Stucky

O-K guys, this is for bicycle mechanics and others in the bike business who regularly deal with road bikes whom customers bring in for service or warranty claims, etc.

Since carbon has become ubiquitous as the frame material of choice over the last decade or so, have you seen a substantial increase in the number of broken frames (or frames which are damaged to the point where they are considered not safe to ride) vs. when steel and alloy frames were the only choices?

Please answer the poll and comment.

AnkleWork

See:
https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-me...bre-steel.html


Indeed.

Stucky

No, I don't want "expected lifespan"- I want the actual observations of people who regularly work with bikes.

My thesis is that mechanics today DO see more broken frames. I've even heard this from a mechanic I know. Many people today seem to think that such is not the case. I'm looking to either prove them wrong, or prove myself wrong. (But as you can see, I screwed-up the poll choices, so I will have this deleted and re-post)

fietsbob

Only Shop in a Blue Collar town .. just dont see many Carbon Frame High end Bikes .

The Cutting edge Avant Garde keeps Moving so you dont keep them for long ,

Race ? Budget for a new bike every spring..

3alarmer 

...
...all of my mechanical doings for the last five years are in a bike co-op setting, so I'm not much good for an opinion. I think you need high zoot shop mechanics, and many of them are too young now to have had any professional experience in the age of steel. I will say that, based on my real world experience, it was much more difficult to resell a donated CF bike, because there was always that underlying paranoia about how "it might be cracked somewhere, and how could you tell ?"

Andrew R Stewart 

I just voted but as with so many polls the questions are not really descriptive enough for my nuanced views.

"As a percentage of the number of XXX bikes sold" is the added aspect I answered with in my mind. So given the number of carbon frames sold I see more broken ones then the steel frames I see as a percentage of those sold.

While I've seen far more steel frames with problems over the years (I'm going on 42 years in the industry) the number of steel frames sold FAR out weigh the number of carbon ones. Andy.

FastJake

Oh, you mean a bunch of random opinions from people that are (probably) biased one way or the other?

Or were you hoping to stumble on every bike mechanic's list of "___ carbon frames broke this year versus ___ steel/Al/Ti frames broke this year and this is how many we sold" and then hoping you'd have enough data to make a statistically sound conclusion?

Good luck.

CliffordK

It doesn't say the broken frames are actually broken CF frames.

There may well be reasons why a boom in CF would cause more aluminum failures due to increasing pressure to build with light aluminum alloys and tubing (and, of course, aging aluminum along with aging CF) as both really have boomed at about the same time.

Sorry, I don't have any personal data to share

curbtender

You want an idea of which frames break more often, then you might want to ask in a racing forum.

Leukybear 

How would you like to modify the poll?

Stucky

I need to replace the third poll option (which is a duplicate of the 2nd option) with "I see Fewer broken frames now-a-days than I did in the metal days". (Not that I think anyone will need to choose that option....but hey, we have to be fair...)

Leukybear 

Done.

Stucky

Yes, very good point. When buying used CF, you don't know if it may have sustained a substantial impact which left no visible marks; or, if there is cosmetic damage, is it really just cosmetic, or something deeper- or a sign that the bike sustained an impact? When I bought a used Venge, I went over it with a fine-toothed comb. I would not have bought it if I was not able to inspect it personally first- like on Ebay or something. (The Venge was fine, but I sold it after 6 months- I just prefer the road feel of real metal- and quite frankly, my AL Klein rides just as good.)

I hear what you're saying- but I'd imagine that if CF is failing at a higher rate than steel/Ti/AL, with your experience, you'd notice an increase in the number of people coming in with busted frames today vs. 40 years ago, no? (CF is ubiquitous today...but steel was ubiquitous 40 years ago).

Ironic though, I often complain (Like when Gallup calls, etc.) that poll answers aren't specific enough- "It's not just a matter of A or B, but maybe C, D, E or F, too" -and now here i am creating a poll which is too general?!

Yes, I'm looking for real-world experience, as opposed to some hypothetical expectations put out by the bicycle industry's advertising/propaganda machine. I've encountered a mechanic who toild me that he sees broken CF frames virtually every week- and I've read of others saying the same thing, but in the case of the one I encountered, he was only in his 20's, so he has no way of knowing if what he sees is any different than what he would have seen if he had been working in a shop in say the 70's or 80's. Plus, he was just one guy.

And yours was the most helpful post thus far, Cliff! (Sounds like something I would post!) -Hey, from reading your posts, it sounds like you've been around bikes for a while- a venerable ol....err...uh....experienced fart! I think you'd actually have a good handle on this topic.

Nope. I'm not just interested in ultra-light bikes which are crashed often; I'm just speaking of bikes overall- the stuff everyone rides; the regular bikes that show up in the average bike shop. Not necessarily excluding race bikes, but not interested in segregating it into such a narrow niche.

