Hey Cees

[ergott]

I saw this description and wondered if it made sense.

"XXXXX uses carbon fibre that is designated 46HM3K, which means the carbon fibre used can withstand a pulling force of 46 tonnes square/mm, while 3K indicates the frame finsh, with the XXXXX 3K finish where each visible square of material contains 3 carbon strands."

There isn't a closeup, but it sounds like they are describing plain weeve by saying "each visible square". Is this a desirable carbon for frames? I heard you mention 3k weeve before.

[ada@prorider.or]

I saw this description and wondered if it made sense.

"XXXXX uses carbon fibre that is designated 46HM3K, which means the carbon fibre used can withstand a pulling force of 46 tonnes square/mm, while 3K indicates the frame finsh, with the XXXXX 3K finish where each visible square of material contains 3 carbon strands."

There isn't a closeup, but it sounds like they are describing plain weeve by saying "each visible square". Is this a desirable carbon for frames? I heard you mention 3k weeve before.

well its depands what you like
3 k plain weave out side is mostly used for looks
out of constuction point of course that depands what constuction there is used (this of the force''s involved)
there is no weave ( at least that i know of ) in high modulus plain weave fiber
so it is a intermidiate fiber or lower
this means you need more weight to build a stiff frame
then high modulus weave's
but out of selling point's and looks and cost point i can understand that they do
but remember even a bike with high modulus fibers worse constuction and a intermidiate fiber like T 700
(like giant uses) and good constuction i prefer the good constucted one meaby its not so stiff and on low on weight at least it will last longer

its always diffucult to judge it depands on construction
but i prefer the giant at the state its now in pro peleton above lets say trek or conalgo

[The Spider]

As a comment on the industry, I like the fact that xxxxx (I feel like secret squirrel!) is now trying to inform it's clients the exact materials in each frame, HM or high modulus is so often used and is such a vague term (please correct me if I'm wrong....it's the equivelent of saying 'butted titanium") that it's near useless (especially considering Cees opinion) that I applaud xxxxx for trying to give more information to the consumer.


also Ergott for some more info on the builds...this was interesting

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=WHATS_NEW&PAGE_NUM=3&PRSET_VERSION=160007

Of course telling someone your bike is made from 43HM3k sounds no where near as good as Magnesium AK61! (just saying that makes you feel fast!)

[ada@prorider.or]

well the word almost sya it it selve
high modulus that means a tensile modulus that is high
high in the carbon industry begins about 340 GPa
and elogation 1.3 %

this high modulus fibers are not made in a weave 3k (not that i know of)
also strenght is something differant then stiffness
you can have a fiber that can have a high pulling strenght like a T1000 but also then you have a high elogation for T1000 2.2

this is why high modulus is called like that they also are very stiff

a T1000 is not a high modulus fiber

this to clear this up


also i think the 46hm3k is a hexcel fiber as4d(but not 100%sure) and this only has 245 GPa

[The Spider]

Ergott,

This just in from our friends at Velo:

The carbon is an especially robust concoction called 46HM3K, which, Pinarello says, is the strongest carbon he's found anywhere in the world (it comes from Japan), and which allows him to cut the frame weight to 990 grams in a 54cm size.

Damn! I just let xxxxx out of the bag! I'm not good at this secret squirrel stuff!

[ergott]

It just seems that everybody who uses carbon fiber describes their own carbon fiber differently from the next. I have no way of comparing different construction methods. Trek uses 150/120/110/55 numbers with a lower number being lighter and stiffer. I don't know how to compare this to Pinarello's numbers and most companies seem to just make up terms. I would love to see a standardized method for identifying and comparing the different carbon fiber all the companies use.

I think I finally understand that a lower number "k" is better in plain weaves. I assume that means 3 thousand fibers per square not just three. What is the best plain weave carbon. Is it better than other ways to lay up carbon? If high modulus isn't made in plain weave, then how is it laid? What does it look like?

I can tell by looking what plain weave is and chopped fiber looks like There is also carbon the has the fibers all going in the same direction. Is that called directional or unidirectional?

I tried for a good introduction to all these methods on the web, but didn't see any at first look. Can anyone point me to a good primer that explains the different weaves (pictures a bonus) and the other terms used to identify carbon. I would love to be able to identify different carbon types when I see them.

Cees, HELP!!!!

