clydes and carbon fiber?
 

was wondering how well a carbon fiber frame would hold up with my weight (220) some people say i should be fine, but i keep seeing frames snapping, and im sure more weight isnt going to help. any clydes out there riding a full carbon frame?

Really? Where do you see all of these snapping frames?

I ride one. 6' 3", 260lbs. Bought Sep, 2006. Well above 30,000 miles on it. Still going strong. I race, ride centuries, ride fast group rides (very fast), climb 8,000-foot mountain passes, you name it. 700x23 wheels, too. And I even ride it in the hot summer sun. Never once has my bike or any components exploded.

"Clydes can't ride carbon" is F.U.D. -- fear, uncertainty, doubt. It's a myth ignorant and scared people try to perpetuate.

I'm 220 ish and my carbon Synapse is great. I wouldn't worry unless you were over 275 and then I'd have the same concern with any frame.

I ride a full carbon frame. I've had it for a few years but only have a couple thousand miles on it. No problems yet.

Take some picture of the next few that you see a carbon frame snapping, very curious, a photo of the rider would be good too. I would have thought that most problems would be due to crashes or the aftereffects of a crash. Most of the time I have heard but never seen a seat post that sheared off but mostly these are due to misuse, like over tightening the seatpost clamp.

I've been reading too much of http://www.bustedcarbon.com/

I'm over 275 (not for long though!) and my specialized roubaix is swimming right along

Yes. I've been riding carbon frames since the early '90s and never had (or even seen) a problem.

Crashing and then continuing to use carbon parts without a thorough inspection seems to be a common source of problems. Using racing parts (e.g. sub-900g frames) and not servicing/replacing them as often as a sponsored race team would seems to be another. Finally, carbon fiber manufacturing techniques have some a long way in the last 20 years. It wouldn't surprise me if older parts have a much higher failure rate than more modern stuff.

Any thoughts on cheap carbon fiber versus expensive carbon fiber? sub $2,000 bikes versus $3,500+ bikes?

I have a full carbon '09 or '10(who knows...) Roubaix Elite Triple. Bought it at 220-ish. Weighed in at 198 this morning. I bunnyhop it off and onto curbs and do other dumb crap with it, and have yet to have any issues.

I am 6'0" 240lbs(now) riding a full carbon 2004 Kestrel Talon SL for a couple of weeks. So far, I like it a lot. I don't notice any negative differences in the carbon frame than in any of my aluminum or composite frames.

9 out of 10 of those are due to crashes. I've ridden my friends Cannondale R600 and I weigh 270 and it was fine. He weighs almost as much as me and he hasn't broken anything yet, although he doesn't really rack up the miles.

It all breaks.

I ride carbon and steel. I broke a high end steel frame some 20 years ago whilst racing and crashed hard (failed at the shifter bosses accelerating out of a corner). I weighed waifish 170#'s (i'm 6'4") then.

I ride Taiwanese "cheap" carbon now (Scattante and Jamis). They work fine. I started close to 250# and am now around 205#.

I'm guessing you mean you see stuff on the net, and not that you see people in your neighborhoods crashing due to carbon failures...?

Most of this is probably from earlier crashes. Carbon seems to be great stuff, but it's Achilles heal is that you can damage it pretty seriously, and not know it. Major structural time bombs are often invisible, but come from hard knocks. This is why even though I'm seeing lots of good prices on used CF bike parts that are somewhat appealing, I'm not buying any of them ... somebody has drop bars for $85, but I don't know their history. They're probably fine, but if they've been hit ( or pinched with aero-bars ) they might be ready to snap. I just can't tell. If I had the money for a new pair I wouldn't think twice. ( In my case, though, it would be better to put the money into a bike fitting. )

I think this is (sort of) a myth. In many cases you can spot problems with carbon fiber if you know what to look for. The problem is: most people don't bother to look, or don't know what they're doing when they do look. I worry more about spontaneous fatigue failure of aluminum parts than I about catastrophic failure of carbon parts... but I've been around the CF block quite a few times by now.

I have been watching this argument for a while, it's not only here, it's a lot of places. Maybe you can tell if CF is damaged or not, I can't, so if I am spending over $1,000 on a bicycle, I would rather have a new steel framed one, then a used CF framed one.

I don't think detecting a crack or delamination in composite is any more difficult than seeing a fatigue getting critical in aluminum or steel.

It all breaks.

I think what I've been worrying about with carbon is not so much if it can handle my weight...I believe that it can...and if it doesn't, I believe most manufacturers have warranties regarding failures and such. I guess what I would worry about is a crash or something. No one plans to crash...and that's why it's called an accident. But a manufacturer won't cover that. Let's say I'm out for a ride and I have a minor accident: would carbon take a hit without as much damage as an aluminum frame? What about minor accidents at home? My bike has been knocked over a couple of times just at the house because the dogs have bumped into it. Again...it happens. What are the differences between carbon and aluminum in those situations?

Every situation is different. I crashed in a race 2 weeks ago on my CF frame. Only thing that broke was the aluminum piece that holds together the seat & chainstays and serves as the derailleur hanger. The rest of the frame--the carbon fiber--was/is fine.

