What's a
hih end easton hocey stick
?
using my powers of nothing i would guess 'high end easton hockey stick'?
It is still in one piece and seems as strong as ever.
WCA's sperience is why I will trust in CF. If he ain't brokeded it, then I doubt it can be borked.
And he's borked a Ti frame. JRA. It's true; there are witnesses.
Ti Frame - twice now. Not V impressed with a 'frame for life'
Give me a tupperware special any day. I hit a tree at about 35mph when I mis-judged how tight the corner was on a fast road descent. The most memorable thing about that crash was the amazing 'CLACK' sound the frame made when it bounced off the tree trunk above me.
[img]
[/img]
Cove Hummer
Ti Carver
[img] http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=yu9j6u&outx=800&quality=70 [/img]
I will say that this was replaced immediately under warranty without a quibble.
Why are people worried about relative strength-weight-fatigue issues? Carbon looks cool, end of debate.
hehe, maybe wca can arrange a 'how tough is your bike' contest at BBB
steel v carbon v alu - all scientifically crashed into a wall! just need some sucker to ride the bikes, hmmm
after seeing the measly effort required to kill wca Ti bike, his carbon bike durability should put many carbon bike owners minds at ease a little.
going further off topic, was at a gorrick xc race the other week and saw an orange patriot frame snapped, dont know how it happend but thought it was funny as it was probably the burliest bike i saw that day.
Idle jon - you asked why use cf? I reckon simply because i'd trust a really light cf frame a lot more than an alu one for reasons i stated above. Thats why all my mtbs have cf bars.
What's funny about this debate, is that there are loads of people hammering around on rigid bikes with On-One carbon fibre forks. Certainly a good way to put the material to the test.
If c/f is so crap, why aren't we hearing about these breaking right, left, and centre?
Idle jon - you asked why use cf? I reckon simply because i'd trust a really light cf frame a lot more than an alu one for reasons i stated above. Thats why all my mtbs have cf bars.
You haven't actually answered the question.
Cf because it's strong even when light (but expensive). That is what I stated above.
Like many things to do with mtbs, c/f has its own evangelists, those who will swear by its magical, rather indefinable properties.
Of course those magical properties have nothing to do with the price tag, the rarity and pose factor.
The best bikes I've ever ridden were good bikes because of their design, rather than their material. The two worst bikes were in fact carbon, but they were both Scotts, and almost by definition rubbish, so I'll not hold that against carbon.
I ride a carbon frame and can only comment on my experience. I have owned it for roughly a year and it has proven to be a brilliant ride and not unlike a Merlin extralight I owned in the mid 90's but stiffer and lighter. For a hardtail its really comfortable and has shrugged off rocks without any problems.
Modern quality CF frames are carefully designed to give strength and impact resistance and I'd have no hesitation in buying another.
Of course those magical properties have nothing to do with the price tag, the rarity and pose factor.
Not for me - I've explained above why I think it's good for bikes and I'm certainly no carbon evangelist, not even owning a cf bike.
The best bikes I've ever ridden were good bikes because of their design, rather than their material
absolutely - totally agree. Of course, good design [b]and[/b] good use of material is the best combination...
What you need is a Kirk Precision 😛
does anyone know why DH race bikes aren't carbon then?
does anyone know why DH race bikes aren't carbon then?
GT have one that Mick Hannah is doing rather well on.
[img] 
[/img]
GT have one that Mick Hannah is doing rather well on.
He must be effin' good, it's got no pedals 😯
I can't believe I've read this shit!
GT have one that Mick Hannah is doing rather well on.He must be effin' good, it's got no pedals [8O]
Or a rider 😕
Well put clubber. Always makes me chuckle when you get the experts on here banging on about CF not being the right material for mountain biking, usually with no personal experience. I only know two people with carbon frames. One has been thrashed all around the UK and three Alpine trips - heavy rider too. The other has an old GT carbon LTS from about 1999/2000 - that has been thrashed too and the thing that broke on it was the Alu seatmast, which was fixed.
No doubt an internet/google expert will be along in a minute to correct me.
Some dh bikes are carbon and it'll become increasingly common. The main reason I reckon more aren't is to do with the prospective buyers believing much of the rubbish above 😉
clubber, the evangelist thing wasn't aimed at you - I think we probably agree on the basics. I've not got a big problem with carbon apart from the marketing crap that goes with it.
