FLBandit

I had a Carbon and steel Lemon that I absolutely loved. I weighed about 240 at the time and had Bontrager Race Lite Wheels. No issues for me.

irwin7638

Maybe I wasn't clear. Given the same tire sizes and pressure on two different bikes, I don't notice an appreciable difference in ride unless I'm riding 23mm tires at 120psi or higher. Then the cf frame makes a difference to me. But, since I don't race or compete, I usually ride 28mm on my road bike with 100psi or lower and find virtually no difference in the ride. If you plan to compete, taking the risk on cf makes sense to me, if not it doesn't.

late

I would dearly love to try that bike. I ran into a guy that had one on the Trek Across Maine. He loved his, and it looked great.

terbennett

I have to side with Mr. Beanz on this one. Two of my riding buddies are Clydes and both have had frame issue with their CF bikes. Funny thing is that both of them swear by CF. Carbon does fail suddenly. Do a search on the carbon frame failure. Even experts tell you that. CF has a low impact tolerance. Even bike shops tell you that. Dropping it now can cause failure later. The problem is amplified by the fact that if there is frame damage from a small collision or impact from falling, the damage can't be always be seen. That's why many riders have their frames checked at a shop- which tells them that nothing was found, then suddenly the frame fails two to three rides later. One of my buddies races and he was telling me that most teams advise against racing on a carbon frame if you are over a certain weight- usually between 180-195 depending on the team. I know that racing is the extreme but if that causes concern with carbon frames for larger riders, then why would i want to ride one? No I don't race but where is the limit. There is a good case for both sides and since there is even a decent case for them failing under a Clyde, I won't buy one. No offense to the CF crowd because the CF frames I've ridden had amazingly smooth (and neutral) rides, but I don't want to worry about my frame failing on me. At least with a non-fibrous frame, I can see the damage before it gives out on me.

terbennett

+1.

sstorkel

Sadly, you seem to be confusing the carbon fiber bikes produced 20 years ago with carbon fiber bikes made today. Carbon fiber technology has come a long way in the past two decades. If a carbon fiber frame can carry Tom Boonen across the cobblestones of Paris-Roubaix to a win without breaking, the chances that an average Clyde will have a problem are minimal. The fact that top mountain bike racers, like Brian Lopes, are willing to trust their lives to carbon fiber frames also says a lot, I think.

It's also telling that almost every major bicycle manufacturer now has carbon fiber frames, or at least carbon fiber components (e.g. forks) as part of their line-up. Even Cannondale, once synonymous with aluminum frames, is now using carbon fiber in their high-end frames! If CF was as dangerous as you seem to think, doesn't it seem likely that product liability concerns would have driven it out of the market by now?

bigfred 

Sadly, you are confusing failure modes, mark demand and professional endorsement/sponsorship concerns.

A carbon frame carrying Boonen across the finish means extremely little to the average clyde. Most of us in this forum are aware that there is a big difference between power and weight. Boonen weighs half of what the average poster in this forum weighs.

The fact that pro mountain bicyclists ride carbon frames says, they've been handed a bike by a manufacturer that is paying them to ride that frame. I wonder how many of those same cyclist would be willing to attack a fairly fast downhill section on a carbon frame that they known to have been crashed previously?

The fact that almost every major manufacturer produces carbon frames is telling of market demand, not suitability for long term use by clydesdales. Any major manufacturer that doesn't cater to the demand of the average weight weenie cyclist probably doesn't have much of a future. A few clydes in the 200-235 lb range may be competitive at their local club level. But, for those of us above those numbers, frame weight quickly becomes a non-issue in exchange for longevity and reliability.

The fact is that we are not condemning carbon as dangerous. What most of us are condending is that the failure mode of carbon is not congruous with the demands and expectations of your average clyde. To point, carbon has a much higher likely hood of catastrophic failure that could result in a rider finding themselves face planting at speed. Regardless of whether it occurs just aft of the head tube joints or around the bottom bracket, carbon frames have shown a patern of detonating into bits and pieces from beneith their riders. Aluminum, Titanium and steel all show a much greater likelyhood of cracking, usually at a chainstay or bottombracket, but still maintaining sufficient frame integrity to allow the rider to stop before potential injury.

I'm interested in carbon. There are carbon components on my current bicycles. They have been carefully considered and are watched closely. I'm not against the material, just question if it's the best choice for a frame that is going to be used well outside the design brief parameters of most frame manufacturers.

