smarkinson

I'll just leave this little thing here for you to argue over:

12 High-End Frames in the EFBe Fatigue Test

For those who don't follow the link the carbon and aluminium frames lasted longer than the steel ones in a fatigue test (although you really should read the article for the full story).

For what it's worth the only 2 frames that have failed on me in 43 years of riding were both steel and they both snapped the drive side chain stay clean without any crash involved (thought it was a broken spoke the first time it happened as it sounded like one and the wheel rubbing against the frame was also indicative of a spoke failure).

gregf83 

Not sure why you're being a dick. No, I don't have any pictures of the broken bike as it happened a few years ago and I stripped the components. I took a few pictures of the broken BB as I tried to find someone to weld it. Also, no rust as it was a summer bike not ridden in the rain. Sorry to burst your bubble but steel is not infallible. The cheaper steel bikes probably last longer as they were made of thicker, heavier steel.

indyfabz

Listen, son, I was pointing out that your suspicion that the warranty is only 2 years because CF bikes are only good for 2 years is simply not supported by the warranty period since, for more than 15 years, it has applied to all Colnago frames regardless of material. Get it, now? This B.S. thread has run its course. Please don't darken my doorstep anymore, get yourself a beach cruiser and stick to the boardwalks.

Cyclist0084 

indyfabz

I think yesterday must have been national reading comprehension fail day because I got two separate post quotes by to different people who missed my points by wide margins.

rekmeyata

Of course you show a fatigue test done by and industry lab that would be pro whatever the current frame material being pushed by the cycling industry is at the time. I remember when that same lab years ago just at the time CF material was coming out showed that aluminum was the best and a frame made by Principal was the best of the best. So maybe you should read this site and then make a thought pattern about the absurdity of that series of tests: EFBe Frame Test: how NOT to test a Bicycle

cyclintom

When my IRD fork collapsed no American lawyer would even talk to me. All I was looking for was medical bills which weren't that much - perhaps $10,000. But the fact is that I am permanently disabled. I have seizures and memory loss and have to take medicine with nasty side effects for the remainder of my life. The medication stops the seizures but the memory loss is a problem. Luckily it has little to do with my work which is almost entirely original thought. But I couldn't tell you even half of the places I worked.

Finally a friend of mine who owns a firm in Oakland volunteered while on a ride to look into it.

Since I had bought the fork from a Irish firm the response from IRD was that they had never had any intent to market to the USA and as proof had never advertised here even though the Internet could be construed as advertising over the entire world.

They quoted the chapter and verse of international law and the lawyer that my friend assigned to the case said that was pretty much bullet proof.

cyclintom

Fatigue testing is pretty much the same. The problem is that it was originally designed for steel. The failure modes of aluminum and carbon fiber are different and less likely to fail from the low frequency repetitive tests that were originally invented.

No one is trying to hide anything. They are simply using standard engineering tests that no longer are valid. And since this validity hasn't been taught in schools these lower level engineers can always reference text books that show that they are performing the correct stress tests.

I don't have a degree and have taken over projects in virtually every field from advanced degree engineers and succeeded where they have failed. Simply because I do not look at a problem as a test of my memory of engineering education.

jefnvk

I'd check that memory. While many fatal accidents are low speed car crashes, they generally involve one of a few factors such as elderly drivers whose bodies are not as able to absorb an impact or a side impact. 6000# of truck hitting my car six inches from my shoulder at 25MPH is a lot more impact for my body to absorb than my 210# hitting the ground (or a tree, been there done that) at the same speed. If a 35MPH crash would kill 9 out of 10 people, there should have been numerous deaths at the TdF this year. Spoiler alert: there were none. Heck, I've wrecked a motorcycle at 45, had nothing to show for it but a sore ankle and a messed up nose.

Because charging for such a death trap to an unscrupulous buyer would be a very unethical. We merely want them knowing full well the dangers to properly dispose of them

No, it is saying that the bikes are designed to last for two years for a professional cyclist. Autos are designed for a 10yr/100k lifecycle, and yet the average age of vehicles on the road today has risen to 11.5 years. If we transpose that logic, that means over half the vehicles on the road today are unsafe and ready to fall apart at a moments notice, something that simply is not true. We do see, however, that the overwhelming majority of vehicles have no problem hitting the 10 year AND 100k mark without major issue.