Well put clubber. Always makes me chuckle when you get the experts on here banging on about CF not being the right material for mountain biking, usually with no personal experience. I only know two people with carbon frames. One has been thrashed all around the UK and three Alpine trips - heavy rider too. The other has an [b]old GT carbon LTS from about 1999/2000[/b] - that has been thrashed too and the thing that broke on it was the Alu seatmast, which was fixed.No doubt an internet/google expert will be along in a minute to correct me.
You were doing so well until you mentioned the GT and rubbished your own post. Basically if it was me still riding a 1999 LTS I'd have the air ambulance following me wherever I went.
I think for a lot of people carbon just feels "wrong" on something that is meant to be thrown about. I had a carbon Scott Genius MC10, very light and gucci, used it for general XC stuff, no jumping around......snapped it doing a very routine ride around Epping.
That has pretty much put me off CF for life I reckon. I know I got seduced by the "ooooh its carbon" thing when I bought it, remember the manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping the technology cutting edge, some of that is great, some of it pointless.
I moved onto an aluminium SC Blur LT, a far far better bike than the carbon Scott for reasons of design not material. I'm now seeing SC are bringing out a carbon Blur which I'm sure will have mega bling appeal but does beg the question, whats the point?
Next project for me is a road bike, reckon it will be Ti, something I can live with and enjoy for a long time without having kittens if I drop it it putting it into the car.
GT have one that Mick Hannah is doing rather well on.
Yay!!
[i]"Marc Beaumont is loving his carbon GT... it's not built from carbon for it's lightweight but more for it's ability to absorb the hits.It's an eerily silent ride too.
Mick Hannah had a big off in the rocks last weekend with the bike landing hard on the sharp stuff. Not a mark on her."[/i]
Well IdleJon (firstly I bow to you, you're the best). So you know the guy I'm talking about? His GT was bought cheap when GT went into administration. My point (which you failed to grasp as you were hanging onto the old GT stories and obviously being cool and old skool), was that the alu mast gave in before the carbon - he's a very fast, hard riding experienced guy.
You were doing well in some of your well informed posts until you banged out the same mundane old dross like 'pose factor' and 'magical properties' and rubbished them. People who say those kind of things are usually the worst kind of bike snobs.
Ive had a couple of massive stacks on my Scale but unlike my carbon fibre ribs, my frame remains unscathed
CF - the best contender yet for "highest number of strongly felt but useless opinions of armchair engineers"?
Sorry ChunkyMTB <Hangs head in disgrace at being told off>
My point being that your story is as anecdotal as any other on here - you've got two friends who have carbon bikes, and one has had his for ages without the carbon breaking. Good for him. The original question stands - is that LTS any better for being carbon? (Try and ignore the fact that most 90s c/f frames were truly awful by any modern standard).
I'd also suggest that most of us are very fast, hard riding experienced types and have lots of similar friends. Or at least we are/have when it comes to sitting behind a keyboard.
I've had to laugh at the bike snob bit. Genuinely never been called that before.
im going to have to remember armchair engineer...it made me laff
back to the OP.
Perhaps I have missed the mark on this, and skim-reading the posts already here, but, my humble understanding is that the fatigue testing cycles involved in getting a (din?) certification is massive for 'metal' frames, whereas you make a frame out of carbon and that fatigue testing cycle is reduced?
ergo a cheaper frame to produce?
I might have my knickers in a twist, and I might have overheard the wrong conversation, and it might just be that its been a really long day of doing a fat lot of nothing... however, I might just have hit the nail on the head.
what do you think? (i'm not preaching, just posing the thought)
jt
I might have my knickers in a twist, and I might have overheard the wrong conversation
Yep - all the test results I've ever seen have had them giving up trying to fatigue the cf bikes when the metal ones had gone many thousands of cycles earlier. I think you've picked up the gist of the conversation backwards.
aracer - MemberWas 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?
Well the stay is cracked all the way round and what you can see is splintered and deliminated through its depth. The chain stay is Al and pretty bent out of shape and this was a point stress break on what i would assume is one of the structurally weaker points of the cf. Large lateral loading on a single point. Oh my roadie has plenty of cf so i should have qualified the statement with "I was put off having cf on my mtbs whenthis happened"
my humble understanding is that the fatigue testing cycles involved in getting a (din?) certification is massive for 'metal' frames, whereas you make a frame out of carbon and that fatigue testing cycle is reduced?
