Vinokurtov

Sure, count a non weld as a weld.

Hey, here's an epiphany: Most guys who weld don't get paid by the weld. They get paid by the hour. Just like the guys who mix the epoxy, apply it, assemble the parts, clean the excess epoxy and work area.

Now, most manufacturers build in a certain amount of profit into each thing they make. Cost of materials and labor is figured into this equation. Looking at every custom builder or major manufacturers offerings all carbon mix bikes are more expensive than a comparable single metal frame.

Short of some aluminum skull cap black helicoptor conspiracy, I'd say this wholly refutes the "carbon is cheaper" theory.

oilman_15106

Next time I take a 3 foot chain link fence pipe to my rear chainstay I will keep this in mind.

chzman

not sure if the build cost is more or less, but i do think builders who recommend carbon seat or chain stays do so because the profit margin is greater when compared to a single material frame...

plus no can refute that in identical situations of wear and tear, the all steel or Ti frame will last longer than the one with carbon stays... but in real life (or in a cyclist's world), who actually cares if the frame lasts 5 generations. so if you like your carbon stays, go for it. you just will never see me riding a frame like that, unless it is a free frame or unless i'm a sponsored rider. (neither are likely to happen)

Dubbayoo

or if you crash and somebody else takes a top tube to it...a steel one of course.

R-Wells

Most manufacurers wont add more steps and more expensive material to cut costs.
If they need a higher profit margin they raise the price, or reduce steps, cost.

Why would a dishonest manufacturer be honest about a steel frame?
Why would he only try to raise his profit margin on carbon stay bikes and not on his steel bikes?

chzman

ok. huh?

all i was saying is a builder can raise his price on carbon stay equipped frames because of the ''perceived'' performance increase, and the consumer will bite and pay more. when in reality there is, at most, minimal benefit to the rider. for example, mike desalvo builds some great frames, but does it really cost $550 extra in material and labor to put on carbon stays? https://www.desalvocycles.com/?p=steel_road

R-Wells

And all I am telling you that I can raise my price on steel frames because you perceive it is equall to carbon.

chzman

go ahead. but only a very few think that way, so good luck selling any full steel frames at a higher price. its just an economic trend, you can't deny that.

BikeWise1

No anger. Just doing my job. The manufacturer said destroy it so we do. I was attempting to show evidence that carbon inserts are not stronger. They add nothing to a frame but fragility. Makers include them because people like you think they are necessary and won't buy the frame unless trendy elements like this are included. Waterford spent a lot of time on this and end ruled them out for exactly the reasons I have given.



I said nothing that can be construed as "challenging the legitimacy of carbon's performance". Pro teams are after every possible edge. Long term durability takes a back seat to weight. Bike companies want to sell you these bikes because they are profitable and this helps pay for the teams. Carbon is about money. There's very little to repair on these bikes. You crash it and go out and get a new one. Bike companies love it when you do that. I like carbon. I sell carbon. I ride carbon. But let's not be duped into the idea that as a bicycle material carbon will approach the durability vs performance tradeoff that the new classes of steel enjoy anytime soon.


You are talking out of your arse. Statements like this discredit every single point you are attempting to make by acknowledging that you do not know what you are talking about. Please sir, tell me what my degree is in. Tell me what I did for a living and for whom I worked before deciding to own a business. You do not know.


Any further baseless, unsupported suppositions?

SaabFan

BikeWise, I think you win the award for use of bold to make your point stand out in an argument on the internet.

BikeWise1

No it doesn't. You are not factoring in the costs of obtaining, cutting and mitering batches of tubes. The carbon rear seatstays found in many of today's bikes are made to one length. In other words, 1 single part to deal with. The distance between the brake hole and dropout is fixed. They are cut once (to match the frame size) then bonded in. No mitering. No welding. 3 bonds and it's done. Same bike with an aluminum rear triangle- seatstays and brake bridge must be welded in after being mitered. That easy little bond process means that the hourly-paid welders can make considerably more mains while the newer, less skilled and lower paid workers can bond in the rears.

