Classic & Vintage - I enjoy going into "the 41" and reading about frames breaking

Sometimes i wander into "the 41" (road forum). I seem to notice quite a bit of talk about frames cracking and breaking, as if it's a common thing.

Don't get me wrong, if i could afford it, I'd love to own some crabon. But having a stable of 20yo bikes with frames that are mechanically not much different from the day they left the factory, sometimes i can't help but giggle at spending thousands for what is essentially a disposable bike.

I do wonder though.. how much of it is the carbon, and how often would you read about people destroying steel/aluminum/whatever if it were also as popular? I suspect the average C&Ver doesnt push their bikes quite as hard here in C&V, though I'm sure that's not true for everyone

:rolleyes:

So I went to "the 41" and did a title search on the word "frame".

http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=6938731

At the time of my search, in the first 100 threads, 4 were about frame damage. 3 were carbon, 1 was aluminum. Of the 3 carbon, 1 was bought with damage (kind of like buying a rusty steel frame), one was crashed and I didn't bother with the other.

But by all means. Let's bash carbon. I hear it assplodes.

carryon.

But by all means. Let's bash carbon. I hear it assplodes.

carryon.

:thumb:

what inspired this thread was a post by a gentleman who said he "broke" his $1800 Trek after 4 years and 20,000 miles. I don't ride nearly that much, so hats off to him, but I would be upset if I spent that kind of money on a bike and it broke. It was replaced with a better model under warranty, but still...

But STEAL is REAL!!!! Real heavy....but it's REAL! ;-) When you are pushing limits on WHATEVER material, you will reach breaking points. The better, high end Steal frames are susceptible to bending and cracking...finding that sweet spot between weight and strength is tricky, and when you use it hard, you find the line. I do NOT push my bikes very hard....aside from asking them to carry my bulk (175 lbs) but if I were to push a lightweight bike, the limits might be met rather quickly...wheels fail, frames fail, bars fail...I have only broken spokes and worn out tires...

if I were to push a lightweight bike, the limits might be met rather quickly...wheels fail, frames fail, bars fail...I have only broken spokes and worn out tires...

yeah after riding fat tire bikes for a long time, riding ANY road bike makes me feel like i'm gonna break something :lol:

:rolleyes:. . . . But by all means. Let's bash carbon. I hear it assplodes.

carryon.

+1

"I would own one if I could afford it. But, as I do not have one I will find joy in reading about the misfortune of those who do."

"I would own one if I could afford it. But, as I do not have one I will find joy in reading about the misfortune of those who do."

:thumb:

I rode mountain bikes in the early eighties and several of my friends broke steel frames. Steel is not indestructible. I think all of the modern materials are good. My carbon road bike is smooth and responsive and built for speed. My steel road bike glides and swoops into turns, a nice ride. My aluminum mountain bike is sturdy and reliable and takes me where ever I want off trail. My old steel mountain bike now lives with my cousin and I visit my old friend now and again

They are all good

Back when I was selling bikes it amazed me that so many people expected bikes to last a lifetime. It was a joke, people would bring in old rusty worn out frames with a crack and want them replaced under warranty.

I rode mountain bikes in the early eighties and several of my friends broke steel frames. Steel is not indestructible.

yeah i've heard about modern steel 29ers being broken too. i even made it clear in my first post that i wouldn't be surprised if it were simply because carbon is more popular for road bikes that you read about it in the road forum. it's less about the material than the money to me.. just can't imagine spending that much money for something brand new and have it fail completely after such a short time.

I do feel like it's much more common in the road forum than in this forum to hear about people breaking frames, regardless of the material. They are pushing their bikes a lot more, and in here we're more likely to fix em up than break em or even, god forbid, actual ride them!

:rolleyes:


But by all means. Let's bash carbon. I hear it assplodes.

carryon.



