SlimRider

So offer evidence that carbon fiber is NOT fallible when it comes to impact-resistance. Calfee Design, frequently updates their website concerning advances with respect to the industry.

Are you saying that there has been some significant breakthrough innovation within the past year that addresses the impact-reisistance problem?

Most certainly you would know, since you've been in the business for over twenty-five years, with such a very important position, assisting with the design and development of carbon fiber bicycle frames. Perhaps you could update the BF members as to what scientific advancements have been made in order to improve upon the micromechanics of CF within the bicycle manufacturing industry. It would be nice to learn about current research taking place within the industry today concerning the inherent anisotropic weaknesses of CF lamina that renders them vulnerable to impulse forces. We are very fortunate to have someone here of your stature within the industry, who would quite readily have such information. Enlighten us, please!

- Slim

Bob Dopolina 

I edited my post because I was being way too much of a dick. Go back and read it.

You're the one with a link in his sig to this article. The onus is not on me to disprove it, it's on you to back it up with something more than a link.

BTW, whatever knowledge I do have I'm sure not going to post it on an open forum (think Non-Disclosure Agreement).

jamesdak 

Thought I'd finally chime in. I have both a nice CF bike and a couple of decent old steel bikes. The CF is a Madone 5.9 and both steel bikes (Lemond Zurich/Schwinn Circuit) are made with the desirable Reynolds 853 steel.

First off at my level of riding it's poppycock to say that one material is faster or more responsive than the other. If riding solo at my max I can hold a 20-21 mph average for rides up to 40 miles or so on either the Madone or the LeMond. Over the past year or so I've set PRs with both bikes for a set route I ride a lot. The insignificant difference in time tells me that both bikes are pretty much capable of the same performance on a relatively flat course.

I've done centuries on both and to be honest I'd say the LeMond is a bit more comfortable. It also seems to be marginally more stable in high speed turns but that may just be my imagination.

The CF bike feels a bit more "responsive" but I attribute that to it being about 3 lbs lighter and having a wheelset about 200 grams lighter. It is also equipped with a compact double and is my choice for all my climbing rides now days.

There are a couple of spots on my normal ride where there are "dips" in the road that hit you a bit hard. On the Madone the one hit can jar my fairly good and even kicked back into the saddle if hit wrong. The LeMond absorbs this hit yet does not feel flexy to me while riding or putting down my "meager" power.

I've put 1000s of miles on both bikes (over 7000 miles ridden so far this year) and really can't say that either bike is superior to the other. Both are fitted the same except for the handlebar to saddle drop and for me that is truly why the one bike gets ridden more than the other.

Now the Schwinn is another fine ride but with the addition of an aluminum Kona Jake the Snake to my stable it is the odd man out. I ride on a lot of chipseal and sometimes the aluminum for on the Schwinn can let some buzz through. But I rode it for a month on paved roads in Mississippi during a business trip and it was a dream ride. It's a size smaller than I normally ride but man is it fun to whip around. Getting ready to sell it but not because of it being a steel bike. I've just got too many bikes now and it's too nice to have hanging around.

So, to the OP, like others have said you may want to look for a used steel bike. Both of mine were bought used and have been wonderful rides for me. And I should point out I got into the steel bikes after having a CF frame ruined by a failure. LBS messed up my chain when they cut it and one link seized which shattered the jockey wheel cage on my RD, the RD broke, swung around, and shattered the seat stay on my first CF bike. So I am always a tad leery of a CF frame although this is probably and unreasonable fear.

surgeonstone

And the winner is.......Bob Dopolina!

WhyFi

I think that the correct answer to "steel or carbon?" is "both." Next question?

zlr101

I too have been looking at getting a new road bike. I have a caad5si with campy proton wheels full ultegra 9 speed.I road a left over 2010 Tarmac elite rival, Jamis quest, jamis eclipse, 2009 cervelo s1. I was disappointed with the Tarmac it was new and felt smooth but not 2550 worth of an upgrade. I was the happiest on the jam is eclipse full steel 853 snappy forgiving maybe not as cat like as the Tarmac but nothing I would notice daily riding. The s1 was the speed demond of the group it just made me want to push it. In the end aluminum still my ride of choice I didn't end up buying a new bike I love my cdale so much I bought new ultegra 10spd new
wheels, but favorite bike was the eclipse just didn't think it was worth the 3100.

coasting 

you would think that steel bikes dominate the market these days the way some enthusiasts speak of it.

SlimRider

You're absolutely correct!

Kinda makes you wonder how an inferior bicycle frame material could just completely displace the superior one and dominate, without some inordinate assistance.

