10 Year Old TCR - Carbon

meagain

Assuming seen little use and good care, is there any objective, scientific, reason why a 10 y.o. Giant Composite frame would be any more "risky" a buy than alu? I've read many "thoughts" on CF longevity etc etc and TBH most seem to be based on nothing more than prejudice and the odd hearsay anecdotals. Seen one that I really want and - unusually - has the triple set up I need.

Thanks.

ugo.santalucia

The dreamliner has a carbon fibre fuselage. Do you think Boeing is planning to retire them after 10 years?
Buy with confidence

racingcondor

Every time I head of a 10yo frame that's still going strong it's a Giant TCR. I'd worry about crash damage much more than the material.

meagain

Thanks - much along my line of thinking. And yes, crash damage my greatest worry - and this was has been dropped as attested by RH shifter unit and some scraping to the rear mech (and disclosed by seller, who says frame unaffected). Perhaps I shouldn't let my heart rule my head....but I REALLY want it! Even in my favourite black and yellow paint job.

cougie

I sold mine this year - not 10 years old - but it was a lovely bike. I'd have no worries riding it - the frame is rock solid.

kangarouge

I've come off my Planet X carbon framed bike at least 4 times, most of them on ice. Scratches and scrapes on the frames and levers are evidence to this. I still ride it almost every week and have full confidence in its strength.

Watch the pro's fall off their bikes, get back on again and then hammer it to the finish.

If its strong enough to support 300/400 + passengers at high altitude on a plane then its good enough for me.Some people do talk a load of tosh about carbon.

rolf_f

I got knocked off my Ribble by a pedestrian. There was no frame damage and the only mark on the shifter polished out. So a) you can drop a bike and not damage the frame and b) you can't assume a bike hasn't been dropped just because there is no visible damage to it.

So, either avoid any second hand carbon bike or don't worry about this one if everything else feels right.

Kangarouge wrote:

If its strong enough to support 300/400 + passengers at high altitude on a plane then its good enough for me.Some people do talk a load of tosh about carbon.

But this is tosh too! Just because I can bend a paperclip in my fingers doesn't mean I'm scared of crossing steel girder bridges! It isn't about the potential properties of a material used for a given purpose but how they are actually used. A carbon bike is likely to be heavily over-engineered but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

meagain

My non-technical intuition/thinking neatly put - thanks all.

kangarouge

'A carbon bike is likely to be heavily over-engineered' Is this a fact or a presumption? I assume if the word ' likely' is
being used then it's a presumption and therefore may qualify for the term 'tosh'.

GGBiker

How about this 17 yr old carbon frame, still going strong!

It was my first road bike, bought it new for £600 in a LBS sale.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12886853&p=17955516

rolf_f

Kangarouge wrote:

'A carbon bike is likely to be heavily over-engineered' Is this a fact or a presumption? I assume if the word ' likely' is
being used then it's a presumption and therefore may qualify for the term 'tosh'.

OK, if it makes you feel better - carbon bikes are heavily over-engineered. They are produced in vast quantities and you very rarely hear of random failures that aren't caused by abuse or serious impact damage. Time and again on here you hear people comment about significant impacts that have had no impact on the frames performance. The manufacturers reputations are dependant on their products being safe in a society where litigation is extremely expensive. So a presumption that they are over-engineered is reasonable.

The point about the plane is tosh. Aircraft components are subject to repeated professional checking on a regular basis. As such, they are optimally engineered. For example, the highest quality turbine blades are not found in airliners - because airliner turbine blades are checked regularly and faults will be found before they cause a problem. The highest quality ones are used in remote locations where the cost of checking is high despite the fact that safety is less of an issue. When was the last time you had your carbon frame thoroughly tested? I never have.

Just selecting one use of a material and comparing it to another is meaningless hence my paperclip analogy which is as logical as your aircraft analogy. I do agree with you that folk talk tosh about carbon - but I don't think your analogy was a logical way to make the point.

PS - it is presumptious to assume that the words likely and presumption equate to tosh

cycleclinic

I ride a Trek 2300 carbon main tubes glued into alloy bits and I use it every week for fast training rides. I do not even worry about the frame. Carbon fibre does not fall apart becuase it is a few years old.

When buying a 10 year old bike though make sure the sellers description tells you everything you need to know or better still take a look. Buying carbon is just like buying any other bike check it out first. Serious problems will be fairly obvious.

kangarouge

Rolf F - you make some really interesting and valid points, though I didn't intend to use the aircraft fuselage as an an analogy. Evidently, even I talk 'tosh' on occassions!

rolf_f

Kangarouge wrote:

Rolf F - you make some really interesting and valid points, though I didn't intend to use the aircraft fuselage as an an analogy. Evidently, even I talk 'tosh' on occassions!

There wouldn't be much internet without tosh and it would also be a much more boring place without it! If we didn't use our tosh quotas up here, then we'd have to use them where they mattered - eg by building airliners out of cheesy wotsits