Carryon?....certianly you ment " Carrion"

http://img.wonderhowto.com/img/74/31/63455325696751/0/scrabble-bingo-day-carrion.w654.jpg

i even made it clear in my first post that i wouldn't be surprised if it were simply because carbon is more popular for road bikes that you read about it in the road forum

Its inherent to the material. For most intents and purposes carbon doesnt bend (there's exceptions)...there's no in between. Its either structuraly sound or broken/cracked.

Its inherent to the material. For most intents and purposes carbon doesnt bend (there's exceptions)...there's no in between. Its either structuraly sound or broken/cracked.

that makes sense.. i suppose if you can afford it you accept the risks inherent in the material, just like people who use weight weenie tires and tubes expect to flat more often

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T03PCfQ8f8

^ damn.. hella asploded :(

Anything can break and I seriously doubt a modern quality carbon frame is inherently more prone to fail than steel or any other quality frame of any of the popular materials. I do prefer the ride that steel gives and there is also the fact it is still hard to find cf frames that can take wider tires and have braze ons for fenders and racks. If I raced I'd probably ride cf. The two problems that are inherent with cf is that they hide damage well and when they do fail it is often catastrophic. Ride whatever floats your boat and gets you in the saddle.

Hmmm, I have two expensive carbon frames and one of them has a cracked seat stay from the RD climbing through the back end, waiting to send it out for repair. I think it is humorous to read carbon bashing threads when a lot of the bashers haven't had a carbon anything. I truly love my old bikes and the aesthetics of old steel, but as a preferance I'll ride my carbon before the steel any day except winter because god forbid if I fall on the ice and crack another frame, well and maybe a hip. To me it's a matter of affording what I want and knowing the consequences of owning it. If I break it I may not be happy, but I will replace it, simple. OK, on with the bashing.............:)

Carbon is extremely strong and durable as long as it isn't abused, It doesn't take well to being dropped, banged or stressed in odd directions. As most of us on this forum know, people don't always treat their bikes well, we routinely see beautiful old bikes that look like they've been dragged behind a truck. Imagine whats going to happen when older used carbon frames start being bought for cheap by people who may not treat them too gently, I'm afraid we're going to see an outbreak of serious injuries caused by total failure of these carbon frames.

I'm afraid we're going to see an outbreak of serious injuries caused by total failure of these carbon frames.

in 20 years instead of "forks bent" it will be "frame's asploded"

Considering that Raleigh and other manufacturers were offering conditional "Lifetime" warranties on steel frames in the 70's and 80's . The expectation of customers of original 70's vintage stuff was and still is very high.

To think that you could buy a quality frame for under a grand and then ride it for a lifetime...Amazing!!!!! Ride safe...ride steel...

Forty years ago, during the golden age of steel frames, it was unusual to have a decent frame fail in normal (on-road) use. Even racers rarely broke frames. Most manufacturers guaranteed their frames for life. Because I am a dinosaur, I don't know whether the failure rate of carbon frames is higher than steel, but I suspect that it is because stress from falling, collision and other shocks is borne differently by the two materials. What will dent a steel tube will either bounce off or crack a CF tube. A crack in CF is usually fatal- at least it must be repaired before the component can be trusted. A dent in a steel tube is rarely enough to make it fail. Whether hard riding without collisions leads to CF failing more often than steel I have no idea. As far as wear is concerned, I doubt if either frame will show any effect from big miles as long as the material's elastic limit is not exceeded.
A machinist/ bike racer friend showed me a CF frame that was ridden into by another bike. The right chain stay had a gouge in it which he felt weakened the frame enough to make it untrustworthy. A similar collision would have damaged the paint on a steel frame, and maybe left an insignificant dent.

I don't understand the hate...CF bikes are racing bikes. They're not designed to last a lifetime. They're designed to last a couple seasons of hard racing...until you replace it with whatever newer technology comes along.

Steel frames are still available, even by major manufacturers...but if you're serious about racing you're going to most likely get a CF bike, because that's what they're made for.

Should we still be racing on the slack-angled fixed geared bikes of the early 1900's?