Just always remember:

Aluminum is very expensive to extract from its bauxite ore. However, it is the cheapest to reclaim via recycling.

Steel OTOH, is not nearly as expensive to extract from its iron ore, but is more expensive to reclaim via recycling.

Aluminum has about 1/3 the density of steel. It therefore, weighs less.

Tubular aluminum is much cheaper than tubular chromoly steel.

Once an adequate amount of either raw material is availble, all one need do is simply recycle.

When you're transporting tons of material, which would you rather transport, aluminum or steel?

When you're transporting thousands of bicycles, which would you rather transport, aluminum or steel?

Which material is easier to construct in mass-production, once your machinery is set?

What indu$trial CEO couldn't an$wer these que$tion$?

- Slim

SlimRider

Oh! I know!...It's like an ancient Chinese secret!...Ok!..Shush..We'll just keep it a secret then...I'm so sorry!

- Slim

coasting 

this thread is going to be epic.

bikerjp

Ideally. Cash contributions are accepted.

As exciting as it is, putting aside the exploding CF debate, I think I'm leaning toward a steel frame like the gunnar sport (has rack mounts for added flexibility). Originally was going to get a soma es, but then thought I'd go for something a bit nicer. Not sure what I gain in the gunnar other than looks. Was hoping it was actually a better frame (better being lighter, stiffer) but can't seem to find any real data to answer that.

Thanks for the feedback and "interesting" discussion.

Henry III

Mind you Gunnars are nice US built bikes and I actually got to meet Richard Schwinn this past summer but I think their kind of bland looking being a TIG welded frame. A local shop is a Gunnar/Waterford dealer but even with both being from WI. Trek gets most of the limelife around here so she doesn't stock that much. It's that ooh aah carbon factor that gets people's attention over a handbuilt in the US steel frame for about the same price.

surgeonstone

Now I avoid the problem of steel or Ti versus CF, I have a Merlin composed of both. For what it's worth, I would take my Merlin over my Italian steel lugged work of art any day.

bikerjp

If I could find a lugged frame for the same price I'd definitely consider it. All the custom suggestions are great, but for my first steel bike I think I'ld like to go with a rather "known" entity. Soma stanyan was one I considered but the head tube seems ridiculously short. Unless I find something local on CL I'll probably buy new and so far the gunnar sport seems about right and a quality frame to boot.

BillyD

Cielo?

Bob Dopolina 

You bring up a good point here (and one we agree on).

Early Aluminium was not a superior frame material to steel in many instances but it was king for a short while. I think there was an whole lot of "inordinate assistance" involved with that one.

iab

Having ridden both steel and carbon bikes I can definitively write that they are different. Which one would the OP like more, I haven't the foggiest notion. Just like how I don't know if the OP likes red or blue more. The only way to tell is to ride both and make up your own mind. As to which I prefer, who friggin' cares?

For performance, it doesn't matter. On a steel bike, Contador will still drop Cavendish on the Tourmalet just as Cancellara would drop either Schleck at Paris Roubaix. If your fitness level is on par with those guys, pissing about steel or carbon may matter. But my guess is you have a ways to go.

Bob Dopolina 

Non-Disclosure Agreement (from Wiki):

"A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement (CA), confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), proprietary information agreement (PIA), or secrecy agreement, is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to or by third parties. It is a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement. An NDA creates a confidential relationship between the parties to protect any type of confidential and proprietary information or trade secrets. As such, an NDA protects nonpublic business information."

Get in a habit of breaking these and (if I don't get sued into the stone age) I'd have to close up shop and sell LiChee by the side off the road.

surgeonstone

Lunaris, my one regret is not getting the Cielo, basically the same bike but with sloping top tube.

SlimRider

Bob Dopolina says:

I usually comprehend exactly what I'm reading and furthermore, unlike some, I also have the rare gift of reading between the lines. This enables me to detect sheep crap when I see it.

The technical paper that I have referenced, is authored by Calfee Design, and contains much pertinent technological information. However, it is also an advertisement for Calfee Design and a promotion of carbon fiber.

Quote:

"Like damping, impact resistance is not found in every composite, but it can be designed in.

Yes! This is true, but to what extent is this statement true? ..Is it true to the extent that a carbon fiber fork that hits a curb or a pothole at the "wrong" angle, doesn't crack?...Is it true to the extent that a swinging handlebar doesn't crack the top tube?...Is it true to the extent that a CF swingarm won't crack while swiftly moving downhill?

The embolden statement that you quoted above, was specifically addressing scratches and surface abrasions. It was not addressing medium to high impact forces. It would have been more prudent to have included the relevant text that was germain to your statement in quotes.

