly- hi-mod (witch is 2000 $ more than a Tetra intermediate-mod).

We are 2 months late in the project, witch started in September. Delivery was expected mid-Feb... Then we finally get this picture with the Tetra sticker on it... Now I have to believe someone 5000 km from home (who have all kind of excuses for the delays) that it is only a sticker issue.

Really I think we have a broken trust link here. I think there is no practical way to differentiate high versus intermediate mod carbon fiber on a standing bike (right?). The only way would be to see the resquest and see the billing done at Even.

On the other hand would Calfee (wich I think have a good reputation) gamble it's reputation on a 2000 $ issue in these days of global information ans social media... I have the billing order for a Dragonfly -2 months late- and a picture with a Tetra sticker on it. I think next week will be ponctuated with interesting phone calls and e-mails exange...


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

stevesbike said:


> this is not correct. As I have repeatedly stated, the Boron is part of the resin matrix. That is the solution for using all high modulus CF. You also keep missing the point that the Boron fibers in the resin matrix are themselves high modulus. THERE ARE NO INTERMEDIATE FIBERS IN THE FRAME. An alternative is to use carbon nanotubes or the nanoalloys used in the Pinarello Dogma, which appears to be all 60msi CF. There is no intermediate CF in these frames. The Xenith SL uses all M40, which is also high modulus.
> 
> What cyclists know about nanotechnology has no bearing on whether it is really nanotechnology or not. Calling it BS reveals an equal lack of understanding.


Huh? The Pinarello Dogma is all 60msi CF? What are you talking about? They source their carbon from Toray. Where do you see 60 msi carbon on Toray's product list? The M60J? It's not 60mod. 

Look, let's make this simple. You believe whatever you want to believe. You want to believe the entire bike is hi-mod? Awesome. You do that.

Here is someone else telling you exactly what I have been telling you. The hi-mod stuff is a lie. You are now arguing against not only me, but Cervelo, Bicycling, etc.



> The bike industry delights in using terms like "high modulus" or even "ultra-high modulus" to describe fiber content. But not only is that a lie (most frames use standard and intermediate modulus fiber) but you wouldn't want a frame made of entirely high-modulus fibers.


Bicycling Carbon Fiber Bike Feature: The High-Modulus Carbon Myth - bicycling.com


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

stevesbike said:


> Craig Calfee on the dragonfly: "We use high modulus carbon fiber (66msi) in all the tubes as well as the lug areas."
> 
> My point is that you keep saying the frame (dragonfly) in question is a mix of intermediate and high CF and that is not true. It is all high modulus CF. The resin is reinforced with Boron, which itself has a high modulus. A high modulus CF is 55 msi and higher. There is no intermediate modulus CF in the frame. I have no idea what the modulus of the Newport CF is. Yes, the iteration of frame design will be to use successively higher modulus materials with evolving resin formulations. .


Craig's sentence would support your argument much more strongly if it were worded as below:

"We use ONLY high modulus carbon fiber (66msi) in all the tubes as well as the lug areas." 

The word "only" is conspicuously missing.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> this is not correct. As I have repeatedly stated, the Boron is part of the resin matrix. That is the solution for using all high modulus CF. You also keep missing the point that the Boron fibers in the resin matrix are themselves high modulus. THERE ARE NO INTERMEDIATE FIBERS IN THE FRAME. An alternative is to use carbon nanotubes or the nanoalloys used in the Pinarello Dogma, which appears to be all 60msi CF. There is no intermediate CF in these frames. The Xenith SL uses all M40, which is also high modulus.
> 
> What cyclists know about nanotechnology has no bearing on whether it is really nanotechnology or not. Calling it BS reveals an equal lack of understanding.


Please quote your source for the "boron fibers in the resin" thing.

Here's what Calfee says:


> High modulus (66 Msi and greater) carbon fiber is being used to make stiff yet thin walled tubing. These tubes can be vulnerable to damage from a variety of real world sources. When slightly damaged from a pebble thrown up by a passing car, or an unfortunate event during a group ride or race, a thin walled tube can rapidly degrade to an unsafe condition. Our very popular Calfee Carbon Repair business is evidence of this common failure. Using *boron filaments in the tube laminate mitigates* this problem by significantly enhancing the tubes structural performance.


