You just did what ichobi accuses BTW.
Which bike brands are owned by corporations that love money more than bikes?
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
Calnago, you waited a lot for this no?
You just did what ichobi accuses BTW.
You just did what ichobi accuses BTW.
Last edited by kgt on Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
@ ichobi
I do not disagree with your post in general.
According to your experience which companies (among those that we know and discuss in the forum) follow higher standards? If you are to question hambini's and Luescher's opinions or experience why don't you tell us your view on the subject? Unless you think that everybody's manufacturing standards are more or less the same.
(BTW delivery date has nothing to do with engineering and manufacturing. A long delay may not be acceptable for any company but it tells nothing about construction and materials.)
I do not disagree with your post in general.
According to your experience which companies (among those that we know and discuss in the forum) follow higher standards? If you are to question hambini's and Luescher's opinions or experience why don't you tell us your view on the subject? Unless you think that everybody's manufacturing standards are more or less the same.
(BTW delivery date has nothing to do with engineering and manufacturing. A long delay may not be acceptable for any company but it tells nothing about construction and materials.)
Hambini and Luescher are not above being questioned by anyone... just a couple you-tubers is all. You still have to weed though the BS and deal with a certain level is sensationalism (they are after views and subs afterall)kgt wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:57 pm@ ichobi
I do not disagree with your post in general.
According to your experience which companies (among those that we know and discuss in the forum) follow higher standards? If you are to question hambini's and Luescher's opinions or experience why don't you tell us your view on the subject? Unless you think that everybody's manufacturing standards are more or less the same.
(BTW delivery date has nothing to do with engineering and manufacturing. A long delay may not be acceptable for any company but it tells nothing about construction and materials.)
2024 BMC TeamMachine R
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault
-
TobinHatesYou
- Posts: 12544
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm
I don’t think Luescher is after view counts. He just loves what he does and wants to share his opinions. His stance is basically that manufacturing quality can be better and there’s an increased possibility of structural failure under extreme circumstances like crashes or overtightening fasteners, but he doesn’t present carbon bikes as deathtraps even though they have some porosity or planar voids.
Nich?ichobi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:49 pmMy good friend sell domestic bicycle in Thailand, and he carefully select the partner factory, make sure that they build reputable and quality stuff even though they dont have the resource to be the technology leader in the sector, they are still able to make quality carbon bicycle that is competent and affordable price point.
Didn't know you live in Thailand
@KGT
1. I don't question them. As said in my long post I value what they do (for Hambini, may be not so much the presentation and the juvenile vocabularies, though i find that extremely enjoyable). I even wish there are more people like them so we can have more samples to look at. But like just what they did my anecdotal evidences (and Calnago's very well illustrated photos) are a sample of one and two. Here and there. Both mine and them are not of statistical significance. I am by no means accusing them! So can we claim that everything they make is shite? Of course there is an exception like like Cervelo where they intentionally increase the manufacturing tolerance of their BB which I find telling and steer me away from the brand. I don't have the engineering expertise as they do but you really don't need it when you see simple thing done wrong like Cippoliini and their poor integrated seatpost, which happens less now a day but even back then it is not really acceptable when most brands never have issue with this.
2. I don't think everyone manufacturing standard is the same either. I simply said that there is a good one and bad one and it's hard to throw a blanket statement which brand is just simply bad because a lot of these brands don't just use one manufacturing partner (the factory I visited build handle bar for Canyon, but nothing else for the brand). Yet these part comes to be built up as a full Canyon bike. If their bar fails, can you blame the other factory that build the other parts that functions perfectly? it's nuanced. You may argue that it's the brand's responsibilty to deal with all qc aspect of the bike and we can't be so kind as to disect each part and say they are from different places, but that's the reality of the situation as only two or three brands really own their own factory and the entire supply chain (Giant, Merida Factor etc). Even then these major brands still outsource some small parts. But as seen by other people, the domestic artisanal shop are also not enirely free of production problem, structural or otherwise. For the boutique brands it's also not just delivery date and paint work issue, like i said in the Cipollini case - they build everything in Italy with small factories and they still have many qc issues. I also see alignment issues from brands like Independent fabrication straight out of the box of my demo'ed full custom bike.