The standard is set for bicycle frames, not specifically for any construction method. Steel/alu/carbon/digestives all get the same number of load-cycles on the pedal test (100000), and have to meet the same flex guidelines etc.
Overstress a metal component it will deform
While this is true for most parts on a bike it wont deform very far before it snaps and you have to notice it first before it fails suddenly.
If you want to see carbon fiber standing up to rock impacts etc then look at rallying.
I have carbon bars on my bike and they are now comming up to 5 years old and still have faith in them.
I like how carbon never feels cold like metal.
The carbon forks on my commuter have stood up to me hitting a huge pothole at speed that took out both of my tyres with out a mark.
The only thing that has stopped me from getting a cf frame is cost though they way things are going at the moment cf is coming down compared to steal/alu/etc.
IMO £1000+ is just too spendy for a mountain bike frame that can't be repaired if you damage or break it.
most alu frames cant (reasonably) be repaired.
IMO £1000+ is just too spendy for a mountain bike frame that can't be repaired if you damage or break it.
Agreed. But that's the same for anything other than steel (and Ti though it's a pain to get someone to actually do it so you end up sending it back to the US which costs a fortune and takes ages)
Th swingarm on my last full sus was carbon, took many rock impacts and crashes onto rocks - it's well and truly battle-scarred 🙂 Carbon can be made to withstand rock impacts, the whole point of composites are that you can tailor, within limits, how they handle impacts and how they handle normal forces etc by adding/subtracting different material laters and weave patterns. Just because a rock flicks up and makes a loud clack doesnt mean the frame is going to be damaged. Just the same as if a rock flicks up and hits your thin-walled alu downtube it can make a right noise and still be fine, or it can be dented and buggered. Its purely down to cost - you can write off any frame, while you may be able to repair frames people rarely do to the same standard as it was new and usually use it as an excuse to find something new. If you have enough wonga to buy a CF frame then you should also be considering what happens if you snap it, personally I dont have enough wonga for a CF frame but I buy a frame thinking "if I break it can I replace it?" - it applies to all materials.
I have been reading this with great interest as carbon is still seen with dread and fear.
Ive been riding carbon frames for over 6 years and never had a problem.
my current bike is a carbon frame ,with carbon seat-post ,saddle and bars , i don't even think about what the parts are made of i just go and enjoy it.
it's now come to a point where as i wouldn't buy any frame other than carbon after seeing all the Ti fails posted in the last few months.
each to their own and all that 🙂
BUT trust is a huge thing when a "fail" could kill you (from any component ,made from any material)
most alu frames cant (reasonably) be repaired.
I realise that. I have a 4 year-old alu frame which has had a pretty hard life (chain suck, numerous gouges in the top tube etc)and if it broke tomorrow I wouldn't be too surprised. However I know that a) if it breaks it'll be somewhere fairly benign like a dropout (it's a Stiffee so the likelihood of the head tube snapping off is minimal) and b) I'll be able to buy another one for £4-500 or cheaper.
I have a probably irrational fear of carbon frames.
But my main problem with carbon is it seems to be ridiculously expensive for a not enormous weight saving. Rather than spending a fortune on carbon most people could just leave a bit of water out of their camelbak or eat a few less pies.
If you have money to burn though then why not I suppose...
Carbon frames are just too damned expensive!
Who really needs carbon? People at competition level and who have sponsors?
Maybe in reality, carbon bikes are predominantly bought by "numpty" who feels he must have the most expensive thing to show off to his mates, or would panic if he thought he wasn't getting the very latest "bleeding edge" product. Oh the power of marketing! 😆
I really can't see the point in it myself and if you want to refurbish a bike at a later stage (as you may well do with such an expensive frame), carbon is the least refurb friendly material.
My LBS told me he had a few MTB carbon frames returned where the bonding between the aluminium parts and the carbon had failed.
I'm sure they all come out of one factory in Taiwan and the manufacturers are rubbing their hands together as a result of the fat profits!
I guess thats why compsitepro is posting as he is working for on-one, so a Carbon frame won't actually be that much more than a Steel frame especially considering the amount of extra work that steel frames are having to have done to them to make them pass the new DIN regulations.
it seems to be ridiculously expensive for a not enormous weight saving
Yes! I'm sceptical of anything which is marketed as a magical solution to your riding inadequacies, and carbon is probably the worst example of this.