"Tube laminate", not "resin matrix". Boron has an extremely low density, so boron filaments take up a large volume for very little weight, but are stiff, unlike kevlar reinforced tubing. That volume increases the wall thickness of the tubing to where it doesn't act light bulb glass when struck, but without a weight penalty.

There are CNT impregnated epoxies, but delamination hasn't been an issue with carbon bicycles for a long time, and that's what the Carbon Nano Tubes are there for. They don't do anything to address the beer can problem of too-thin tube walls. And CNTs aren't made of boron. 

Are you thinking of boron-nitride reinforced metal matrix composites?

Calfee does use all high mod in the lugs, but their lugs are 100% supported by the underlying tubes that are mitered so they touch each other inside the lugs, which keeps the lugs from being fragile once assembled.


Calfee actually takes a strong stance against the use high mod carbon on its own, and their construction methods are true to this stance. The Dragonfly is not the world's lightest frame, or even close to. And the really light frames don't have much reputation for durability, because the walls can get so thin - and that's still with a mix of high and medium fibers.

More from Calfee:


> Further processing can yield even higher stiffness fibers by making the fibers smaller and a little denser. These are fairly expensive, brittle and used sparingly. They are known as High Modulus fiber and are in the range of 55 MSI and higher. Many companies refer to 33 and 42 MSI fiber as “High Modulus” because they can’t get sued for false advertising by using this informal term. To understand the real grade of carbon fiber one needs to know the modulus of the fiber.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

albi007 said:


> Thank you all for this very interesting- and entertaining- display of knowlege on carbon fiber. I though I have done my homework well before the purchase, I'll go sleeping more "intelligent" tonight. The point is in the discussion with the rep at Calfee he said that we should go on buying a Dragonfly- hi-mod (witch is 2000 $ more than a Tetra intermediate-mod).
> 
> We are 2 months late in the project, witch started in September. Delivery was expected mid-Feb... Then we finally get this picture with the Tetra sticker on it... Now I have to believe someone 5000 km from home (who have all kind of excuses for the delays) that it is only a sticker issue.
> 
> ...


You really have that much of a trust issue because of a decal? And if the right decal had been put on it would have never occurred to you that we all have to take the word of a builder when they say what kind of tubing it is made out of?

As a mechanic I see an incredible amount of supremely bad engineering on new bikes. I'll take a misplaced sticker over the kind of stupidity I've been seeing on Treks lately.


----------



## albi007 (Apr 14, 2012)

Kontact said:


> You really have that much of a trust issue because of a decal? And if the right decal had been put on it would have never occurred to you that we all have to take the word of a builder when they say what kind of tubing it is made out of?
> 
> As a mechanic I see an incredible amount of supremely bad engineering on new bikes. I'll take a misplaced sticker over the kind of stupidity I've been seeing on Treks lately.


I fully agree with you Kontact, we have to trust the compagny that build our bikes. Shortly (I hope in a few days...) we will be going down the hills at speeds well over 80 k with this rig (with a big smile!). Handling thigh corners just for fun. Pumping up rolling hills. Pushing hard against this crazy spring wind. 

The bike will under a lot of stress load. At the end of the day we just want to go asleep in our bed, not at the hospital ! We want to have the best possible equipement to go around an play under the sun (or rain and even sometimes snown !!)

It is the overall context that bugs me, lots delays... We're from up north Quebec and nobody around us rides a Calfee, they seem to have a good reputation and my wife was very happy about your quote on Calfee's reputation. Anyway looking at the discussion unfolding here I don't think I could have said anything the other way around that is making the difference between high or intermediate modulus carbon regardless of this sticker issue. Would a sticker make any difference on the ride ? certainly not !! We want, as anybody, to get the best ride for the buck: this beeing a Dragonfly, not a Tetra.

Peace on two wheels (with one or more saddle on it !!)


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Please quote your source for the "boron fibers in the resin" thing.
> 
> Here's what Calfee says:
> 
> ...


