What bike would you choose for robust high mileage but reasonable weight and ride quality?

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

TheRich
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

ichobi wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:40 am
How one can actually break a bike every year? Do you crash a lot or just being less careful with the bike ? I handle my bike like a baby! I ride a lot but I take care when I move it around.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I've seen a lot of talk about how fragile carbon is supposed to be, but no mention of the bikes that he regularly breaks.

Kinda sounds like they aren't carbon.

by Weenie


User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

TheRich wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:39 am
ichobi wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:40 am
How one can actually break a bike every year? Do you crash a lot or just being less careful with the bike ? I handle my bike like a baby! I ride a lot but I take care when I move it around.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I've seen a lot of talk about how fragile carbon is supposed to be, but no mention of the bikes that he regularly breaks.

Kinda sounds like they aren't carbon.
Ok then. Not sure why a previous CV of broken carbon parts frame problems is particularly relevent to asking about people's opinions on robust bikes, but here you are.

-Broke a carbon fibre seat post (no name Chinese brand) not surprisng.
-Broke a carbon fork on a Java CX frameset due to being resin poor (again not surprising), could have been much worse injured.
-Broke a Fuji SL near the rear brake stay. Also think I delaminated the fork. Turned down warranty by Fuji who said the seat post that I used was too short, but nowhere in their literature did they say that I had to use their OEM length and can't understand the difference it would make being 50mm shorter. Can get a new frame half price as a pay-off, but really I don't want to ride their bike anymore.
-Current bike is a Kuota KOM Air (2014 bike but got bargain price because it had been sitting around in a shop in Taiwan unbuilt bought last year). Broke the front derailleur hanger mount, now running a band clamp as don't want to warranty a bike mid-season as could take months.

A point is I won't baby my bikes by limiting my mileage or where I ride. A bike is for riding and I will ride it without compromise, MTB mentality I suppose. Still keen to hear from anyone that has experience of high mileage and has a bike that can take some punishment.

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

RyanH wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:57 am
To the OP, buy a cannondale evo HM and get a new one every year under warranty. Image

I don't think any particular brand is going to guarantee the peace of mind you're looking for. If you're the type that destroys bikes somehow then just treat them as disposable and cycle through them. Any other anecdote like: "my friend has roughly 90k miles on his tarmac" isn't relevant to you. What your real question is and no one will likely have the answer is: does anyone have a tendency to break bikes but found a brand that they can't break?
I think you've pretty much got the right idea. :D

robertbb
Posts: 955
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by robertbb

Leviathan wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:21 pm
kgt wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:13 pm
TIME is one of the companies you can trust if you want to enjoy your carbon frame for many thousands of kms. A Colnago C series too. Some custom carbon frames are very durable as well. I would stay clear from anything mass made in China.
absolutely. In fact you can judge the suitability for purpose of any cycling component on how far south in Europe it is made. :roll:
:lol:

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2837
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

to answer your initial question

-I still have a Look KG 461 I bought in '05 (?). I bet it has done like 50k-60k km, and for a decade or so I use it as a bad weather bike .. and she still rides beautifully, like the first day we met lol. no visible damage, no loss in stiffness or ride quality...

-I've sold my Aeroad with 30k+ km, again - everything in perfect order

the thing about material fatigue was discused at lenght here at WW years ago, when carbon frames weren't THAT obvious, and what I can remember from those discussions is that CF doesn't really 'age' like alloys do. how quickly it can lose it's quality? well, back in early 2000's I lusted for an Orbea Starship or Lobular (alloy tubing with CF rear stays) - and got one from some team. it had like 15k km on it, wasn't even scratched or anything. I was so disappointed with the ride quality I sold it after a month or so. it was more or less then when I met our 'local pro' (who rode one in CCC when it was still a local outfit) - he told me those frames are OK within first few months, but they quickly deteriorate and even break; many of them don't even last a full season. apparently it was still cheaper to use them instead of much more pricey Orcas that were introduced more or less at the same time.

the thing is - it's not those 10+ bikes are getting worn out, it's our perception of them which does. save for some damage from crash or really shitty roads, they will work flawlessly, especially if they come from an established manufacturer. I could easily still ride my Look day in day out - there are guys in the hood I know are riding their bikes like forever - there's one older dude on a 15yo carbon Colnago, there's one on a Trek 5000smth.. sure, they don't cover 20k per year, but still that speaks volumes. I had one spectacular frame failure in my life - my Merida Magnesium literally developed holes where seatstays meet bb - after like one and a hald season...

