Is carbon fiber really the best material?
With more and more manufactures switching to carbon fiber as the material of choice for high end mountain bike frames, especially for the xc side of things, I am beginning to think that by the time I come to replace my current bike (thankfully awhile away) I will have to make my choice based on frame material more than anything else. I was intending when it came to it to replace my frame with the new version of what I currently have but as it's now made out of carbon fiber I will be looking for something else.
To me Carbon fiber for a frame material for a bike that's going to go off road seems stupid. Despite being much more towards the xc side of things, i like my bike to be tight and fast handling, more like a race bike but I still want a bike that I can ride down rocky track without the fear that either a rock is going to fly up and hit the down tube or I'll crash and damage the frame. I realise that a rock hitting the down tube can damage any material but carbon fiber is well know not to 'like' sharp impacts.
I understand the properties and the advantages of Carbon but for a mountain bike frame that it seems daft. Paths like the Corrieyairack Pass in the highlands is a pretty good ride but littered with rocks that would have me constantly worrying the whole time about my frame, thus I would probably never ride it if I had a carbon bike.
I would be interested if anyone else feels the same and is it manufactures just plowing blindly on with something that isn't suitable outside the race circuit, (how many people really have the need and cash for a specific race only bike?) or is it just me being paranoid and there's nothing wrong with carbon fiber?
was saying the same thing yesterday to a mate who is thinking of buying something lightweight for a tour. 2nd hand too....
infact i wouldn't buy a 2nd hand alu frame either.
i'll stick with steel thanks.
Well, just take a look at other applications of carbon fibre; motor racing, in particular. F1 cars have to deal with far greater forces than a mountain bike, and they seem to work ok; I've never seen an F1 car crash due to sudden inexplicable CF failure. And that MotoGP Ducatti has a CF mainframe; that's capable of what, 180mph?
Easton's bars are tested to cope with forces greater than alu bars can take. I trust them.
Bikes like the Ibis Mojo are CF. The Ibis is protected with a tough rubbery finish, that loks like it would be good at repelling stones and that. I'm sure CF manufacturers consider points of weakness and vulnerability, when designing frames.
Your bones are made from Carbon Fibre. They are very light, and have incredible strength, considering their weight.
Don't be so paranoid.
Carbon just seems wrong on a mountain bike. F1,Moto GP and road(race)bikes are where it's best suited.
Carbon just seems wrong on a mountain bike.
Explain.
CF is used in road bikes and crashes there can often be far worse than anything a mountain bike will see - much higher speeds onto what is always a very hard surface.
Depends what you're riding as well (what discipline, price etc), there's still plenty of high end alu/steel/Ti bikes to choose from and always will be.
""I've never seen an F1 car crash due to sudden inexplicable CF failure""
Indeed, but then you won't see an F1 care drive off carefree after a brush with a tyre wall either - carbon fibre is deisned to work within its given parameters of stress - a MTB crash for example can't be realistically judged or accounted for in terms of imposed stress on the carbon, so damage to the integratory of the frame can be caused - maybe without visible signs.
A plastic bike - ridden in rocks?!?! bad idea. (in my opinion)
I reckon that modern trail ones must be tough as old boots. I am happy to buy carbon bars from easton etc. I still have a bit of silly paranoia about them because the damage can remain hidden.
I dont like them though. I had a carbon full susser which I sold (mainly because I decided i did not like the ride) I dont like the way they look and I hate the noise they make whenstones etc hit the bike.It is all hollow and dull sounding. I prefer riding my five which sounds like a bag of spanners.
Plus it looks really tatty quickly, thats why I bought a metal road bike (i do ride it a lot too, not just look at it)
I agree that Carbon is great for some applications and I don't expect it to shatter unexpectly but F1 cars run on groomed tramac tracks, mountain bikes not so much! Carbon fiber is really strong, stronger than pretty much anything if done right but cut and scrapes in it's surface can be fatal and you only have to look at a used frame to see that cuts and scrapes from rock e.c.t are common.