Barrettscv 

Most cyclist don't need a CF bike. Modern TI & steel can be very high quality.

https://www.ifbikes.com/

lambo_vt

Sure, and most cyclists on BikeForums don't need a high quality bike when a cheapo from Bikesdirect still has two pedals, two wheels, and a set of handlebars. Plenty of us want something better though. I know if I had the disposable income kicking around to dump into a Roubaix/Cervelo RS/whatever I would already have a carbon frame. Not to mention either of those would be similar in cost to an IF.

sstorkel

And if longevity and reliability were a problem for carbon fiber bikes, manufacturers couldn't afford to produce them no matter what the market wanted. All it would take is one successful lawsuit for CF frames to come with weight-limit warning stickers or disappear from the market entirely.

So far, this hasn't happened. Why is that, do you suppose?

On what do you base these statements? How many carbon fiber frames have you personally seen explode under a Clyde while Just Riding Along? I've been riding carbon for 15 years, as have most of my riding buddies, and none of us has ever seen a carbon frame fail. Granted none of us has been brave enough to try a no-name Chinese CF frame, nor a sub-800g frame. We have, however, seen several aluminum frame failures. Drive-side chain stays on older frames seem to be a problematic area. All of the carbon fiber failures I've read about appear to be either 1) hoaxes, or 2) the result of extreme stupidity, or 3) the result of accidents which would have destroyed any frame, no matter how it was constructed.

Barrettscv 

And your point is?

Wogster

I would side with the guy you responded to, the difference between a CF road frame and a Cromoly road frame is about 2-2½lbs given a 56cm frame size. At least according to a 2008 catalogue I had from one of the manufacturers, Rocky Mountain IIRC. That means if you take 2 bikes fitted the same, the CF one that weights 18lbs would mean a steel bike of 20-20½ lbs, given a 230lb rider the difference is about 1%. BTW AL fits right in the middle, and Ti can range anywhere from a CF weight to an AL weight frame.

Now does that mean the CF rider is going to be 1% faster, well no, but what does 1% faster mean, given a ride that takes 1 hour for the steel bike it would mean taking 59:24 on the carbon. However a bike who's weight is 1% lighter, does not mean a 1% increase in speed, too many other factors, rider skill has a lot to do with it, climbing ability, wind profile, wind speed and direction, can all soak up considerably more then 1%.

This of course leaves out an important factor, what your riding for, if I am riding to win a professional race, where I need every advantage I can get, then CF makes perfect sense. Especially if I have a sponsor with deep pockets.

If I am riding because I want to visit a relative 400km away and go by bicycle, then getting there 5 minutes earlier does not matter, what does is that my bicycle will survive the trip, even if I crash at some point. The same applies to the rider wanting to lose a few pounds, in fact a slightly heavier bicycle could be a good thing.

CF is tough stuff, but it isn't reliable if your one of those who occasionally dumps your bike. If I wanted a light weight bike, and had a big budget, I would be much more likely to want a Ti frame then a Carbon Reinforced plastic one.

lambo_vt

I naturally bristle at anyone on BikeForums telling anyone else what they "need" as if you should qualify for a certain level of equipment.

People should buy what they want. It's pretty simple really. The same response to Wogster. Sure, maybe that 2 pounds difference (which is huge on a road bike in my opinion) will only make you 1% faster, but who cares? You don't have to be a racer interested solely in speed to ride a carbon bike.

If you're informed and you can afford it, buy whatever you want. For most amateur cyclists, there's no question of "need" when it comes to any bike better than entry-level.

bigfred 

I suppose that we haven't seen more weight limit stickers and the disappearance of carbon frames because of two reasons:

One, carbon frames are by and large strong, stiff and engineered with sufficient strength to fulfill our expectation of them. And, that in those instances where they have failed it can usually be attributed to some form of damage or abuse that the frame had previously suffered that led to the situation.

Two, it is better for the manufacturers to not set a weight limit. By setting a limit they would admit that they were walking a very fine line. They have however made exception to this with regard to seatpost, handlebars, etc. where we see loads placed on considerably smaller cross sections while subjected to greater leverage. See above, if they can show that the frame is sufficiently strong by engineering analysis and and backed with objective testing for what 99% or 99.9% of their intended market then haven't they done an acceptable job?

The issues that we (clydesdales) tend to discuss are the facts that:

1. A good number of us fall outside those 99% or even 99.9% limits. And, subsequently place loads on components that they very well may not be fully engineered to endure for extended periods.

2. What constitutes unacceptable abuse or damage to a carbon frame can be very small and invisible to the naked eye and even trained bicycle mechanics. The overlooking of such can result in sudden and catastrophic failure of a component without much if any warning. A good percentage of us(clydes), whom we've already identified as being into cycling for purely recreational, health and enjoyment reasons, will find this to be an unacceptable compromise for what is at best the savings of a few grams of nonrotating weight and no increase in frame stiffness or power transfer.