IMHO carbon frameset with a lifetime warranty is a no brainer here. sure, those retro bikes look yummy, but with all due and sincere respect to those machines and their owners, I doubt you'll get the ride quality and longevity you expect. and it means having two bikes, which doubles the cost, doesn't it.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

mattr
Posts: 4633
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Get one like mine, 1997 build steel (made to measure) well north of 150000 miles on it now (8 or 9 seasons of racing, all over the place, 12-15000 miles a year, and another few years as my only road bike, with around 5000 miles a year) still my go to today, despite having had a few others over the years (carbon, aluminium, all been sold on or given back). Still got the Time Stilleto fork that i put on it in 1999. Been through 7 or 8 groupsets (8-9-10-11 speed) many crashes. Many flights!
Peak power was 57 kilos and ~300 watts FTP, peak weight was over 90 kilos (over the weight limit for some of the carbon and aluminium i've had!)

Only issue i have now is the braze on hanger is at the wrong height for the front mech/chainring combo i need, and i can now (finally) develop enough torque to make the front mech rub.

Or maybe get something from Scott, i know of two that are into 100000 miles, one i bought for a friend in 2006, it's STILL being used for racing, commuting, sportifs, timetrials and light touring/club rides (Original Scott CR1)

My scott Scale 26 from 2009 (sub kilo frame, weighed) is on around 35-40000 miles with many races, crashes and generally tomfoolery, and even under my weight, hasn't complained (but was retired so i could go 29 and FS)

My ex wifes Tarmac (Early SLII) is now 15 years old and was a daily rider for 10 years, including elite national level racing in two countries (quite a few good results, quite a few crashes) Still works perfectly, no signs of failure. (And she was a very stong rider.)

Maybe you just choose bad bikes.

AJS914
Posts: 3339
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

I'd try pushing on Fuji again for a free replacement as it seems like they should fully warranty the bike. Get the Kuota fixed over the winter. Then you can think about a new frame for a while longer.

You may have just had a run of bad luck. Guys in my club have been on the same bikes for years, some even decades.

The other thing that hasn't been said is that carbon is often easily repairable. If you don't need a full matching paint job and can live with a carbon "band-aid", the cost is usually pretty low compared to a new frame.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2837
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

mattr wrote:
Or maybe get something from Scott, i know of two that are into 100000 miles, one i bought for a friend in 2006, it's STILL being used for racing, commuting, sportifs, timetrials and light touring/club rides (Original Scott CR1)

one of guys I know still rides his 1st gen. CR1 - now its his training ride, but he used to race on it as well

...I remember back when he bought it (first CR1 around) we all thought its gonna break sooner or later - one of tubes (top tube?) was so thin it would bend under firmer touch :shock:
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

mattr
Posts: 4633
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Imaking20 wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:34 pm
pdlpsher1 wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:25 pm
This WW but let's be honest....a lightweight bike is just a less durable bike, there's no way around it.
I honestly don't understand why this is such a common anecdote on this of all forums. Why is a light frame "just less durable" with no way around it?
Because statistically, a frame with less material will *tend* to fail earlier (fatigue, crash, overload, whatever). There are clever things that can be done with optimisation, most brands don't have the budget or technical know how to do it well. So they accept a level of failure and have these marvellous warranty programs. Or not. Very few manage to optimise well, and you pay through the nose for it. And the frames tend to have no redundancy built in (so the top tube cracks if you rest your leg/weight on it while waiting for your mates.)
Imaking20 wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:34 pm
And is that to say there aren't heavy frames that don't have issues?
No one said that. In fact, if you were to look at the cost/weight of frames as compared to failure rates, you'd have an uptick at both ends, lightweight, well made expensive frames would have a *slightly* higher incidence of failure (but a good warranty), heavy, cheap frames would as well, because they were badly made. But you can go whistle for your warranty
Imaking20 wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:34 pm
Ex: I'm pretty sure the heaviest titanium frame I've seen RyanH own is the only one that had a weld failure.
I've seen loads of ti frames fail either in a weld, or right at the edge of the HAZ, or where the tube has been welded. It's a feature of the material ;)

mattr
Posts: 4633
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

ichobi wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:40 am
I handle my bike like a baby!
I treat mine like the tool they are. They get dropped, crashed, ridden into ditches :oops: still don't break stuff. Well, not expensive stuff.

