Quote:
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
Edited that post to these 3 things because they stood out.
- agreed, it's nice to have a connection to the bike and who is creating the frame. That can lead to trust for sure, and that trust may or may not be deserved. Many builders aren't materials specialists, structural engineers, etc. They should have an expert knowledge on the products they use, but even that will likely come from marketing litrrature and industry formed relationships(that hold biases).
- totally agree about PL having industry experts. This thread alone had valuable insight from a carbon fork designer.
- you may be appalled by the lack of high quality consumer info about the robustness of components, but is that really unique to CF products? It it even unique to this industry?
The answer to both of those questions is - no.
You expect something that is atypical. - CF forks, seatpost, and handlebars are constantly videoed undergoing fatigue testing. YouTube is flooded with these videos and has been for the last 15+ years. Is that not enough for you?
If that isn't enough for you, then look into the testing certification standards the forks and components must pass. If that testing is meaningful to you, then there ya go- data you expect.
- If it isn't meaningful to you because you don't think the testing is realistic or applicable to riding, then maybe look into consumer reviews, long term tests, and industry insight. That is what you are doing when you talk with hampco, so clearly it's good enough.
- I can't get consumer info on the robustness of all sorts of things I own, even things I trust for safety. Or what safety info does exist, it's manufacturer generated or it is certified as passing established testing. So same as a carbon fork or components.
Do you do this much 'investigation' for everything you buy that is associated to your safety? How often is data both readily available and meets your arbitrary standard of applicability and thoroughness?
- My main road bike is a Columbus Zona steel frame and fork I built 6 years ago in a local class. I trusted the builder to spec it with tubing that is light, easy to work with, reliable, and long lasting once built into a frameset.
My main gravel bike is a small batch production Reynolds 853 and cromo frame with carbon fork. The designer had to spec overbuilt tubes and an extremely robust fork in order to pass fatigue/impact testing.
One of those frame and fork combos was actually designed to pass testing, but your posts seem to say you would trust the one that isn't built to pass testing standards.
Maybe take the first step and just call it 'CF' like everyone else? See how that feels, and go from there. |
When you buy a traditional metal custom frame there are three things to think about
:
the quality of the tubing,
the quality of the design,
the quality of the assembly (mitering, brazing or welding)
The tubing quality is determined and managed by the tubing manufacturer, not the frame maker.
It is absolutely true that frame makers usually aren't engineers. At best they operate within industry standard practices for frame design (and tubing selection) which leave a safety margin. They do make mistakes from time to time, and it has taken the independent builders a little while to figure out what tubing is necessary for disc brakes.
The quality of the assembly is where you hope direct contact builds mutual regard and trust.
Note that on a traditional frame, questions like "what clamping force will the top tube withstand" can be answered based on the tubing used and standard engineering, and requires trust in the tubing manufacturers QA.
Questions about things like "are the welds weak", or "has the tubing been weakened by the application of too much heat" are connected with the skill of the frame maker. Here you depend on the reputation of the frame maker.
So I can't answer one of your questions, i.e. would I trust the frame you made or the one which was specified to meet a demanding test standard.
If the two frames are constructed with equal quality joints, then I would trust the one designed to the high test standard more. If you are a novice welder and you welded both frames and your welds are visibly sloppy, with gaps, I wouldn't trust either frame.
I can't find any documentation online about what test standards Enve is using for forks.
I'm going to continue to irritatingly use CFRP. The properties of the composite are not the same as the constituents, and I have noticed that the shortened form "carbon fiber" leads people to incorrect intuitions about the nature of the composite. For example, they believe that carbon fiber is inert, so that galvanic corrosion cannot occur in CFRP bicycles. They believe that carbon fibers are incredibly strong, so that a CFRP bicycle frame is inherently stronger than a steel one. They believe that CFRP cannot be sensitive to UV light exposure or chemical pollution, so CFRP frames should have an infinite shelf life, no matter how stored. Alas, the poor noble carbon fibers are embedded in lowly epoxy. Perhaps I should agree to call these composite frames "carbon fiber" half the time and "plastic" half the time.
I am purposely acting as a gadfly or devil's advocate in order to pull out comments from the real experts, as opposed to the CF fanboys.
Certainly I don't make this much effort to investigate everything I purchase. This is a one time special effort because I really want lightweight strong bicycle components, but I detect marketing BS around CFRP use in cycling components and would like to get to the bottom of things.
Here's a diatribe from a local bike shop, based on a mechanic's point of view:
https://www.rideyourbike.com/carbonfiber.shtml