Weak carbon Why?
Comments
-
jayson wrote:MrChuck wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:
:shock:jairaj wrote:fletch8928 wrote:F1 drivers also don't reuse the car after a crash. Its not taken to bits and the shell they sit in put in a new body.
Errmm yeah they do. Due to cost reduction initiative many manufacturers don't have spare chassis and have to repair the old one. for example Mark Weber had to re-use and old repiared chassis that Vetle had discarded after he went for a flying lesson in the Velancia GP and totally trashed his chassis.
seriously?
I don't think Vettel's chassis had been though anything as dramatic as that though had it? I expect Webber's chassis from Valencia will have gone straight in the bin.
There was nothin wrong with the chassis Vettel just said he dint like the feel of it so dint use it.
Yes there was. It had been found to have been damaged and was repaired and was passed onto webber as soon as he trashed his chassis in Turkey.0 -
yeah I was under the impression that the car had been repaired first and thats why Vettel didn't like the feel of it? I maybe wrong though but they defiantly repair the cars now in F1 (within limits).yeehaamcgee wrote:In fact, the Lotus elise is held together by a bonding agent, and
is one of the best handling car chassis available.
Yup saw a documentary years ago on the design on the Elise. Lotus said they put one rivet at each joint just for show, as people wouldn't feel safe using just "glue".0 -
While on the subject of carbon, most trails etc. these days have dropoffs, not DH stuff, but often 2ft etc. Does anyone regularly ride this sort of thing with carbon forks ?
Jon0 -
Got to admit, I'd be nervous on a carbon bike whether my reasons be justified or not. The images of shattered frames don't do anything for my confidence. I remember seeing one posted up on here not so long ago - must have been snapped right through in at least four places if I remember rightly. I've even heard of roadies snapping frames in two powering up hills.
I'm not fussed though. I ride a 30lb bike. I could shave 5lbs off that and still ride a steel frame. I'm happy to wait a few years before delving into carbon technology when perhaps I'll feel more comfortable with it.0 -
The lightest steel frame on the market is about 4.2lbs. if you had a 4.2lbs carbon frame, it would be incredibly strong, probably a hell of a lot stronger than the steel frame I reckon.
The OnOne 456 is 3.6lbs, and can take a 160mm fork.0 -
Too bloody right. I reckon after the inevitable nuclear war that ends all life on the planet, the GT Force Carbons will still be going strong.supersonic wrote:The lightest steel frame on the market is about 4.2lbs. if you had a 4.2lbs carbon frame, it would be incredibly strong, probably a hell of a lot stronger than the steel frame I reckon.0 -
Am 16.4 stome and am on me second 9.9 carbon ex trek with no problems at all
Am riding single track and XC but have no fear riding it down steps etc as well would be more then happy to have any carbon bike end of the day most good one,s have a life time garantee i beleave ?If you dont bleed your not trying ...0 -
supersonic wrote:The lightest steel frame on the market is about 4.2lbs. if you had a 4.2lbs carbon frame, it would be incredibly strong, probably a hell of a lot stronger than the steel frame I reckon.
The OnOne 456 is 3.6lbs, and can take a 160mm fork.
You might well be right, and I believe you. But I once had a very, very heavy iron railing drop onto a cromo frame BMX from 20ft up. It merely twisted the rear end very slightly (you wouldn't notice unless you were looking - or tried to ride it!). It's that kind of security I feel comfortable with.0 -
Hehe, I bet the frame weighed more than the railing ;-)
When it comes down to the bare bones, all the materials have pros and cons, and except titanium, are still evolving it seems. And of course how the thing is fabricated has a huge effect. Steels greatest downfall is that you can only go so light before they become too flexy - you can't oversize the tubes like you can with alu, and to an extent titanium. But if you don't mind a bit of weight it has has you found out, excellent impact resistance.
Would like to see the new 953 on the MTB market, as promises even thinner walls, lighter weight and slightly stiffer frames for super light steel.0 -
I ride an alu frame anyway
Psychological maybe. But carbon would psyche me out. I'll stick with metal until my possibly irrational fear is ironed out.0 -
Alu, oooh, I have some stories haha
0 -
I don;t want to hear them
0 -
i know with a fancy hydroformed frames it is posible to flex the frame inwards with a good solid pinch. Found that out one day when I realised how thin and tinny my Scale frame was. Funny how the sales people look at me when I am window shopping and try that. The frame has to have a flatish or oval part to do it properly. Also helps if you have real mans arms, not Realmans arms obviously.fly like a mouse, run like a cushion be the small bookcase!0
-
supersonic wrote:The OnOne 456 is 3.6lbs, and can take a 160mm fork.