FWIW - I have a similar story. Crashed about 6 weeks ago on carbon - broken collar bone, large hematoma on my hip, sprained right hand and a cracked helmet. Bike damage was a scuffed seat, scuffed peddle, scratched brifter and some bar tape.

I've rode a CF/Al composite frame. I cracked it. And guess where the crack was? In the aluminum. In the end CF is strong as ****, but once crashed it should be thoroughly inspected. There is a reason why most manufacturers offer a steep discount for replacement CF parts if you crash them. But at the same time a good crash will take out aluminum as well. CF does provide a smoother ride. Get it take care of it and you will have no problems with it.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...r-tubes_121389

edit: forgot to add that im still kind of paranoid. back in the late 80's, early 90's, there was so much carbon crap breaking on the mnt bike scene, that i developed an irrational fear of carbonfiber.

In most cases, I'd expect there to be no difference. I bought my first carbon frame in '93 or '94 and finally sold it... earlier this year. During the time I owned it, I crashed it a couple of times (low speed, wet pavement slips) and dropped it or knocked it over numerous times. It had quite a few scratches and nicks in the clearcoat but was otherwise as solid as the day I bought it. The only caveat is that all of the parts likely to be damaged in a crash (fork, bars, seatpost) were made of aluminum. Still, the frame I now own (Cervelo RS) is so much better engineered and manufactured that I don't worry that it's going to experience structural failure if it falls over in the garage... which it has.

I think anyone would rather have a new bike than a used bike. And all materials have their strengths and weaknesses.

Are you sure that the minimum-wage mechanic who assembles your steel wonder-bike will properly coat the inside of the frame tubes with FrameSaver or another rust inhibitor? Will the manufacturer drill a drain hole in the BB shell so that moisture can dran? A brand-new steel frame that's rusting from the inside out may not be any more reliable than a used CF frame...

Considering that there are steel frames from the early 1900's that are still as solid as the day they were made, and predate the packaging of framesaver by a long period. I think I would rather trust a steel frame where damage is fairly obvious then a CF frame where damage could be fairly well hidden, cracks can appear on the inside as easily as the outside. The problem with used CF is that it can have been crashed, internal damage determined through Xray, the seller sells it to you for a good price without disclosing the damage, and you get seriously hurt when it fails.

So ... what does the damage look like, then? What would you look for in, say, a drop handlebar? Obviously the parts where the brakes and stem mount to it need a close inspection, but I'm sure that's not all. And I don't know whether there could be anything hidden on the inside?

My kayak paddle is carbon fiber and kevlar, and has stood up to everything I've thrown at it for a couple of years now. It holds most of body weight when I get in and out of the boat, and has survived a collision with a cement wall in rough waves, with the very end breaking off. So I don't think CF is overly brittle ... but I do know that it can be seriously weakened and not show it. Any material can be abused to its breaking point ... it's just a little more obvious with, say, wood.

How is that any different than buying a used bike of any material? Can you see fatigue cracks or internal corrosion? I think not.

FWIW, I have been racing a CAAD4 (new in 1999) and Cannondale Six13. Both bikes have taken the burden of my weight from my current 210 to my max at 280. Clydes can put out tremendous force on the pedals and my biggest concern in bottom bracket flex and movement. I also have an Isaac monocoque CF TT bike with DA 7800 cranks. The bottom bracket is HUGE and it flexes under heavy load. (CAAD4 with same cranks does not) This can be heard when reefing on the pedals and hearing the big chainring chatter against the front derailleur.

Based on my experience: Working at a bike shop (6yrs sales/mech) Racing, Crashing (#1 killer of CF), and being a Clyde...an aluminum/steel frame with BB30 will be your friend for a long time. I say go CAAD 9. Cannondale aluminum has offered a supple ride since the CAAD4 was introduced.

No CF for me. I just don't buy it, sorry. I had a CF Fork on the Allez I had, and yea it was a little more supple than the aluminum fork on my (current) Sirrus, but not so much that better grips wont take away the road buzz.

Steel offers a ride like no other, though. Cro-Moly to be exact. My 1995 Rockhopper frame and fork are smooth riding :)

Oh, and I am horrendously opposed to spending $3k or more on a BICYCLE!

I am waiting for the carbon fiber tools to start coming out...I mean, its only time.

I have had an aluminum frame stress-crack, due to improper adjustment of headset (actually I did it right, but the top cap was plastic and busted and I forgot that I used a washer on that bike :( ) I beat the heck out of that aluminum frame and it never showed signs of fatigue until I hastily replaced a Stem and forgot about the broken top cap of the headset. That is what it takes to learn, sometimes.

Well, maybe, I wouldn't buy used AL frames either, for exactly this reason. Generally with Steel internal corrosion, long before it gets severe enough for material failure you will see bubbling paint an indication that steel is rusting from the inside out. Generally though, internal corrosion takes a long time, often steel will surface rust and then stop rusting, case in point, I know a piece of railway track that was put in as plain steel no paint, it has been sitting in the same spot and is as solid today as when it was installed in 1865.