I see Calfee has a tech paper on it - he does use it the way you mention as an outer ply, although the Boron does act as a reinforcement in a graphite epoxy matrix for its high compressive strength. It is worth noting that Calfee uses this for only the 3 main tubes. The rear triangle is apparently 66 msi high modulus carbon, consistent with its use in other frames in a subset of tubes and in complex layup schedules. My original comment was in response to PaxRomana's misleading statement that the dragonfly uses a mixture of high and intermediate modulus CF. I also thought it was worth mentioning that there are multiple strategies to deal with the trade-off between increasing modulus and decreasing compressive strength. An alternative solution is to utilize various formulations in the resin binder, which is my understanding of what Jamis does with their use of M40. Another is Wilier's use of a viscoelastic material (SEI film) between carbon layers to increase compressive strength in its zero7. Carbon nanotubes can most certainly be used for this purpose (e.g., Sharma & Lakkad, Compressive strength of carbon nanotubes grown on carbon fiber reinforced epoxy matrix multi-scale hybrid composites, Surface and Coatings Technology). My point about the nanotechnology was simply that this is a fast-evolving field with genuine applications to frame design (not marketing BS). I believe Xyvex's Nanosolve contributes these structural properties as well.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> I see Calfee has a tech paper on it - he does use it the way you mention as an outer ply, although the Boron does act as a reinforcement in a graphite epoxy matrix for its high compressive strength. It is worth noting that Calfee uses this for only the 3 main tubes. The rear triangle is apparently 66 msi high modulus carbon, consistent with its use in other frames in a subset of tubes and in complex layup schedules. My original comment was in response to PaxRomana's misleading statement that the dragonfly uses a mixture of high and intermediate modulus CF. I also thought it was worth mentioning that there are multiple strategies to deal with the trade-off between increasing modulus and decreasing compressive strength. An alternative solution is to utilize various formulations in the resin binder, which is my understanding of what Jamis does with their use of M40. Another is Wilier's use of a viscoelastic material (SEI film) between carbon layers to increase compressive strength in its zero7. Carbon nanotubes can most certainly be used for this purpose (e.g., Sharma & Lakkad, Compressive strength of carbon nanotubes grown on carbon fiber reinforced epoxy matrix multi-scale hybrid composites, Surface and Coatings Technology). My point about the nanotechnology was simply that this is a fast-evolving field with genuine applications to frame design (not marketing BS). I believe Xyvex's Nanosolve contributes these structural properties as well.


I don't think Calfee would say that all High Mod tubes are fragile, then make four of the frame tubes out of all High Mod. They say "_We use high modulus carbon fiber (66msi) in all the tubes as well as the lug areas. _" They do not say "all high modulus", because they don't, for the reasons they state.

There are lots of solutions to the high mod fragility problem, including mixing so-called nano elastomers or other springy stuff into the resin, but that isn't the point. Those techniques were invented to make large and heavy aerospace structures much lighter, not to shave 10 grams off a bike frame. The lightest bike frames, like the R5CA, do not use any of those additives, because on the scale of even a 700 gram bike frame, they don't do anything to make the bike better or lighter. 

A 3% improvement in weight doesn't mean much when bicycle frames have bladders and chunks of resin left behind. But a few percent difference in a 20,000 lbs wing is a big deal. Bicycles are not engineered or executed at a level where tiny advantages in modulus actually result in noticeable results.


You can have a famous chef make you a hot dog, but it is still a hot dog. One could execute an absolutely brilliant and light CF frame out of 30msi fabric, but no one is going do that and then advertise it. They will advertise using an unnecessary additive, because even apparently educated bike people will take that at face value and think they are getting a superior product. But the product is the final bike, not the ingredients.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Kontact said:


> I don't think Calfee would say that all High Mod tubes are fragile, then make four of the frame tubes out of all High Mod. They say "_We use high modulus carbon fiber (66msi) in all the tubes as well as the lug areas. _" They do not say "all high modulus", because they don't, for the reasons they state.
> 
> There are lots of solutions to the high mod fragility problem, including mixing so-called nano elastomers or other springy stuff into the resin, but that isn't the point. Those techniques were invented to make large and heavy aerospace structures much lighter, not to shave 10 grams off a bike frame. The lightest bike frames, like the R5CA, do not use any of those additives, because on the scale of even a 700 gram bike frame, they don't do anything to make the bike better or lighter.
> 
> ...


I agree re whether these 'advances' really are improvements - certainly the fact that these frame makers have to make weighted inserts to add to pro frames to meet UCI min weights indicates that the consumer market is driving this. I'm perfectly satisfied with my T800 frame and remember the days of ultra-thin walled aluminum frames that were terrifying to work on because a dropped tool equaled a dinged frame. But I wouldn't bet against seeing a 500 gram frame in the next while and a line up to buy it...


