Are carbon bikes really any good?

patbriggsmbr

Ok from the beginning,
Iv now been riding road and mountain bikes for well over 30 some years and technology has got better to be fair.
However what I have found is even though carbon is super light, stiff and can look pretty nice and these days its cheap it's actually just short lasting plastic crap. That's right I said it crap, with a lifetime of just 3-5 years and that's if your lucky.
The reasons are, from what I've been reading and experienced, you have to watch for chips, ware, rubs, o and don't bang it too hard it might just crack and break and check this out don't get it too wet it might just melt! Need I go
On, in totall its easy to make, cheap to produce and people like light things. To me it's absolute garbage, period.
Only yesterday I was riding my 3rd carbon bike and guess what? Yes it snapped , the forks gave way and sent me flying!
I now believe carbon is shite and 531, 761 and titanium (steel) is the future, has and always will be the best to get. With steel and with some TLC you have a bike for life. I can honestly say as soon as I can I'm binning the plastic and getting a proper bike made out of good old fashioned steel.
O by the way my new focus izalco pro is back in the shop because focus put the wrong size tyres on, which led to the tyre catching the carbon and it wore through the paint into the carbon causing a weak spot, as I said shit? I now waiting for a new frame from them. Never again will I ever buy plastic!!!!!!!!

bompington

:roll:

Use the search function for the endless threads that have already discussed this
OR
Look it up on youtube
OR
Take a flight in a modern plane

end of discussion

rolf_f

bompington wrote:

:roll:

Use the search function for the endless threads that have already discussed this
OR
Look it up on youtube
OR
Take a flight in a modern plane

end of discussion

Psst - I think the thread is tongue in cheek........

Hoopdriver

bompington wrote:

:roll:

Use the search function for the endless threads that have already discussed this
OR
Look it up on youtube
OR
Take a flight in a modern plane

end of discussion

Without going into the argument itself, the fact that carbon is subject to this much on-going debate suggests there must be at least something to what the OP is saying.

And while no doubt there are cogent arguments that can be put forward by the pro-carbon side of things, comparing bicycle frames to airplanes is just not one of them; that's just facile.

Vino2007

Keep on riding your 9kg alu bikes girrllsss

rpd_steve

I think the point bompington was making is that as a material, CFRP:

-Does not melt, and is entirely structurally stable until at least 120 degC, or up to 230 for some matrix resins
-Is not effected by water
-Is unaffected by almost all chemicals, including solvents, acids and almost anything you can get your hands on. (in fact breaking down epoxy at end of life is one of the biggest challenges preventing more widespread use of CFRP)
-has a much better specific stiffness and strength than any steel or aluminum and most Ti
-Has inherently greater internal damping of high road frequency vibrations, about 100 x compared to steel, 30 x compared to steel and 2x to Ti
-Is no more sensitive to shocks or bangs than Aluminum... The issue is peoples lack of understanding of assessing CFRP damage

I think that the issue is the way that CFRP has filtered down from the defense, aerospace and motorsport sector...
The calculations involved on its strength and stiffness are much more complicated than for isotropic materials (same properties in all directions) like metals, and the manufactures do this once. Once its done, mounds are made and layup decided then yes its pretty easy to manufacture, but labour intensive still.

The problem is I dont know of any bile shops with a composites engineer, or even anyone who has worked designing with carbon. To make a call on safe or not needs you to know the loads, the factors of safety built into a given area, the loading conditions ect. 99% of shops see a tap/small crack and call it junk. In fact CFRP is more repairable than metal as you can repair the damage and it is as good as new, but with metals you have a large area of strain hardening around a failure area, meaning any weld/repair is normally a 70% job.


It has its uses, and is used to good effect. But to that same end you wouldn't buy a Aston martin and expect to tow a farm trailer with it would you?
By 2p done.

Hoopdriver

Vino2007 wrote:

Keep on riding your 9kg alu bikes girrllsss

Oh, now I get it. Real men ride carbon.

