Koyote

Thosr are some cars that are best forgotten…

Lombard

I'm sure many carbon bikes have been in the rain and haven't dissolved.

Lombard

Agreed. IMO, the mid to late 1970's was a dark period in automotive history. Some of the fugliest cars ever.

Koyote

Yeah, not just ugly -- they were also unreliable and terrible to drive. I learned on some of those godawful machines. Fortunately, we also had a '65 Mustang kicking around the family, and I got to drive that sometimes.

Lombard

This too. One of the most recalled vehicles in automotive history was the 1978-1980 (Third generation) Monte Carlo and its Pontiac, Buick and Oldsmobile clones. Only to be outdone by the Chevy Citation and Pontiac Phoenix in the recall category as well as horrible drivability and reliability. Is it any wonder GM's world market share dropped from over 50% to under 30% by the mid-1980's.

Camilo

So you say. I never take my carbon fiber bike in the rain or the sun either (you know, UV)

Camilo

What? No MoPar K cars on that list?

Lombard

While the Chrysler K-cars were quite crude and boring compared to their Japanese counterparts, they were nowhere near the train wreck that the GM X-cars were.

Kontact 

I don't think I've ever seen a carbon frame that stress cracked from use. I've seen a lot of steel bikes that have.

Most of the dead CF frames I've seen were either impacts, failures of small parts or galvanic corrosion where aluminum lugs or cable stops rotted out the bond.

I would expect a bike like a Calfee Luna to last essentially forever.

rsbob 

I HOPE you are not including the AMC Pacer and Hornet. Then there is Subaru Tribeca and Pontiac Aztec. Not to be confused with the AMC AMX.

Lombard

The Subaru Tribeca has been reincarnated as the Subaru Ascent. Vehicle isn't much different.

Koyote

The Tribeca and Aztek were definitely not made in the ‘70s.

rsbob 

Such a stickler.

Lombard

And then there was the Gremlin which was basically a Hornet with the arse end chopped off.

AMC certainly had some badly designed cars that drove like cr@p. However, they were actually comparatively reliable (for 1970's American cars) and cheap and easy to repair when the did break.

Fox Farm

Why not write directly to bike manufacturers who make CF bikes, like 3T for example and ask them for their data rather than internet speculation...

Atlas Shrugged

Perhaps another question would be if this threads lifespan will be longer than the lifespan of a Carbon bicycle.

Koyote

This thread assploded long ago.

Seattle Forrest

If you believe the entire world is in on a Big Bike conspiracy to make people buy dangerous frames and brakes, what would you expect 3T to say?

kraftwerk 

Just changing the subject back to the original question :
My Trek 2300 from '92 or '93 (?) see's well over 1000 miles per year on NYC streets.
It also gets a ****-ton of lock-up time outside while I shop or eat & drink or look-it stuff inside.
I am not easy on this bike and neither is anyone else, it's held up.
Thankfully, my brother handed it off to me after he had completed Paris - Brest - Paris on it
(was also shipped in a suitcase there & back from VT then )
We have put it through the test for sure.


ps. a similar 2120 I know of had a not-catastrophic metal failure, the seat-post bolt area sheered off.
Probably the binder-bolt was too tight...or aluminum shell was too weak, we fixed it with two large washers.

merlinextraligh

fortunately, there were some exceptions:

Lombard

I believe Koyote was referring specifically to American cars of the 1970's.

Camilo

Since this has been "debated" on these internet forums since the turn of the century, I think the answer to your question is yes.

merlinextraligh

nothing wrong with the Corvair, if you know how to drive. Porsche has been able to use that same rear engine, flat six air cooled engine to win multiple Lemans, Sebring, and Daytona victories.

Problem is when you put a rear engined car that tends to oversteer in the hands of poor drivers who do not have even an inkling into chassis dynamics and how to actually control a vehicle.

Lombard

It wasn't the rear engine that made the Corvair unsafe. It was the rear swing axle suspension that caused the car to oversteer. And as I said, this problem could have been easily rectified with a front stabilizer bar. But the bean counters at GM decided that potential lawsuit payouts would be less than it would cost to add the stabilizer bar to the vehicles.

merlinextraligh

https://www.corvair.org/index.php/ho...e-at-any-speed

or people, could learn to drive. Oversteer is a good thing if you know what you’re doing.

”Oversteer” isn’t’t somethng bad, like the car steersmore than you want. If just means at the limit, the rear tends to come out, more than the front, as opposed to under steer, where the front washes out before the rear.

Every car at the limit will either under steer or oversteer. production cars tend to be balanced to under steer because they are easier to control, particularly by drivers with no concept of chassis dynamics.

oversteer is actually a good thing if you know how to use it. The 930 turbo I posted earlier was prone to significant oversteer, Yet it’s an amazing car in the hands of someone who knew how to drive it.

So, yes the Corvair could have been designed to be more idiot proof, but was by no means unsafe in the hands of a competent driver.