I would be less worried if the carbon frame came with a fleshy covering like are bones...disgusted but less worried! 😉
CF is used in road bikes and crashes there can often be far worse than anything a mountain bike will see
indeed again! and replace in a pro race immediatly or straight after the finish and scrapped - not used again and again and then put on ebay or traded in at the local bike shop.
I would not use my road bike again after a heavy crash - and that's a 2.2K frame. I could earn that in a month, but not from a wheel chair.
Carbon fibre in top end motorsport is not really the same thing as mountain bike parts.
F1 carbon structures are hand made in small specialist manufacturing facilities under incredibly tight controls.
Bike parts are mass produced in Korea.
something as small as a tiny amount of aftershave on the hands of someone laying up carbon weave can have a disastrous effect on it's integrity.
Can't say i'd be too keen on a carbon framed mtb as i know i'm not careful enough.
well, i fully trust the strenght of carbon - it is stronger in impact tests that aluminium or steel. What i dont like is the idea of falling of onto rocks etc... I'm sure some of the slight scratches on my trex fuel, if they were on the carbon models would have resulted in the carbon weave being damaged... So for a bike that i would be riding anywhere rocky or hard, i would just be scared of damging it to much in a crash. I do have a carbon scott scale though.And i love it.
I'll wait a while till i get a 'bigger' bike made of carbon...
There are less and less high end xc full sus bikes that aren't carbon. Plus have you seen what some of the carbon road bikes look like after a crash?! Or the British teams bikes after a crash on the track? Not that mach of them left, certainly not enought to ride home on! George Hincapie's carbon steerer didn't do so well at the paris roubaix a few years ago either!
I know that the track bikes e.c.t are built on the limit but still 😕
Hincapie's steerer was an alloy one from a commuter bike! still on the whole i agree with you.
George Hincapie's carbon steerer didn't do so well at the paris roubaix a few years ago either!
It was an alloy steerer.
Sorry stand corrected!
Post attempt failure.
Not CF. Cheap cardboard...
Yes, but seeing as how aluminium, steel and even titanium can all fail, CF is no less appropriate a material.
This is Robert Kubica crashing an F1 car. All the energy absorbing bits have done their job, and broken away, as they are designed to. The bit holding him in remained intact. And saved his life.
[img] 
[/img]
F1 carbon structures are hand made in small specialist manufacturing facilities under incredibly tight controls.Bike parts are mass produced in Korea.
something as small as a tiny amount of aftershave on the hands of someone laying up carbon weave can have a disastrous effect on it's integrity.
Wel, that's bollocks, from the start. Most bike bits are made in Taiwan, not Korea. And it does not in any way really matter where the thing is made; preference for Yerpan or US built stuff is just snobbishness. CF production, by firms like Spesh, Trek, Giant etc is as sophisticated as anything you'll find. They've been doing it for a while, and have loads of data and sperience. I dare say they've considered things like stones chipping the downtube.
And contamination in a weld can lead to failure, too.
CF does require more careful manufacture, and this is reflected in the cost. something like an On-One will probbly cost £20 or less, to actually make, whereas a CF frame will cost hundreds of pounds.
There's tons of CF parts and frames out there. I doubt the failure rate is significantly, if at all, higher than any other material. I'd trust a decent CF frame, over a cheap alu frame, any day.
The problem with CF failing is that it does so without any warning (no visible cracks etc) and does so in an instant - i admit CF bars are highly unlikely to break (unlike very light alloy ones) however a CF frame, although unlikely to break will have re-sale issues due to the nature of the how logevity is asessed.
Argh the armchair engineers are all here today.
Nothing wrong with carbon. Perfectly strong enough.
Advice would be to try before making judgements.
Wel, that's bollocks, from the start. Most bike bits are made in Taiwan, not Korea.
And thats bollocks too, as most carbon bike bits are made in China.
something like an On-One will probbly cost £20 or less, to actually make, whereas a CF frame will cost hundreds of pounds.