Stucky

Thank you, very much!!!!! [Everybody! Three rounds of "For he's a jolly good velo"!]

exmechanic89

The thing is, many carbon framed bikes these days are full suspension mountain bikes, which have to take much more of a beating than road bikes. And since full suspension cromoly bikes barely (if at all) existed, it's hard to really compare the differences in materials and longevity. Jmo.

Stucky

Yes, good point. That's why I really want to limit this to road bikes- a road bike is a road bike- today or 40 years ago- but mouintain bikes have changed so much- plus the kamakaze way they are ridden, it really wouldn't be fair to deal with them here.

Andrew R Stewart 

"I hear what you're saying- but I'd imagine that if CF is failing at a higher rate than steel/Ti/AL, with your experience, you'd notice an increase in the number of people coming in with busted frames today vs. 40 years ago, no? (CF is ubiquitous today...but steel was ubiquitous 40 years ago).

Ironic though, I often complain (Like when Gallup calls, etc.) that poll answers aren't specific enough- "It's not just a matter of A or B, but maybe C, D, E or F, too" -and now here i am creating a poll which is too general?!"

A poll with a goal. Equally wrong if you're on the "other side' of the fence.

But I also will point out your narrow understanding of the bike sales over the years. Back in the day the only frame material was steel. Today we have 4 materials. Back in the 1970s road bike compromised a large percentage of LBS sales, and LBS only sold 10% of bikes bought (in the USA). These days the numbers are very different. Steel road bikes are a small percentage of road bikes sold today and road bikes are a much smaller fraction of all bikes sold through both the LBS and the mass merchant.

In reading the thread more is obvious that your intention is to support the superior qualities of a steel road frame VS a carbon one WRT durability/warranty."Yes, good point. That's why I really want to limit this to road bikes- a road bike is a road bike- today or 40 years ago- but mouintain bikes have changed so much- plus the kamakaze way they are ridden, it really wouldn't be fair to deal with them here" But then you also say "Nope. I'm not just interested in ultra-light bikes which are crashed often; I'm just speaking of bikes overall- the stuff everyone rides; the regular bikes that show up in the average bike shop. Not necessarily excluding race bikes, but not interested in segregating it into such a narrow niche."

So if I could retract my vote I would. Oh well it was fun for a few minutes. Andy

Stucky

I don't understand. "A poll with a goal"? What goal? I think I know what the results will show- but I may be proven wrong- so be it. I merely want to see if it is true that mechanics are seeing more broken frames now than in the past, BC (Before Carbon).

Why would you want to retract your vote? If you were telling the truth, what difference would it make, even if I did have an agenda? The truth is the truth- and I think I listed the relevant options to allow the truth to be told, regardless of what argument is ultimately supported by the poll results.

Sorry, but your post makes no sense to me.

Andrew R Stewart 

Your goal is "I merely want to see if it is true that mechanics are seeing more broken frames now than in the past, BC (Before Carbon)."

I voted in a spirit of discovery. I see now that this isn't the case IMO. As I said before I wished to qualify my vote. But with hind sight I have changed my mind as to the value this "poll" has. No more, no less. Andy.

Stucky

Isn't that the purpose of any poll- to find out if something is true or false? It's late, but am I missing something here??? I mean, I want to see if something is true- which means conversely that I may find out what I suspected to be true may indeed not be true.

Am I misunderstanding you? I have a thesis- and I am testing my thesis by soliciting information from from those who actually work in the relevant field, to either prove or disprove my thesis. To this you object?

Andrew R Stewart 

I'm no pro when it comes to polls and field trials but it seems to me that the questions and aura need to be as neutral as possible to bring out all experiences if you want a real stat and not a collection of opinions. It's much the same with political polls (now that we're in that season...) Questions are written to get certain answers that support whoever are paying for the poll. Sorry to rain of your parade. That's how I feel. I do feel much the same as you WRT the trade offs of design and production in today's throw away world. I just don't think that your poll is the right way to find out your answers with any scientific results. Again. just how I've come to think. I'll shut up now. Andy.

CliffordK

I'm still working on wearing out my first bike frame.
I've been working on it for the last 34 years, and I think it was over a dozen years old when I bought it, and it still hasn't worn out yet

I've seen a few broken and repaired frames, but not enough that I could state any statistics.

There seem to be reports of some riders that will tear bottom brackets out of steel and aluminum frames. Since these riders seem to be able to regularly destroy "modern" frames, and my older frame just keeps going... I do worry about all alloys including super-light steel tubing. And, there is a lot of discussion about aluminum fatigue... usually not talking about heavy MTBs.

Everything seems to indicate that CF is very resilient to fatigue, perhaps even better than steel and aluminum with the biggest wear type failure being Carbon Fiber -- Metal joints.

CF, however, is susceptible to impact damage (other metals may bend, but often remain ridable), as well as over-tightening (less so with other metals).

