Carbon Fibre and the riders weight?

DonDaddyD

My point was that I don't think bikes are so delicate that you really need to save your best bike only for those rare dry summer days.

The reason why someone may have a best or summer bike is so that it feels and remains special to the owner as they only take it out on special days.

There is no other real plausible reason for having a specific winter or summer bike.

I want a carbon fibre bike and I want a seperate bike or commuting. What is cooler than having a designated bike for weekends and weekdays. The notion stems from the day's when I would dream of owning a car for work and a red (G-reg shape) BMW 3 series (1.8i) soft top convertable with beads on the seat a crown shaped airfreshener in the back for weekends.... 8)

prawny

DonDaddyD wrote:

I would dream of owning a car for work and a red (G-reg shape) BMW 3 series (1.8i) soft top convertable with beads on the seat a crown shaped airfreshener in the back for weekends.... 8)

Mate you'd look like a pimp from The Bill!

prawny

Hold up, why int the quote thingummy working properly?

Roastie

prawny wrote:

Roastiecp wrote:

prawny wrote:

My paddles are carbon and they've been going fine with no issue's since '97 and taken more abuse and obviously been subjected to more torque than the boat.

Resilience and strength are two different issues.

I take it you've never done a marathon canoe race? Resilience and strengh are required there are a hell of a lot more scratches cracks and chips in my paddles than I would ever want to see on my bike frame. :?

I take it you aren't a Mechanical Engineer?

Of course a marathon canoe will need both strength and resilience (just as a touring bike needs both). My point was just that they aren't the same thing.

We were talking about rider weight IRC (not canoe longevity) - my point was that the material the frame is made of has little bearing on the strength (and hence rider weight capability) of the frame - that is a function of the design.

The resilience of the frame is, of course, a completely different matter. To the original topic, I would probably not trust carbon where life and ability to "take lifes knocks" is important.

prawny

Roastiecp wrote:

prawny wrote:

Roastiecp wrote:

prawny wrote:

My paddles are carbon and they've been going fine with no issue's since '97 and taken more abuse and obviously been subjected to more torque than the boat.

Resilience and strength are two different issues.

I take it you've never done a marathon canoe race? Resilience and strengh are required there are a hell of a lot more scratches cracks and chips in my paddles than I would ever want to see on my bike frame. :?

I take it you aren't a Mechanical Engineer?

Of course a marathon canoe will need both strength and resilience (just as a touring bike needs both). My point was just that they aren't the same thing.

We were talking about rider weight IRC (not canoe longevity) - my point was that the material the frame is made of has little bearing on the strength (and hence rider weight capability) of the frame - that is a function of the design.

The resilience of the frame is, of course, a completely different matter. To the original topic, I would probably not trust carbon where life and ability to "take lifes knocks" is important.

Fair enough I'm no engineer, thought about it but i'm cack at maths. Just saying in my experience carbon has been ok I understand they are differences but any weakness in a paddle blade would show up quickly, I had a mate who bought some cheap GRP blades for training and snapped both blades the first time he used them, he, I or anyone else I know have ever snapped a carbon blade.

Before you say it, no, I've never seen a GRP bike you're the best, i'm the worst, you're very good looking i'm not attractive.

Funnily though I don't trust carbon bars go figure! :roll:

biondino

DonDaddyD wrote:

My point was that I don't think bikes are so delicate that you really need to save your best bike only for those rare dry summer days.

The reason why someone may have a best or summer bike is so that it feels and remains special to the owner as they only take it out on special days.

There is no other real plausible reason for having a specific winter or summer bike.

I want a carbon fibre bike and I want a seperate bike or commuting. What is cooler than having a designated bike for weekends and weekdays.

A fair point and entirely reasonable approach. The rejoinder I would offer, in my experience, is that the Focus is so much fun to ride that although I am sure I am wearing it out quicker, I still prefer to ride it over and above my entirely serviceable, decent Trek except in actual rain (because the sks raceblades seem to attach better to the Trek for some reason). I may be commuting but I'm still actively enjoying the bike, and to me that's the biggest thing.

vorsprung

nation wrote:

biondino wrote:

Carbon fibre doesn't rust, DDD, it's the perfect wet-weather material! Ride it in the rain! Only preening metrosexuals like Jash refuse to ride good bikes in the rain.

I don't realy get the whole "winter bike" thing. Maybe it's my MTB background, but most bike parts aren't that delicate. In fact, the only part I've known to succumb to water and mud was my old front derailleur, which died after several winters living in the muddy spray kicked off the rear wheel. Thinking about it, I have heard that a lot of external bearing BBs aren't very mud-proof either, but I still have ISIS cranks.

I suspect there are roadies that would have a fit if they saw the abuse most MTB components are regularly subjected to.

