The bottom line is you don't have any credentials, coursework, or employment working with, CF. In other words, you are engaging in layperson's speculation, just like everyone else.

No one here knows what the failure rates are for CF or any other material.

What we do know is that when CF fails, it fails catastrophically. These failures result from minor scratches, dings and direct impacts to the frame which lead to delamination.

In other words, CF shatters and breaks, often without visible warning signs, whereas metals tend to bend, typically with warning signs.

The bottom line is that you don't know ANYTHING about me, or my work experience. ZERO. Yet you feel qualified to attack me, without bothering to point out a single error in any of my posts.

You claim expertise without evidence. Case closed.

Have it your way. I'm not invested in what you think so I''ll just take Mr. Carlin's advice.

cruzian (Feb 23, 2012 at 8:56) Just wanted to say, I'm the guy that rode it for 2 years after the fatigue testing it went through. The fatigue testing the frame went through adds up to a lot of saddle time, more than most people put in on their bikes before selling them and buying another. That same frame was then built up and ridden for two years all over California, mostly in and around Santa Cruz, but also all over the Sierra Nevada (a good number of N* visits included) and the northern coastal ranges. I crashed it a ton of times, and despite taking gouges out of the carbon, I never noticed any problems with the frame. For the people worried about carbon's longevity, I put my faith in the black stuff and never had to worry that my frame would randomly fail.


While this guy (from the comments on the Santa Cruz testing), has probably

not done any coursework in the basics of carbon fiber either,

IME crashing on a mtn bike is quite educational, and he has apparently done lots of that.


I have a carbon fiber (tubular) wheel that has taken a (well many) hard shot,

and a soft spot is developing in the brake track- on the front, no less.

The braking is a little uneven, and I don't know how long it will go,

but the failure is far from catastrophic.


Also, way to put FBinNY in his place! That guy doesn't even have 30,000 posts,

so he probably doesn't know much.

The context of my comment was this quote of yours:

You didn't seem to imply then that age or use was a factor in the potential shattering of a carbon fiber frame. Do you at least concede that even under the tremendous stress of the strongest road cyclists in the world carbon fiber frames don't just shatter?

I have broken while riding: handlebars, a saddle rail, seatposts, chainstays, seat tubes, fork and cranks.

On those:
I rode the broken handlebar (aluminum) to a train station, then home the last mile. (Old HBs that broke when I hit a winter pothole.)

Rode the broken saddle rail home. (Old seat, forget what it was.)
Seatpost clamp broke and the seat fell off. Avocet aluminum. I finished the last three miles of that ride out of the saddle.

Chainstay right behind the bridge. Steel frame. broke while riding and I rode the bike home.

Seat tube. Steel Fuji Professional just above the seat lug. Crack had been forming for weeks. Broke while racing. I stopped, then rode to the start/finish.

Fork. Medicre Japanese steel. Broke across blade mid height whole riding. Rode it home.

Fork. Aluminum Lambert. Broke at the crown bunny hopping a pavement break. 5 day coma, 7 year recovery.

Crank. Aluminum Avocet. Broke across pedal threads. I was climbing slowly and didn't crash (but just missed two riders I was drafting in races long ago who crashed hard from the same break on Campy cranks. Those crashes were hard but just routine road rash and bruises.).

Looking at my list of failures, it seems that the location of break matters, at least a little. So does the material. I now only ride steel forks I trust. (Cool thing is that beautiful riding, really elegant steel forks can be made with exactly the geometry you want to fit any bike and wheel.)

Ben

Carbon manufacturers are in competition with one another to build light yet strong frames. The last thing any manufacturer wants to known for is building a heavy frame.


If a manufacturer were to build a carbon frame with modern techniques but with the weight of an old steel it be indestructible. Carbon frames are skewed way to far to the lightness side for heavy riders.



They were built heavier with thick walled tubing....durable, durable, durable.


Something for everyone to keep in mind is that a steel or aluminum pipes act like a steel or aluminum pipe. Smack it against something and it bends or dents but it doesn't break.


Carbon tubes act like big frickin' icicles, smack it against something and its going to break. Not bend, not dent. BREAK.

Yes I've heard of this before, mostly on these BF forums. Seems the same shops that spread the false information about the bike rack are quite willing to sell you a hitch rack that costs quite a bit more and has a bigger mark up than the inexpensive trunk racks. One of the shops I frequent makes jokes about this claim. Of course it's ridiculous. My 19lb CF bike might crack while being supported on a the rubber mounts of a bike rack, but has no problem carrying my 193lb frame over pot holes.

To answer the OPS original question, NO there have been no failures of any CF frames on any CF bikes within the three clubs that I ride with. Last year a crack was detected in a 10+ year old CF fork mated to a steel bike. The crack did NOT result in a failure but was detected during routing maintenance.
I did however, come across several steel bikes that were not stored correctly that had rusted out from within.
Just sayin'

A guy I ride with semi-regularly broke his nice carbon fiber frame in a crash last week. Hit a bump and went down. Not sure if the frame cracked at bump or in the fall. He showed up on a nice new carbon fiber bike on last Tuesday's ride.

Here is another bike that snapped in a recent crash that showed up on FB today:
http://jhinds7.com/images/bike/snap.jpg

Sad about the steel frames rusting from the inside out. Sounds like they were accidents waiting to happen!

