[Closed] Irrational fear of Carbon?

it must be true if it were ont tinternet..

I've built up a CF 6" AM bike and have no worries at all about it's strength

That is why people often have to limbs amputated after crashes on carbon bikes.

What the **** are you on about? Find me a pro rider (and they've basically all ridden carbon for a number of years) who's had a limb amputated as a direct result of a carbon-related incident.

Those fish that swim up your piss is total rubbish too, urban myth. There are some tools around!

I think BigDummy knows quite a bit about fishing. 😉

Carbon vs ally vs hammer:

Ally comes off looking pretty bad here.

Pro riders have access to better medical facilities and can often get the specialist help they need quickly enough that amputation is not necessary. It's the amateur riders that you need to be worrying about. But the bike manufacturers make [i]huge[/i] payouts to people who lose limbs, or their widows, to buy their silence because the market in carbon fibre bike components is so huge. The Trek Corporation apparently spent nearly 6.3% of its budget on hushing this scandal up in 2003.

Like I say, this may not be true, but it was on the internet. 🙂

[i]Those fish that swim up your piss is total rubbish too, urban myth. There are some tools around![/i]
Maybe you're right, but would you really stick your dick in a jam jar with one of these in and have a piss?

[url]

sootyandjim and dimmadan,

The stiffer stick may feel better/faster, but the evidence shows you can obtain higher puck speeds with the lower modulous sticks. Unless you have papers showing otherwise I give you:

The influence of shaft stiffness on potential energy and puck speed during wrist and slap shots in ice hockey

Journal Sports Engineering

Publisher Springer London
ISSN 1369-7072 (Print) 1460-2687 (Online)
Issue Volume 9, Number 4 / December, 2006
DOI 10.1007/BF02866057
Pages 191-200
Subject Collection Engineering
SpringerLink Date Wednesday, March 26, 2008

J. T. Worobets1 Contact Information, J. C. Fairbairn1 and D. J. Stefanyshyn1
(1) Human Performance Laboratory, The University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, T2N 1N4 Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between hockey stick shaft stiffness and puck speed with mechanical energy considerations during stationary wrist and slap shots. Thirty left-handed pro-model composite hockey sticks, submitted by eleven hockey stick manufacturers, were subjected to a mechanical cantilever bend test to determine the shaft stiffness of each stick. Eight sticks representing the entire spectrum of stiffnesses were then used by five elite male hockey players to perform stationary wrist and slap shots in a laboratory setting. Eight infra-red high-speed digital video cameras were used to capture shaft deformation and puck speed. A second mechanical test then replicated the loading patterns applied to each stick during shooting. Force-deformation data from this test were used to determine the shaft stiffness and potential energy storage and return associated with each stick during shooting. The results of this study suggest that shaft stiffness has an influence on puck speed in wrist but not slap shots. During a wrist shot, a given player should realise higher puck speeds with a stick in which they store increased elastic potential energy in the shaft. In general, flexible sticks were found to store the most energy. However, how the athlete loads the stick has as much influence on puck speed as stick construction. Energy considerations were unable to explain changes in puck speed for the slap shot. For this type of shot it is the athlete and not the equipment influencing puck speed, but the governing mechanisms have yet to be elucidated.

That paper is for ice hockey by the way, no idea how it relates to field hockey but suspect the principle is the same. And if you play with a stick handed own from your dad I suspect your at a different level to the guys we were talking to, we were looking at sticks per game not generations per stick!

What about an irrational love of carbon. And titanium. To be frank, it's almost a fetish.

are you sure the 6.3% was just spent on hushing up carbon s migratory patterns or the fact that in america if another human being farts near you its easier to settle out of court than in.

like for example the average uneducated joe that puts his forks in backwards then goes for a claim...JRA has a completely different meaning over there

Trouble is, carbon shatters on impact, producing shards. If you get the shards embedded in you they are barbed, so they migrate through your bloodstream towards your heart. That is why people often have to limbs amputated after crashes on carbon bikes.

This isnt the first time BigDummy has shown himself to be really funny...tsk tsk

thisisnotaspoon i was refering to field hockey where a plastic vball is struck rather than a puck.

TandemJeremy - Member

Me - I have it. Its the catastrophic failure mode that upsets me. Not just frames but any carbon component. Has no place on a MTB in my book.