I used to have a steel 8 speed triple road bike
During the winter I'd do about 60 miles a week
At the end of the winter I'd have to replace the chain and cassette as they were ghost shifting and slipping
I'd do 100 miles a week in the summer and the chain/cassette did not wear out
Brake block, tyre, and rim wear is higher in the winter
You are right about external bearing Campag BBs. They seem to be designed for use in the south of Italy or some place where it doesn't rain

As I understand it most MTB riders put their bikes on a car, drive to the top of a hill and then whizz 10 miles down to a pub. Then they push the bike back up the hill and go home and say what an exciting and tiring day they have had. It's not going to wear out the drive train if you aren't pedalling half the time is it?

wgwarburton

nation wrote:

... the original Shimano drivetrain parts gave up after a couple of winters, the SRAM parts I replaced them with have lasted a lot better.
....
My point was that I don't think bikes are so delicate that you really need to save your best bike only for those rare dry summer days. What's the point in having it if you don't ride it?

We're not talking about saving it for rare sunny days, though, we're talking about not using it when it's dark, wet and windy and the roads are being salted & gritted every couple of days.

As you point out, you can wear out components in a couple of years with that treatment- and the performance deteriorates well before they actually need to be replaced.
The chain on my winter hack costs about six quid to replace, sprocket about a fiver and chainring (used) under a tenner. I can change the whole drivetrain for less than the cost of a good nine-speed chain.

Better to keep the classy stuff for when you can see the scenery and are warm enough to enjoy it.

Cheers,
W.

cougie

Like we ever have to justify our need for extra bikes..... (apart from to our partners that is)

always_tyred

vorsprung wrote:

As I understand it most MTB riders put their bikes on a car, drive to the top of a hill and then whizz 10 miles down to a pub.

would it be inappropriate to point out that too many mtb-ers are absolute nightmares to commute in the close proximity of (they appear to be invincible and more agile, with faster reaction times than me.... and have ESP)
would it also be inappropriate to suggest that its really gauling to be buzzed on an A-road in this area by cars with a load of mtb's on the back bombing down to Glentress?

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

My point was that I don't think bikes are so delicate that you really need to save your best bike only for those rare dry summer days.

The reason why someone may have a best or summer bike is so that it feels and remains special to the owner as they only take it out on special days.

There is no other real plausible reason for having a specific winter or summer bike.

I disagree. I have a Summer bike and a Winter bike because I have no desire to ride the best bike in the winter when there is salty grit on the roads. This gets in the drive chain and causes accelerated wear. Can get in hubs and cause wear. Gets on rims and causes wear. Best bike is Chorus throughout, replacement bits are pricey and I don't want to expose them to conditions that will accelerate wear unnecessarily. I do still take the summer bike out in winter but try to aim for decent conditions, but on the whole it's saved for the dry, warmer weather and enjoyed thoroughly then.

Also I reckon there is more chance of having an off in winter - with ice and wetter roads. I'd rather crash the winter bike than the best bike.

Equally I have the SS for the commuter because it needs next to no servicing and is cheap to run through the worst weather.

biondino

I reckon there's salt/grit on the roads for a maximum of one month a year. (this year maybe 6 weeks, but it was an exceptional winter).

Roughly translated, MTFU. Your bikes will be fine.

il_principe

biondino wrote:

I reckon there's salt/grit on the roads for a maximum of one month a year. (this year maybe 6 weeks, but it was an exceptional winter).

Roughly translated, MTFU. Your bikes will be fine.

Meh, already have summer and winter - may as well use them.

There's still a lot of nasty cr@p on the roads in the winter, rather that got in my Shimano equipped Focus than my Chorus equipped Pinarello!

nation

vorsprung wrote:

As I understand it most MTB riders put their bikes on a car, drive to the top of a hill and then whizz 10 miles down to a pub. Then they push the bike back up the hill and go home and say what an exciting and tiring day they have had. It's not going to wear out the drive train if you aren't pedalling half the time is it?

This is only really true of the DH/Freeride crowd, I tend to aim for distances of 60-100km on my weekend rides and I don't own a car. This does make trail centres a little awkward, since it's often difficult to ride to them (ironically enough) especially on trail tyres.

As regards drivetrain parts, I tend to view cassettes and chains like I view brake pads.They're going to wear out and I honestly wouldn't expect them to last longer than a couple of years.

Rim and brake wear I can see from a road bike point of view, the nice thing about discs is that you don't have to worry about rim wear, and the pads last the same length of time pretty much regardless of conditions.

wgwarburton

biondino wrote:

I reckon there's salt/grit on the roads for a maximum of one month a year. ...

Maybe where you ride, round my way we get gritting from late October though to April, though there's obviously more in midwinter than at the margins...

Cheers,
W.

itboffin

ditto they were gritting the roads here last Friday yet somehow they seem to forget when it's actually snowing or icy :evil:

jedster

Roastie,

To the original topic, I would probably not trust carbon where life and ability to "take lifes knocks" is important.

Sh1T!!!! Have you told the RAF? The EurofighterTyphoon fusilage is made out of carbon fibre and I reckon that needs to be able to take a few knocks and last a good while...



J

always_tyred

Roastie wrote:

To the original topic, I would probably not trust carbon where life and ability to "take lifes knocks" is important.

This may result from consulting a witch doctor, or reading tea leaves. The tea leaves may predict a troublesome future for your carbon frame.

Alternatively, one could just get over the irrational suspicion of the stuff.