And that's bollocks too.
Ah, but more [i]general[/i] bike bits/frames are made in Taiwan! 😀
I'll happily use carbon, you all assume that the frames are built to the point at which any small scrape will damage them, ever heard of over engineering?
I've seen steel, aluminium and titanium fail
There are less and less high end xc full sus bikes that aren't carbon. Plus have you seen what some of the carbon road bikes look like after a crash?! Or the British teams bikes after a crash on the track? Not that mach of them left, certainly not enought to ride home on! George Hincapie's carbon steerer didn't do so well at the paris roubaix a few years ago either!I know that the track bikes e.c.t are built on the limit but still
A stack on the track will have a greater effect on the frame, much like hitting a tree. A lot of the crashes on the track are at 55-65kph, I've totaled alloy and steel frames on the track. If you think about the stress put through a frame doing a standing start, if it was weak it would snap. I used to put out 2218 watts during a standing start, I know Chris Hoy and Craig Mclean put out a bit more. They only bike I hated using was the Lotus, it was so flexy. All the BC frames are built to the highest standard with strength, weight and aerodynamics taken into account.
Oh aye. A "famous" bike designer once said that carbon bikes have no "soul".
Argh the armchair engineers are all here today.Nothing wrong with carbon. Perfectly strong enough.
Advice would be to try before making judgements.
No one's really quoted anything engineery, just opinions and observations - and a bit of fact, which is what is also going to sway folks opinions when purchasing your frame should you wish to trade it in or flog it. People see titanium, steel and alloy as more durable and quite rightly so, as carbon isn't as tried and tested - so it's important when considering a purchase.
And that's bollocks too.
No it's not. And you know it. On-one's are cheap to produce. As are lower-end Spesh's and Giants etc. Don't try fooling us.
I've never seen an F1 car crash due to sudden inexplicable CF failure.
the difference being that an F1 car only has to last one race, and isn't expected to survive driving over rocks.
Your bones are made from Carbon Fibre
they ent. The only pure carbon in your body is barby charcoal
I agree with Rudeboy in regards to it not really mattering were the bikes made...apart from I think it's sad that if you buy a Uk/USA ect brand it's not made there but thats another story.
And I don't think that CF frames are going to fail all over the place but you still can't escape the fact that Carbon fiber isn't good at with standing cuts, knocks and scrapes that mountain bikes are subjected too. Not to say that a ti/steel or alu frame will with stand all punishment, (I have seen loads break over the years) but just maybe more suitable at with standing a knock and there is something more comforting about them...but maybe it's just me...
Not going to pretend I know anything about engineering, but I've been riding long enough (and am lucky enough) to have 5 bikes and it's just occurred to me they are all different materials:
Carbon road bike
Ti 'cross bike (very nice 2nd hand On-One - ta Brant)
853 steel hardtail
Scandium Full Susser
Alu tandem.
Would't risk rock impact on carbon mtb, but otherwise I can see it'd be great.
Alu road bike cracked after 3/4 years of occasional riding.
Wouldn't go without a steel hardtail.
Scandium seems lighter and tougher than other alu.
In resonce to the "arm chair engineers are all here today" ,perfectly willing to be corrected, hell I would love Carbon to be the wonder material, would make future bike purchase a lot easier. I am not anti carbon or anvances in technology at all...it's just I also think I am correct in thinking that Carbon doesn't like sharp impacts e.c.t which for a MTB frame seems unsutible, were as a alu/ti/steel frame can more easily shrug them off...but not to say that they won't fail in another way but to me the impact from rocks seems quite a present one in MTBing and thus I would end up constantly worrying when ever I rode.
If someone can correct me on the material properties of carbon fiber please do
I've seen two XTC carbon frames fail due to impact, once on a rock and the other was a small dog (both rock and dog were fine) It's impact damage that is the concern and for me it's the not being able to see the damage. If I stack on a metal frame I can see damage in the form of dents, not so on carbon.
