02Giant 

Dont go down hills and 35 mph won't be an issue.

PaulRivers

Completely ancedotal, but I've known several people to get seriously injured with non-carbon, and personally know no one to get seriously injured by carbon failing.

Someone I knew from work bought a steel fork, the fork sheared on their first ride and they broke a collarbone.

Metal fatigue is a problem with metal as well:
What is Metal Fatigue and How Can it be Prevented? - Sonnax

Metal fatigue can be described as the progressive structural damage that occurs when it is subjected to repeated stress loading...After many, typically millions of load cycles, fatigue cracks can start where the metal is being stretched in tension. This can occur as a result of repeated cycles even though the individual stress loads are well below the stress level at which the component would crack with just one cycle.

As other posters said, it's often not worth the additional cost for carbon fiber. A carbon fiber seatpost also needs to be torqued correctly. And it can have issues with slipping, I had to put a special compound on mine to keep it from slipping around.

But metal is hardly problem-free either and has it's own issues - I don't think one is safer than the other.

79pmooney

I accept that parts fail eventually. What I want to know and what often is the decision maker for me is how do they fail? Does it fail while riding? Is the bike rideable after it fails? Will I crash? Are there cracks or other warning signs easily seen in advance?

Ben

AlmostTrick

Exactly. CF seems safer than metal because of the manner in which it fails... the rider is no longer around to talk about it!

DrIsotope

I don't have the attention span to use a part long enough to worry about stress fatigue. I've been riding for 15 months, and I'm on my 4th set of bars. Third seatpost. Sometimes, must have shiny parts just because shiny.

American Euchre

Why isn't there any safety standard in the bicycling industry?

If there is a standard for the strength of a helmet, then there should be a safety standard for frames and components. As it stands, consumers are completely left to their own devices, guessing whether components are apt to fail or not.

Frames and components should have to pass a safety standard in the same way that helmets are required. A frame, stem, handlebar or seat post failure can be just as dangerous as a subpar helmet.

CrowSeph

Since i start this sport i had always the same parts.
Alu = Steam and handlebar
Carbon = other parts and seatpost
why the setapost? becouse you can feel if is everything ok and in case it broke you can just pedal without taking a seat.
you imagine in a road to descend over 60+ kmh , i think a broken handlebar will be a big problem since you totally lost the control of the bike. that's why i prefer to keep my 100g extra with a bunch of sense of security on it.

rekmeyata

Well heck, why not go all the way and say don't ride a bike at all and it won't be an issue.

Cheap generic CF forks, or ultralight racing CF forks, which really aren't design for everyday riding anyways but people do because they want the lightest whatever on their bikes, can and do fail. Cheap steel forks can fail, and most replacement forks today are indeed the cheap variety made in China, and people won't look to custom steel builders to get a replacement fork because they either don't think about it or don't want to spend the money. The largest bike shop in my town has been around for about 40 years and the owner and mechanics all have said that they see a higher rate of failed CF stuff then they ever did with steel and even aluminum. And CF is now being looked at after now about 20 years on the market of going soft, see: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/...es-going-soft/

Unfortunately in today's world you are going to get a CF fork regardless if it's a CF bike or a AL bike or a TI bike or in some cases even a steel bike. Even my Lynskey TI bike came with a CF fork, but I swapped the Lynskey fork for a Enve 2.0 fork because it was rated for a 340 pound rider vs 240 pound rider limit with standard forks even though I only weigh 170 pounds, I thought riding on a over engineered fork with a slight weight penalty was worth it.

And no, CF damage is not always seen, a lot of damage occurs on the inside of the tube and leaves no visible mark on the outside, so a rider, and even a trained professional won't even see the damage. See this for more info: Carbon fiber composite inspection procedures

If CF is so bad why aren't there huge lawsuits some of you ask, read this for insight into that: The Retrogrouch: Carbon Forks - No Way

Here's an interesting video that should put to rest which is better, CF or steel forks, you can read the page but the video starts toward the bottom of the page, see this: Carbonomas Steel Fork - 1-1/8" - Threadless - Curved

Here's a funny video testing several frame material types, steel, aluminum, titanium, and CF; see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvk63bmVpck

02Giant 

That would be unnecessary as the OP's concern is of face planting at 35 mph. An accomplishment on his hybrid, realized by riding down hill.

goraman

I put cycle cross forks on, made to take some abuse, same with the mountain bike handle bars, I do ride roads fast and take full advantage of steep descents often chin over the bars stretched out and pushing hard even through turns.
I haven't gotten the bars yet they are coming Wednesday but I rode hard yesterday after the rain, my bike has very thin slicks and coming down hill in with a couple cars behind me I took a hard right turn on a green light my rear tire broke loose and I went into a full slide, I was not expecting it but rode through it,kept my feet on the peddles and pulled it up straight as I came out of the turn and peddled hard to the next light. So all the years of dirt biking paid off big when I was young it did scare the H*ll out of me but I must have looked like I knew what I was doing because I got a lot of cheers from the car that was behind me ,a car full of teens probably stoned.
It could have gone the other way and I could have totally lost it but the ride was very smooth and I thought the road was dry enough to get away with it.
The bike is so light it is fun to ride and sometimes it brings out the kid in me and I forget I'm 50.
I looked everything over when I got home and all seems ok. I think if you buy a really good name brand that is made for mountain biking or cycle cross and it is not the absolute lightest part on the market you will be ok. But buy something made just for racing at the lightest possible weight and sooner or later you will get into troubble.

goraman

Well, all this my be a mute point in bike frames, seat posts and handle bars as there is new Technology headed our way soon Alcoa Aluminium is refining a new AL-LI This new material will be a cocktail of alloys with very high tensile strength like CF but unlike CF it will also have very good shear strength, but it will not be good for forks as it is not very flexible.
So it would make for ridged ride.
Some one touched on it, It sparked me to call someone I know and the aircraft industry is looking at this new material very closely even though it is still being improved upon rapidly.

fietsbob

I Doubt Alcoa had Bikes in mind when they started on Al-Li .. Aerospace and Weapons like the F35 make them More Money.

