[Closed] Is it just me?...carbon frames

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

aracer - Member

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?

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.

[url= http://vannicholas.com/ ]Van Nicholas[/url]

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.

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.

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