Lifespan of carbon frame

Marik

How long do you expect a good quality carbon bike frame to last? No crashes, no winter riding, no racing, lightweight rider (if that's relevant) reasonable mileage.....mine has just de-bonded a few months out of its 5 year guarantee. Always thought a well cared for bike would eventually slip happily into the spare bike queue in the shed...

homers_double

Did you ride it in the rain?

philbar72

its an impossible question to answer. I've done around 10k miles on one of my carbon bikes and it feels as good as new, but thats because i have replaced the frame twice and the forks once.

in all seriousness for a good few years.

southdownswolf

philbar72 wrote:

its an impossible question to answer. I've done around 10k miles on one of my carbon bikes and it feels as good as new, but thats because i have replaced the frame twice and the forks once.

in all seriousness for a good few years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE

reds99

They use carbon fibre components on aircraft wings, and tail fins etc so the conditions you ride a bike in the uk are not going to be anything extreme like an aircraft does. So winter/summer rain/sunshine is all the same. Potholes, kerbs etc different story as Carbon is brittle.

drlodge

Some manufacturers provide a lifetime warranty on their frames so in theory, it should last a lifetime.

homers_double

reds99 wrote:

Carbon is brittle.

Are you sure?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xreZdUBqpJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://youtu.be/xreZdUBqpJs

jordan_217

It will last roughly the same length of time as a well engineered and manufactured steel/alu/Ti bike and in contrast, it will fail in roughly the same length of time as a badly engineered and manufactured steel/alu/Ti bike.

slowbike

homers double wrote:

reds99 wrote:

Carbon is brittle.

Are you sure?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xreZdUBqpJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://youtu.be/xreZdUBqpJs

Ah - but it depends if it was raining doesn't it?

homers_double

About 6 posts that /\ way...

slowbike

But always worth repeating ...

Monty Dog

I ocassionally still see people riding carbon frames from the early 1990s

drlodge

Monty Dog wrote:

I ocassionally still see people riding steel frames from the early 1970s

FTFY ;-)

chris_bass

Slowbike wrote:

But always worth repeating ...

pardon

andi1363

homers double wrote:

Did you ride it in the rain?

+1

Buckie2k5

the fact it is knackered within 5 years says to me it has been ridden in at least sleet or snow.

Seriously though what make of frame is it?

Anonymous

I would have no problem with my carbon frame lasting five years.
Have enjoyed the two and a half I have had on it that much ;-)

Marik

Must be kidding about riding in the rain? We pretty much all live in the UK? So every one of us rides in the rain. Bike has never been out in ice, snow, sleet, or salted/gritted roads - old hybrid does that. It's a fairly expensive Italian brand, a price you don't want to keep repeating every 5 years when the whole thing suddenly becomes totally unusable - every other bike I've ever owned is still in the shed, still usable. Have asked manufacturer for possible cause of failure but they're not interested as its out of warranty.

DKay

Marik wrote:

Must be kidding about riding in the rain? We pretty much all live in the UK? So every one of us rides in the rain. Bike has never been out in ice, snow, sleet, or salted/gritted roads - old hybrid does that.......

They were kidding dude.

I would expect my carbon frame to last me indefinately in normal use. Heck, I still use carbon composite tennis rackets which are nearly 20 years old and they still play fine. Tennis rackets go through a much harder time in terms of stress than any bike frame.

Neil_aky

Given the price you have probably paid it should last longer than 5 years and be expected to last much longer. Take it back to where you bought it and make a claim stating The Sale of Goods Act - you can claim up to 7 years (you have to prove it was a manufacturing fault) but I would not this one go.

It would help if you could get some analysis of the failure from someone in the know...

Personally if I were spending so much that I didn't want to replace my bike, I'd go for Titanium (but I am over 40 now)!

StillGoing

cyd190468 wrote:

I think the lesson for the day is that just because the Italians have been making high quality metal frames for 100 years or so doesn't mean they know squat about carbon fibre.

If you're joking you forgot the smiley, but if you're serious; bollox. Italians know plenty about constructing carbon exotica. Some of them construct and assemble their bikes in house like Basso and Cipollini. I've ridden my Italian carbon frame in all weathers and on smooth roads and rough terrain. I've crashed it and the only thing to happen is the hanger bend (which they're supposed to do) and a bit of lacquer chip.

marcusjb

Neil_aky wrote:

Personally if I were spending so much that I didn't want to replace my bike, I'd go for Titanium (but I am over 40 now)!