What do I base my statements about carbon frames on?

In addition to the wealth of anicdotal evidence that exists on the net, I have two person aquantances who have had carbon frames fail under them(neither clydes). One, had suffered an endo collision with an auto a couple months previous. That incident had damaged his front wheel but resulted in no descernable damage to the frame. As it was a Cervelo and the auto driver was at fault, the frame was completely disassemble and inspected by not less than two shops to identify if any insurance issues would be involved. No faults were found, but, a couple months later he suffered a catastrophic failure of that frame, the details of which I'm not familiar with, as I wasn't witness. The second incident, involves an amateur racing friend. This time, no heavy impacts involved, just the normal wear and tear of frequent group rides, tuesday night worlds and auto transport. The result, broken frame and a warranty refusal on wear and tear grounds, sighting: stone chips, nicks and scratches from pedals, chain drops, etc.

I too have seen both aluminum and steel frames fail. In my 28 years of cycling I have been the cause of several such failures, both road and mountain frames. None of these resulted in the frame crumpling to the ground as has been seen in a number of carbon ralated instances. And, most of them following your example of cracks in the drive side chainstay or in one instance the seperation of the bottombracket shell from both seat and down tubes.

My points being:

Aluminum, steel and titanium provide visible evidence if damage has been done by physical impact. In the event of undetectable damage and fatigue, they provide a failure mode that rarely results in catastrophic consequences.

Carbon while incredibly strong is also equally brittle. It is also extremely unforgiving of impact damage and loads from directions that it was not designed for.

As with so many cycling decisions a Clydes decision to choose carbon over other frame materials comes down to balancing their unique preferences with regard to maintenance and durability versus perfomance and weight. Carbon can provide for an incredibly stiff and strong frame but the trade off is a frame that doesn't provide visible evidence of abuse before it may fail in a most spectacular fashion.

bigfred 

Some of us have specific thoughts on what it means to be "informed". Some do a better job than others at expressing the information they wish to impart.

lambo_vt

I agree actually. Informing someone is totally different from telling others what equipment they need/deserve.

Further, I think we don't see more weight limits on mass-market carbon frames because by and large carbon frames are not failing catastrophically. Sure there are plenty of nasty photos on the internet, but if a little bit of carbon really did make your bike instantly explode and shower everyone with shrapnel, the lawsuits would be flying left and right. The anti-carbon people usually link to this or that, but that's a clear case of confirmation bias.

Legally, frame manufacturers would be much better off publishing a weight limit if indeed there is a correlation between frame failures and riders over 200 lbs riding carbon.

Barrettscv 

Then you criticize posters for having an opinion...

lambo_vt

Where did I criticize you? I do disagree with the opinion you posted, but I don't see that I said anything about you.

Barrettscv 

...as in laughing at you.

lambo_vt

Alright, sorry you can't have an adult disagreement on the Internet. No skin off my back.

Barrettscv 

No skin left.

priorat

Well, I haven't tested the Fuji yet (might get a chance Friday), but all of this has me thinking about my Felt. It's an aluminum frame, but has a carbon fork and carbon seat stays. Now, I've put over 500 miles on it so far this Spring, with no problems at all, not even a flat. I'm 270 now, but I always try and "ride light". Thanks for all the great responses so far.

sstorkel

Yes, if you have a dent in your aluminum, steel, or titanium frame then you know it has experienced impact damage. Unfortunately, aluminum often gives no warning before fatigue-related failure occurs. Older steel frames, which can rust from the inside out, have similar problems. And, as several of my riding buddies will attest, any failure that happens at high speed can definitely be catastrophic!

Carbon is actually pretty forgiving of impact damage, I believe. It's definitely not forgiving of loads from directions that it wasn't designed for, however. I probably wouldn't use a carbon fiber frame for a trials bike, for instance, and I'd also be very reticent to use a CF frame that had been involved in a car crash unless it had been inspected by a professional (e.g. someone like Craig Calfee; not a minimum-wage LBS mechanic). Luckily, advances in design, materials, and manufacturing techniques make it easier than ever for carbon fiber frame designers to produce extremely durable frames.

FWIW, everything you've said is also true of aluminum. Guess that leaves steel and titanium as the only Clyde-acceptable materials for bicycle frames...

rallison

$699 after you add it to the cart.

125psi

Boy sounds interesting doesn't it? If I knew my frame was on the outs I'd really consider this especially since Performance return policy is so liberal. I wonder if the titanium used in this frame is good also what is the weight? They don't post the weight on this frame which is concerning. I may ping one of their online agents and ask

b