That's simply ridiculous. It is quite possible for control inputs to put an aircraft in a situation where aerodynamic loads can overcome the structural integrity of the aircraft. It wasn't having the rudder hard over that damaged the aircraft, it was decreasing stability due to bad inputs by the pilot. He could have held the rudder hard over all day and not done a thing, but you cannot put an aircraft at an extreme sideslip angle and expect everything to turn out okay.

Manuvering speed means that a full deflection of any one control surface will not damage the aircraft. It does not mean improper maneuvering cannot damage the aircraft. A terrifying number of pilots seem to believe this is so.

14 CFR 25.1583:

And given that the manufacturer and operator each blamed each other, I'm not sure how the NTSB could have sided with both of them.

It is stupid to compare aircraft structure and stresses to that of bicycles regardless of material used.

I didn't read all the posts, so somebody might have already pointed this out, but the there is a big sticker with the seat height graduations on it under the clearcoat on the seat mast. Tightening the seat post clamp (which goes on the outside of the mast!) smooshes the sticker and it winds up looking pretty funky. It's just cosmetic however. That may be what's happening here.

'Specially considering that bicycles are built with the least amount of material possible, to minimize weight; while aeroplane components are built to much higher specs, to maximize safety.

Any second now, we're gonna have someone come in and say: "This happens just as much with metal, only you don't see it as much due to the prevalence of CF bikes now-a-days"........

Yeah...I'm gonna buy a carbon bike real soon.......

Do those count in the FAA on time flight statistics?

Back to the OP -

That there's a torque spec listed w/r/t the seat post clamp doesn't mean that you should aim for that spec, nor does it necessarily mean that you're safe tightening up to that spec. Fasteners should be tightened until you don't get any slippage, going beyond that isn't necessary.

Never understood why folks that hate carbon bikes think anyone else cares. Is there some sort of ownership contest I'm unaware of?

There's a difference between a bike being made with a material to reduce the weight of the bike and saying that a CF bike is built with the least amount of material possible. Secondly, the safety standards of all bikes, as well as anything else similar to it that you may buy, is regulated by the government just as the safety of airliners is.

I suspect that a lot of the CF haters on this forum are just mad they don't have one.

the max spec on the clamp is 7nm, I had it torqued to about 6.8nm, the red line indicator on the parktool torque wrench wasn't touching the 7. the stem has a listed 5.2nm max to tighten the handlebars, and to the steerer tube, but I have them torqued to 5. Basically everything on the bike thats spec, I have tightened slightly less, but hopefully this is just a paint issue.

Far as I know, the "safety specs" for bikes have nothing to do with the integrity/durability of the frame. They're about having reflectors and warning labels, and other such nonsense.

I don't have a carbon bike because I see no advantage to having one; and don't like having what everyone else has. My Klein is a work of art...and the Eye-talian steel I will likely buy next, will be too. The bikes I ride may be old....but they look less dated than a lot of the new flavor-of-the-month CF bikes I see.

Incorrect and ill informed.

The EN standards are stress tests. They are ALSO about safety. YouTube is full of videos showing the tests.

If you don't understand the advantage of a carbon frame you don't ride enough.

OP, even if the seat post isn't cracked it certainly is scratched. My guess is that there is a slight burr on the seat tube lug and the seat post was scratched when raising or lowering the seat post for test rides.

It is a new bike. If you received it in that condition your LBS should replace it regardless. You should also take it back to them so they could run a round file on that lug and get rid of that burr.

Sanity prevails, yet again.

And another run away 41 thread ends with a thud

Please enlighten me. They ride smoother? My aluminum bikes ride just fine. Ride is more a characteristic of how a bicycle is constructed, as opposed to what it is constructed of. My Klein, even with 23mm tires rides as smoothly as I'll ever need a road bike to ride.


Weight? Maybe I could save 2 lbs.? Not important to me- I don't race- and I could lighten my aluminum bikes by quite a bit if i wanted to.

What else?

Here are safety requirements for frames and forks:
http://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufa...-Requirements/

(A little weight on the fork; and a test ride of 4 miles....)