And I have not mentioned some of the techniques like Exogrid and the like, as well as the type of bonding Santana and Titus use. Those are a whole different level of technology. I'm talking about the carbon rear stays most often found on bikes- the prefab, glue-in kind.

BikeWise1

Lemme guess, the prize is a lifetime supply of Tour de France tapes on Beta.

When I feel really feisty I've been known to italicize as well.

SaabFan

Yeah, but the little flap doors on the tapes are made from carbon. Gasp!

R-Wells

The price you pay now for a steel frame is already raised to increase profit margins.

BikeWise1

At least no one suggested I pay extra for the performance advantage!

R-Wells

Who cut the carbon to length?

What is the carbon bonded to? A metal tube that was cut to length and welded to the seat tube?

R-Wells

And your not factoring in the cost of obtaining "prefab cut to lenght carbon"


I really want to know which welds are eliminated.

Are there any frames where the carbon stays are glued to the seat tube?

BikeWise1

Care to support that with some further info? I'm just curious... I personally know several top notch steel builders, and they aren't exactly flush with cash from their "high profits". One of the problems with the new steels that they share with Ti is that they must be fabricated with perfect alignment. There is no cold-setting after the fact. If it isn't born straight, it gets scrapped. Aluminum, while very difficult to hand weld, is far less costly in this regard.

Heck, up until last year Trek was building the 520 with True Temper OX Platinum and retailing it with a nice kit for $1100. They went back to 4130 when it was found to be more cost effective in terms of amounts of wasted tubing from build errors. You can cold set that 4130 all day!

R-Wells

Can you give us the names of these failing Businesses?

I really struggle whith the ideal of a Successful business owner that doesnt have a Successful profit margin.

"They went back to 4130 when it was found to be more cost effective in terms of amounts of wasted tubing from build errors. You can cold set that 4130 all day!"

And yet you insist that they dont use steel to cut costs, and raise profit margins?

chzman

OK... the price of milk is raised to increase profit margins, too

chzman

actually, you are right. i was wrong the whole time. carbon stays are a super upgrade.

i really hope cyclists continue to buy these frames, so no one wants those overpriced, super high profit steel frames that are obviously of a lower caliber.

BikeWise1

OK. I just walked over and looked at a new Trek 2200. There are only 3 welds holding on the entire rear triangle. 3. All the rest are bonds.

The three welds are 1) carbon seat stay receptacle on the seat tube and 2) & 3) the two chainstay welds.

Now, look at the picture at the top of the page. I count 12 welds. 1&2 are the seatstay-seat tube welds, 3&4 are the brakebridge welds, 5&6 are the seatstay to rear dropout welds, 7&8 are the c-stay to dropout welds, 9&10 are the c-stay bridge welds, and 11&12 are the c-stay to BB welds.

Now, do you see? 3 bonds + 3 welds is faster than 12 welds. Faster=cheaper. It takes all of 3 seconds to dock a carbon seatstay to the correct length for bonding. I've watched them do it at Trek.

I hope that helps...

R-Wells

No they sell milk at a loss.
They have found that even though it cost $12.00 per gallon to produce milk, they can actually reduce the price in the store to $2.00 therfore alowing them to sell more volume.

Of course the the price of milk is raised to increase profit margins.


The price if everything is raised to increase profit margins.

What company wants lower profit margins?

R-Wells

Do you beleive the seat stay on the 2200 you mention cost less to manufacture than a carbon fork?


What welds were eliminated from the Id8 frame I posted?

BikeWise1

Who they were failing? Making enough to pay the bills, but not enough to be "making money" are two different things. My GM is 4%. I'm not "failing"-the bills get paid, but I'm not "making money" either.
Defining success as strictly monetary is shallow and one-dimensional.


I never said that. You may have inferred it. But you made a critically wrong assumption in this case. Both materials I mentioned are steel. They changed the grade to simplify fabrication and cut costs, that's all. That bike is still not a big money maker according to my sources at Trek.