Anyone remember the first Look TVT frames and the Spesh Epics from the 80's if carbon had issues then we wouldn't be using these days.
Formula one demonstrates the strengths and weakness of CF.
Very very strong and light when intended forces are applied. Brittle and weak when loaded in other ways
CF is the first mountain bike frame material that really has no ability to deform plasticaly. So we'll never see a dent or bend.In many ways a plastic deformation is safer than a brittle failure
I think the question we need the answer to is what was the frame intended to be able to cope with. Was it designed for rock strikes and or being dropped onto rocks. I'm sure a CF bike could be over engineered for all eventualities, my question would be are they?
Quck edit having seen last to post
If we generalise from Cf to composites in general then its worth remembering that bullet proof vest are kevlar, they have good impact protection.
There is something simlar going on with the Yeti 575's carbon rear end.
I was told by the guy running uplift at Cwm that hes seen 'loads' of 575 cracking. Then at Afan the shop keeper in Skyline said he had seen about 5 break.
I asked Yeti importers/warrenty (as i was worried) and they only have records of 5 cracking in the UK. And 7, Yes SEVEN examples of the alu version cracking!!
So did all (despite two of them being in Scotland!) of the carbon ones crack at cwm then drive to afan to re- bust them?
Or do people like to slam what they dont have???
On-one's are cheap to produce.
I wouldn't want to discuss another manufacturers frames.
Oh aye. A "famous" bike designer once said that carbon bikes have no "soul".
Yeah. Envelope stuffing innit.
Or do people like to slam what they dont have
I'd love to have a host of carbon bikes but two things stop me, my riding style (or lack of) and money to replace them
The other aspect is what is the advantage of a CF frame? How much of the weight of a nice light bike is the frame? 4 lbs out of 25? so save 1/2 a pound on the frame - does it really matter?
Carbon fibre scares me on mtb components not because it is weak but because of its brittle nature. Overstress a metal component it will deform. Over stress a CF component it will break.
This carbon thing is a bit of a myth. Prolly founded in the old 90s days when people made insanely light xc parts out of it before they'd really got to grips with how the material works. Yes, there was a lot of breakages, and yes when it fails it does so more catastrophically than most materials. But aluminium can fail spectacularly too, and is nowhere near the strength of carbon. But people these days have no worries riding that. Things break, no matter what they're made of. There've been loads of advancemets in carbon over the past few years and I think it's basically a non-issue now. The idea that any stray stone is gonna chip the frame and cause it to capitulate is so alarmist that the Daily Mail might baulk at it and run with a 'humanity under threat from virus that's killed 17 people' sensation instead.
There is something simlar going on with the Yeti 575's carbon rear end.
I was told by the guy running uplift at Cwm that hes seen 'loads' of 575 cracking. Then at Afan the shop keeper in Skyline said he had seen about 5 break.
I asked Yeti importers/warrenty (as i was worried) and they only have records of 5 cracking in the UK. And 7, Yes SEVEN examples of the alu version cracking!!
So did all (despite two of them being in Scotland!) of the carbon ones crack at cwm then drive to afan to re- bust them?
Or do people like to slam what they dont have???
Well thats a could story and some one needs to follow it up
I've heard the 575 thing a few times. I have no idea what the truth is on this.
But will the importer know about all failures? Is the importer reporting failures they've accepted responsibility for or all failures? How many Yetis bikes are CF how many are AL
TandemJeremy - MemberCarbon fibre scares me on mtb components not because it is weak but because of its brittle nature. Overstress a metal component it will deform. Over stress a CF component it will break.
I've had an alloy seatpost snap under me. Not pleasant.
A standard hardtail carbon frame, ie not cutting edge unidirectional high modulus carbon or similar will roll out of the doors in Taiwan for between £100-150. Something more decent like a nice Spesh S-works frame might be heading towards the £250 mark. (Might...)
Most bullshit in a thread EVER!