Lots of bike parts use carbon purely for effect - I think one example (carbon rails on a saddle) worked out at a cost to weight ratio of several thousand £££s per gram.
I ride a carbon frame and it's not about the weight, as other people have said most modern alu frames are the same weight in some cases even lighter. It's the way it 'feels' that I like, I've never ridden a Ti frame but suspect they feel different as well.
At the end of the day any frame/component material can suffer/fail from damage. Personally I'm more concerned about the paper thin alu rear end on my 4yr old NRS than I am about the carbon main frame. 😕
Leightweight quality Cro-Mo frames are really good. Especially if you have a hardtail. So much give! So much more comfortable!
I don't think they will ever return in volume because their thin tubes don't look as purposeful and rugged as aluminium and people have it in their heads that aluminium alloy is lighter, therefore better.
Ti seems to be the happy medium, but again, very expensive. I'd definitely stump up for a TI frame if I had the money though.
My LBS told me he had a few MTB carbon frames returned where the bonding between the aluminium parts and the carbon had failed.
I had exactly that with some carbon cranks. Still got them as an ornament 😀
Personally I'm more concerned about the paper thin alu rear end on my 4yr old NRS than I am about the carbon main frame.
Its the same rear end as on the alu NRS isnt it? From the holes in the tubing and the old flick-test it looks pretty thick-walled to me on mine.
My brothers Mt Vision snapped at the head tube/downtube interface after a couple of years use - fortunately it didnt go with a bang, it went with a creak while JRA!
IMO Carbon just doesnt have the weight saving needed to make the cost worth while. Same with bars and seatposts - the differences are minimal so I always wonder why I'd bother for twice the price.
So much give! So much more comfortable!
God, that old chestnut... 🙄
IMO Carbon just doesnt have the weight saving needed to make the cost worth while. Same with bars and seatposts - the differences are minimal so I always wonder why I'd bother for twice the price.
With carbon you can 'tune' it when desgining it so with seat post and bars you can go for a bit of flex the same with road forks but you would desgin them to flex in one way only.
A good example of this is the flex pivot on yetis.
You cna also desgin a carbon conponet to be a lot stronger than alu or steal for the same weight. It is not all about weight saving but about using a material in a way to give an advantage.
CF is the first mountain bike frame material that really has no ability to deform plasticaly.
Go to a fishing takle shop, pick any rod. Watch it bend.
🙂
Go to a fishing takle shop, pick any rod. Watch it bend.
That'd be elastic deformation, not plastic.
does anyone know why DH race bikes aren't carbon then?
[url= http://www.laharbikes.com/ ]Lahar[/url] have been making carbon DH bikes for ages.
I've seen their hardtail version and that looked very strong and appeared to have no problems being jumped off big drops.
Joe
why does everyone keep talking about DIN? that's the German equivalent of the British standard.
its a European standard CE that EVERYONE is working to.
Carbon Vs Titanium = 1 all draw in marketing. please stop saying that's the only reason frames cost a fortune. it makes you look stupid
Carbon Vs Titanium = 1 all draw in marketing. please stop saying that's the only reason frames cost a fortune. it makes you look stupid
huh?
I think people are now more open to differing frame materials in general providing you can stay away from the marketing BS that for some reason comes in spades with bicycles
Correct me if im wrong but in peoples minds carbon brings ultralight blah de blah to the table thats fine but theres always the design intent of the frame if its sub 3.5 lbs its maybe not going to last forever and doing 5 foot drops maybe wasn't its intended application
if for example people say I want a super tough 4.5lb hardtail I think that is now possible with carbon and the factor of safety that extra fibre brings there are lots of arguments for and against and im not convinced there will never be a fear factor with composites in general
impact resistance is a favourite one but steel frames puncture on rocks head tubes come clean off and butts fail(literally)its a similar story with many frames and most materials ...theres a horror story out there!!
I remember something that wrings in my mind no matter what im designing and that is that theres no such thing as a bad material its more to do with the application of that material
Im more fascinated with peoples perceptions than anything else and this thread is pretty good at outlining the main thoughts
So when's On-one's composite frame going to be available?
What are the differences between say a Bianchi Carbon HT where the full bike is around £1500 and an Ibis Tranny at £1400 for the frame?
