Carbon frames break more often. Really?

Dippydog2
Dippydog2 Posts: 291
edited August 2014 in Road general
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/sp ... .html?_r=0

Or do we put in a special factor for US journalism?
«13

Comments

  • rickeverett
    rickeverett Posts: 988
    Well TBH you have to question how robust the ultra-lite Carbon frames really are.

    Bit of creative journalism too.


    The S-Works in this years TDF snapped in two very unusual places for a crash- more like cracked and gave away. Specialized had 3 attempts to come up with an excuse, the latter being it was run over by a support car.


    They do have a tendency to smash in a crash where metal just bends and fractures at the welds.
  • frisbee
    frisbee Posts: 691
    the article wrote:
    But there has been a catch. Unlike steel or aluminum, carbon fiber does not bend in crashes. Rather the bikes and wheels frequently shatter, often hurling riders to the road and, many fear, increasing the severity of injuries.

    Don't think I've ever seen an aluminium or steel frame magically save someone from hitting the road once they've actually started to crash.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    Up to a few years ago they were pretty robust and for the most problem free. More recently lots more problems linked to carbon frames... especially cracks around the sensitive areas, but also full on failures... generally speaking, you can put it down to extremely light frames, up to 5 years ago anything sub 1 Kg was ultralight and extreme, while now it's mainstream and you find frames that weigh 600-700 grams. The manufacturing technology and CAD design have not leaped forward enough to account for a 30-40% weight reduction in such a short time, therefore it is pretty obvious that someone is cutting corners.
    left the forum March 2023
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    I find it hard to believe that Trek or Specialized or Cannondale, all based in the most sue-happy land in the world would sell frames that endanger people's lives.

    Having said that, 900g seems like a good place to be frame weight wise, which is what the new Tarmac Sworks is.

    I'm a bit wary of the sub 700g stuff.....(if it really is sub 700....)
  • adamfo
    adamfo Posts: 763
    edited August 2014
    rickeverett wrote:


    The S-Works in this years TDF snapped in two very unusual places for a crash- more like cracked and gave away. Specialized had 3 attempts to come up with an excuse, the latter being it was run over by a support car.


    There was no frame crash damage or failure. The bike that broke was AC's spare bike on the roof rack of the team car that got hit by the Belkin team car on the narrow roads.

    10444704_10204296677324221_9219666974365305494_n-1.jpg

    BsiWGyEIQAAGwf9jpglarge.jpg

    10502446_517405068361231_5391318866363121880_n-1.jpg


    Bellow is the bike AC crashed fracturing his leg

    BsiSw6vIQAEydkSjpglarge.jpg
  • LegendLust
    LegendLust Posts: 1,022
    I'm afraid if you keep taking material away from something it's going to become weaker.

    As someone else said, 900gr for a frame is about the right balance between strength and lightness. Being around 75-78kg I wouldn't go any lighter with a frame
    Selling my Legend frame
    http://owningalegend.wordpress.com/2014 ... ced-price/
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    Those who watch F1 will know the benefits of carbon fibre. The main survival cell is made of carbon fibre and is designed to absorb shock of a collision protecting the driver. The same carbon fibre is used on the wings which although light are very brittle. You can make something very strong out of carbon but it has to be engineered to be. As far as bikes go it has almost become a ridiculous race to build the lightest frame with caution thrown to the wind. If you design something to be light you lose the strength element kind of like the F1 chassis. The same thing happened with steel and aluminium before. Weight was dropped by making the metal thinner where possible and eventually the frames become on the limit of structural integrity that things start to fail.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Having said that, 900g seems like a good place to be frame weight wise, which is what the new Tarmac Sworks is.

    On my planet would be more like 1.2 Kg... but my planet involves things like Paris-Roubaix and general abuse, combined with a life expectancy of several years
    left the forum March 2023
  • Dippydog2
    Dippydog2 Posts: 291
    edited August 2014
    My carbon frame forks and steerer are around 1.4kg total. Total bike weight around 7.5kg.

    With me on board, plus spares and water the whole thing is provably 100kg. Can't see that saving a kg or so in the frame is going to make real difference apart from a bigger insurance claim if I crash.
  • ElectronShepherd
    ElectronShepherd Posts: 227
    LegendLust wrote:
    I'm afraid if you keep taking material away from something it's going to become weaker.

    True, but that doesn't mean it's too weak for its intended application.
    LegendLust wrote:
    As someone else said, 900gr for a frame is about the right balance between strength and lightness. Being around 75-78kg I wouldn't go any lighter with a frame

    There's almost no relationship between the weight of a frame itself and the weight of what it can support. It all depends on how it's used and the direction of the forces involved. If you're very careful, you can take an empty Coke can and stand on it. It will quite happily support the weight of an adult human. Pick it up, and you can squash the walls together with two fingers.
  • simon_masterson
    simon_masterson Posts: 2,740
    Dippydog2 wrote:
    My carbon frame forks and steerer are around 14kg total. Total bike weight around 7.5kg.

    Impressive. ;)
    Retro(ish) TT 2017-
    Fixed TT 2015-2016
  • Dippydog2
    Dippydog2 Posts: 291
    Simon Masterson wrote:
    Dippydog2 wrote:
    My carbon frame forks and steerer are around 14kg total. Total bike weight around 7.5kg.