I get the feeling lots of people have bad memories of CF in the '90s. Modern CF is pretty strong, there was a good discussion about this in the DIN testing thread two or so weeks ago.
The problem with CF failing is that it does so without any warning (no visible cracks etc) and does so in an instant
If it was made of one single piece of CF, rather than hundreds of pieces all laid up. Early carbon frames (Giant MCM etc) had an insane amount of paint on them to protect the CF from getting scratched or gouched by rocks. Modern frames (Ibis mentioned aboved being an exception) don't have this. A scratch is no longer an issue, as the layup of the carbon is multi-directional and multi-layered, preventing a propagating crack or tear that would cause a catastrophic failure such as you get in aluminium.
The other aspect is what is the advantage of a CF frame? How much of the weight of a nice light bike is the frame? 4 lbs out of 25? so save 1/2 a pound on the frame - does it really matter?
Matters a lot. I'm currently riding a 3.5lb (including shock!!) full-suss frame. That's lighter than most alloy hardtail frames. So yeah, it does matter if you're design goal is to make comforts such as FS without the weight penalty usually associated with them.
Maybe at the end of the day it comes down to the XTR chainrings argument: If you're fat, slow, clumsy, can't afford to replace it or just don't want it, vote with your visa card and buy something else.
A standard hardtail carbon frame, ie not cutting edge unidirectional high modulus carbon or similar will roll out of the doors in Taiwan for between £100-150. Something more decent like a nice Spesh S-works frame might be heading towards the £250 mark. (Might...)
When sprouting, can people please cite sources.
I ride my Giant Anthem Carbon as it is a noticeably better ride than the alloy equivalent. Its not even lighter - the new alloy Anthems are lighter than the carbon 08 - its not about the weight. Its about the ride. Its super stiff and 'feels' faster to me.
Plus its had more than its fair share of offs and rock strikes. It seems absolutely fine and i trust it implicitly.
I can speak from personal experience about the problems/advantages of carbon frames. As I have posted before, I have had three carbon frames, all of them failed, all at stress points where elements were bonded together. None of them failed catastrophically- I noticed a crack in the paint on the first two and the third stared creaking (I was paranoid by then and discoverd another crack just below the rear suspension pivot point on the seat tube hidden by the rocker arm). The frames themeselves were fantatsic to ride when in one piece- stiff in the right places, flexible in other directions to give a smooth ride. I believe I was unlucky as I know of two other people with Giant carbon full suspension frames that have lasted four years with a large number of "incidents" between them and one of these has to carry quite a lot of weight..
However I now won't buy another carbon frame - and none of my mates will let me any where near theirs!
If we're onto the old "carbon breaks" chestnut - so does everything, depends how it's made.
I had a carbon DH bike (remec). It died at 6 years old, having spent many weeks in the alps, SDAs, NPS etc etc.
What broke?
The alu headtube insert, in a high speed crash at fort bill that put me in hospital in a neck brace. The carbon was fine.
All materials fail. Its just that people love to bang on about carbon for some reason.
What are the environmental costs of carbon fibre? Its plastic isn't it, essentially? Is it in any way sustainable?
My guess is that steel is the most sustainable, and probably requires the least energy to manufacture (lower heat, etc).
I would love to hear what an engineer/materials expert thinks is the least environmentally destructive material to build a bike from.
I only read as far as "The problem with CF failing is that it does so without any warning (no visible cracks etc) and does so in an instant" and lost the will to carry on.
In your opinion (god forbid experience), does it shatter like glass? Do you own have or have you ever owned a carbon fibre bicycle component, less actually seen something carbon fibre break?
I have carbon fibre on my mountain bikes and two carbon fibre frame/forks/steerer road bikes. If I could afford one or somebody reading this has lost confidence in their 18" carbon Scott Spark, I'd have it and I ride almost exclusively in the Peak District
I love these threads about carbon fibre components and bikes.