I know of FOUR carbon fiber frame failures (between friends and 200+ member bike club), but only 3 are for unknown reasons, the other from a rock, not stone, on a Mtb. The odd thing is that 3 are Trek's but I think the same people that make Trek frames, make many other brands as well, so it is not a Trek issue unless they submitted an inferior deign. In all 3 cases, Trek is not moving along on the warranty which I think is more about setting legal precedents for possible injuries. One of the bikes belongs to a strong 74 year old club member who is lightweight and fast, but gentle on the bike while doing either bike rides or bike maintenance all day. His break is on the rear triangle, on the cassette side about 2 inches from the axle stay. I doubt it broke from anything he did or didn't do.

Naturally, given the popularity of carbon bikes and the number of them out there, there will be more issues. Of the 200+ members in our club, I bet 190 ride carbon bikes. Funny thing, I have only heard of one Mtb carbon frame failure, and that was on a 8 year old, hard ridden and raced bike but the company (Cannondale) replaced the frame and upgraded some stuff right away, all for free and gave a loaner bike while his was getting repaired/replaced. I think the same Taiwan frame company makes both Trek and Cannondale plus many more.

Man, the more examples I read of CF frame and component failure, the more my contempt for these manufacturers grows. They KNOW there is a serious problem with the way CF fails, and could care less about consumer safety.

As long as people keep buying asploding frames, consumers share some of the blame as well.

While it appears that the jury is still out on this topic, I think awareness is a good step at preventing injuries due to failure.
Truthfully, I think for the average skills/light weight cyclist, there will never be an issue. Push the limits of the bike in either rider weight or higher skill levels (read:racer) and you might encounter a chronic failure that is inevitable. Key word is "might" and hence, this discussion.
Like I said before, you would think that you would see the most failures on Mtb's, but that is not the case. Maybe, those frames are layered heavier because the manufacturers know there will be excessive forces encountered and the road bike frames might be lighter built because the frame manufacturers feel it's a calculated risk? IDK but I am concerned and want to learn more.

So, what is the safest frame out there, steel? There are plenty of lightweight steel frames available that weight very little more than carbon, once built as a rideable bike.

+1 on your post. Since no one has any way of knowing the expertise of any poster, they would be better served commenting on the subject, rather than engaging in personal attacks.

Actually no I dont. CF bikes are simply plastic bikes that are reinforced with carbon fiber. There is no way of telling when they may shatter. As I have stated I know that riders that have paid out big bucks for a plastic bike dont like to read this, the the bottom line is it is true. They may pay a price for being on the bleeding edge of lightness, and long term durability.

LOL.. these 'discussions' ALWAYS turn to personal bulsh*t.

CF.. NOT for me. I do employ a woven carbon handlebar on my flat bar Poprad.. seemingly that unit dampen road shock along with the cork-like grips.

Carbon fork.. from upright to on your nose in less than a second... for what? 99% of everyone riding a bike do NOT need to save a few ounces... SAFETY is job ONE.

Internet keyboard queens.. don't bother. My skin is wayy thicker than FB's.

First, I must admit that this is an academic topic for me because I'm trying to remain at n+1=3. I'm not categorically against carbon fiber frames but I wouldn't want to buy something used on Craig's List or E-Bay after reading about these failures as well as about counterfeit CF parts floating around.

Having said that, it does appear that some failures can be more dangerous than others, particularly on the fork or the handlebar. Why not use titanium there?

And that makes them stronger and lighter than bikes made from more conventional means regardless of your preconceived notions about 'plastic.'

Again, you seem to want to believe every JRA carbon fiber failure posted on the internet. News Flash: most are fabricated or otherwise embellished stories where the author frequently forgets key facts like how they just crashed hard the day before and the bike was making a strange noise but they thought nothing of it.

Go price out some carbon fiber bikes rather than continuing to preach with your head in the sand.

The irony here is your reply is littered with personal opinion, aka "bullsh*t".
We all have opinions, very few of us post facts or backup information. I know this because I have done it too, even though I thought that I was correct. That makes it all personal BS.... which is acceptable here, encouraged and counter argued with more personal BS. :foo:

2002 called-

they want their 'asplosion' thread back.

Good posting as a counter balance to all of the "carbon always fails and nothing else does" comments.

IIRC, those Lambert (and similar Vicount) forks were notorious for frequent, and usually disastrous, failures. Here is Sheldon Brown's article about them: Lambert and Viscount Bicycles

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with aluminum forks and I put 30,000 uneventful miles on an SR Al fork and well over that on a Trek Al fork. I also have 39,000 miles on one Easton all-carbon fork and 36,000 miles on another and both are going strong.

[QUOTE= the CF ride just SO MUCH BETTER than anything, with the drive train responsiveness, lightweight, precise steering AND comfortable flex where it counts due to the variations of lay up.

If others agree, then it is an essential point and these qualities make up for some CF failures. So adding a bit of weight adds durability and you still get the "BETTER" ride--so that appears to be the bottom line here--no?

:beer:

You have that completely backwards. They are primarily carbon fibers bound together with "plastic" (actually epoxy resin) and the carbon is the major structural component. The resin is just there to keep the carbon in place.

That was hardly called for but I hope it made you feel better about yourself. That was the nice version, you can translate your own version of what I really wanted to say. What exactly did your post hope to contribute to this thread?

Is it just me or does BF have far too many opinionated members? Like mother said, if you don;t have nothing nice to say, SAY NOTHING!