Did you think that up by yourself?

DavidBelcher

RPD Steve wrote:

-Is unaffected by almost all chemicals, including solvents, acids and almost anything you can get your hands on. (in fact breaking down epoxy at end of life is one of the biggest challenges preventing more widespread use of CFRP).

Not entirely; it is susceptible to chemicals such as dichloromethane (DCM), which can compromise the effectiveness of both the resin within the material as well as tube-to-tube bonding. As such, doing a home respray on a CF bike and choosing Nitromors or similar own-brand paint removers (which contain DCM) to take off the old paint is a bad idea.

David

Jez mon

Its funny caus, well, steel can "melt" in contact with water.

Frank the tank

I'm sure I read somwhere that after a spill in the peloton the bikes are systematically thrown in a skip.

StillGoing

Hoopdriver wrote:

bompington wrote:

:roll:

Use the search function for the endless threads that have already discussed this
OR
Look it up on youtube
OR
Take a flight in a modern plane

end of discussion

Without going into the argument itself, the fact that carbon is subject to this much on-going debate suggests there must be at least something to what the OP is saying.

And while no doubt there are cogent arguments that can be put forward by the pro-carbon side of things, comparing bicycle frames to airplanes is just not one of them; that's just facile.

What, just like the moon landings, 911 conspiracies, Elvis is living on the moon, Dynamo really does do them tricks etc. Just because people come up with the same tired arguments doesn't mean there is any truth in them.

The chances of my bike being exposed to 120'C are nil, the chances of it being exposed to some chemical that causes it to weaken are nil and the chances of the frame structure being compromised just because of a chip in the paintwork are the same as any other frame materiel. All materiels have their advantages and disadvantages; if you don't want to go down the carbon route, don't buy one.

Hoopdriver

philthy3 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

bompington wrote:

:roll:

Use the search function for the endless threads that have already discussed this
OR
Look it up on youtube
OR
Take a flight in a modern plane

end of discussion

Without going into the argument itself, the fact that carbon is subject to this much on-going debate suggests there must be at least something to what the OP is saying.

And while no doubt there are cogent arguments that can be put forward by the pro-carbon side of things, comparing bicycle frames to airplanes is just not one of them; that's just facile.

What, just like the moon landings, 911 conspiracies, Elvis is living on the moon, Dynamo really does do them tricks etc. Just because people come up with the same tired arguments doesn't mean there is any truth in them.

The chances of my bike being exposed to 120'C are nil, the chances of it being exposed to some chemical that causes it to weaken are nil and the chances of the frame structure being compromised just because of a chip in the paintwork are the same as any other frame materiel. All materiels have their advantages and disadvantages; if you don't want to go down the carbon route, don't buy one.

I wasn't going to buy one. I do think that consumer doubts about the durability and longevity of carbon frames have a somewhat better grounding than Elvis sightings and UFOs - if you believe it is a magic material, good for you. Enjoy.

bompington

Hoopdriver wrote:

I do think that consumer doubts about the durability and longevity of carbon frames have a somewhat better grounding than Elvis sightings and UFOs - if you believe it is a magic material, good for you. Enjoy.

Some may believe it's a magic material, but some of us prefer to go with scientific thinking and engineering evidence. Consumer doubts don't necessarily mean anything without evidence either, there are a host of cognitive biases here, and I suspect rather more magic thinking than the engineers and scientists are coming up with.

But perhaps you're right, and soon we'll see first the pro peloton then all us MAMILs abandoning carbon left, right and centre. I promise to look this thread up in 20 years' time, and will post a grovelling apology if that turns out to be the case.

Finally I should point out that I don't actually have a carbon bike, so that at least removes post-purchase rationalisation as a cognitive bias: I have no personal vested interest in this, just a low-key frustration at the superstition that seems to drive people sometimes.

vino wrote:

Keep on riding your 9kg alu bikes girrllsss

9kg? I should be so lucky

Hoopdriver

bompington wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

I do think that consumer doubts about the durability and longevity of carbon frames have a somewhat better grounding than Elvis sightings and UFOs - if you believe it is a magic material, good for you. Enjoy.

