rpenmanparker 

The lighter the frame without compromising stiffness, the more supple and resilient the ride. Heavy carbon can feel dead.

kraftwerk 

The New York Times article is really a piss-poor piece of journalism, I think we can all agree on that.
Sad, they used to be a pretty good read regardless of the topic.

Listen up: when Campag4life has something to say it is well thought out, and reliable information. I wish there were more like him on this forum. His information is appreciated and worthy and free.
To the guy who called him a Troll (? really?) You should quickly apologize.

mkadam68

+1

rpenmanparker 

I'm not talking about your industry insider. I'm talking about the common man imagining problems with CF that just don't exist. I'm talking about a lot of the folks posting on the 41 about CF "asploding". All in good fun? Perhaps, but it has contributed to this overlay of doubt about the industry which is simply not warranted on the basis of actual product performance and history.

As for the state of QC and more importantly QA (quality assurance) in the CF side of the bike industry, general comments don't really say much about the processes of the best and most reliable producers. Besides, modern quality theory and practice advocate replacing "inspection" after manufacturing with the most robust assembly methods during manufacturing. In other words do the job right the first time and you won't have to always be looking for defects on the basis of which to reject product. Statistical methods can demonstrate that such a low failure rate has been attained that inspection of every piece is neither sensible, necessary nor economical.

Finally let me observe that the classic defense against someone who has struck home with his argument is to call it a "rant". That is a manipulative technique designed to discredit the position of the opposition by making it seem irrational. If you think you can disprove what I say, go for it. But don't demean yourself with cheap, rhetorical tricks.

hueyhoolihan

you've got to be kidding. come off your high horse.

rpenmanparker 

Another manipulative, rhetorical technique to discredit an argument without actually having anything concrete to oppose it with. Shame.

WhyFi

If you're talking about the guy from Canyon, I'd be willing to bet my lunch money that every quote of his in the article was essentially plucked from a sales spiel touting the superiority of his company and not necessarily intended to be commentary on the "dangers" of cf - he touts their precision, hand-made production, etc, etc and then closes with, "but not everyone is as good as us *wink-wink*"

rebel1916

Nothing makes me happier than the troglodytes getting tossed a bone, that they can all point to and yell "see!" I just hope that some bearded mouth breather posts the 15 year old pics from that Broken Carbon site, before we are all said and done here.

Homebrew01

So you can beat it ?

xjustice09x

In a race like the tour there are going to be crashes regardless of the frame material ridden. Carbon does break instead of bend, but I don't consider it a problem. If a racer crashes hard enough to break a carbon wheel or frame i'm certain that a metal wheel or frame would also be in need of replacement or repair.

In the road peleton you may not see any alloy bikes ridden by top teams, but in other disciplines it does happen. Katie Compton rode an aluminum Trek Crockett to quite a few cyclocross victories within the last 2 years. Trek did not force her to ride a carbon Cronus if she didn't want to. Now that the Boone is available with the same geometry of the Crockett she rides that.

I don't totally disagree with the article. It brings up some valid points, but it was poorly written. It does a poor job of explaining carbon's weaknesses, and does not provide proof that other materials are superior.

Saying carbon is more complicated to work with and that carbon products needs to be designed properly does not make it a problem. Thats the reason carbon frames are so expensive and we dont see them at the lowest price points yet. Just because most carbon frames and wheels are made in Taiwan or China does not mean they are a problem. The author didn't really explain what the concern (if there was one) of overseas manufacturing was. Was it counterfeits? Quality control? We will probably never know. Comparing a 787 to a bicycle doesn't make much sense. They operate in different environments under very different loads. They didn't even go after the easy argument about overheating carbon clinchers (which I have first hand experience with). It was unclear if they are trying to educate consumers about the dangers of carbon, or just say it shouldnt be raced.

I wouldn't hesitate to ride a carbon bike from a reputable brand. All of my bikes have some carbon somewhere. All my bikes have carbon cranks. My mountain bike has a carbon rear triangle. My road bike is all carbon, and my cross bike has a carbon fork. Except for some carbon clinchers which were replaced by reynolds under warranty I have had no issues with carbon bike components.

knobd

Or, just maybe, he has a life outside of the 41.

Bacciagalupe

It's never going to end. Neither will "aluminum is harsh" or "disc brakes are heavy" or "don't you have to pedal more with small wheels?" or any other all-but-baseless bike equipment myth. Misinformation is notoriously difficult to correct, and an entertaining meme is very hard to kill.

joejack951

Whenever I see something like the bolded part of this statement, especially when it's surrounded by words that don't add up to a coherent thought (did the crash happen before or after the bike/wheel shattered? If they already crashed, how did the shattering carbon fiber "hurl" the rider to the ground?), it's clear that the article is doing nothing but attempting to create FUD.