Gullibility? 🙂
(ok - volume, quality, complexity of full sussers, etc)
Well for a start the Tranny is adjustable. Not really apples with apples.
Well for a start the Tranny is adjustable. Not really apples with apples.
I just went for a quick google search. Ok bikes I do understand, a Planet X Pro carbon at £1200 for the bike and a BH G4 Ultralight at £12000 (not a typo) They are both carbon racing bikes, I may be being a bit extreme with the selection (as the components will make up some of the costs)
(just realised my mistake - Tranny isn't a full susser is it...)
nope.
Bloody hell...I've yet to break a frame....in any material... Am i doing something wrong?
Yes. You must try harder.
clubber - So when's On-one's composite frame going to be available?
by the reading of it pretty soon and i suspect its going to be full suspension
I fond the steel with more give a big joke. I have had steel frames and they dont feel like they make much difference at all. What they do is flex a lot more when you pedal hard. What you really need to be asking is if Titanium is worth the extra money! To me you might as well use a good alloy frame with a good waranty. It will be cheaper than titanium, carbon or even steel these days. It will ride as good as save you lots of money. For which you can buy a new frame in 4 years time and get back half to a third of the price back on here or ebay. If you hammer your bike so hard to break frames a lot then there is a good chance no matter what its made from it will break or crack etc. For all the Ti and carbon frmes they sell compared to alloy, there is still a high percentage of them get faults. If you averaged it out I bet the alloy frames which sell lots more than the other materials probably fail less!
I have a Yeti 575 with full carbon swing arm. It has craked at the same place as a number of other pictures i have seen of Yeti 575. I don't do jumps on it, so i think this is a design flaw. I will be replacing with aluminium chain stay/ carbon seat stay option under warranty.
Will be posting pics to my flikr.com site under "peteelliott "
Still think the bike is great though- just hastle to sort out.
i can't be arsed to read 4 pages late at night...
But for a rough idea as to how strong carbon frames are, a friend recently wrote his off in a rather bad crash (in the road bunch, at speed, lots of people riding over his bike etc) the guys in the shop he works for were interested as to how tough it actually was,
so frame lying on a bench, ball peen hammer in hand, it took 3 hard hits -in the same place- from the ball end of the hammer before it broke (cracked) the frame, and another to get it to go into the frame...
i'm quite happy riding a carbon ht down rocky rough terrain, various rocks bouncing off the downtube.
AND to top it all off...
CARBON CAN BE REPAIRED!!
Saw 2 carbonfibre frames with completely snapped rear triangles at the recent NPS, Dolby. I won't buy a CF MTB! And they were pretty unrepairable I can tell you.
Road is a different matter
Damn - just bought a carbon bike, looks like I'm gonna die.
Do I have faith in the material? Yes. Like clubber I've been a rower for quite some time and have rowed in carbon boats and witnessed how much abuse it will take. If it's well designed I have no problem with carbon frames/forks/cranks
Did I buy it for weight saving? Not really - the ride properties are pretty good - feels like steel on the buzz absorbtion side of things (if not better) and on a very large frame feels very stiff laterally.
Thumbs up from me 😀
a new tube can be inserted into a carbon frame. if the toptube/downtube/etc are broken straight through it can be repaired.
I love this place....
My RC36 PCII's have been crashed numerous times and are full of scrapes and bumps and stuff and still working fine (well actually, they need a service as for the last 12 months they have been sat on the wifes bike pretty much unused.
My carbon Lacrosse stick has been used to batter people (I'm a defender), has scrapes and gouges and stuff and still works perfectly.
i like carbon, never let me down.
When I worked in a bike shop, the Spesh rep had a set of tubes that had yet to be formed into a frame. He told me to whack a tube on the corner of the stell girder thing that holds the roof up. I hit it as hard as I could right on the corner and there was not even a mark.
I remember seeing a video of someone from a bike company hitting two bike tubes against each other, one CF one alu. Needless to say the CF came off much better.
I was sceptical but having seen these two things, have absolutely no worries at all about riding CF.
Saw 2 carbonfibre frames with completely snapped rear triangles at the recent NPS, Dolby. I won't buy a CF MTB! And they were pretty unrepairable I can tell you.
Road is a different matter
Yes but I have seen plenty of broken Aluminium ones too. What's your point?
I haven't got a CF frame yet. If it breaks then I can have a go at sticking it back together. I can't do that at home with metal frames.