Classic steel road bikes still have a place in the biking world, just not racing. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Granted this is a MTB but you get the idea.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs

I don't know, I don't think I have ever seen a "bent fork" comment on the 41. Yet there is one in nearly every thread here.

My son has Cf frame Bike that suffered a cracked seat stay, manufacturer denied warranty. Said not their fault, I repaired
by filling seat stay with epoxy above and below damage two inches. He has ridden it for several months and no problems.
I am not suggesting anyone use this method but it seems to be working for us.
I would not buy a Carbon bike unless I had disposable income enough so I could afford to replace on my own.
My LeMond is half steel half carbon but I prefer to ride one of my lugged steel Treks.

The difference in the warranties is do the failure mode of steel versus carbon fibre. When carbon fails it's typically catastrophic and difficult to determine after the fact if it was due to abuse or a manfacturing or materials defect. Steel on the otherhand is usually not a catastrophic and it's much easier to differentiate between abuse and defects.

If you look in the C&V Appraisals forum, the percentage of bent and damaged framesets would probably exceed that noted by the OP in his sample of carbon framesets, so there are lots of "failures" with steel too. A lot of the the carbon failures are probably abuse situations. Either the owners aren't aware they abused the frame or don't want to admit it, especially on a bicycle forum. It's far easier to vent about the manufacturer, especially when it's difficult to be disproven.

The other factor is that a lot of the carbon frames are high end models, pushing the state of the art. When steel was getting into the same weight range as these carbon frames, most manufacturers didn't warrant them and when they were warranted it was very limited. The pursuit of lightness is the holy grail in cycling and it compromises strength. Even Campagnolo no longer offers a lifetime warranty. If carbon fiber buyers were willing to tolerate a frameset the weight of a Raleigh Grand Prix or Peugeot UO8, the frame failures would almost certainly dramatically decrease.

Confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), anyone? ;)

The pursuit of lightness is the holy grail in cycling and it compromises strength.

BOOM. That's it right there. Compromises; durablility, comfort of the ride, etc...all the the name of SPEED.

You can list the benefits of steel to CF all day, and that list will be long...but speed will not be on it, and that's what racers care about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T03PCfQ8f8


Moment of failure at 107mph+, prior to bike world speed record face plant.

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l529/anniebanana/framefail_zps7ea932ce.jpg

Should we still be racing on the slack-angled fixed geared bikes of the early 1900's?

Yes.

There are many places to have carbon repaired to like new, but again not for the cheap at heart. Look at the colnago in my albums and you can see the result of the incident I described. it also suffered a minor chip when I accidentally closed the door on it. My 25lb steel bike would have scoffed at such a silly incident, whereas the 16lb carbon bike screamed in pain. I don't plan on either of my carbon frames lasting more than 5 years, 7 tops before I will replace. I do agree that in a few years we may see a rash of failures because people were silly enough to buy unknown used carbon because they are cheap and disregarding the potential risk, but that's a job for Murphy and his law.

BOOM. That's it right there. Compromises; durablility, comfort of the ride, etc...all the the name of SPEED.

You can list the benefits of steel to CF all day, and that list will be long...but speed will not be on it, and that's what racers care about.

Actually profit margin plays the biggest roll in what the pros race. A modern steel frame with modern components can easily get down to UCI minimum weights. It's just not as cost effective for the frame makers who sponsor the pros and look to make more money off the wannabes and their high dollar cf purchases.:)

:thumb:

what inspired this thread was a post by a gentleman who said he "broke" his $1800 Trek after 4 years and 20,000 miles. I don't ride nearly that much, so hats off to him, but I would be upset if I spent that kind of money on a bike and it broke. It was replaced with a better model under warranty, but still...