Jaeger99

Amen to all of that. There is an astonishingly high concentration of pure rubbish in this thread.

zymphad

I think it's not the fork that is the stress point for carbon bikes, it's the carbon steerer. Cervelo had a lot of issues with that. But now have integrated steerer impact testing to their QC process. I would imagine every brand has and every factory direct frame as well.

I know on my factory direct frame, they went overboard on the steerer, it's by far the strongest part of the bike and has the most carbon layers.

And who here who owns a recent carbon bike has had it shatter unless was in a catastrophic accident in which any material would have been destroyed?

zymphad

Are you aware it's the team that decides what bikes to ride? A team chooses who they want to be sponsored by. You think Team Sky was FORCED to ride Pinarello? It's the other way around, Pinaraello have the privilege to have their bikes ridden by Teak Sky.

Why do you think it took Merida so long to have their bikes ridden in TdF? It took them years to find a team that would ride their bike.

And if carbon wasn't the best material, they wouldn't ride it. Can't believe you would post that cyclists are forced to ride a bike they don't want to.

Also Cancellara doesn't ride a normal Domane. His Domane looks more like a Cannondale than a retail Trek.... Get a clue. His Trek is $12,000.

You think Contador is riding a factory bike? Yeah right...

You think Sagan is riding a factory bike? His isn't even monocoque, it's a custom built tubes bike. It's got more similarities with a Colnago C59 than it does with a factory Cannondale. You can't ride this one.

And if a cyclist wants to ride an Allez instead of a Tarmac, well he's just stupid. And probably should be kicked off the team. As a team member he's supposed to do everything he can to help the team win and that includes using the best gear he has available to him.

DrPete 

I know you have to lay it up properly, but if they can shave grams I bet they can lay up a more durable frame too.

rpenmanparker 

Circular discussion. I'm sure they would make the frame heavier for the TdF if it contributed in any way to racing success even under UCI guidelines.

zymphad

They don't have to. They are using stronger carbon now. For example few years ago T700 was the strongest. Now it's T800 and T1000. The Scott Addict isn't lighter because of new layup design, it's because they can use less of T1000 to get the same level of stiffness and strength as their previous bike, they claim they did exceed it.

I suspect the whole layup arguement is exaggerated. I suspect if you take say a Scott Addict and a Cervelo R5, the layup will be pretty much the same. Where they use more durable and stiffer carbon and how it's laid down, criss cross or straight probably very similar, if not the same.

Bob Dopolina 

No.

The major advances have been in resins.

Frames are most often a blend of different prepeg.

Frames are lighter/ stronger not because of new carbon, they are lighter/ stronger because the people making the frames are getting better at refining their designs coupled with advances in resins.

Obviously there have been some advances in the carbon cloth itself but, as you rightly mention, T700 or the equivalent is still the best suited material for the job and sees the most widespread use (although there was a serious glut of Chinese T300 floating around a while ago that I am pretty sure founds its way into a lot of cheap eBay carbon.

zymphad

Resin weighs that much? Oh well. Scott claims it's their use of T1000 that allowed them to build a full frame and fork under 1kg. Similar claim from Pinarello with stronger, lighter carbon from Toray (rooting through the mumbo jumbo, Toray T1000).
- Even for the Ebay/Direct bikes are saying the same. Their sub-1kg bikes use T1000 and heavier use T800.

And why are you calling them Chinese bikes when even Giant's largest carbon factory is in China. Anyway, most of the bikes I see from Ebay are being advertised as using Toray T800, not Chinese carbon.

Bob Dopolina 

Toray T1000 isn't new. It's been around for ages and is, by far, the exception. I also can pretty much guarantee that the entire frame isn't T1000.

And yes, resins weigh that much.

There are Chinese carbon factories making "T700" as well as other filaments/weaves that are sold in a variety of industries. The "T300" that was floating around wasn't from the bike industry but some did find its way there.

So you believe some Chinese eBay seller when they tell you they use T800? You mistrust the brands that have some accountability but accept mystery Chinese carbon on face value?

I guess it really is all about the mn ripping you off!

Burnette

zympad, you quote me but do not read me.
Fine. But your rant is as misplaced as that shabby article.
What is lost here logic and understanding.
But it's the net, belive as you wish, don't give two shakes, you have a right to do as you wish.
I think this horse is truly dead.

DrPete 

Carbon has serious durability issues. Just watch these guys blow up their ENVE wheels.

Video: ENVE M-Series - Pinkbike

Team Sarcasm

^^

lulz


that's all i have to add