    Impressive. ;)
    Good spot. Edited.
  • hipshot
    hipshot Posts: 371
    I saw that article too, but resisted posting it. I think that speaks volumes.

    People who have bought the marketing and splurged big on lightweight bikes can get quite aggressive when you point out that they are actually riding very fragile disposable set ups.
  • bernithebiker
    bernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    bernithebiker wrote:
    Having said that, 900g seems like a good place to be frame weight wise, which is what the new Tarmac Sworks is.

    On my planet would be more like 1.2 Kg... but my planet involves things like Paris-Roubaix and general abuse, combined with a life expectancy of several years

    My 1st carbon bike, a Trek 5900 OLCV lasted 8 years fine, the next an SL4 S Works, 3 years still fine, and I expect my new Tarmac S Works to last as long as I need it to........
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    hipshot wrote:
    People who have bought the marketing and splurged big on lightweight bikes can get quite aggressive when you point out that they are actually riding very fragile disposable set ups.

    Yes, but not quite as aggressive as those who bought Zipp Firecrest and Mavic SLR wheels... :wink:
    left the forum March 2023
  • Manc33
    Manc33 Posts: 2,157
    Its a good job I got a "heavy" one then. :wink: Frame + fork = 1450g.
  • rickeverett
    rickeverett Posts: 988
    In regards to the Cracking Canyon seat tube- I'm sure its the fancy split seat post they use... I reckon if the post is low, the spit is flexing and putting pressure on the carbon.
  • robbo2011
    robbo2011 Posts: 1,017
    Weird, i don't see my post any more. Has it been deleted?
  • rickeverett
    rickeverett Posts: 988
    whats going on with this thread ??? Posts aren't working....... SPECIALIZED AT WORK - COVERING UP.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    robbo2011 wrote:
    Weird, i don't see my post any more. Has it been deleted?

    Yes, keep it clean
    left the forum March 2023
  • robbo2011
    robbo2011 Posts: 1,017
    But what was wrong with it?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    robbo2011 wrote:
    But what was wrong with it?

    You called someone luddite... the way you phrased it sounded you were calling me luddite... it just creates unnecessary tensions.
    To answer your question... warranty claims for faulty/defective frames are on the rise and not just at Canyon
    left the forum March 2023
  • adamfo
    adamfo Posts: 763
    rickeverett wrote:
    whats going on with this thread ??? Posts aren't working....... SPECIALIZED AT WORK - COVERING UP.

    Your probably right about the cause of the Canyon cracking but wrong about Specialized.

    In case anyone is wondering, AC's spare bike is easy to spot. It doesn't have his personal logo on the chain stay and the transponder number is different to the one fitted to the no. 1 race bike.
  • robbo2011
    robbo2011 Posts: 1,017
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    robbo2011 wrote:
    But what was wrong with it?

    You called someone luddite... the way you phrased it sounded you were calling me luddite... it just creates unnecessary tensions.
    To answer your question... warranty claims for faulty/defective frames are on the rise and not just at Canyon

    Ok fair enough but i was thinking more about the original article than individual posters.
  • kajjal
    kajjal Posts: 3,380
    This kind of weight reduction hit its peak in mountain biking in the early 1990's. Some of the weight saving was very dangerous with key components failing. For most riders, myself included the best place to lose weight is off the rider.
  • robbo2011
    robbo2011 Posts: 1,017
    Has anybody read red kite prayers rebuttal to this article?

    http://redkiteprayer.com/2014/08/half-c ... bon-fiber/
  • adamfo
    adamfo Posts: 763
    The photo the NYT used is illustrate carbon frame breakage was a bit daft. That incidence on the Tdf was caught by the helicopter footage. The handlbars came off in the riders hands. No frame or carbon wheels breakage was involved. Either the stem bolt was lose or the carbon steerer tube broke high up.
  • hipshot
    hipshot Posts: 371
    edited August 2014
    The RKP rebuttal is regards carbon causing more injuries. Who knows.

    The OPs thread question was, 'Carbon frames break more often, really?'

    That shouldn't even be controversial.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    I don't think crashes in the peloton are relevant, TBH... for what we know they might not even ride the same frame that you and I can buy in the shop.
    I think if one wants to criticise the latest crop of carbon frames, then he should use numbers... talking to people in the trade it seems the number of warranty claims for crack and defect related issues is up, but there are no figures and you can't expect manufacturers to wave these kind of figures... nor the distributors and not even the retailers... so it's all speculation unfortunately
    left the forum March 2023
  • on-yer-bike
    on-yer-bike Posts: 2,974
    robbo2011 wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    robbo2011 wrote:
    But what was wrong with it?

    You called someone luddite... the way you phrased it sounded you were calling me luddite... it just creates unnecessary tensions.
    To answer your question... warranty claims for faulty/defective frames are on the rise and not just at Canyon

    Ok fair enough but i was thinking more about the original article than individual posters.

    Is calling someone a luddite that much of an insult? Some people are happy to be luddites. Ernesto Colnago is reluctant to build frames that are ultra light mine weighs 1200 g without forks
    Pegoretti
    Colnago
    Cervelo
    Campagnolo

Categories