Surprisingly, Ive seen more alloy bikes fail then carbon. My mates got a saracen kili flyer (spelling?). Thats a full carbon frame. We ride lots of technical stuff, and he falls off hard all the time. Never managed to damage his frame though.
I've had a set of Trek OCLV fork blades fail on me, just below the brake caliper. It wasn't pretty.
I have carbon failure paranoia.
I had a carbon NRS and was overly careful riding it and each chip felt like I was sitting on mini time bombs.
I've seen a few carbon failures; two Yeti 575's one Easton seatpost and Pace 29er forks all doing xc stuff with the exception of one of the Yetis failing at Afan.
I love the fact that people speak of carbon fiber when it's most likely to be composite fiber made of kevlar/carbon/glass fiber.
And just to cut short of all the idiotic comment on F1/motoGP. They are meant to run in a complete different manner than off-road bikes. Plus most of the time they are used to gain stiffness or to solve a specific engineering problem, not to save weight as it seems to be the norm in the cycling world.
If carbon was so much good, don't you think dh bike would be made of carbon? Or enduro bikes?
When I was young (and all this was fields), frames were steel - cheap mostly as well. My first real MTB was a Kona Explosif. I still have that frame as my turbo trainer bike and it could be built as a nice hardtail if I wanted.
At that time, aluminium was starting to make greater advances in MTB frames and the forum equivalents of the time were full of tales of life expectancy, cracks, failures and the like.
What was utter tosh, mostly spouted from opinionated people working on rumours and no knowledge has evolved from ally to carbon fibre.
I have three bikes I ride most, all their frames are carbon fibre. I bet my life that the carbon fibre won't cause me to die. Poor riding might kill me but my choice of frame materials is low down on my risk table.
If you really want to worry about what might happen if you have some completely bizarre CF failure that then causes a crash etc. etc. then you need to try another sport. It makes more sense to wear a lot more body armour than worry about the CF failure. btw, CF is OK for body armour to 😉
RudeBoy - MemberYour bones are made from Carbon Fibre. They are very light, and have incredible strength, considering their weight.
Are you sure? maybe I hav e read your post wrongly?
We're carbon based, but the chemical/physical structure involves the carbon but not carbon fibre which is structurally/massively different.
There is carbon in oil, alcohol and many gases but carbon and carbon fibre should should be confused as the same. Hugely different and involves different elements and arrangements.
Anyway I wouldn't trust myself with carbon fibre for xc as I crash alot.
On a road bike it is great depending on the type and grade. It is strong, flex and comfort and light. My other alumy roadbike is harsh but has it's pros too-fallen enough alot...
RudeBoy - MemberYour bones are made from Carbon Fibre. They are very light, and have incredible strength, considering their weight.
No they are made of collagen and it's as far as carbon as iron or steel can be (the wiki link about collagen is correct and well quoted).
Hugely different and involves different elements and arrangements.
er, carbon fibre [b]IS[/b] made of pure carbon. The whole of organic (and biological) chemistry is based on carbon compounds, but elemental carbon (graphite, charcoal, diamond) is rather unreactive...
Was put off cf when this happened (to be fair the chain stay was pretty dinged as well)
[img] 
[/img]
elemental carbon (graphite, charcoal, diamond) is rather unreactive
If that were true it'd make for rather unsatisfactory barbecues.
If that were true it'd make for rather unsatisfactory barbecues.
at normal temperatures 🙂
Good greif, carbon fiber makes people angry? Forums!?!? 😀
It was just a question and as I said willing to be proved wrong...I just imagine that i would as someone else said above be teatering about terrified that I would ruin the bike rather than plowing though stuff but if carbon is ok with knocks e.c.t then well...
It's not so much about if a materials going to break, of course frames of all materials can snap but my specific worry is the impact of stones e.c.t which were I ride are an issue. It had to remember how many times I have had large rocks ping off the downtube without issue, I just wondered if carbon fibe would really be the best thing...
