joejack951

Yes, it is easy to find (https://media.specialized.com/suppor...0000057489.pdf) and easy to see that it explicitly does NOT only include carbon fiber bikes:

Capture by joe jackson, on Flickr

prj71

All I've learned from this thread is to not buy a Colnago bike.

PepeM

Would you avoid the Diverge? It is not included in that list, despite being carbon.

Maelochs

So ... more BS from the "CF bikes killed my mother" crowd---the same crowd which adds bits about a two-year time frame and then passes it off like it wasn't a lie. Well, I guess I have been "educated."

Jarrett2

My bad, I'm not up to date on all the fragile bike models they offer

mapeiboy

I went out for a four hours ride on my Colnage EP ( over 2 years old ) this morning . Went up and down steep and not so steep hills , smooth and broken roads . I would like to tell everyone that I am still alive and well after the ride .

Jarrett2

This stuff cracks me up. Pun intended.

Everyone seems to know someone with a cracked carbon frame. The manufacturers post warnings about them in the owners manuals about how fragile they are and how the owner should not expect a long product life. Right there in black and white. Then we see correspondence with the manufacturers themselves where they say they only use them one to two seasons and dispose of them or sell them with a disclaimer that the bike might be unsafe due to the unsuspecting catastrophic means of failure that routinely results when they break.

Yet, people come out in droves to defend carbon road bikes as if they are the most safe and durable options on the market for every rider. Complete cognitive dissonance or just Internet trolling. One or the other, I guess. Maybe a little of both. I guess most other rational people have given up trying to offer a differing opinion here. I should probably follow suit.

joejack951

It is truly horrifying that they even market such fragile bikes to children! (Allez Jr.)

What is the world coming to?!?!

rekmeyata

But companies sell the same bike frames to the public that they use for racing, there are a few that use special custom frames that are not sold to the public, this may become more prevalent in the future though.

American Euchre

Failure on both sides. On the part of consumers, the vast majority of whom are recreational riders, who are foolhardy enough to believe that a few ounces is an any way shape or form discernible in terms of performance gains.

And on the part of manufacturers who fail to educate consumers about the risks inherent in CF frame failure.

Bicycles are so simple: 99% of riders ride for fun and exercise. The alleged benefits of a three ounce weight savings of a carbon frame can't possibly outweigh (no pun intended) the additional risk of catastrophic frame failure once it reaches it's fatigue limits.

There is the question then of the use of ubiquitous carbon forks. There seem to be fewer threads about carbon fiber fork failure. Why is this? Are CF forks inherently safer than CF frames? If so, why?

joejack951

Carbon fiber frames are about more than just weight savings. And relative to some steel frames, the difference is pounds, not ounces. They add up.

Educate how? Should consumers be shown videos of bikes breaking? Should the videos show bikes breaking with people doing stupid things on them or just riding along? What good would any of that do? Most people will never experience a frame failure regardless of material.

Yes, the fatigue limit of carbon fiber which is higher than any metal used for bike frames.

Because even (most of) the trolls have accepted that carbon fiber forks are lighter and just as durable as metal ones while offering a better ride. Eventually they'll accept the same of carbon fiber frames. Change takes time.

PepeM

Find me a single person in here who has done that. Why do you insist on making things up?

Maelochs

Are you going to keep on with thios BS even after it has been so thoroughly debunked? I suggest psychiatric help.

The very warning you posted and keep citing distinctly does NOT say anything about how long the bikes last, and distinctly DOES list several metal frames. Yet you still claim that it states "in black and white" exactly what we can all see it does not say.

If you are a troll, I praise your subtlety. If you are serious, I seriously recommend counseling.

Oh,a nd by the way ... anything official from Colnago would be on Colnago letterhead, no the stationery of some possibly real/possibly new/probably ambulance-chaser lawyer with a home-made web page. i can guarantee you Colnago has lawyers on retainer---can't do business without them. So if some guy claiming to be associated with Colnago with a homemade website responds, he is Not speaking for Colnago. I strongly suggest the OP contact Colnago and get clarification on that if he doubts it ... but i strongly believe this whole thread is a troll.

"The damage I sustained in the accident caused the accident."

There is a thread about physics and cycling ... this needs to go there, because apparently Colnago frames can warp time.

CliffordK

Certainly the Indy 500 or Formula 1 cars are quite far removed from road cars. Even stock cars in the USA aren't so "stock".