To give another point of view from the big brands which we love to bash -
I bought the Ultralight Tarmac SL6 which is more expensive than the standard version. Guess what a lot of these so called Ultralight frames are heavier than the standard ones!!! It's also evident in this very board when early adopters show them on scale, all of which went way above the claimed 720g. I get to asked the very designer of the bike - the legendary Peter Denk who designed the Scott CR1 also and he said it's because the factory can't get the paint right so they double coat instead of taking of the faulty paint and redo it to speed up the process, resulting in even more weight. I though at the time what a friggin scam! (And I clearly said it in my review on my site) I paid more to have a heavier bike! Guess what they stop selling the Ultralight version a long time ago, secretly pull it off their site. The Rovals wheels that comes with the bike also have poor hub bearing alignment. The wheels are so sticky I have to open the hub to see what's the deal was and guess what the entire batch in Thailand had this same problem. it's clearly a manufacturing quality issue. Yet I am perfectly happy with all other aspects of the bike. Once I fixed all the annoyance it's one of the best bike I have ridden. Personally, I give more weight to the innovation than to have glitch free bike, but your value of course may vary. (However, I won't be buying another set of Roval wheels, since they appear to still have qc issue to this day).
I work as an owner of bike media which allows me to attend new bike launches too. Most these top brands have genuine passion (not ALL) and you can see and feel from their design and engineering team. They innovate stuff. BUT their passion may not necessarily translate to the manufacturing process as evident in this thread. Cost control is another aspect entirely. The end result sometimes deviate from the engineering prototype so much.
While I enjoy the boundary pushing aspect of these brands I learn to not be led by their dream selling until we really see the end product. I can understand why some of you think their marketing will overshadow everything because often times with the right brand image building, you will overlook this issue, or they become less relevance as you are more in love by other aspect of the brands such as cutting edge aerodynamic or aesthetic thats really suit your taste. It's a balance because I trust that most of the major brands build safe product some annoyance I can live with if I can have the bike that fits the perfect trait I desire.
3. In short, I don't have a conclusion to KGT and and Lewn777's original question because it cannot simply be concluded as reasoned above. Every factory and brand make mistake, big or small, mass produced or artisanally made, intentionally or otherwise (See Cervelo's increase of BB tolerance). I don't value just only manufacturing quality nor performance, nor aesthetics. If those were the case I would never have ridden new cutting edge bike because there are more things that can go wrong than not. I would simply just ride custom steel bikes with tried and tested design but that would make my life very boring indeed. It's just like buying a new mobile phone each year, the battery might explode, or the body might bent. That's the risk of getting on the cutting edge train and you have to be aware and willing to accept the risk.
Will I buy the Tarmac SL7? I put heavy resevation on their product now since the scam I got, but if the new ones are well made after close inspection and ride well, then I say why the hell not? In the same manner that Speedvagen treated my dear friend and his warranty, will I buy their new bike if I REALLY like it? Yes, may be I will put up with the customer service bullshitery and just be happy with the bike. Is this going easy on them? You may think am a fool. May be, but unless these issues become norms for the brands, which in most case it don't as the margin is razor thin and no brands can afford to be shit full time, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (with heavy inspection before purchase if possible of course).
In my short decade of experience, I can say with confidence that the best made carbon bike is a Giant TCR. All of them from the cheap to the top end version. Their mid range rides better than most top end offering from other brands I kid you not. (seeing most of us here don't ride entry or mid range bike). The qc leaves nothing to be desired. Yet I find both the bike and the brand AWFULLY BORING. Knowing that I don't buy their bike because as said, my value in bicycle lay outside just perfect manufacturing. A bike means a lot more than that, to me at least. In addition, the Giant importer in Thailand is just awful. I never want to deal with them. Of course I am not willing to tolerate shite products just because I like the paint or marketing bullshitery (like Zipp's Dimple and Whale wheels).
@Flying - yes it's Nich.
To show that I have really been there, here are some of the photos I took. The factory is in Guangdong province. I won't name the factory because I already said the thing I shouldn't (the things they made for other brands). I have to respect their client privlige here.
Remember this factory makes top end product for brands like Canyon and Lapiere. In reality they look nothing like white walled labs shown in most brands website. However, it doesn't mean they are incompetent! These manned stations are extremely efficient and precise in the lay up process. The worker needs massive amount of training according to the interview I have with the factory manager.
Making carbon bicycle is not a rocket science. If you mix the appropirate resin and carbon sheets, put them in a relevant position, they will perform generally well. You do this through FEA analysis and such. To make the best bike in the world of course, is another matter entirely. You need to push all processes from design to manufacturing, which means more risks of imperfection.
This is before getting the bike in the oven. They are all just carbon sheets wrapped loosely.