As pointed out above CF is use in F1 alot as it can be built to be super strong but it does undoubtly shatter on impact...this is what worries me, not that i am traveling at F1 speeds, sadly!
Maybe it's just a personal thing and depends where you ride...
Was put off cf when this happened (to be fair the chain stay was pretty dinged as well)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks suspiciously still in one piece. So your issue is that you have a big impact of some sort (might be more useful with a little context), and a cf frame gets damaged? Have you never seen an alu/steel/ti frame broken in a crash? This whole thing about cf not being able to take rock impacts is a complete myth - the sort of impact needed to break a cf frame would doubtless also break a frame made of any other material.
I'm sure some of the slight scratches on my trex fuel, if they were on the carbon models would have resulted in the carbon weave being damaged
Maybe, but that's not actually the sort of issue people seem to think - the outer weave layer is largely cosmetic.
lol at this thread.
If you want to believe that cf is brittle/weak/fragile/whatever then just don't buy one but it's probably your loss in limiting your options.
I've broken several frames: steel and alu. All have cracked due to fatigue either from design or rock damage (stress riser). Not one has failed in a plastic deformation way that tj mentions. Same for bars, cranks and seatposts.
Thin walled metal tubes are very prone to damage from rocks (stress risers leading to fatigue or just plain beer can crumpling) - arguably more than cf since the wall thicknesses are often very low.
I have also had quite a lot of experience with cf in another sport - rowing - which you might think is pretty tame but boats and oars actually take a hammering. I think I've seen two oars fail in around 20 years - both to the equivalent of hitting a bike frame tube with a sharp edged object with massive load ( momentum of eight people plus boat ). I've seen many similar big impacts leave the oars undamaged despite being bent well beyond what they were designed for.
Cf manufacturers test their cf products in all sorts of different ways, one of which is dropping a heavy bar on a tube. The cf stands up to the abuse far better than alu though admittedly this is often probably because cf products tend to be designed with larger safety factors that can be got away with due to the inherent low density.
I don't have a cf bike but only because i've not found one cheap enough when i've been after a new frame but I'd have no issue buying one otherwise.
carbon fibre doesn't shatter on impact btw. F1 crashes massively over load the parts that break eg suspension arms, wings, etc. The main survival cell stays intact as it's meant to.
Alu would just crumple in the same situation. Not actually any better...
The real problem isn't the material its educating people who are scared by the old wives tales ,theres always someone who knows someone who had a bad experience
at the curret rate CEN tasting is going steel bikes are coming in at 5 lbs plus thats a hell of a lot of carbon fibre to go play with ...
and found this...for the roadies 😉
alternative uses for a road bike.....lance pegging it across a field
So, a low spoke count wheel with ultralight rim breaks when loaded 90 degrees to what was designed. What would an alu rim of the same weight have done?
If CF is so weak and "bones are made of it" - how come
[url=
dog isn't broken?[/url]
😆
carbon is shite , it cant take the weight of a steamroller or an excavator LOL 🙂
my dear lord theres some bullshit being spouted in this thread!
1) my dissertation was on fixing strain gauges to hih end easton hocey sticks. Thise things took a lot of abuse!
2) i had soe RF deus flat bars which got a chip so i decided to listen to the naysayers on here and 'bin them'. Just to see how weak they were me and my housemates too turns swinging them like baseball bats into walls/door frames/floors until they broke. They never snapped, creaked a lot, but never actualy snaped.
I am surprised that DH bikes don't use carbon fibre frames given the recent desire to shed weight
I can only think of two reasons why they wouldn't - expense and strength
The real problem isn't the material its educating people who are scared by the old wives tales ,theres always someone who knows someone who had a bad experience
I would have said that the real problem is separating the marketing bull from the facts.
My alu frames have always worked well, as have my older steel frames. At the moment why would I pay the extra dosh for a c/f frame that weighs roughly the same, handles the same (assuming the same geometry), ie does the same job as the cheaper metal frame but costs x100s more.