*tries to imagine a place that was run according to TJ's book!*

*Shudders*

Blimey has any one actually read these posts befroe commenting on busted carbon

"I walked away from being T-boned by a car. Pity i don't have the pic of the left pedal, it got sheared in two"

"Mou sent me these photos of the broken fork on his Tank Matrix. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but it involved a Toyota"

Yep, seems the majority of failures on there are of lightweight road bikes that have either hit a car, or been involved in some other sort of accident.

I bet a blog site called "busted steel/aluminium would get a bit dull with the sheer amount of broken parts that would fill page after page...

But the bike manufacturers make huge payouts to people who lose limbs, or their widows, to buy their silence because the market in carbon fibre bike components is so huge.

If the risk is so huge why are they making prosthetic limbs from carbon fiber? those people have already lost part of a limb so why are they risking the rest of it and (if we believe you) their life to have a slightly lighter or higher performance prosthetic arm/leg. They are used by disabled athletes who must surely damage them (as we are taliking about a piece of performance sports equipment) so you'd think they would be banned from this area of competition?

That'd be ironic wouldn't it. You've had your legs lopped off because your frame snapped or sommat, then they offer you some carbon legs instead.

Carbon seems to work alright for Oscar Pistorious!

Trek... 6.3%... really? No, I didn't think so!

i think the original post was a scaredy post over on some other forum (mtbr springs to mind)i remember reading it but im sure it was the fact that the ER folks had not removed all the foreign objects from the acccident site an interesting point though is that it could have been any foreign object and just because it happened to be carbon fibre and a bike accident it has become legend

forgot to ask if anyone knows what heart valves are made from

The body is extremely good at expelling foreign matter anyway! When I munched my knee last year there were still bits of gravel 'surfacing' under the scar tissue months later, kept having to dig them out.

A friend of mine fell on a pool cue, which went through his t-shirt and into his armpit. About 18 months later he got a black 'spot' on top of his shoulder, he squeezed it and pulled out the piece of t-shirt that'd be pushed in the bottom. Disgusting, but quite cool!

The whole cf/amputation thing is hushed up in the fishing world too.

Also note that F1 drivers' suits are kevlar to stop any CF piercing the body.

NASA engineers have spent years working on "non barbed" CF in order to get over this issue. No successes so far, and a few of their guys are now amputees after a breakage in the lab and someone accidentally switching the air con into reverse.

thisisnotaspoon - Whilst I've no doubt the science may prove a flexier stick is 'better' the science can't take into account the feel nor do bench tests take into account the real world use of stiffer sticks and whilst my level of experience may be dwarfed by that of the pros (oh and thanks for the particularly condescending way you put it) my limited experience still speaks volumes of the ice hockey scene at large.

Many pros stay with what they were brought up with because it feels right and as I said, thats something that can't be measured and feeling 'right' when you're playing is often far more important than the results of a bench test in a lab. The measurement of your sticks stiffness is the last thing on your mind when you are barreling along the boards looking for someone to lay the puck off.

Those fish that swim up your piss is total rubbish too, urban myth. There are some tools around!

Hmmm...

[url= http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20040616043555%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.internext.com.br%2Furologia%2FCasosclinicos.htm&langpair=pt%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8 ]Do not click if squeamish[/url]

Has anyone tested various sticks in field hockey? I'd be very supprised if the stiffer sticks were the faster ones.

anecdotal evidence abnd feel are uselless in this case, the pro's in the study (and the ones we spoke to) were all convinced that theyr super stiff sticks were the fastest.

cynic-al the problem with the NASA non-barbed carbon fibre, is that it doesn't bond well with the glue, and so tends to fall off the space shuttle. Certainly not enough structural integrity to make a frame out of yet. 🙄

I work in a hospital and I've heard about the CF barbs, not sure if I can dig out stats but I'll have a look.

Mostly from fishing poles in this country.

My friend is an A&E consultant. I think that there's an upcoming conference on the management of Carbon Fibre trauma that he's going to. 😉

The only issues I've heard of regarding CF are to do with inhaling it when cutting it or dealing with burned CF after an aircraft crash.

With regards to bikes, my main concern is the seeming lack of any clear information from most frame manufacturers regarding the composition of the CF and the manufacturing processes used. All CF is not equal! It is also a relatively new technology to bikes so the best way to go about making a component that will last will not be well known to all manufacturers.

I've run CF bars on one of my bikes for three years and I really can't fault them. I've had an aluminium road bike with carbon seat stays fail on me and it was the aluminium that failed not the carbon.