If I was getting pro deals or able to afford it, I would ride carbon for this reason. Many bikes have a lifetime guarantee and if you are able to ride them to a fatigue failure you get the latest and greatest upgrade. You might have to shell out a few bucks but who cares. That said a chain derailling and biting the chainstay and an eventual failure there is another story. i always liked how cannondale carbon had a little tin adhesive plate on the chainstay to save it in case of derailment and often came with catchers too.

Every time this comes up it always reminds me of bike shopping in 2004 at the local pro shop and the owner telling me that the aluminum racing frames hanging from the ceiling could be used for 2-3 seasons of hard miles before you should expect to replace it. Like a ski, it wears out. Steel didn't wear out, but this is the world we live in. We treat the planet as disposable, so should all everything else in our lives be.

I woke up a pessimist today.

I don't understand the hate...CF bikes are racing bikes. They're not designed to last a lifetime. They're designed to last a couple seasons of hard racing...until you replace it with whatever newer technology comes along.


This was just as true about steel racing frames back in the day. But I think the 'hate' comes from the fact that a used Columbus-framed Masi from 1973 has a whole 'nuther life ahead of it after it was retired from racing in 1975. And most on this forum would love to find and ride such a bike, even if it shows a little damage, since steel is easily repairable, and hidden damage rarely catastrophically dangerous. I personally would not trust the integrity of a second-hand CF bike no matter how nice it looks. Maybe that will change as more of us in the c&v world learn more about identifying and fixing damaged CF frames.

Actually profit margin plays the biggest roll in what the pros race. A modern steel frame with modern components can easily get down to UCI minimum weights. It's just not as cost effective for the frame makers who sponsor the pros and look to make more money off the wannabes and their high dollar cf purchases.:)

Maybe, but it is the ultimate pursuit of something better and to always improve. Today you can build a road bike with a full gear compliment under 10lbs. Hint, the frame will not be made of steel. Maybe high end carbon frames are cheaper, but I doubt they are very much so. Niche tube makers sell high end ultra light tubesets but if it was the construction material of choice there would be more options and it would be cheaper and factory labourers could be trained to join is and cost the same as a bunch of ladies laying up carbon. Giant didn't buy expensive carbon weaving machines to make carbon from raw spools of carbon because they thought it would be cheaper. The investment was huge. They wanted to get the technological edge and push research and development into new areas and remember, that gaint was making carbon tubed frames when many were still primarily steel.

Yes.

Lol. I agree, actually. I would probably actually give a crap about racing if that was the case.



Actually profit margin plays the biggest roll in what the pros race. A modern steel frame with modern components can easily get down to UCI minimum weights. It's just not as cost effective for the frame makers who sponsor the pros and look to make more money off the wannabes and their high dollar cf purchases.:)

Conspiracy! Companies trying to make money? Well, I never!

I never had a carbon frame nor did I ever want one. My wife's sure is light though...

Lol. I agree, actually. I would probably actually give a crap about racing if that was the case.




Conspiracy! Companies trying to make money? Well, I never!

Never said it was wrong for companies making money, just that there is more to the myth that steel cannot be light and fast.

Today you can build a road bike with a full gear compliment under 10lbs. Hint, the frame will not be made of steel.

And not UCI legal to race.

(...) A modern steel frame with modern components can easily get down to UCI minimum weights. (...)

Interesting thought. In that case, shouldn't we try to get a major steel manufacturer to sponsor a team and bring steel back into the TdF peloton? Are Indians into bike racing?

Problem is, people believe that CF frames would crack and asplode if you just breath on them. If that's the case, then all those pro teams in the pro circuit will never use CF frames in races. Yes they do sometimes break (as with all other different material bikes), but you usually have to either damge them in some way by crashing them or compromise the structural integrity by puncturing, tearing or gouging the frame material...or if they have some real bad manufacturing defect from the factory. Otherwise all these tales of spontaneous asplosions of CF frames are mostly fueled by paranoia by people who don't even own or ride them as they already convinced themselves they would probably die in an asplosive, spontaneous, splintering event with a CF frame. All they are doing is causing themselves to miss out enjoying rides on sound modern cycling technology.....
We went through this very same thing when Aluminum was first introduced for mass production of bike frames in the late 70's and the 80's....bunk!
JMOs

Chombi

Interesting thought. In that case, shouldn't we try to get a major steel manufacturer to sponsor a team and bring steel back into the TdF peloton? Are Indians into bike racing?