Mr Miyagi son, would you get one for all mountain riding?Charge Duster (RIP)
Ragley mmmBop0 -
Glad I found some people going through the same thought processes as me.
I had a steel Charge Duster which played chicken with a tree and lost and now have a OnOne 456 Carbon sitting in my living room. If I'd been on the Carbon the tree would have won again but through reading around I'm wondering whether it would do as well as the steel with the occasional off, up and into those rocks that happen?Helter wrote:supersonic wrote:The OnOne 456 is 3.6lbs, and can take a 160mm fork.
Mr Miyagi son, would you get one for all mountain riding?Charge Duster (RIP)
Ragley mmmBop0 -
i have no problem with carbon on a mtb but it needs to be of a certain quality i would say which means it needs to be fairly expensive, im not sure i would trust cheap carbon, this might be irrational sure, but it is how i feel. that said, i try to avoid cheap metal parts too unless the cheapness works in my favour with the "cheap, light, strong: pick 2" equation.
i had a carbon road bike which was brutal to ride, mostly down to geometry but it was stiff as funk, ace for putting the power down, not so good for putting the miles in. my alu road bikes have always been more enjoyable to ride to me.
i had a carbon mtb, even though it was a ht, it was gorgeous to ride, it didnt exactly flex but it was considerably more enjoyable to ride than the p7 which preceded it. and im certain it absorbed some of the rumblings form the trail surface
i would buy a carbon frame but i would want it to be form a manufacturer who were prepared to put a lifetime warranty on it.0 -
Had a off on saturday on me carbon 456 with carbon bars, clipped a post while flying down a trail and it sent me to the floor me marked scratched and bruised.
The bike not a single mark... i thought i might have snapped bars or something but not a thing
0 -
Ever since i got back into biking 3-4 years ago i have always ridden with carbon bars and a carbon seatpost. All i did was ensure i bought a good brand and i have never had a single problem. First i started with EC70 monkey bars/EC70 seatpost and now i run both bikes on EC90 SL monkey bars and a EC90 seatpost.0
-
I think it depends on the frame, and it's purposes too. Something like my wolfridge would need considerable force in a vice to bend the frame - but then it's a roughly 32lbs pretty over-engineered bike.fletch8928 wrote:i know with a fancy hydroformed frames it is posible to flex the frame inwards with a good solid pinch.
Hourses for corses.0 -
Helter wrote:supersonic wrote:The OnOne 456 is 3.6lbs, and can take a 160mm fork.
Mr Miyagi son, would you get one for all mountain riding?
Quite possibly! I got my Zaskar Carbon for this sort of reason, as was designed to be a fast handling, but tough frame. The 456 I would need to try, but for the price it is quite astonishing.
With the Ragley MMMBop, and some older Kinesis frames, and possibly stretching to the Cotic Soul, we have three well priced, well weighted, and very apt machines but all in different materials.0 -
Helter wrote:supersonic wrote:The OnOne 456 is 3.6lbs, and can take a 160mm fork.
Mr Miyagi son, would you get one for all mountain riding?
If the frame fits and feels good, yeah why not? that is what its designed for.0 -
i know with a fancy hydroformed frames it is posible to flex the frame inwards with a good solid pinch.
Used to be able to do that on the S-Works carbon bikes, hardtails and Epics, you could flex the top tube with your thumb, didn't even need to pinch it.0 -
njee20 wrote:i know with a fancy hydroformed frames it is posible to flex the frame inwards with a good solid pinch.
Used to be able to do that on the S-Works carbon bikes, hardtails and Epics, you could flex the top tube with your thumb, didn't even need to pinch it.
Thats a pretty terrifyin thought when u intend to ragg it around off road :shock: :shock:0 -
Never bothered me with any of the 3 I had!0
-
supersonic wrote:Helter wrote:supersonic wrote:The OnOne 456 is 3.6lbs, and can take a 160mm fork.
Mr Miyagi son, would you get one for all mountain riding?
Quite possibly! I got my Zaskar Carbon for this sort of reason, as was designed to be a fast handling, but tough frame. The 456 I would need to try, but for the price it is quite astonishing.
With the Ragley MMMBop, and some older Kinesis frames, and possibly stretching to the Cotic Soul, we have three well priced, well weighted, and very apt machines but all in different materials.
like my maxlight xc120 then light at under 1.5kg, but will take a 140mm fork no problem nad has taken more hamer than supposidly stronger frames costing twice as much. for a HT its very comfortable too, obviously not as cush as an FS bike, but outstanding for an ali HT, i really cant recommend them enough 0