Some may believe it's a magic material, but some of us prefer to go with scientific thinking and engineering evidence. Consumer doubts don't necessarily mean anything without evidence either, there are a host of cognitive biases here, and I suspect rather more magic thinking than the engineers and scientists are coming up with.

But perhaps you're right, and soon we'll see first the pro peloton then all us MAMILs abandoning carbon left, right and centre. I promise to look this thread up in 20 years' time, and will post a grovelling apology if that turns out to be the case.

Finally I should point out that I don't actually have a carbon bike, so that at least removes post-purchase rationalisation as a cognitive bias: I have no personal vested interest in this, just a low-key frustration at the superstition that seems to drive people sometimes.

vino wrote:

Keep on riding your 9kg alu bikes girrllsss

9kg? I should be so lucky

I hope sincerely that I will have better things to do in 20 years than look up this thread.

Tom Dean

Shame you have nothing better to do now :P

Hoopdriver

Tom Dean wrote:

Shame you have nothing better to do now :P

I agree. I an on an assignment and stuck in a small town hotel room far from home way above the arctic circle waiting for a boat that just doesn't come. I've got nothing better to do............

Vino2007

Hoopdriver wrote:

Vino2007 wrote:

Keep on riding your 9kg alu bikes girrllsss

Oh, now I get it. Real men ride carbon.

Did you think that up by yourself?

I think so! Mavic Aksiums? laterzzzz

alihisgreat

Hoopdriver wrote:

bompington wrote:

:roll:

Use the search function for the endless threads that have already discussed this
OR
Look it up on youtube
OR
Take a flight in a modern plane

end of discussion

Without going into the argument itself, the fact that carbon is subject to this much on-going debate suggests there must be at least something to what the OP is saying.

And while no doubt there are cogent arguments that can be put forward by the pro-carbon side of things, comparing bicycle frames to airplanes is just not one of them; that's just facile.

No it doesn't mean there is something to what the OP is saying... it just means there are a small number of ill-informed idiots who think carbon disintegrates when you hit a pothole.

Hoopdriver

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

bompington wrote:

:roll:

Use the search function for the endless threads that have already discussed this
OR
Look it up on youtube
OR
Take a flight in a modern plane

end of discussion

Without going into the argument itself, the fact that carbon is subject to this much on-going debate suggests there must be at least something to what the OP is saying.

And while no doubt there are cogent arguments that can be put forward by the pro-carbon side of things, comparing bicycle frames to airplanes is just not one of them; that's just facile.

No it doesn't mean there is something to what the OP is saying... it just means there are a small number of ill-informed idiots who think carbon disintegrates when you hit a pothole.

I see.

I've got nothing in this debate. I don't own a carbon bike and I've no desire to own one - my disinterest stemming from aesthetic reasons and their general lack of character rather than concerns about their durability. I do think though that your hysterical denunciation of those sceptics who remain unconvinced of carbon's sterling qualities (in your eyes) is sad and shabby and sounds more than a little desperate, as though you were trying to convince yourself. Good luck.

Redhog14

http://m.pinkbike.com/news/santa-cruz-b ... t-lab.html

and who would use nitromoss on a Carbon bike? Our local bike mechanic guru and Long distance TT Champion declared Carbon the "magic material" which swayed me. OTOH many an Alu frame has failed on people in the past...step forward Commencal.

DavidBelcher

Redhog14 wrote:

OTOH many an Alu frame has failed on people in the past...step forward Commencal.

The infamous Bianchi EV2 was the worst offender on that front and nearly killed the company's reputation stone dead, with an efficiency that would put a bottle of Domestos to shame.

David

alihisgreat

Hoopdriver wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

bompington wrote:

:roll:

Use the search function for the endless threads that have already discussed this
OR
Look it up on youtube
OR
Take a flight in a modern plane

end of discussion

Without going into the argument itself, the fact that carbon is subject to this much on-going debate suggests there must be at least something to what the OP is saying.

