Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Danger From Carbon Fiber Bikes

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Danger From Carbon Fiber Bikes

Old 07-22-16, 12:42 PM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094

Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The simple fact is that EVERYTHING has a fatigue life. Steel will obviously last the longest, but I'm not sure about aluminum vs. carbon fiber. Aluminum work hardens pretty quickly, and I don't think there is enough testing done on modern CF to make that decision.

I wonder if CF frames are made so strong because of some sort of fatigue problem. We know CF frames are strong as heck, as the pink bike video showed. But why? Obviously they don't NEED to be that strong to support a rider.

Unlike steel, a carbon fiber bike is not a forever bike. Very old CF bikes will be nothing more than wall hangers in the distant future.
corrado33 is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 12:44 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094

Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John_V
As for the photos that you saw of the broken CF bike frames, you can do an internet search for "steel bike frame failures" or "aluminum bike frame failures" and most likely see just as many photos of broken steel and aluminum frames that have failed without warning.
Unfair comparison. Steel and aluminum bikes have been around a heck of a lot longer so there are bound to be more broken frames from them.
corrado33 is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 12:47 PM
  #28  
Señor Member
 
Wilfred Laurier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,065
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 648 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 215 Posts
Originally Posted by corrado33
The simple fact is that EVERYTHING has a fatigue life. Steel will obviously last the longest, but I'm not sure about aluminum vs. carbon fiber. Aluminum work hardens pretty quickly, and I don't think there is enough testing done on modern CF to make that decision.

I wonder if CF frames are made so strong because of some sort of fatigue problem. We know CF frames are strong as heck, as the pink bike video showed. But why? Obviously they don't NEED to be that strong to support a rider.

Unlike steel, a carbon fiber bike is not a forever bike. Very old CF bikes will be nothing more than wall hangers in the distant future.
Such ignorant BS. Back in the days when steel was the only flavour available, steel frames broke all the time. In my experience, frame failure rates went down when the industry moved to almost complete aluminum construction. Sturdy and heavy steel frames could generally be counted on to last a long time, but lightweight ones were generally built close to their limit of durability when subjected to real-world conditions. If it hadn't been for the hipster and retrogrouch movements that clamoured for steel frames (entirely for aesthetic reasons), steel construction would have gone completely away for most applications, and rightfully so.
Wilfred Laurier is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 12:52 PM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
John_V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,585

Bikes: 2017 Colnago C-RS, 2012 Colnago Ace, 2010 Giant Cypress hybrid

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked 122 Times in 85 Posts
Originally Posted by corrado33
Unfair comparison. Steel and aluminum bikes have been around a heck of a lot longer so there are bound to be more broken frames from them.
True! But most of the ones that I have seen were newer model bikes (less than 20 years old). Considering that CF bikes were introduced in the late 80's and early 90's, the ratio may be close. And while I know that the technology and manufacturing methods of making CF bikes is different by leaps and bounds, it's also true with steel and aluminum using robotic welding vs manual welding.
__________________
HCFR Cycling Team
Ride Safe ... Ride Hard ... Ride Daily

2017 Colnago C-RS
2012 Colnago Ace
2010 Giant Cypress
John_V is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 12:56 PM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
travbikeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Martinsburg WV Area
Posts: 1,700

Bikes: State 4130 Custom, Giant Trance 29

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked 180 Times in 121 Posts
Appears that any part of the bike can be recalled due to failure.

Recalls | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

For the fun of it after reading the OP's message above, I did a quick Google search for Aluminum, Steel and Carbon Fiber failures.........Lots of all of above.

Sadly, the largest recalls in the site above is directly related to Suntour suspension................sigh...........
travbikeman is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:01 PM
  #31  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094

Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wilfred Laurier
Such ignorant BS. Back in the days when steel was the only flavour available, steel frames broke all the time. In my experience, frame failure rates went down when the industry moved to almost complete aluminum construction. Sturdy and heavy steel frames could generally be counted on to last a long time, but lightweight ones were generally built close to their limit of durability when subjected to real-world conditions. If it hadn't been for the hipster and retrogrouch movements that clamoured for steel frames (entirely for aesthetic reasons), steel construction would have gone completely away for most applications, and rightfully so.
Another steel hating CF racer wannabe? The prevalence of failures couldn't have been due to unrefined bike production methods of a budding industry. No, definitely couldn't have been that.