And comparing how professional racers use a bike on one of the most notoriously hard-on-road-bike races in the world to how they are supposed to be used by amateurs is simply silly.

cyclintom

I think that you're taking affront where none was intended. I was pointing out that IF the factory recommends that the racing teams destroy these bikes after only one or two seasons of use it is because they are concerned about personal injury. And Mama knows best don't you know?

The warranty period in the US is 3 years despite the fact that in Europe by law it must be 10 years. However, there are sharp limits on personal lawsuits in Europe made to protect companies, which do not exist in the USA.

Now, since pro racing wear and tear is MUCH higher than that which you or I could put on it why would they make such a short warranty period unless they have hard proof that they are getting many failures?

Notice that the C60 construction method is much different than that of the C40. I just looked at the carbon fork on my Ridley and it appears to have an aluminum insert for the length of the fork and be covered with CF. Does Ridley know something we do not?

PepeM

That's not what it says.

cyclintom

Before you could understand any of this you'd have to be a bike rider and you plainly are not. As I explained to others I had NO CLAIMS to Colnago and was only looking to discover the service life and possibly a source of a new fork.

It was THEIR response that carbon fiber is unsafe at any speed.

DaveWC

No. It wasn't. The lawyer said that your bike had outlived it's useful life. He also stated that "frames used by professionals are used for one, or maximum two seasons after which they are either destroyed or sold". Nowhere does he state the Colnago has anything to do with that decision nor that the decision is predicated on anything but the desire by the team to have new models of the bike. Nowhere does he say that the useful life of Colnago bikes is two years. Nowhere does he state that carbon is unsafe at any speed.

If anything, your experience shows the durability of carbon. Any yokel can lose control of their bike on a descent, run the bike into a rock wall at 25 mph and only cause a seam on the fork.

Btw, are you still riding a bike with a carbon frame?

jefnvk

It is far closer of an interpretation than anything older than two years is obviously a danger that shouldn't be ridden because that is how long pro teams use them for.

PepeM

True.

Wheever

So here's my problem with this whole discussion: We're sitting here discussing *road bikes*, meanwhile, in the MTB world, bikes are being beaten on and tortured in ways we can hardly imagine on our notionally eggshell-fragile CF bikes, and there is hardly a plague of asplosions happening over there. Hitting A bump at 35 destroyed your bike and nearly killed you? these people do nothing BUT hit bumps, and given the frequency and violence of those hits--as a matter of the sport--if what you're saying is true, suspensions wouldn't make a difference even in the medium term. MTBers beat the SNOT out of their rigs, and they don't have to replace them every season. Now, the bikes do tend to be built more ruggedly and are heavier, but compared to the amount of abuse they suffer...?

That's why I'm not buying this whole "carbon asplodes at 24 months" thing.

gsa103

Actually, the MTB'ers usually do have to buy new bikes every 3-4 years, if you look at the mtbr threads. Of course, the overwhelming majority of those are Al frames with broken welds.

cyclintom

That alone shows that you aren't a bike rider So why are you here? To convince yourself that riding down to the drug store makes you a sports rider?

jefnvk

I've got a Cr-Mo MTB and road bike. No way I see the road bike taking abuse like the MTB. Can't imagine what that thin fork would do the first couple times I jumped it

Just because things are made out of the same material, does not mean they aren't engineered vastly different.

PepeM

I have a confession to make: I am not a bike rider either. I just come for the intellectual discourse.

badger1

Hmmmm ... possibly, though my perverse side is thinking "Best ... Thread ... Ever". If we bent the space/time continuum enough it could have been the inspiration for:

badger1

Well played!
Speaking of intellectual discourse, have you sampled LCF recently?

Maelochs

PepeM never disappoints.

DaveWC

I'm here to learn from the giants... like you. That doesn't mean that every hairbrained post has merit.

As a matter of a fact, I am a bike rider. I only average about 24km every day but I manage about 7,500 kms each year. Today I happened to average 268w (NP 281w, IF 0.945) getting my groceries. Not bad considering the heat/humidity. Sure, it's no falldown in the park like you probably had, but I had fun. The ice cream didn't melt either.

cyclintom

So since you are plainly an experienced rider why are you MAKING such harebrained postings yourself?

First you make the comment that my posting is neither real and that you cannot decode a letter from a man being posted by another. Then you don't believe that CF fails as demonstrated in photos. Then you entirely and purposely misrepresent the letter from Colnago's law firm. Then you cry that I must not know how to ride.

If your group believes carbon fiber to be safe why the argument?