----------



## bytewalls (Feb 14, 2010)

Typically weight and ride quality. With higher modulus you can use less carbon to get the same stiffness so you get a much lighter bike which tends to transmit more road feel. Usually when making an intermediate modulus bike they use more fiber so that the same stiffness is achieved but weight is higher and since there is more material there is more dampening effect. This is why the low modulus bikes typically feel dead. High modulus I think feel a bit harsh which is why most manufacturers use a mix in their top bof, g li e bike to mix weight stiffness and ride quality.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I have to say, this is the first time I have ever heard anyone question Calfee. Heck, Calfee is where most people in the USA send their expensive CF frames when they break.

They have been banking on reputation for many many years. I really don't think this is a company that would be playing games that may jeopardize the value of the brand. 

If the sticker really bothers you, after all that is what everyone you pass on the road will be looking at, then I am sure they have the facilities to take off a layer of resin to apply a new one.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

albi007 said:


> Thank you all for this very interesting- and entertaining- display of knowlege on carbon fiber. I though I have done my homework well before the purchase, I'll go sleeping more "intelligent" tonight. The point is in the discussion with the rep at Calfee he said that we should go on buying a Dragonfly- hi-mod (witch is 2000 $ more than a Tetra intermediate-mod).
> 
> We are 2 months late in the project, witch started in September. Delivery was expected mid-Feb... Then we finally get this picture with the Tetra sticker on it... Now I have to believe someone 5000 km from home (who have all kind of excuses for the delays) that it is only a sticker issue.
> 
> ...


Here's what I would do. First, i'd call and ask to speak personally with the owner or president or highest ranking person you can. Tell them you will cancel your order if you can't. The purpose of the conversation would be to get a personal guarantee that you are getting what you are paying for. Plus some sort of explanation from this person that is credible to you that reassures you that this is the fact.

Maybe you can ask for some sort of build documentation for the frame. Maybe there's some work flow paperwork that traces from the ordered specification, relates to a serial number and describes the work that was actually done on the frame with that serial number. My guess is that there is such work flow/job order whatever you call it paper work. Custom equipment and vehicles (rescue vehicles and boats) that I deal with all have this sort of stuff and if you examine it, it's clear what you have.

But what a stupid mistake to make and if I were them, I'd be offering the above without being asked.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Treks?*



Kontact said:


> You really have that much of a trust issue because of a decal? And if the right decal had been put on it would have never occurred to you that we all have to take the word of a builder when they say what kind of tubing it is made out of?
> 
> As a mechanic I see an incredible amount of supremely bad engineering on new bikes. I'll take a misplaced sticker *over the kind of stupidity I've been seeing on Treks lately*.


What kind of stupidity have you been seeing?


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> What kind of stupidity have you been seeing?


Brake cable stops located on the right causing poor cable angle and a lot of frame rub, internal routing stops that pivot so the front and rear derailleur cables shift each other. There were some others that I just can't remember right now - just poor design on the details.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> What kind of stupidity have you been seeing?


Brake cable stops located on the right causing poor cable angle and a lot of frame rub, internal routing stops that pivot so the front and rear derailleur cables shift each other. There were some others that I just can't remember right now - just poor design on the details.


----------



## zigmeister (Jan 26, 2012)

Too much to this thread to read...but, do you know the exact carbon fiber brand/model sheet number they used?

That will tell you everything. Most common is T700, that is a standard modulas (Toray, Japanese huge company that produces a very large amount of carbon fiber sheets to the cycling industry.) T800 is their medium modulus. MJ and M series are their HM carbon product. It would help to know whose brand and models.

But, if you know the exact carbon sheets used, you can lookup the spec sheets and know exactly what that entails.

There is much more than the fiber sheet though, although critical obviously. How it is laid up, resin, molds etc...so, the carbon sheet material is just part of the formula.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Kontact said:


> Brake cable stops located on the right causing poor cable angle and a lot of frame rub, internal routing stops that pivot so the front and rear derailleur cables shift each other. There were some others that I just can't remember right now - just poor design on the details.


which brake cable stop? you're talking about Madone's, right? the headtube entrance for the brake housing is on the right side of the headtube so the cable crosses the width of the tube on it's way to the exit...this way the cable won't rattle on the inside of the tube. not sure how it's possible you'd get any rub. 
what internal routing stops? which frame are you talking about? normally when a (for example) a front derailleur cable causes some rear derailleur movement it's because the builder didn't install the cables correctly. again, w/ the Madone routing it's very easy to get this right.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> which brake cable stop? you're talking about Madone's, right? the headtube entrance for the brake housing is on the right side of the headtube so the cable crosses the width of the tube on it's way to the exit...this way the cable won't rattle on the inside of the tube. not sure how it's possible you'd get any rub.
> what internal routing stops? which frame are you talking about? normally when a (for example) a front derailleur cable causes some rear derailleur movement it's because the builder didn't install the cables correctly. again, w/ the Madone routing it's very easy to get this right.