Even in small factory like this, they use proper testing equipment. This is the Zedler institute testing machines just like the one used and designed by Tour magazine.
Showing the stiffness test here. They have all the appropriate tools and expertises to make quality bike.
Here discussing some aspects of the design process with the lead engineer. Unlike big international brands like Specialized and Trek, small domestic brand like my friend's can hardly afford to make boundary pushing bike. In case of my friend's he goes a bit beyond other domestic brand that simply choose premade frame from the factory. He tried to create a unique new shape yet quite traditional and well tested design so it stands out more. He owns the right to the mould exclusively so no other domestic brands can use it. He designed some of the shape and the engineer make sure the frame will have the correct lay up and hit the right parameter (weight, stiffness, safety) for example. There is no aerodynamic test going on. Remember the goal here is not to be the next Venge. It is to make affordable, competent, ans safe racing bike that look some what unique.
And in the end I get to ride the prototype. It of course does not ride like a Tarmac SL6, but not very far off either. And it's 4x cheaper.
This is my contribution to this thread, the thread I find useful as it gets us to discuss something most people won't. I hope you find it helpful even though they are anecdotal evidence. I might not be Hambini or LT, but I also have been there and seen the sausage factory so to speak.
1. I don't question them. As said in my long post I value what they do (for Hambini, may be not so much the presentation and the juvenile vocabularies, though i find that extremely enjoyable). I even wish there are more people like them so we can have more samples to look at. But like just what they did my anecdotal evidences (and Calnago's very well illustrated photos) are a sample of one and two. Here and there. Both mine and them are not of statistical significance. I am by no means accusing them! So can we claim that everything they make is shite? Of course there is an exception like like Cervelo where they intentionally increase the manufacturing tolerance of their BB which I find telling and steer me away from the brand. I don't have the engineering expertise as they do but you really don't need it when you see simple thing done wrong like Cippoliini and their poor integrated seatpost, which happens less now a day but even back then it is not really acceptable when most brands never have issue with this.
2. I don't think everyone manufacturing standard is the same either. I simply said that there is a good one and bad one and it's hard to throw a blanket statement which brand is just simply bad because a lot of these brands don't just use one manufacturing partner (the factory I visited build handle bar for Canyon, but nothing else for the brand). Yet these part comes to be built up as a full Canyon bike. If their bar fails, can you blame the other factory that build the other parts that functions perfectly? it's nuanced. You may argue that it's the brand's responsibilty to deal with all qc aspect of the bike and we can't be so kind as to disect each part and say they are from different places, but that's the reality of the situation as only two or three brands really own their own factory and the entire supply chain (Giant, Merida Factor etc). Even then these major brands still outsource some small parts. But as seen by other people, the domestic artisanal shop are also not enirely free of production problem, structural or otherwise. For the boutique brands it's also not just delivery date and paint work issue, like i said in the Cipollini case - they build everything in Italy with small factories and they still have many qc issues. I also see alignment issues from brands like Independent fabrication straight out of the box of my demo'ed full custom bike.
To give another point of view from the big brands which we love to bash -
I bought the Ultralight Tarmac SL6 which is more expensive than the standard version. Guess what a lot of these so called Ultralight frames are heavier than the standard ones!!! It's also evident in this very board when early adopters show them on scale, all of which went way above the claimed 720g. I get to asked the very designer of the bike - the legendary Peter Denk who designed the Scott CR1 also and he said it's because the factory can't get the paint right so they double coat instead of taking of the faulty paint and redo it to speed up the process, resulting in even more weight. I though at the time what a friggin scam! (And I clearly said it in my review on my site) I paid more to have a heavier bike! Guess what they stop selling the Ultralight version a long time ago, secretly pull it off their site. The Rovals wheels that comes with the bike also have poor hub bearing alignment. The wheels are so sticky I have to open the hub to see what's the deal was and guess what the entire batch in Thailand had this same problem. it's clearly a manufacturing quality issue. Yet I am perfectly happy with all other aspects of the bike. Once I fixed all the annoyance it's one of the best bike I have ridden. Personally, I give more weight to the innovation than to have glitch free bike, but your value of course may vary. (However, I won't be buying another set of Roval wheels, since they appear to still have qc issue to this day).
I work as an owner of bike media which allows me to attend new bike launches too. Most these top brands have genuine passion (not ALL) and you can see and feel from their design and engineering team. They innovate stuff. BUT their passion may not necessarily translate to the manufacturing process as evident in this thread. Cost control is another aspect entirely. The end result sometimes deviate from the engineering prototype so much.