In the context of mountain bikes though, the main reason I'd not buy a CF frame is because it is not a thoroughly tried or tested technology. I remember the early days of aluminium frames and it wasn't pretty, however as others have mentioned CF is potentially a far more suitable material for building bike frames out of than aluminium.

plenty of good info here [url= http://www.ibiscycles.com/tech/ ]ibis[/url] and i'm only slightly biased!! btw I'm 100kg and will be taking the mojo to Les Gets in a week, not worried in the slightest.

[url=www.k1racegear.com/p-135-rib-vest-carbon-fiber-rib-protector.aspx]So is this a suicide vest?[/url]

[url= http://www.k1racegear.com/p-135-rib-vest-carbon-fiber-rib-protector.aspx ]Or maybe this[/url]

Those fish do exist, but they enter when you're up to your nuts in water, they don't swim up your urine which is what some people seem to think!

it is not a thoroughly tried or tested technology

Disagree with that actually. We're now at a point where carbon has been tried and tested - with some poor results in the past - and lessons learnt. Carbon bikes have been out there for the best part of 20 years now, this isn't a new technology. You only need to see the number of good quality, relatively cheap carbon bikes that are out there now to see that.

Carbon. Material of Champions.

[img] [/img]

I didn't die on my ride on a set of carbon forks last night but I suppose it's only a matter of time.

Hmm, great timing this thread ... I've just got back on the road with a warranty replacement Carbon Stumpy after breaking my S-Works Enduro. If it all gets a bit much I'll resign myself to biking round the garden ... ah, the neurotic joy of paranoia ...

SM

i must admit,i have had some paranoia about breaking my 08 s works carbon hardtail!!!had been thinking of p/xing the frame,but came to the conclusion that i would trust specialized to warranty the frame!!!also run ec90 flat easton carbon bars,but am not so worried about breaking those!!!

[i]It is also a relatively new technology to bikes[/i]

Armstrong won the Tour in 1999 on a Trek OCLV carbon bike.

Look at your fingers, (ignore your thumbs if you're from Bacup) that's ten years ago.

How long do we have to use it for?

Samuri, you do realise that as its a Columbia rider, the failure of his frame is the fault of the Garmin team? 😉
Carbon fibre dont scare me! Its Ti bolts I dont like

I had a 1994 OCLV road bike, it's still around. It was a harsh ride, but it hasn't killed anyone, to my knowledge.

That shot of the steerer snapping is awesome (in terms of timing), I doubt that ended well!

For me:
carbon seatpost broke (USE)
carbon forks broke (PACE)

Carbon bars have not broke (moketlite)

I'm happy with the strength of carbon - I ran a 2 year-old secondhand monkeylite bar for a while, and while I think it bent, it never broke. But with metal bits, they break, you get bruised, you recover, sorted. With carbon, the bits enter your bloodstream and you have to be amputated?!! wtf is wrong with bike makers?!! 😯

Carbon fibre dont scare me! Its Ti bolts I dont like

What about Carbon bolts?

[img] [/img] €9-11 each

There's nowt wrong with ti bolts, nothing wrong with aluminium bolts as long as you're sensible about where you put them!

Hincapie also broke the steerer on his carbon Trek in P-R a couple of years ago.

Dodgy stuff that aluminium.

the carbon haters recently tried to blame jens voights trip along the ground on a fork failure...till they realised the fork was still in one piece.....ooops

Now I'm all for new materials that work, but 10-20 years of development of a frame material in the niche top end of a small sport like cycling is not a long time.

Carbon is stiff, it isn't strong and it is only stiff in a specific direction. It doesn't yield, it snaps and unless the lay up is well designed and the QA very thorough, well you're onto a loser.

Making a carbon handlebar that lasts is pretty easy, but making a frame that lasts - that's a different matter. I have no doubt that some manufacturers are getting it right, but I think a lot of the motivation behind using CF by the big brands is to save money during production.

CF has its place in bike frames without doubt, weight weenies and bike tarts always want something different and lighter. But my nice, light aluminium frames will do me just fine!

Jimmer - I am a carbon feartie but you are wrong - weight for weight carbon fibre is stronger than alloy - hence its use in racing cars.

Where was that Kona Kula frame? That's clear proof of how much tougher alu is than (lighter) carbon frames!

TJ: let's not forget planes too. They're prone to falling out of the sky because the carbon has suddenly failed. Oh wait...

jimmer the statement is nearly as wrong as the bloke who said that the japanese were the only people who make carbon fibre