PLASTIC? I've seen a lot of ordinary plastic become brittle after a decade or so. I think the jury is still out on 10-20 yr old (or older) CF, and we may not have hit the maximum lifespan of a lot of frames.... yet.

velocentrik

Voted.

We see some Ti frames that crack periodically at the BB shell or near the head tube, but just send those out to be rewelded. Some bikes have been welded several times, even.

We are seeing a (strange?) number of steel frame failures as vintage lightweight frames/stays fail from internal rust under what looks like good, even beautiful, paint. Don't know the history of those frames or where they were ridden. Many were pro frame sets from a foregone era. Were they treated with something akin to Framesaver or Linseed Oil, or were they not to save weight? Who knows. However, it is surprising considering how dry Colorado is.

Carbon frame failures are almost endemic, compared to what we saw during the classic Italian steel race bike era, or the successive Aluminum/Ti era. What we are also seeing are very clever Chinese knockoffs of super high end Italian carbon. You almost can't tell the difference between a Pinarello and the chinese copy without getting into the bike. I'm not sure the frame failures are representative of carbon being a more prone to fail material though. Most of the carbon failures we've seen were related to crashes or garage doors, or falling with clipless pedals. They are using carbon rims on high performance Mustangs now. Kind of hard to say carbon fiber isn't a reliable material if it supports Detroit muscle car HP on a heavy chassis (live axle rear), doesn't it? If carbon rims can support a Pony car, carbon frames are probably plenty strong enough. Carbon just doesn't crash all that well, but what does?

Maelochs

I think we all know that steel lasts longer than most other frame materials. That doesn't make it better, but it is tough as steel.

CF can break from impacts which wouldn't hurt steel, or might make a ding. But then, CF is used more to have specific tube shapes and to be lighter than steel (not too many 12-lb steel bikes out there.) Of course,a steel frame Can be made which is about as light, but it takes a ton of engineering and craftsmanship for each frame, whereas a CF frame needs to be designed once, then anyone with a little care can lay up the fabric properly.

Also, to make steel frames as light as CF would probably compromise the strength. One wouldn't see broken frames, probably, but bent, dinged or crumpled frames if there were more 12-15 lb steel bikes out there.

Al is easier to form into complex shapes than steel and easier to weld at the tube thicknesses which give it equal strength and a lighter weight than similar steel frames. It won't fail from normal use (normally) but will be more likely to break from an impact which would bend steel. On another hand, Al can usually be formed into a lighter frame of equivalent strength as steel for less money (less craftsmanship needed) which is a lot of the reason for its popularity---everyone decided they wanted lighter bikes and lighter Al was cheaper to mass-produce than lighter steel.

Better? Worse? Meaningless.

If you can afford a custom-built frame, any material you choose will be just fine. People make bikes out of bamboo ... if money is not an object, the "best" frame material is whatever you like best.

If you want a pretty light bike on a budget, Al is probably the way you need to go. And if you want the impact resilience of metal and a light bike, high-end AL (CAAD 12 for instance) can survive the crashes in the crits, feels comfortable on less than perfect pavement on the training rides, and probably is a little cheaper than boutique steel at a similar weight. (And who would want to tear up a boutique steel bike with multiple crashes, even if it could survive well?)

If you want really light you probably need CF. But I wouldn't feel good riding crits on CF ...

If you can afford a boutique bike, you can get a 16-18 lb steel bike ... for the price of a 13-lb CF bike. But if 16 lbs is light enough and you like the ride of steel (and your wallet is fat enough ... )

Do more Al and CF frames break than steel frames? I don't know the actual numbers but I would be shocked if it wasn't so. But that's like saying more glass wine goblets break than bamboo mugs or plastic cups. There are criteria beyond massive-crash survivability. If all that mattered was frames not breaking we would all be riding bikes machined out of steel or aluminum billet which weighed more than their riders but would never, ever break even if you jumped off the Grand Canyon.

If craftsmanship was cheap we'd all be riding one-off, perfectly fitted, custom painted masterpieces.

If weight was all that mattered, every component of the bike except the tires would be made from CF.

Here in the real world, every one of the big five frame materials (CF, Ti, steel, Al, bamboo) work just fine and the people who crap on one or another have other issues.

Look at Stucky. he has owned top-tier CF, has certainly ridden a bunch of steel, and has settled on aging Al as his favorite. Is Al his favorite frame material? is it "best" for him? No ... his 1997 Klein Quantum Race is the Best Bike for him ... so far. The frame material is just one part of it ... he likes the bike.

There is no "Best" and people who ... well ... once again, my favorite color can beat up your favorite song.

Stucky

To tell ya the truth, I do worry more about the paper-thin aluminum on my Klein, more so than I worried about the CF on the Venge that I had. Although the Klein is 19 years old....who knows if the Venge will still be kicking when it is that old. I do think carbon has come a long way over the last 15-20 years. I think by now, they likely have most of the kinks out. (Although I think a few frames still may have remnants of Ray Davies in them.... )