dim
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:25 am
Location: Cambridge UK

by dim

Lewn777 wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:55 am
TheRich wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:39 am
ichobi wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:40 am
How one can actually break a bike every year? Do you crash a lot or just being less careful with the bike ? I handle my bike like a baby! I ride a lot but I take care when I move it around.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I've seen a lot of talk about how fragile carbon is supposed to be, but no mention of the bikes that he regularly breaks.

Kinda sounds like they aren't carbon.
Ok then. Not sure why a previous CV of broken carbon parts frame problems is particularly relevent to asking about people's opinions on robust bikes, but here you are.

-Broke a carbon fibre seat post (no name Chinese brand) not surprisng.
-Broke a carbon fork on a Java CX frameset due to being resin poor (again not surprising), could have been much worse injured.
-Broke a Fuji SL near the rear brake stay. Also think I delaminated the fork. Turned down warranty by Fuji who said the seat post that I used was too short, but nowhere in their literature did they say that I had to use their OEM length and can't understand the difference it would make being 50mm shorter. Can get a new frame half price as a pay-off, but really I don't want to ride their bike anymore.
-Current bike is a Kuota KOM Air (2014 bike but got bargain price because it had been sitting around in a shop in Taiwan unbuilt bought last year). Broke the front derailleur hanger mount, now running a band clamp as don't want to warranty a bike mid-season as could take months.

A point is I won't baby my bikes by limiting my mileage or where I ride. A bike is for riding and I will ride it without compromise, MTB mentality I suppose. Still keen to hear from anyone that has experience of high mileage and has a bike that can take some punishment.
take a step back and buy a 'proper' bike like my 1983 Miyata 1000 .... strong and made of steel, can fit 40mm wide tyres with mudguards, has rack mounts, etc etc

rides like a Cadillac and good for long distance
Trek Emonda SL6
Miyata One Thousand

RyanH
Moderator
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

by RyanH


mattr wrote:Because statistically, a frame with less material will *tend* to fail earlier (fatigue, crash, overload, whatever).
Do you have data to back that up? Otherwise you should caveat that with "I assume..."

mattr
Posts: 4633
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Several years of mechanical design, stress analysis and post failure teardowns. Not in bicycle design, but composites and "exotic" materials, high grade steels, aluminium and so on.

It's only what you'd call a trend. Rather than hard and fast rule.

If the lightness is added in exactly the right place with precisely the right safety margins and detailed load cases, it might make no difference to lifetime. Experience says that almost never happens.

fxx
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:10 pm

by fxx

mattr wrote:Several years of mechanical design, stress analysis and post failure teardowns. Not in bicycle design, but composites and "exotic" materials, high grade steels, aluminium and so on.

It's only what you'd call a trend. Rather than hard and fast rule.

If the lightness is added in exactly the right place with precisely the right safety margins and detailed load cases, it might make no difference to lifetime. Experience says that almost never happens.
No amount of stress analysis or post failure teardowns can prevent catastrophic failures from voids, wrinkles, poor manufacturing QC, delamination, galvanic corrosion between bonding of dissimilar materials, like aluminum and carbon, too many variables and factors which may cause carbon frame failures. You don't even need an accident or bad road conditions for carbon bikes to fail.

Sure, there may be loads of Ti bike failures too but I am very sure much less than CF frame failures due to non accident events.

I would stick with steel or ti for durability.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

I do 20000km per year. I would not worry about frame material for longevity. What more Important is how well it puts together. There are certain design features that limit life though like carbon dropouts and carbon press fit bb shells. For a 100000km bike I would avoid these.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post