Marcus_Ti

And unless its fabrication profit margin is far superior to carbon fiber....it will be a fringe component material at best.

And that presumes there's enough of the stuff made to feed anything more than the military-industrial-complex. 6/4 Ti has all but disappeared from bike frame in the past couple years thanks to them, got too hard to get and therefore expensive to stay around as a frame/component material (one could also argue it wasn't worth it).

rekmeyata

CF made more money in aerospace and military weapons as far back as the mid 1960's in parts of aircraft and on the Apollo capsules and the lunar excursion module, then it was used extensively in the F117, and in civilian world the 727 used a lot of CF parts. So I doubt CF manufactures had bikes in mind either for awhile, and even today aerospace and military weapons and CF parts made a lot more money for the CF manufactures than bikes ever did or ever will.

fietsbob

Carbon Fiber Composites Have a Huge Carbon Footprint. + theres High sulfur Bunker Oil Burnt in the boilers of the container ships
to cross the pacific from where bikes are made .. & the big pile of Plastics Packing material in each carton, every Bike shop has to get rid of
The boxes are about all that are recycled taken back in otherwise empty containers to make more boxes to ship more exports in.


The Dirty Secret Of Carbon Fiber - Redorbit

The not so green bike: carbon fiber's carbon footprint - BikeRadar USA

StanSeven

Lots of reasons. One is when helmet standards were started, only a few number of manufacturers existed. So it was relatively easy to get agreement and compliance. Second helmet tests are very simple to do even though the test don't really correspond to real life crashes. Third is all the other things mentioned like frames are made of multiple materials with different design and subjected to numerous types of stresses and forces in use. How can you design standards and testing for them all. Lastly and most important, who cares? Cycling involves some risks. I imagine very few people want something like that.

goraman

Yes,no question but slowly that technology will come our way like everything else.

I will go out on a limb here and guess when AL AI dose get to bike parts the price will be high at first then slowly the cost will come down.

Sy Reene

Well.. there are the European CEN standards which I think many bike makers try to follow.. I only learned about this in prior posts I had on the subject, when I asked why alloy bars and stems today, weigh significantly more than the same brands' bars and stems from a decade ago. One explanation was that the CEN standards got more vigorous over time in protecting the public safety.

One link on CEN standards.. I have no idea how often/frequently these are updated, or who/if tests equipment to ensure adherence though.
The European CEN Standard For Bicycles (updated for 2010)

rekmeyata

I actually agree with you and think it's an excellent idea, there should be some sort of safety standards for frames, forks, seatposts, wheels, and handlebars. Sure there are different designs, so what? you just take a frame off the line and test it.

And to say cycling involves some risk is just naive, all things we do involves some risk so why put all the safety protocols in the making of cars for example? After all driving a car involves some risk!

I think a safety standard would be the ideal situation, but it would make bikes and other related parts a bit more expensive but the assurance would be that they meet the safety standard and thus worth the price, just as helmets have to cost a bit more to meet the safety standards, just as cars cost more to meet the safety standards.

Sy Reene

So you don't think the CEN standards suffice? I myself really haven't dug into this. so have no idea how rigorous they are.

rekmeyata

I haven't dug into it either nor have the time to do so, but since according to several LBS's I've spoken to over the years the problem with CF breaking seems to be excessive so the CEN standards apparently are not tough enough, and since they're European standards then they wouldn't apply to American imports anyways. And generic stuff gets sold all the time and they seem to break a lot more often, so again whatever standards are in place are not sufficient enough or lacking in America in particular.

StanSeven

I just searched on this. The standards came out in 2005 but they can't be very meaningful at our levels because we haven't heard anything or much on them. I saw an old article (around 2010) that said the standards were lacking with respect to composites including CF and that the EU planned on updating them. Here it is six years later and nothing new! It looks like another idea that got lost in the bureaucratic maze

rekmeyata

That figures, and makes sense being a government standard, it is too bad though that something more meaningful with teeth hasn't come about.

American Euchre

A safety standard for all standard bicycle frames and components would be greatly beneficial.

There's far too much left to guesswork; with helmets, you know that wearing one offers some minimum level of protection. The same cannot be said regarding carbon frames, wheels, and components.

I have heard several people say in bike shops that carbon wheels simply will not stop with standard calipers. I live in sunny california where it has not been raining in recent years, so we're talking about dry braking.

Carbon wheels should not be sold in combination with brakes unless a rider can stop safely. Despite the safety risk, there is no bar to selling these wheels with standard rim brakes.

It could be said that bicycles are considered toys as much as transportation in the united states, but even toys must meet safety standards before they are sold. At the very least, they come with some minimal safety labeling and warning.

Some consumer protection is in order with bicycle frames and components across the board, but especially with regards to carbon, which can shatter and splinter rather than bend and dent.

There's already an account of a rider who posted that his handlebar became useless after a single crash, which tends to confirm the findings of the NY Times article I linked.

I've gone down a number of times unfortunately on my aluminum mtb both on and off road, and the frame and components are undamaged, aside from scraping of the pedals and bar ends.

molten

Because a "helmet" is a brain/human body issue.
If you find the correct political connections, maybe you can make some endorsements ---- to start the bureaucratic agency. Instead, why not start an advocating agency? Note: most citizens prefer to not have the gov. so deeply involved in their lives.