But then they won't have anything to argue about. What's wrong with you jdon? Geez!!


That's cuz the plastic is skeered that's why.

That's right I said it!

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/fo...p?f=3&t=114437
I found this thread about 2 people with the same problem

I bet - it's pretty common for people to over-tighten.

They still make airplanes out of sticks, that's pretty uncommon on bikes. But I only know of one mass-produced steel airframe.

I would be very surpised if Trek replaced that post under warranty. Those L-shaped pressure marks happen from over-tightened collars.
If it's only 2wks old, and you didn;t do the overtightening, then I would ask/insist that the LBS replace the post and he can deal with trek.
2 months down the road and it's a long term use and is there accurate documentation as to when the marks happened and who did it???
If the LBS won;t go, I would return the whole bike... 2 weeks and you have full rights to do that.
As a NEW bike, the post shouldn;t show the z scratching or the 'L' pressure mark. That's poor handling by the bike shop mech.
If you wait, I don;t think you'll get the satisfaction you expect...
just sayin...

Congratulations, you are now a finalist in the Pcad Facepalm of the Year Competition for 2013.

This is the 41. Sanity never prevails here.

1. I used to sell the Klien you are riding. Nice bikes but heavy by todays standards and jarring compared to contemporary carbon.

2. Although I agree that design and construction are very, very important in determining the ride characteristics of a frame there are things you can do with carbon that you can't do want ANY other material. This is only going to increase as the bike industry gets better working with the material and as more advance materials finally find their way into the lowly bicycle market

3. Incorrect. Carbon frames (reputable ones) undergo certification by labs like SGS for EN standard tests. Try selling carbon in Europe without it.

Also, did you actually READ anything of the link you posted and follow ANY of the dozens of links to all the other specific standards that apply to various aspects of a bicycle? Obviously not.

The tests involve far more than a giggle and a test ride. There are very specific tests, run on very specific machines with very specific targets that several frames must pass before EN certification is given.

Now you can knock off a piece of crap in China and flog it on FleeBay without this testing and certification but I wouldn't ride one or recommend one either.

I would post the actual test requirements, including all equipment and procedures but, since we paid for it you'll have to do your own google work.

I stand corrected. Has that ever been said on BF before?

Thank you for educating me Nerull.

Yes, it's called the 41.

THAT is one aspect of CF which does sound very promising. When it has been exploited to a decent degree of it's potential, then I may be interested. There exists the potential of carbon to revolutionize cycling. But it hasn't happened yet.

The rest? Well....I still don't see any compelling reason to make me want CF. (Maybe if I still lived in NYC where the roads are like the surface of the Moon, I would think my Klein rides harshly, and desire something that would absorb shock....).

I'd also beg to differ that 19 lbs is heavy by today's standards. There are a lot of CF bikes around that weigh the same or more. There are other metal bikes which weigh less. There are 15 lb. CF bikes....but likely not in the price range I could justify buying.

One day, I may just get a CF bike...just to satisfy my curiosity- to see if they live up to their hype. (And just hope I don't end up saying "I knew it! What a piece of crap!" after a year or so....).

Funny about the Kleins. Some think they ride harshly. Some think not. I wonder if it has to do with the tires?

Posts: 54,437

God God, man.

[QUOTE=MetalPedaler;15641628]THAT is one aspect of CF which does sound very promising. When it has been exploited to a decent degree of it's potential, then I may be interested. There exists the potential of carbon to revolutionize cycling. But it hasn't happened yet. "

I see you don't get out much.


"One day, I may just get a CF bike...just to satisfy my curiosity- to see if they live up to their hype. (And just hope I don't end up saying "I knew it! What a piece of crap!" after a year or so....)."

I think you will be happier remaining ignorant.

You want enlightenment on why you should have a CF frame, but no one is trying to convince you to get one in the first place. If you don't want one, please don't get one. All we're saying is that it's tiring to have so much BS about CF bikes repeated over and over on the site.

Funny...that's exactly what I'm trying to say!

Wait a minute... didn't you just say that one day you might get a CF frame? How are you an expert on something you've never owned? Why is that the CF biggest detractors always seem to have the least first hand knowledge?