The right side stop I'm talking about is on some of the lower Madones with external routing. The stop isn't on the headtube but on the lower right side of the top tube. 

This one:
TrekBikes.com Bike Archive | 2010 Madone 4.5

The internal stop that see-saws on its bolt is on some Speed Concept bikes. Apparently Trek eventually fixed it with a different stop that is held in place by more than one bolt.

Here's a thing about the SC problem:
Official Speed Concept Owners Thread (Page 115): Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Kontact said:


> The right side stop I'm talking about is on some of the lower Madones with external routing. The stop isn't on the headtube but on the lower right side of the top tube.
> 
> This one:
> TrekBikes.com Bike Archive | 2010 Madone 4.5
> ...


got it...yeah, i remember some SC's being a pain, but they seem to be more straight forward now. not necessarily 'difficult' to build, just time consuming. everything seems to work at this point, which is nice


----------



## Bremerradkurier (May 25, 2012)

Be wary about CNT claims-my company does the freight forwarding for a composites supplier in North Carolina that competes with Easton, and my contact there claimed a price around $10K a pound for nanotube fiber a few years ago.

If a bike manufacturer is claiming CNT content, it's probably about the same percentage as pork is in store brand cans of pork & beans.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Bremerradkurier said:


> Be wary about CNT claims-my company does the freight forwarding for a composites supplier in North Carolina that competes with Easton, and my contact there claimed a price around $10K a pound for nanotube fiber a few years ago.
> 
> If a bike manufacturer is claiming CNT content, it's probably about the same percentage as pork is in store brand cans of pork & beans.


^ this is the exact same thing i've heard from engineers at 2 other bicycle companies...both very reputable.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Bremerradkurier said:


> Be wary about CNT claims-my company does the freight forwarding for a composites supplier in North Carolina that competes with Easton, and my contact there claimed a price around $10K a pound for nanotube fiber a few years ago.
> 
> If a bike manufacturer is claiming CNT content, it's probably about the same percentage as pork is in store brand cans of pork & beans.


Well, how many grams of a nano scale material does it take to build a frame? If it is only a gram or two that's $20 to $40 per frame.


I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the economics of using trace amounts of expensive additives is not a big deal.


----------



## Bremerradkurier (May 25, 2012)

Kontact said:


> Well, how many grams of a nano scale material does it take to build a frame? If it is only a gram or two that's $20 to $40 per frame.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the economics of using trace amounts of expensive additives is not a big deal.


At the current time, it's more of a marketing hype thing giving the impression of bleeding edge tech and incredible space elevator like strength, but I'm looking forward to the day CNT gets down under $100 a lb and we have frames weighing about as much as a full beer can.

Of course, at the same time, I can remember cycling material dead ends like Titanal, Beryllium, AerMet, thermoplastic carbon, and the various MMCs.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Bremerradkurier said:


> At the current time, it's more of a marketing hype thing giving the impression of bleeding edge tech and incredible space elevator like strength, but I'm looking forward to the day CNT gets down under $100 a lb and we have frames weighing about as much as a full beer can.
> 
> Of course, at the same time, I can remember cycling material dead ends like Titanal, Beryllium, AerMet, thermoplastic carbon, and the various MMCs.


I recognize that, but I don't think it is worthwhile to make claims about false advertising just because something sounds unlikely.

That's a good list of materials, but keep in mind that while most of them are out of favor, it is mainly because all of them were supplanted by similar, better materials. Aermet steel required post heat treat, while S3 steel doesn't. MMC aluminum went out in favor of Scandium aluminum.

And I don't think the story on thermoplastic carbon is over. And boron seems to be making resurgence.


----------



## thinkbike (Mar 30, 2013)

albi007, how did this all turn out? Did you get your Dragonfly frame? Is it everything you expected? Are you happy with it?


----------