While I enjoy the boundary pushing aspect of these brands I learn to not be led by their dream selling until we really see the end product. I can understand why some of you think their marketing will overshadow everything because often times with the right brand image building, you will overlook this issue, or they become less relevance as you are more in love by other aspect of the brands such as cutting edge aerodynamic or aesthetic thats really suit your taste. It's a balance because I trust that most of the major brands build safe product some annoyance I can live with if I can have the bike that fits the perfect trait I desire.
3. In short, I don't have a conclusion to KGT and and Lewn777's original question because it cannot simply be concluded as reasoned above. Every factory and brand make mistake, big or small, mass produced or artisanally made, intentionally or otherwise (See Cervelo's increase of BB tolerance). I don't value just only manufacturing quality nor performance, nor aesthetics. If those were the case I would never have ridden new cutting edge bike because there are more things that can go wrong than not. I would simply just ride custom steel bikes with tried and tested design but that would make my life very boring indeed. It's just like buying a new mobile phone each year, the battery might explode, or the body might bent. That's the risk of getting on the cutting edge train and you have to be aware and willing to accept the risk.
Will I buy the Tarmac SL7? I put heavy resevation on their product now since the scam I got, but if the new ones are well made after close inspection and ride well, then I say why the hell not? In the same manner that Speedvagen treated my dear friend and his warranty, will I buy their new bike if I REALLY like it? Yes, may be I will put up with the customer service bullshitery and just be happy with the bike. Is this going easy on them? You may think am a fool. May be, but unless these issues become norms for the brands, which in most case it don't as the margin is razor thin and no brands can afford to be shit full time, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (with heavy inspection before purchase if possible of course).
In my short decade of experience, I can say with confidence that the best made carbon bike is a Giant TCR. All of them from the cheap to the top end version. Their mid range rides better than most top end offering from other brands I kid you not. (seeing most of us here don't ride entry or mid range bike). The qc leaves nothing to be desired. Yet I find both the bike and the brand AWFULLY BORING. Knowing that I don't buy their bike because as said, my value in bicycle lay outside just perfect manufacturing. A bike means a lot more than that, to me at least. In addition, the Giant importer in Thailand is just awful. I never want to deal with them. Of course I am not willing to tolerate shite products just because I like the paint or marketing bullshitery (like Zipp's Dimple and Whale wheels).
@Flying - yes it's Nich.
To show that I have really been there, here are some of the photos I took. The factory is in Guangdong province. I won't name the factory because I already said the thing I shouldn't (the things they made for other brands). I have to respect their client privlige here.
Remember this factory makes top end product for brands like Canyon and Lapiere. In reality they look nothing like white walled labs shown in most brands website. However, it doesn't mean they are incompetent! These manned stations are extremely efficient and precise in the lay up process. The worker needs massive amount of training according to the interview I have with the factory manager.
Making carbon bicycle is not a rocket science. If you mix the appropirate resin and carbon sheets, put them in a relevant position, they will perform generally well. You do this through FEA analysis and such. To make the best bike in the world of course, is another matter entirely. You need to push all processes from design to manufacturing, which means more risks of imperfection.
This is before getting the bike in the oven. They are all just carbon sheets wrapped loosely.
Even in small factory like this, they use proper testing equipment. This is the Zedler institute testing machines just like the one used and designed by Tour magazine.
Showing the stiffness test here. They have all the appropriate tools and expertises to make quality bike.
Here discussing some aspects of the design process with the lead engineer. Unlike big international brands like Specialized and Trek, small domestic brand like my friend's can hardly afford to make boundary pushing bike. In case of my friend's he goes a bit beyond other domestic brand that simply choose premade frame from the factory. He tried to create a unique new shape yet quite traditional and well tested design so it stands out more. He owns the right to the mould exclusively so no other domestic brands can use it. He designed some of the shape and the engineer make sure the frame will have the correct lay up and hit the right parameter (weight, stiffness, safety) for example. There is no aerodynamic test going on. Remember the goal here is not to be the next Venge. It is to make affordable, competent, ans safe racing bike that look some what unique.
And in the end I get to ride the prototype. It of course does not ride like a Tarmac SL6, but not very far off either. And it's 4x cheaper.
This is my contribution to this thread, the thread I find useful as it gets us to discuss something most people won't. I hope you find it helpful even though they are anecdotal evidence. I might not be Hambini or LT, but I also have been there and seen the sausage factory so to speak.
