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.
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
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.
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.
I think you've pretty much got the right idea.RyanH wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:57 amTo the OP, buy a cannondale evo HM and get a new one every year under warranty.
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?
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.
one of guys I know still rides his 1st gen. CR1 - now its his training ride, but he used to race on it as wellmattr 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)
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.
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.)
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
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
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 etcLewn777 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:55 amOk 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.
Do you have data to back that up? Otherwise you should caveat that with "I assume..."mattr wrote:Because statistically, a frame with less material will *tend* to fail earlier (fatigue, crash, overload, whatever).
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.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.