I'll tell you what. Let's take 3 frames of equal value, all made this year, one of aluminum, one of steel, and one of CF and make a bet as to which one will be rideable for the longest amount of time. I'll take steel.

Try making your statements over in C&V and see the response you get there.

As for aesthetics, I'm pretty sure most common steel frames today are built with very similar sized tubing to the old aluminum cannondale bikes, meaning from a distance, there is no good way to determine which is which. I mean hell, to most people (aka the VAST...VAST majority) most metal frames look similar until you pick it up and say "oh, this must be aluminum."

As for old bikes built at their limit, have I shown you pictures of my skinny tubed, 25 year old steel racing bike that's still in perfect working order?
corrado33 is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:03 PM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
Trakhak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,354
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2435 Post(s)
Liked 2,899 Times in 1,651 Posts
Originally Posted by Wilfred Laurier
Such ignorant BS. Back in the days when steel was the only flavour available, steel frames broke all the time. In my experience, frame failure rates went down when the industry moved to almost complete aluminum construction. Sturdy and heavy steel frames could generally be counted on to last a long time, but lightweight ones were generally built close to their limit of durability when subjected to real-world conditions. If it hadn't been for the hipster and retrogrouch movements that clamoured for steel frames (entirely for aesthetic reasons), steel construction would have gone completely away for most applications, and rightfully so.
True. I once asked a manager at Trek what single difference their introduction of aluminum frames (about 4 years earlier) had made; he said, "Warranty claims for frame failures have gone way down."

And a Bianchi USA manager told me that Bianchi of Italy thought that the USA branch giving lifetime frame warranties on their steel racing bikes was funny. (Bianchi of Italy didn't offer a warranty on the racing frames that they provided to Bianchi USA, who just replaced warranty frames and threw out the broken ones.) Evidently someone at Bianchi of Italy told them, "Sure, we can give you a warranty on racing frames; they'll just be 2 kg heavier."
Trakhak is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:03 PM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,215

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
1) Man does that letter read as an African scam email

2) It is little surprise that legal council will gladly blame a defect on an opening you gave them (hitting a bump)

3) How often pros replace their bikes is irrelevant. Froome probably has more miles logged this year than I do in a life.

4) Any modern vehicle is built to a 10 year/100k lifespan. Lifespan does not mean something becomes unsafe afterwards, it means that the design was built to last at least that long.

5) If you're really worried about a 3 year old CF frame, I call dibs on a 55-56.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:06 PM
  #34  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times in 635 Posts
I believe the letter from a manuf of CF bikes confirms with I have posted from time to time. CF bikes, or far more accurately described is carbon fiber reinforced plastic. I know riders that have shelled out big bucks for a CF bike are annoyed when I say that, but it is the bottom line truth. The main weight of a so called CF frame is resin, or simply put plastic.

Further I have posted that these ultra light racing bikes are best left to the racers, and racing teams. They are doing apparently what Colnago say they are doing, throw them away after a year or two. The can afford to. So------------unless you are blessed with almost unlimited money, CF bikes are not for the average cyclist. In fact, again IMO, to be safe you should probably throw away a CF frame after a couple of year. And yes I know I will probably be deluged with tons of letters saying their CF frames are X years old and just fine. My reply is a simple lucky you.

Lastly, remember the rage for CF bikes is mainly salesmanship, and big profits.

Last edited by rydabent; 07-22-16 at 01:10 PM.
rydabent is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:07 PM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094

Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John_V
True! But most of the ones that I have seen were newer model bikes (less than 20 years old). Considering that CF bikes were introduced in the late 80's and early 90's, the ratio may be close. And while I know that the technology and manufacturing methods of making CF bikes is different by leaps and bounds, it's also true with steel and aluminum using robotic welding vs manual welding.
I'm so glad some people on this site can respond in a polite manner! Thank you!

I have to agree with your above statement. I wonder if it's due to the overall popularity of cheaper bikes from those eras? When did making cheap bikes become a (big) thing? Obviously there have always been price wars, but at some point in every industry things start getting manufactured in china and they start producing a lot lower quality stuff.

If Schwinn is any indication, it was probably around the time you mentioned that this happened with bikes. But I'm not old enough to know for sure, so I'll leave this question out there.
corrado33 is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:17 PM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Jarrett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126

Bikes: Steel 1x's

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Similar info spelled out from Specialized on their high end carbon fiber road bikes:

HIGH-PERFORMANCE ROAD
• CONDITION 1: Bikes designed for riding on a paved surface where the tires do not lose ground contact.
• INTENDED: To be ridden on paved roads only.
• NOT INTENDED: For off-road, cyclocross, or touring with racks or panniers.
• TRADE OFF: Material use is optimized to deliver both light weight and specific performance.

