I think Calfee's carbon rando is beautiful and qualified - there's carbon and then there's carbon. Chinese imports is a different argument.

But I'll never be in the $10,000 bike market, never in the used carbon market.
If I'm going to buy a nice used bike, it's going to be steel. That's what I do.
and I took the tread off 5 tires in the past year.

You guys know anything about private planes? The class of people who own them are litigious - or their survivors are.
After he retired it, my friend sold his Apache for 4 times what he paid for it. It's because 75% of the price of a new plane these days is the manufacturer's liability insurance on the old planes they made.
I honestly believe we will eventually see Specialized taken down by next generation owners of used carbon bikes.

Old steel racing bikes very rarely failed due to normal use. Practically speaking, they were pretty much good for as long as you cared to ride them. Occasionally issues came up of course. I was a mechanic for many years so I think I have a pretty good view of the reliability rate. Probably the most common failure I used to see would be a broken rear dropout. Main tube failure was pretty damn rare, and usually the result of crash damage.

Rear axles did break. Campy stuff was stupid reliable other than that. Spokes broke from time to time. Unless you were a racer doing training type mileage (say 15,000/year), you might never have a problem with any components including axles, spokes, etc.

A lot of this post strikes me as complete non-sense to be blunt. Please provide some evidence that "75% of a plane's cost is liability insurance". This sounds like histrionic, agenda based hyperbole. I know squat about the industry, but I'm calling BS based on common sense.

Specialized survived next gen buys of aluminum and steel...and have survived existing used CF bikes on the market since the early 90s.

Have you ridden a CF specialized? Mine rides great, though the Shimano bits are another matter. I hate to break this to you...but you can make a quality bike in China, Taiwan, Japan, the US, Italy...etc. It might have less boutique appeal, but there's nothing wrong with commercial products in China unless they were made in a flawed manner/process. Sure...my tendency is to prefer boutique US production, but running down a commercial Chinese production frame isn't needed and isn't likely to be terribly accurate, those bikes have proven to be more than adequate for a lot of people.

As to a few prior assertions, the endurance limit you describe may be more theoretical than practical...steel bikes regularly see stress that places incremental weakness in excess of the endurance yield and aluminum/CF bikes are often over engineered to the point where the advantage is largely theoretical. Does endurance limit exist? Yes...I've talked to enough industry folks over the years to understand that the real world application is largely immaterial to the majority of users.

Bikes are tools...they all have a place, and even the wrong size screw driver can frequently turn a screw adequately enough.

That Calfee is absolutely beautiful...I'd rock that. Still, when/if the time comes for that kind of purchase, it'll either be Spectrum or Chapman. Barring Weigle having a free calendar.

Many interesting points Aaron!

I was hoping you'd have a better experience with that Shimano gear though.

That's unfortunate.

As for ti, I could easily see myself on a Moots Routt 45 at some point.

Such a great ride and so versatile.

I've tried lesser ti. No thanks to that.

The Shimano gear is fine other than the front trim...I think I'm going to try a wider cage derailleur. I'm just spoiled in terms of expectations.

So many bikes, so little time

You and I were looking at a Firefly once that made my tongue hit the floor...the one with the internal lighting and anodized bits.

I agree with Aaron that country of manufacture doesn't tell much about a product's reliability or durability. You need more information. Since carbon fiber is still a lot less mature than steel, if I were buying a CF bike, I would want one from an established name brand company such as Specialized. I would trust smaller companies such as Pinarello, since they put out good stuff. If Specialized sees fit to have their frames made in China, that's fine.

Aaron, which model is yours? I like the looks of it, and it looks like a versatile bike.

That Firefly is very serious business.

Perfection.

There are so many great brands today, it's loony.

All I know is, I have a retirement bike coming to me in 4-5 years.

Gracious, how will I ever make up my mind?

Tom - Specialized Diverge...it's FUN!!! It has some...different...characteristics than I'm used to, some of which may be that elastomer suspension in the back. It doesn't ride like steel, but it's different, not worse. Overall, I like the ride of another similar steel bike a bit better...but the Diverge is more fun, and notably quicker.

I don't remember the model name...the CF one that came with mostly 105.



As a side note...I'm a fan of these tires too!

Some didn't break or bend axles, but many did. I recently broke one. I was a bike mechanic before there were cassette hubs, and riders of all kinds, not racers, broke them. Campagnolo Record hubs seem to have used good steel in theirs, as breakage was rarer in those hubs, but it wasn't unheard of. Cassette hubs are a big improvement in this respect. My aim is that henceforth, I won't build any rear wheels for myself that have thread-on freewheels since cassette hubs are so much better. On the other hand, as long as my wheels continue to serve me, I'll keep riding them. It made sense for me to replace my recently broken axle rather than replacing the hub or wheel.