Last edited by ichobi on Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:52 am, edited 6 times in total.
I agree. I feel like quite a few casual watchers of his videos make a mountain out of a molehill about the voids he finds and conveniently forget that all of the frames he has have been crashed.TobinHatesYou wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:57 pmAll the defective forks Luescher cut open were involved in crashes. That’s why he has them in the first place. So yeah, there might be some imperfections, but they weren’t going to self-destruct without some kind of rider or maintenance error.
Chasse patate
God forbid someone actually takes the time to show what's inside these 'cutting edge' frames that the general public gets charged a fortune for. I know for a fact not all the frames and forks that he has have been crashed. He also freely points out when frames have been absolutely fine with only a few minor issues.silvalis wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:10 amI agree. I feel like quite a few casual watchers of his videos make a mountain out of a molehill about the voids he finds and conveniently forget that all of the frames he has have been crashed.TobinHatesYou wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:57 pmAll the defective forks Luescher cut open were involved in crashes. That’s why he has them in the first place. So yeah, there might be some imperfections, but they weren’t going to self-destruct without some kind of rider or maintenance error.
-
TobinHatesYou
- Posts: 12544
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm
velov wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:33 am
God forbid someone actually takes the time to show what's inside these 'cutting edge' frames that the general public gets charged a fortune for. I know for a fact not all the frames and forks that he has have been crashed. He also freely points out when frames have been absolutely fine with only a few minor issues.
Nobody is saying he shouldn't. No one is saying his PoV is unreasonable. Luescher is pretty level-headed about not badmouthing any of the brands in general terms, though he has been critical of specific design elements like one particular Argon 18's dropout/derailleur hanger design. It's other people either having knee-jerk reactions or trying to weaponize the content against X brand or "made in X" bikes.
A couple years ago I sent him my busted Venn/Velocite Rev 35 rim for him to cut up and inspect. Don't think he ever got around to it though.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BPn23qzhIWm/
Thanksichobi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:40 amThis is my contribution to this thread, the thread I find useful as it gets us to discuss something most people won't. I hope you find it helpful even though they are anecdotal evidence. I might not be Hambini or LT, but I also have been there and seen the sausage factory so to speak.
Great posts Ichobi and Calnago.
A few points.
-Firstly it seems any brand can make a carbon bike that 'is less than ideal' as a one off. So yes, a sample of one or two doesn't mean much so there is no point in bashing brands unless they are obviously being greedy or ridiculous, like Cervelo seem to have been according to Hambini. He previously bashed SRAM and put Shimano on a pedestal, which I don't really understand because I generally prefer SRAM and have had issues with both. So we need to take him with a pinch of salt IMHO.
-Of course China has some excellent factories and some of the bikes that are the best in the industry come from there, but I'm certain this comes down to management and training. So if we can identify factories that seem to consistently make less than stellar frames vs ones that seem to have higher standards, we should. When people have factory tours or invite press to their HQ or R&D center we should be cynical about reports, because obviously these factories are trying to look good.
-Carbon fiber is a strange material because of how it catastrophically fails. Imagine the Bianchi fork failure happened to someone in London, that rider could have easily ended up under a bus squished. If we look at automotive parts for cars and motorcycles they fail much less catastrophically and are much less likely to fail as most things are made of steel or alminium. A mountain bike or motorcycle suspension fork just won't fail in the same way. Therefore such a critical part made of such an exotic material that is so poorly inspected is almost a one-off in any industry and really manufacturers should do more than just to have or say they have good design and manufacture processes, IMO they need to produce data to prove each fork is safe and error free.
A few points.
-Firstly it seems any brand can make a carbon bike that 'is less than ideal' as a one off. So yes, a sample of one or two doesn't mean much so there is no point in bashing brands unless they are obviously being greedy or ridiculous, like Cervelo seem to have been according to Hambini. He previously bashed SRAM and put Shimano on a pedestal, which I don't really understand because I generally prefer SRAM and have had issues with both. So we need to take him with a pinch of salt IMHO.
-Of course China has some excellent factories and some of the bikes that are the best in the industry come from there, but I'm certain this comes down to management and training. So if we can identify factories that seem to consistently make less than stellar frames vs ones that seem to have higher standards, we should. When people have factory tours or invite press to their HQ or R&D center we should be cynical about reports, because obviously these factories are trying to look good.