You must understand
that:
(1) these types of bikes are intended to give an aggressive racer or competitive cyclist a performance advantage
over a relatively short product life,
(2) a less aggressive rider will enjoy longer frame life,
(3) you are choosing light weight
(shorter frame life) over more frame weight and a longer frame life,
(4) you are choosing light weight over more dent
resistant or rugged frames that weigh more.
All frames that are very light need frequent inspection
. These frames are
likely to be damaged or broken in a crash.
They are not designed to take abuse or be a rugged workhorse
Jarrett2 is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:18 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,861
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by John_V
Having read your post got me thinking since I also own a Colnago. I read my Colnago manual and there was nothing in it that stated the Useful Life of the frame and fork were only 2 years.
The letter doesn't say that either. At all. But some read what they want to read.
PepeM is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:19 PM
  #38  
Super Moderator
 
Homebrew01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Posts: 21,845

Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1173 Post(s)
Liked 925 Times in 610 Posts
Originally Posted by indyfabz
Think you might need a third tub before this thread is through.
Probably 1 bucket per page, but then I will gain too much weight, and break my aluminum & steel frames. Glad I don't have carbon !! .... oh wait, my Six/13 has a little bit.
__________________
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.

FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Homebrew01 is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:20 PM
  #39  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times in 635 Posts
I might add that CF is not the do all end all miracle substance that some think. If you read any aviation news, you will know that French Airbus airplanes that have CF tail assemblies have had the vertical section of the tail break clear off the airplane two more times killing all aboard. A large number of commercial pilots will not let their families fly on French Airbus airplanes.
rydabent is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:22 PM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,861
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by Jarrett2
Similar info spelled out from Specialized on their high end carbon fiber road bikes:

HIGH-PERFORMANCE ROAD
• CONDITION 1: Bikes designed for riding on a paved surface where the tires do not lose ground contact.
• INTENDED: To be ridden on paved roads only.
• NOT INTENDED: For off-road, cyclocross, or touring with racks or panniers.
• TRADE OFF: Material use is optimized to deliver both light weight and specific performance.

You must understand
that:
(1) these types of bikes are intended to give an aggressive racer or competitive cyclist a performance advantage
over a relatively short product life,
(2) a less aggressive rider will enjoy longer frame life,
(3) you are choosing light weight
(shorter frame life) over more frame weight and a longer frame life,
(4) you are choosing light weight over more dent
resistant or rugged frames that weigh more.
All frames that are very light need frequent inspection
. These frames are
likely to be damaged or broken in a crash.
They are not designed to take abuse or be a rugged workhorse
That's mostly good ol' arse covering. 'Relatively short product life' doesn't mean anything. Neither does 'shorter frame life.' Shorter than what? By how much? Same thing with 'take abuse.' What counts as abuse?

You probably won't find a manufacturer that says 'sure, go ahead and crash this bike all you want, it will take it just fine' regardless of material.

Lastly, of course when you choose an ultralight bike (of any material) you should expect a compromise.
PepeM is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:25 PM
  #41  
Senior Member
 
Trakhak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,354
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2435 Post(s)
Liked 2,899 Times in 1,651 Posts
This might be as good a place as any to again post a link to a page on Sheldon Brown's site reporting the results from bike frame fatigue tests conducted for the German magazine Tour. (Short version: all of the steel frames and titanium frames failed during testing; some of the carbon frames and aluminum frames failed; the only frames that didn't fail were two welded aluminum frames and a carbon fiber frame.)

12 High-End Frames in the EFBe Fatigue Test

I suspect that some of the people posting in this thread will have difficulty accepting the conclusions from that test. Unfortunately, they'll be going up against German engineers.
Trakhak is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:28 PM
  #42  
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,861
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2739 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
I might add that CF is not the do all end all miracle substance that some think. If you read any aviation news, you will know that French Airbus airplanes that have CF tail assemblies have had the vertical section of the tail break clear off the airplane two more times killing all aboard. A large number of commercial pilots will not let their families fly on French Airbus airplanes.
If someone thinks carbon fiber is a 'do all end all miracle substance' then they're obviously wrong. The same can be said of anyone who thinks that of *insert material*. As for the airplane failures, airplane parts made of other materials have also failed. Regarding the 'large number of commercial pilots,' cute anecdote.
PepeM is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:41 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094

Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trakhak
This might be as good a place as any to again post a link to a page on Sheldon Brown's site reporting the results from bike frame fatigue tests conducted for the German magazine Tour. (Short version: all of the steel frames and titanium frames failed during testing; some of the carbon frames and aluminum frames failed; the only frames that didn't fail were two welded aluminum frames and a carbon fiber frame.)