I do wonder, however, if people watch some of the rally races... at least for inspiration, for example the Paris Dakar (oh, did they drop the Paris?). Still somewhat removed from ordinary driving, but if I was interested in serious off-road driving, that is one race I'd watch.

Amt0571

Most riders simply don't need the expensive bikes they ride. Racing components are not always the most suitable and durable for daily use.

jefnvk

Anyone else find it silly that they'd put a bike named after one of the most infamously harsh races completed on a road bike in this list?

Manufacturers do that stuff to cover their bottoms. An average team rider covers more ground in a season than many will in a decade. Orica's Daryl Impey (first pro I found with a fairly complete Strava) has 17500km logged this year alone, and while I have no doubt that is on multiple bikes, what a pro racing team does with bikes simply doesn't translate to normal recreational usage. As the book even says, recreational riders will enjoy increased longevity over a more aggressive rider. It is not saying that if you don't follow a pro team's schedule, you are riding a time bomb.

I don't see many saying they are the most safe and durable option. What I do see is a lot saying that used as directed, they are a perfectly reasonable option for recreational riders. The most durable option is probably always going to be a Schwinn tank, if we want to be realistic.

Not only did they remove the "Paris", it is the "Dakar" in name only. Hasn't been run in Africa for about five years now, it is in South America. But yes, things like Dakar, various rally, Le Mans, touring cars, etc still do race fairly close to production models.

PepeM

It was moved to S. America five years ago or so.

PepeM

Same with people driving Porsches. No one 'needs' a bicycle either, but anyone can get whatever they want.

vinfix

There's something fishy about the OP's story and the Colnago lawyer's letter. But far-fetched or not, it does something that's popular in politics now- create an element of doubt, preying on fear.

Setting aside the danger, it does makes me wonder about the high cost and short lifespan of carbon bikes, particularly high end race frames. They can cost from $3-12K+, and Colnago's can be 6K just for the frameset! It may well be just fine 5 or 10 years from now, but will rapid obsolescence and questionable durability, the depreciation is terrible. If you get your bike free because you race, or have money to burn, great- but what about your average weekend warrior?

There are plenty of steel bikes from the 70's, 80's, 90's, still going strong- somehow I don't think we'll have vintage carbon 20-30 years from now

Amt0571

Of course. My own bikes have limits beyond my abilities. Even my 400€ alu with steel fork entry level road bike.

What I wanted to say was that most cylists, probably can't ride even my 400€ road bike to its limits, even if they're riding a 3000€ top tier bike.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm ok with people riding whatever they want. I also have (relatively) expensive bikes, and bought them because they make me happy, not because I'm able to ride them like a pro.

jefnvk

He states in his letter he writes Colnagos safety warnings, sounds more of a tech writer with a law license than an actual corporate lawyer. I can't see a corporate legal department writing such a letter at all, it would be much shorter, to the point, and without so much ramblings that could be used against them in a lawsuit. Then again, I am not well versed in the Italian legal system.

Agreed, just like the folks I know that like to toss racing parts on their daily driver cars. There is a cool factor, there is generally little useful or practical feature.

PepeM

If the likelihood that your bicycle is still 'going strong' in thirty years is important to you, then definitely don't buy a high end race frame (of any material,) or buy it but don't use it as your daily rider. Does anyone buy a Ferrari, use it as a daily driver, and then complain because it doesn't have the reliability of a Civic? Of course not.

Comparing steel bikes from the 70s (as in, any steel bike) to high end race frames of today is not a very fair comparison. I'm sure plenty of bikes made these days will be around in forty years, the 14lbs superbikes probably won't. That's the beauty of having options, anyone gets whatever they want.

With all that said, suggesting that CF bikes (all CF bikes) are made to last two years is preposterous.

PepeM

Yes, I see your point. Most people here are sensible enough to understand how things work. There are a few others on the other hand...

Spoonrobot 

I'd argue the point that there are very few heavily ridden steel bikes from the 70s, 80s, 90s or even 00s that are still being ridden at the same rate. Bikes last for decades hanging in a garage collecting dust. They don't last for decades of 5,000-10,000 miles a year on the open road.

DaveWC

Got it. So you would warn everyone to avoid lightweight carbon, ti, alu & steel bikes. You'd recommend or feel more comfortable with the heavier bikes, including the heavier carbon bikes, that don't fall in that category. So what you've proven to yourself is that the material is not the defining characteristic that determines the safety of a frame. And you should use the knowledge to guide you in the purchase of your bikes.

You see most people here aren't defending carbon frames as much as they're defending their right to choose whatever bike they want.