I wasn't picking on Specialized as an inferior product, at all, simply as one of the largest suppliers of carbon bikes. Though I think everyone here has to admit that there are unsafe carbon composite bikes and components coming from China. (gotta wonder if people sue ebay over crap wheels)
But Specialized is a perfect target for litigation and these bikes will eventually wear out.
The first thing that happens when a private plane crashes is the manufacturer of the plane gets sued, regardless of the age of the plane, pilot error, etc., and he will have to defend himself. Why? He has pockets. For an insurance company, it's the size of the exposure and rolling the dice (right and wrong is not at issue) - if the size of the loss goes into reinsurance, litigation is automatic. If enough bikes break and people get injured, insurance companies will organize the class action suit.

Bicycles will never have an organization like the FAA certifying their suitability for service, and no local bike shop will ever be able to invest in the technology and talent required to certify them.
Our society is long-past believing there is inherent risk in life.

A well designed and controlled industrial process will produce product that falls within the upper & lower control limits of Quality Control/Assurance regardless of where on the planet the process runs.

"Quality is designed in, not inspected in."
-W.E. Deming

Allow me to retort...

There hasn't been that much industry destroying, successful litigation involving bicycle manufacturers, or shops, and they maintain relevant coverage to manage risk. There is a very important concept to understand called assumption of risk, and while a manufactured good must conform with the purpose for which it is marketed (in other words a MTB should have some level of applicability to off road use) under the commercial code and in terms of negligence, the implied warranties are limited, the bike manuals all have stated limits of liability that would leverage settlements and the user's ordinary, reasonable level of care regarding sporting goods typically results in a rather large burden on the user for assumption of risk.


There are different types of risk...in terms of scale and the likelihood of occurrence. Infrequent, potentially large, forms of risk are the ones best addressed with insurance...and that's the kind that best applies to the bicycle industry.

You have mis-used the deep pockets concept of law in applying negligence in a crash in as far as the crash was caused by a component of the plane. Your underlying assumption is that primary negligence didn't exist.

The applicability of risk management, or litigation comparisons of the cycling industry to the aviation industry, is apples and tomatoes in terms of the scale of the risk and the assumption of risk by the user.

Cycling has managed to mostly survive litigation in the US since the 70s...including nearly 40 years of MTBs. Moving from one material to another is likely not a game changer.

Sweet ride.

The Specialized adventure line is catching my attention.

Their return to all roaders is right up my alley.

My Fargo better be a good boy. It could easily be replaced.

Yep...it's a question of a control's effectiveness and percentages.

The sales figures are available for purchase Global Carbon Fiber Bike Industry 2016 Market Research Report : ReportsnReports
but at some point in the future, the population of old carbon bicycles is going to be enormous.

Indeed it is.
Often know as the "Father of Quality" W.E. Deming's work on statistical process control is fundamental to designing/implementing/operating a well controlled modern process. Well designed and controlled processes produce output that falls within the QC/QA control limits. I does take design, doing, statistical monitoring, controlling, re-doing, from lessons learned if operating properly/rigorously. The result is continuous process improvement.

Statisticians in History

edit: Since this is BF C&V it was Japanese industry in the post WWII era who whole heartedly embraced Deming's methodology/ethos w/ profound results even in humble bicycle manufacturing. This goes a long way in understating why a Miyata Pro was perfectly straight, durably finished & affordable while most (face it almost All) "artisan" built Italian framesets of the era were "not so much" of that boring Quality stuff. Did someone say "Soul"? Deming didn't.

-Bandera

[MENTION=442798]bulldog1935[/MENTION], I agree with [MENTION=129154]KonAaron Snake[/MENTION]. I don't think the bike industry will follow the same path as the airplane industry. Bike crashes are rarely tragic, and the idea of them is not nearly as terrifying as the idea of a plane crash. Planes are safer now than most other modes of transport because we want them to be. We are (as a whole) OK with dying in car crashes and with breaking collar bones while on bikes, but we don't want plane collisions.

There is no evidence that the bike industry is headed the way of the airplane industry, and there is plenty of evidence that it is not.

I never had any reason to worry about structural problems with my bikes, including the vintage aluminum ones. Even a succession of yard sale bikes of dubious provenance, only once did I discover damage. A Raleigh Record Ace, I decided to strip the paint, and underneath I found a compressed, bulged down tube indicating it had probably crashed into something. A big so what, it was a freebie and they're a dime a dozen anyway.

Now I even have carbon forks & seatposts on a couple of my (steel) bikes, and they make a positive difference. I don't worry that they'll dissolve beneath me, but I don't take them for granted.

Slightly off topic, in archery, with cedar arrows, you hit something too hard, like a rock, the point will break off where it meets the shaft. An aluminum arrow will bend. A carbon arrow, either you won't see any damage, or it will shatter. I've had carbon arrows, seemingly fine, blow up leaving the bow (both compound and recurve). I shoot aluminum with my recurve now.

Further off topic, Cessna stopped single engine production in 1986 because of liability, and didn't restart until product liability tort reform was passed. Airplane manufacturers do indeed factor in the cost of being sued. A family member of my wife's was killed in a crash caused by carborator icing. It was a known problem but they figured it was cheaper to settle with victims families than fix it.