Yes, you can get ultra-light c/f frames, but then you can get ultra-light alu frames as well. Put my 14 stone on them on the rocky warzone of Kilvey Hill and they all feel like they are made of bamboo.
Incidentally I used to work for a company that replaced bikes for insurance companies, I did the warranty work. We rarely had any frame warranty claims of any kind, and never had a carbon warranty iirc, BUT I saw quite a few crash damaged c/f frames. Having said that, we would write off any alu frame that had been involved in an RTA because we couldn't tell how damaged they were at all. What was quite scary was how easy it was to dismantle a c/f frame to put it into the bin.
What's a
?hih end easton hocey stick
One major advantage of Carbon over Alu is that if (IF) it does break, it's cheap and easy to repair. Your alu frame breaks, it's over really. CF can be repaired for as little as £40 for a crack, and you won't need a respray.
It's also a lot tougher than a lot of people would have you believe.
Just wondering how many people actually have a carbon bike? All the rubbish about carbon failing and not taking loads, plus the tosh about structual strength. Carbon is one of the strongest materials by weight , and retains its strength even whilst flexed. Have you picked up a high end fishing rod recently? Way lighter tha your old glass fibre poles , and will repeatedly flex through 90'. Most break by being shut in car boot or door.
Windsurfing masts are also high carbon content, Yes you can buy a 20% carbon mast , but 90% one is stiffer /lighter/ stronger . Anyone who has seen what a mast goes through every time you rig , then go out in a F6 and stuff them through waves and shorebreak wouldn't bleat about catastrophic , brittle structures that instantly fail.
Wind farms blades are carbon fiber, and designed to flex and last years.
Admitadly all of the above will not have stones catapulted into them but will all take a pounding. Carbon is possibly not the best for full DH bikes, but for XC and general trail riding they are fine.
It never ever crosses my mind as I ride along that my bike is about to instantly fail and kill me. I will break before my bike does. And my bike was made in 1999. Not in the same way as modern carbon bikes, but as a thermoplastic lay up method squashed on a mandrel under 5000 psi , leaving a destinctive 'spine' . They do fail, but only where aluminium is bonded to carbon, where over time the epoxy glue fails. In most cases its a 20 min job with araldite to refix the seat post insert, or head tube insert back in.
Haven't read all the posts but didn't think being uninformed mattered much.
My Carbon Fibre Scott Strike is 8 years old, has had me riding it, has crashed many times at varying speeds from stationary to 30mph+, has hit things such as sheep, badgers, trees and other riders.
It is still in one piece and seems as strong as ever.
And just to cut short of all the idiotic comment on F1/motoGP. They are meant to run in a complete different manner than off-road bikes. Plus most of the time they are used to gain stiffness or to solve a specific engineering problem, not to save weight as it seems to be the norm in the cycling world.If carbon was so much good, don't you think dh bike would be made of carbon? Or enduro bikes?
Juan; did you see the pic I posted, of Kubica's crash? YouTube it. Kubica was sitting in a CF monocoque, which protected him from impact, and saved his life. The fuel cell is in a CF pod. No fuel escaped, and caused an explosion. CF is used in F1, because it has perfect properties for certain applications, and can be made incredibly strong. To produce an equally strong monocoque in Alu, would weigh loads more.
CF is used for good reason. Top bike manufacturers use CF, because it is a bloody good material to make bikes from. A CF frame, the same weight as an Alu one, could be made that would be a lot stronger. I would imagine those manufacturers would have done extensive tests and analysis, to ensure their products do not fail even under extreme conditions. The examples of damage to CF frames cite accidents, serious impacts, which would wreck steel, Alu or even Ti.
There are several 'enduro' bikes made from CF. As for DH, considering top-end DH frames cost £2k+, a CF version would surely be astronomical, and therefore woon't sell. I'm sure there a few secret prototypes around, though.
As for my comment re bones; I was not being that serious!
how come the dog isn't broken?
Poor dog.. 🙁