Peaty's new carbon V10 test bike

supersonic

AH, it is the race this weekend, forgot about that.

Come on Peaty, will reclaim world number one if he wins it.

Atz

Course he won't. The frame will come apart if there's any more bumps than the average suburban side-street. :roll:

RealMan

Atz wrote:

RealMan wrote:

Carbon DH? Not sure about that tbh.

Come on, really? You still sticking with the story that carbon is basically crispy cheese and totally unsafe for riding? Even when there's world championship DH bikes in it now?

Oh right I forgot that when a company pays someone to use something, that it automatically makes that something perfect.

For sponsored riders sure why not. If they crash they lose, so who cares if the bike is destroyed. They will just be given another one for free.

lawman

Atz wrote:

Course he won't. The frame will come apart if there's any more bumps than the average suburban side-street. :roll:

of course it will........ not :roll:

the gt fury used by mick hannah nad co survived every world cup last year very easily. if carbon is so crap why has it been used for everything in F1 for the last 20 years???? and i can tell you know the forces they have to with stand are darn sight stronger than any one of us, even peaty im sure, can give a carbon frame

RealMan

lawman wrote:

the gt fury used by mick hannah nad co survived every world cup last year very easily.

How do you know? If it broke, do you think they would've told anyone?

lawman wrote:

if carbon is so crap why has it been used for everything in F1 for the last 20 years???? and i can tell you know the forces they have to with stand are darn sight stronger than any one of us, even peaty im sure, can give a carbon frame

Its still light and strong. But what do you think is going to come off a crash better, a carbon F1 car or an aluminium and steel ford mondeo?

I'm not saying its bad. I'm saying I think its unsuitable for anything other then racing at the top end, where the rider is getting the bike for free.

lawman

so basically everyone worries about crash damage with carbon frames????

simple solution, learn not to have big crashes :roll:

Atz

RealMan wrote:

I'm not saying its bad. I'm saying I think its unsuitable for anything other then racing at the top end, where the rider is getting the bike for free.

I suggest you actually go and find some people to talk to who've PAID for their carbon bikes and ask them how they feel about them and their experiences with them. Or perhaps get a background in materials technology. Then maybe your opinions will carry some weight because right now, you're making statements that are just plain wrong.

I've seen more Ti frames snap in the flesh than I've seen steel or alu but I'm at least bright enough to know that doesn't mean Ti is weaker than both of those.

Anonymous

RealMan wrote:

Its still light and strong. But what do you think is going to come off a crash better, a carbon F1 car or an aluminium and steel ford mondeo?

The F1 car, hands down, without a shadow of a doubt, without exception.

Fricking idiot. :roll:

Hercule Q

RealMan wrote:

Its still light and strong. But what do you think is going to come off a crash better, a carbon F1 car or an aluminium and steel ford mondeo?

Which one would you like to crash into a wall at 200mph?

toasty

RealMan wrote:

I'm not saying its bad. I'm saying I think its unsuitable for anything other then racing at the top end, where the rider is getting the bike for free.

Naw, you're just trying to be controversial by posting rubbish to wind people up. They should all be riding steel singlespeeds or something right? Energy is wasted in those complicated suspension and gearing systems!

You're not really saying anything, you're taking wild shot in the dark guesses, based on the fact light carbon XC frames can be built weak, much like aluminium. Once again, comparing a light racing car, to a sturdy family car, they're not the same.

lugsey2k5

carbon has the advantage of being able to be specifically layed up to give greatest strength for its specific forces on that area of the bike. its biggest weakness is de lamination due to impact but with correct layup techniques such as honey combing etc the material becomes highly impact (crashing) resistant.

real man you are still stuck in the mind set of early carbon bikes which mainly suffered due to bad layup techniques. modern bikes are far more complex with a much greater understanding of of the material reacts and works.

sure my old aluminium kona dawg was probably much stronger than my current zesty but it was also alot heavier and massively over engineered with unnecessary strength which i still believe i could never brake. it would take a extreamly bad crash to break my zesty one which would have dented my kona easily and written it off anyway.
so to sum up... your wrong

RealMan

Toasty wrote:

Once again, comparing a light racing car, to a sturdy family car, they're not the same.

But the whole "oh carbon must be fantastic otherwise they wouldn't use it in F1" argument is stupid. F1 cars are not designed to be crashed repeatedly and still be usable. Bikes, especially DH bikes, should be. At least for people who buy their own bikes.

Shorty12

They are SPD's if you look at the shadow also I also remember him saying he prefers SPD for racing and Flats at home

supersonic

They use carbon in F1 for the strength to weight ratio, and the fact in can be manipulated more than metals.

They use it in bikes because of the strength to weight ratio, and the fact in can be manipulated more than metals.

bike-a-swan

They use it in aircraft because of the strength to weight ratio, and the fact in can be manipulated more than metals.