And while no doubt there are cogent arguments that can be put forward by the pro-carbon side of things, comparing bicycle frames to airplanes is just not one of them; that's just facile.

No it doesn't mean there is something to what the OP is saying... it just means there are a small number of ill-informed idiots who think carbon disintegrates when you hit a pothole.

I see.

I've got nothing in this debate. I don't own a carbon bike and I've no desire to own one - my disinterest stemming from aesthetic reasons and their general lack of character rather than concerns about their durability. I do think though that your hysterical denunciation of those sceptics who remain unconvinced of carbon's sterling qualities (in your eyes) is sad and shabby and sounds more than a little desperate, as though you were trying to convince yourself. Good luck.

Don't need to convince myself.. I ride Aluminium currently!

I was probably a little aggressive in my response :oops: but the point still stands that the existence of debate doesn't verify the topic of debate!

Hoopdriver

That's quite true - mere debate does not mean that there is any genuine problem that needs addressing. It does indicate though a perception that a problem exists, and sometimes that perception does need addressing. But it would seem that it would not need sddressing by either of us, since neither of us ride carbon! :-)

cougie

I've had my CF Giant for 7 years now - no problems.
My 653 steel bike corroded through on two tubes. Chainstay and then seat stay. Whilst I could have had them replaced - it didnt make financial sense.

I've snapped two seatposts - both alloy. No material lasts forever.

I'd say CF bikes are good. They're light, strong and ride well. Many cyclists swap their bikes each year or two anyway - so all of those bikes are essentially disposable.

I'd certainly buy one again.

patbriggsmbr

If you have lots of money to replace a carbon bike frame each year, well must be nice! Its just out of all the bikes I've had 531 steel has always lasted twice as long as carbon. I'm now on my 3rd carbon frame and it's getting a little expensive and annoying.

Hoopdriver

I like steel. A lot.

StillGoing

Hoopdriver wrote:

That's quite true - mere debate does not mean that there is any genuine problem that needs addressing. It does indicate though a perception that a problem exists, and sometimes that perception does need addressing. But it would seem that it would not need sddressing by either of us, since neither of us ride carbon! :-)

Why does it? If someone has their doubts about the qualities of carbon then they simply don't buy one. It doesn't give any credibility to their suspicions. There are plenty of reviews out there and test bikes for people to try if they're considering buying one but are worried due to internet rumours from people who invariably don't even own a carbon frame. I ride an aluminium frame and a carbon frame depending on the weather. The carbon one doesn't intentionally get used in crappy weather, not because of worries about the frame melting but merely because the groupset is more expensive and I don't want it covering in crud unnecessarily. It does however get caught in the rain and often. The carbon bike is far more responsive even at my crap level but then they're different designs of bike. The carbon one is more vibration absorbing and comfortable despite being more over the front end. I've hit potholes due to being unsighted and have never had a crack appear. The shelf life is economically acceptable and on a par with the Aluminium recommended life. Despite the carbon frame being more expensive than the aluminium one I'd choose it every day over the aly one.

I'm not having a pop at you, but this debate is as valid as one over groupsets. If there were any faults with carbon it wouldn't be having the successful sales it achieves for the manufacturers. Admittedly, there are some cheap carbon copy frames out there; some good, some bad and this may be where the rumours about carbon herald from? Invariably you get what you pay for and I would never compromise on something as structural as a frame, seat post or bars just to have carbon fibre. If I couldn't afford something genuine I'd stick with aluminium.

desweller

Outstanding troll. Chapeau.

Smokin Joe

Hoopdriver wrote:

I like steel. A lot.

So does rust.

Hoopdriver

Smokin Joe wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

I like steel. A lot.

So does rust.

So does rust what?

Smokin Joe

Hoopdriver wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

I like steel. A lot.

So does rust.

So does rust what?

Like yourself, it likes steel.