At the very outset of the introduction, Calfee Design admits that traditionally, impact-resistance has been an ongoing issue. At no point in the paper does it state that this issue has been resolved. They only state that some designs are more impact-resistant than others. That's the equivalent of stating that horse crap smells better than sheep crap. Both the crap and the malodorous smell remains, it's just that, under certain circumstances, one pile appears to be less pungent than another. Don't get me wrong here! I am not equating CF with crap. I am however, equating your statement to crap, if you're attempting to state that CF in its current state of technology has adquately addressed the impact-resistance problem, by some design that some manufacturer has implememted. At this point, no CF bicycle manufacturer has produced a bicycle frame that can withstand medium to high impact impulses, from any given angle, at any random point upon its frame. Therefore, your conveniently isolated statement in quotes, does indeed wilt, due to the lack of truthful rigor.

This is a true statement. However, still at no point does Calfee Design state that the impact-resistance problem has been resolved. Quite to the contrary, Calfee is merely referencing two examples of different design-types. One that lacks impact-resistance more than other CF designs and one that has greater impact-resistance features, included within its design. Merely stating that in order for a frame to have optimal damage or impact-resistance, the tubular wall thickness has to be balanced with its tubular diameter does not resolve the problem either. Even if these two objectives are met, you still have to deal with the fact that the material is carbon fiber. As of this date, CF has not adequately addressed this impact-resistance issue. Cyclists are still encountering problems with their CF frames.

These statements are for the most part true. However, there are some misleading statements nested within the paragraph. Not totally untrue, but misleading for sure. Notice how each sentence nicely begins with the "it can be" phrase. That simply means that it has the potential to be, or that relevant examples can be alluded to for confirmation of this claim. That means that, if out of 100 failures, I can find four or five that fit that description, I can aptly and truthful say that "it can be". There's no doubt that many road bike CF frames do exihibit desirable performance characteristics, along with their brethren racing road bike frames. However, when speaking of performance with respect to CF MTB frames in downhill racing, we can't make that statement, due to the fact that 100% CF DH MTB frames have not been officially DH race-tested to date. Indeed some CF bicycle frames do handle road shock and torsional forces well. However, there are those that don't handle these forces well at all. There are many CF bicycle frames that appear to be durable, and thus far have not suffered any material fatigue issues. However, durability has been carbon's long lived nemesis ever since its initial inception. Carbon fibers will elongate. However, they don't compress. Rather than compress or bend, they tend to break! That's where the term, "catastrophic failure" comes from. The bicycle manufacturers themselves applied the phrase to their own creation, as they characterized the CF frames they were initially producing. Historically, CF just doesn't stand up to medium to high impact forces. Thus far, that one fact appears to be a constant.

Of course. By all means. Let's move on!

- Slim

merlinextraligh

Actually a lot. Ever heard of Frederick Hart, Michael Wilkinson?

https://www.jeanstephengalleries.com/hart-lucite.html

Hart's acrylic sculpture starts with a bronze cast, but the final product is cast in lucite.

MDfive21

should add that to this
thread

MDfive21

i ride a steel bike because it was almost free. when the day comes to buy a new bike, i will spend money on the newest, best technology i can afford. likely carbon.

foofighter29er

Just to chime in on my personal experience. I have a higher end CF bike that I enjoy riding. I recently got a steel frame bike to ride around during lunch rides and foul weather and I find that I enjoy riding the steel framed bike better than I do my carbon bike. Who'da thunk? Sure it's not as quick out of the saddle sprint like my carbon bike but on the same loop that I do the steel frame gives the right amount of feedback vs the carbon's tendency to be a bit more muted or the hit is a bit harsher compared to the steel bike.

What makes it more interesting is the steel bike cost me $704 shipped w/ Shimano 105...whereas my carbon bike is a wee bit north of that...I'm on the verge now of selling that frame so i can get a nice steel desalvo. Maybe i'm just getting old

Bob Dopolina 

Ok.

CFRP has very high tensile strength but is not nearly as great in terms of compression strength and ILSS. Agreed.

Cone Stacked CNT in epoxy boosts compression strength by around 25% and ILSS between 10~20% using T700. You keep talking about carbon but ignoring resin.

This is where the improvements are happening that have addressed 'impact' issues and have been for 5 years or so.

Consumers continue to experience failures because there are still lots of companies using cheaper polyester resins (and dumping them on eBay...) and there are other vendors using older technology because their customers are very price sensitive.

Also, there is a failure rate in any mass produced good including carbon goods. The question is whether this rate is higher than other materials being used in a similar application. Good luck finding reliable numbers there...

Ah, we agree then...