-Carbon fiber is a strange material because of how it catastrophically fails. Imagine the Bianchi fork failure happened to someone in London, that rider could have easily ended up under a bus squished. If we look at automotive parts for cars and motorcycles they fail much less catastrophically and are much less likely to fail as most things are made of steel or alminium. A mountain bike or motorcycle suspension fork just won't fail in the same way. Therefore such a critical part made of such an exotic material that is so poorly inspected is almost a one-off in any industry and really manufacturers should do more than just to have or say they have good design and manufacture processes, IMO they need to produce data to prove each fork is safe and error free.
Finding the good factory wont really help so to speak. That is not how the industry works. Each brands outsource the production to MANY factories. They just dont use one. Specialized for example have their bike made by many people outside Merida depends in the model, deal, cost, expertise etc. It will be very difficult to tell which model is made by which factory,
something you can only know if you work for the brand yourself. The fork here, the handlebar there, the frame some other places.
something you can only know if you work for the brand yourself. The fork here, the handlebar there, the frame some other places.
Thanks a lot ichobi for the post. It clears some things up. I agree about Giant; IMHO there are more companies with Giant's QC.
Just a comment on hambini's and luescher's tests:
It is not about anecdotal evidence. Hambini has tested dozens of frames from the same manufacturer in order to come up to conclusions. It is not just about one video testing one frame. He has done such measurements on many frames (a dozen or so from 6-7 well known manufacturers as far as I remember) in order to come to conclusions.
Luescher does not only cut up failed forks/frames. Actually the forks he cuts are not failed, but have a potential of failure due to their low manufacturing standards (that's what he said).
That does not mean that everything hambini or Luescher present is the absolute truth but at least they are showing us specific things and try to explain everything in detail. It is not about someone saying "I have experience, trust me".
Just a comment on hambini's and luescher's tests:
It is not about anecdotal evidence. Hambini has tested dozens of frames from the same manufacturer in order to come up to conclusions. It is not just about one video testing one frame. He has done such measurements on many frames (a dozen or so from 6-7 well known manufacturers as far as I remember) in order to come to conclusions.
Luescher does not only cut up failed forks/frames. Actually the forks he cuts are not failed, but have a potential of failure due to their low manufacturing standards (that's what he said).
That does not mean that everything hambini or Luescher present is the absolute truth but at least they are showing us specific things and try to explain everything in detail. It is not about someone saying "I have experience, trust me".
Last edited by kgt on Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:14 pm, edited 5 times in total.
None of us want to get seriously hurt from a failure of a fork or frame and the industry as a whole should be held acountable for sloppy QC. I feel like most of the voids, extra glue and other manifaturing mistakes don't decrease the load rating of the parts to a dangorus level, but they should not be there.
The man thing for me and most people is the shit bearing interfaces at the BB and headtube. This area has almost no room for error and completely FUBAR's the bike. I should be able to push or screw a BB in with perfect alignment and expect long bearing life. This has been near perfect for 30+ years with BSA and while pressfit should be better, it rarely is. This is a huge problem and it's something that needs full attention during manifaturing.
No one would buy hubs with the same tolerances as BB shells! It seems like Specialized and Trek are getting there shit together and going back to treaded, which hopefully they can build with better tolerances. Now we just need to worry about delamination of the two diffreant materials.
The man thing for me and most people is the shit bearing interfaces at the BB and headtube. This area has almost no room for error and completely FUBAR's the bike. I should be able to push or screw a BB in with perfect alignment and expect long bearing life. This has been near perfect for 30+ years with BSA and while pressfit should be better, it rarely is. This is a huge problem and it's something that needs full attention during manifaturing.
No one would buy hubs with the same tolerances as BB shells! It seems like Specialized and Trek are getting there shit together and going back to treaded, which hopefully they can build with better tolerances. Now we just need to worry about delamination of the two diffreant materials.
Ride fast Take chances
ExactlyAlexbn921 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:23 pmNo one would buy hubs with the same tolerances as BB shells! It seems like Specialized and Trek are getting there shit together and going back to threaded, which hopefully they can build with better tolerances. Now we just need to worry about de-lamination of the two different materials.
Threaded is no guarantee of better except as we remember it from steel, Titanium or aluminum frames
I had the displeasure of owning two of the original Cervelo R2.5's both failed
One had a misaligned rear dropout the other as you mention was a de-lamination of their threaded BB shell from the carbon frame.
Luckily it happened on a climb
But it was my final warranty with Cervelo & I never went back.
To be honest I am done with Carbon frames & will stick to Steel,Titanium.Aluminum
Weight difference is not big enough to trouble my mind any longer
host an imageVisit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