12 High-End Frames in the EFBe Fatigue Test

I suspect that some of the people posting in this thread will have difficulty accepting the conclusions from that test. Unfortunately, they'll be going up against German engineers.
I'm surprised by the results, yes, but the cavaet is extremely important.

A caveat, though, is appropriate: the results hold for a frame which is ridden hard but not damaged or abused: corrosion, nicks, dents, scratches and stresses due to incorrect installation of components could alter the results, as the article itself notes.
Despite this test, Sheldon still thought steel frames were the most durable for everyday riding and touring, as evident by his multitude of other pages on the subject.
corrado33 is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:44 PM
  #44  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
so, a frame failed.

it is because of the material used or was there mfg defect involved?

kinda makes a difference.
FullGas is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 01:49 PM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094

Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Can we turn this thread into a picture war?

It'd be much more popcorn inducing and involves less typing of the already ingrained biases we all have.

I'll start.

corrado33 is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 02:06 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Milton Keynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,947

Bikes: Trek 1100 road bike, Roadmaster gravel/commuter/beater mountain bike

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2281 Post(s)
Liked 1,710 Times in 936 Posts
I'm not likely to convince the wife that I need a carbon fiber bike enough to justify buying one, so I guess I'm good.
Milton Keynes is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 02:07 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18324 Post(s)
Liked 4,492 Times in 3,339 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
I might add that CF is not the do all end all miracle substance that some think. If you read any aviation news, you will know that French Airbus airplanes that have CF tail assemblies have had the vertical section of the tail break clear off the airplane two more times killing all aboard. A large number of commercial pilots will not let their families fly on French Airbus airplanes.
Boeing Dreamliners?
Or, perhaps only dreamliners with lead acid batteries?

Perhaps the issue is engineering pushing the envelope. Leanest, Lightest, Fastest.

In the Indy-500.... one just needs a car that will last 501 miles.... most of the time.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 02:18 PM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,688
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked 295 Times in 222 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
This one didn't quite make it to the 2 year old point.

I'll hang onto it for another 18 months, then get your contact info.

What brand is that?
Looks like the front ends of the rails were simply embedded in a lump of Bondo.stuck to the saddle pan. CF tend not to fracture that cleanly.
dabac is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 02:19 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
Milton Keynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,947

Bikes: Trek 1100 road bike, Roadmaster gravel/commuter/beater mountain bike

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2281 Post(s)
Liked 1,710 Times in 936 Posts
Originally Posted by corrado33
Can we turn this thread into a picture war?

It'd be much more popcorn inducing and involves less typing of the already ingrained biases we all have.

I'll start.

Hail, ain't nuthin' a little duck tape cain't fix.
Milton Keynes is offline  
Old 07-22-16, 02:24 PM
  #50  
Señor Member
 
Wilfred Laurier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,065
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 648 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 215 Posts
Originally Posted by corrado33
Another steel hating CF racer wannabe? The prevalence of failures couldn't have been due to unrefined bike production methods of a budding industry. No, definitely couldn't have been that.
You've got me all wrong, brother. I currently have two working bikes... an aluminum road bike and a Ti mountain bike. I probably would have gotten a steel mtb frame instead of a ti one when I got my mtb made, but the shop I worked at wasn't regularly dealing with custom steel builders. I think all the three popular frame materials can be made into good bikes, and all have upsides and downsides that the designer and builder have to consider and/or work around to make a bike for a particular purpose. One of the downsides of steel is many of its devotees' ignorance about material properties and the engineering principles used to explain them.

As for your claim that frame failures were due to 'unrefined production methods in a budding industry', that excuse could have been used up to about 1930 or so. Steel welding and brazing is very mature technology. The reason steel bikes had a high failure rate was because they were made too light, usually with tube walls that were too thin, to make up for the fact that steel bikes are heavy compared to the burgeoning alternative materials.
Wilfred Laurier is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.