Please name me a major steel frame manufacturer, especially one that has the millions it takes to sponsor a TDF team? It's as much about profit margin and kool aid as it is anything.

And not UCI legal to race.

I guess aerobars should never have caught on then? Like there is no other racing than UCI. It works like this.. technology progresses. UCI :50:. Technology keeps progressing. UCI :thumb:. And over and over and over. Eventually the weight limit will come down as all the top of the line off the shelf bikes now are going sub 15. They keep inching lower every year, and so too will the UCI limit over time.

Interesting thought. In that case, shouldn't we try to get a major steel manufacturer to sponsor a team and bring steel back into the TdF peloton?

I may not know what I'm talking about (wouldn't be the first time), but aren't modern shifting components heavier - brifters and electronic derailleurs - compared to 70's Cyclones and DT levers?

I'm just surprised so many people can afford to race/replace carbon bikes on an ongoing basis. When I was racing as a teenager, you expected to crash a half dozen times a year or so over the course of a racing season--even if you did nothing wrong. Even expert bike-handlers in the pro peleton get caught up in mass pile ups. You get a bunch of inexperienced, overzealous, lower-category or junior racers, and crashes are inevitable, especially in criteriums. I was fortunate to be on a team that supplied bikes, but most racers do not have that luxury, especially those who are just starting out. With the cost of modern carbon racing bikes, I'm not sure how today's junior racers and other 99%ers are able to make it through a racing season without credit cards and/or generous parents. Unless, of course, exploding CF frames aren't as common as we in Steelandia are want to believe.

I may not know what I'm talking about (wouldn't be the first time), but aren't modern shifting components heavier - brifters and electronic derailleurs - compared to 70's Cyclones and DT levers?

Brifters are heavier than DT shifters, but just about everything else is lighter.

Never said it was wrong for companies making money, just that there is more to the myth that steel cannot be light and fast.

no one said steel can't be light and fast in this forum. We all know it can, but we also know that carbon offers more in terms of tuning ride characteristics, aerodynamics and a frame can ultimately be made lighter with carbon. Lets face it. With the metrics pro athletes are using to measure performance. Carbon outperforms steel and racers actually ride production products (unlike many teams in the golden era where riders often road hand built frames by someone other than their sponsor).

Unless, of course, exploding CF frames aren't as common as we in Steelandia are want to believe.

By Jove I think you nailed it!

Different bikes for different seasons.
Varied and many are the reasons
I like to ride bikes of a different type
to understand the truth, the lies, the hype.
Some I can handle, some I can carry.
None can I outride, that never varies.
Carbon is light, but must be protected,
Steel is real, my manliness projected.
Ti is so "other" it can't be all that clear
What qualities give it a cost that's so dear?

Aluminum? well heck, nothing rhymes with that.

When I roll on the miles, the steel I do keep-0
I make up the speed difference in EPO.

So, if you want to bash carbon, well, I think that's fine.
Just keep your ^&*%&% hammer away from mine.

Different bikes for different seasons.
Varied and many are the reasons
I like to ride bikes of a different type
to understand the truth, the lies, the hype.
Some I can handle, some I can carry.
None can I outride, that never varies.
Carbon is light, but must be protected,
Steel is real, my manliness projected.
Ti is so "other" it can't be all that clear
What qualities give it a cost that's so dear.

Aluminum? well heck, nothing rhymes with that.

When I roll on the miles, the steel I do keep-0
I make up the speed difference in EPO.

So, if you want to bash carbon, well, I think that's fine.
Just keep your ^&*%&% hammer away from mine.

ok what tune does that go with? :)