Going OT, but Ti frames have a fairly high failure rate, so I am not sure your plan works ever so well.

xixang

still riding my giant TCR Composite from 2003/04 (ish). Raced (even in the rain!!), few crashes (bars and saddle have taken the damage) and still going strong and no reason to expect imminent explosion. Been relegated to race/proper training only bike (not winter - got mid-90s steel for that) as I don't want to race/crash my colnago.

xixang

drlodge wrote:

Some manufacturers provide a lifetime warranty on their frames so in theory, it should last a lifetime.

lifetime doesn't mean what most people think. For example a car tyre may have a lifetime warranty against defects but the "lifetime" for the tyre is say 30,000 miles or a washing machine 1,000 cycles. Same with anything - its the *expected* lifetime of the item not the purchaser. Really manufacturers should stop stating lifetime and actually state what they think the lifetime of the item is, be it years, miles, times used etc. It's just marketing bull

MountainMonster

xixang wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Some manufacturers provide a lifetime warranty on their frames so in theory, it should last a lifetime.

lifetime doesn't mean what most people think. For example a car tyre may have a lifetime warranty against defects but the "lifetime" for the tyre is say 30,000 miles or a washing machine 1,000 cycles. Same with anything - its the *expected* lifetime of the item not the purchaser. Really manufacturers should stop stating lifetime and actually state what they think the lifetime of the item is, be it years, miles, times used etc. It's just marketing bull

The problem isn't so much that it's marketing bull, but rather such a spread of organisations offering the lifetime warranties. Some are lifetime warranties if the items are built to last, such as some frames. Other parts that always wear out are lifetime of the product. Some clarity would certainly be useful!

The Mechanic

From a legal point of view, I understand that "lifetime" means lifetime of the product. This has been tested in court more than once. It certainly does not mean lifetime of the owner, except in the case of wrist watches

Neil_aky

marcusjb wrote:

Neil_aky wrote:

Personally if I were spending so much that I didn't want to replace my bike, I'd go for Titanium (but I am over 40 now)!

Going OT, but Ti frames have a fairly high failure rate, so I am not sure your plan works ever so well.

All frames can fail but my point was that metal frames can be fixed, steel is the easiest to have repaired but, of course, can corrode; however, there are still plenty of 70's steel frames being ridden... But as I said, if I were to be buying a bike I wanted to last I would go for Ti; no corrosion issues and if built (welded) to a high standard is unlikely to fail. Good manufacturers will give a lifetime warranty of course.

Personally I would not go for a good carbon bike as I could never justify replacing it if I crashed it - fine for pro racers for me I would still say a metal bike is the right choice... Please note, throughout I have said my personal choice, right for me etc. My main point was still that you should be able to claim for a 5 Year Old carbon bike failing under the sale of goods act if everyone is correct and you should expect it to last that long.

The Sale of Goods Act states that goods should be of Satisfactory Quality often defined as: "What a reasonable person would find satisfactory taking into account the cost and age of the item".

So all of the 'reasonable people on here' should comment and give evidence that the OP has a case! Would a 'reasonable person' expect a carbon bike to fail after 5 years...?

xixang

MountainMonster wrote:

xixang wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Some manufacturers provide a lifetime warranty on their frames so in theory, it should last a lifetime.

lifetime doesn't mean what most people think. For example a car tyre may have a lifetime warranty against defects but the "lifetime" for the tyre is say 30,000 miles or a washing machine 1,000 cycles. Same with anything - its the *expected* lifetime of the item not the purchaser. Really manufacturers should stop stating lifetime and actually state what they think the lifetime of the item is, be it years, miles, times used etc. It's just marketing bull

The problem isn't so much that it's marketing bull, but rather such a spread of organisations offering the lifetime warranties. Some are lifetime warranties if the items are built to last, such as some frames. Other parts that always wear out are lifetime of the product. Some clarity would certainly be useful!

I agree entirely. The issue is, is a frame intended to last indefinitely or not? Metals fatigue, corrode etc and presumably carbon is no different (I'm no expert), therefore it could (and should) be argued a frame has a finite lifetime; defining it is the problem. A consumer may argue 10 years and a manufacturer 3 years. A clear date rather than ambiguous "lifetime" statement would be better, but saying lifetime implies a better warranty than saying 5 years, even though they may be the same.

earth

reds99 wrote:

They use carbon fibre components on aircraft wings, and tail fins etc so the conditions you ride a bike in the uk are not going to be anything extreme like an aircraft does. So winter/summer rain/sunshine is all the same. Potholes, kerbs etc different story as Carbon is brittle.

And aircraft wings are subject to much stricter design, manufacturing and testing standards than bicycles.

My PlanetX started to creak after a few years particularly after hill climbing. The fibres and resin might not suffer from fatigue but the frames are sections bonded together. Something causes the creaks from carbon fibre frames and I suspect debonding like the OP mentioned is the cause.

cougie

Is it worth getting a quote from a CF repairer ? Sounds like an easy job for them ?

rolf_f

Neil_aky wrote:

marcusjb wrote:

Neil_aky wrote:

Personally if I were spending so much that I didn't want to replace my bike, I'd go for Titanium (but I am over 40 now)!

Going OT, but Ti frames have a fairly high failure rate, so I am not sure your plan works ever so well.

All frames can fail but my point was that metal frames can be fixed, steel is the easiest to have repaired but, of course, can corrode; however, there are still plenty of 70's steel frames being ridden...

Not a very accurate statement! Arguably carbon is easier to repair than steel (ie you can buy a kit and do it yourself at home without risking setting anything on fire), Ti is technically tricky and alloy tends to be unrepairable. If you want a frame for life, it's probably steel or carbon.