[ergott]

PS thanks to the Spider and Cees for all the help so far. I'm not an engineer and since carbon is the "black gold" of the cycling industry it behooves me to know more about this wonder material.

[ergott]

http://www.velonews.com/images/report/8800.12410.f.jpg

What kind of carbon is this. I see this method all the time. Is this chopped fibers? There looks to be a lot of seems where there could be potential failure.

[ada@prorider.or]

Ergott,

This just in from our friends at Velo:

The carbon is an especially robust concoction called 46HM3K, which, Pinarello says, is the strongest carbon he's found anywhere in the world (it comes from Japan), and which allows him to cut the frame weight to 990 grams in a 54cm size.

Damn! I just let xxxxx out of the bag! I'm not good at this secret squirrel stuff!

well i doubt that looked very good in the world then
but the strongest does not mean the stiffest!!!

and in a 3k fiber?! well lets say it this way i know beter one's

if you see fausto sent him my reagrds

[The Spider]

Cees,

Fausto shouldn't be that hard to find he wears custom made fluro orange Assos from head to toe (to match the F1:13 2006 colour)!

As far as weave, I thought it was like...timber or fabric...the higher the thread count/ply the stronger/better??? Am I going in the right direction?

[ada@prorider.or]

It just seems that everybody who uses carbon fiber describes their own carbon fiber differently from the next. I have no way of comparing different construction methods. Trek uses 150/120/110/55 numbers with a lower number being lighter and stiffer.

know thats not true!

first you have the wieght per sqm
then type of fiber then numbers of fiber and it elogation

what i see numbers of trek there are all no!! high modulus fibers



I don't know how to compare this to Pinarello's numbers and most companies seem to just make up terms. I would love to see a standardized method for identifying and comparing the different carbon fiber all the companies use.


well like astm but forget it never gone come,
i think to much money those compagny make's



I think I finally understand that a lower number "k" is better in plain weaves.

no "K" are fillement in a fiber this is one fiber
k is 1000 fillement
so 1k
3k is 3000
6k 6000
12k 12000
24k 24000

and so on



I assume that means 3 thousand fibers per square not just three.

the therm fibers per square inch is not normaly used
only under tech people for ather use
normaly its the weight per sq


What is the best plain weave carbon
depands on its purpose
but there is no plain weave made in high modulus
that normaly made in 6k fibers
but altough there are 3k high modulus fibers
its hard to make a good weave out of it

and the lowest weight that i know of ,of high modulus weave is 200 gramm sq/m



. Is it better than other ways to lay up carbon?

yes many
pultrusion for tubing
and others

If high modulus isn't made in plain weave, then how is it laid? What does it look like?

I can tell by looking what plain weave is and chopped fiber looks like

There is also carbon the has the fibers all going in the same direction. Is that called directional or unidirectional?
yes


I tried for a good introduction to all these methods on the web, but didn't see any at first look. Can anyone point me to a good primer that explains the different weaves (pictures a bonus) and the other terms used to identify carbon. I would love to be able to identify different carbon types when I see them.


mmm
meaby we sould do a web cast!

Cees, HELP!!!!
cees

[ergott]

cees

If your giving a webcast SIGN ME UP. I want pictures!!!

[ada@prorider.or]

Cees,

Fausto shouldn't be that hard to find he wears custom made fluro orange Assos from head to toe (to match the F1:13 2006 colour)!

As far as weave, I thought it was like...timber or fabric...the higher the thread count/ply the stronger/better??? Am I going in the right direction?

well yes and no
see it as a rope
you can have a steel rope that is stiffer then a kevlar rope
but you can put more strenght on kevlar rope then on the steel one

asumme they have the same dia?
get the idea

its a combination what make it good
for example there is a test in germany for frame's
but they only test its fatigue ! not its stiffnes!
now you can make a frame that hold it very good at its
low weight
now all people say that good have you seen that 900 gramm and in the top performance class
well easily use fiber that can have larger strenght!
but it not still also big elogation will hold extremly long
that how they manipulate those test

again all carbon is black and even wenn the frame is painted you hardly see what kind of fiber it is
of course expert's can always see it but that another discussion

[The Spider]

Thank you Cees,

I was only looking at eFBe tests 2 nights ago.

Speaking of performance tests....what do think of Tour Magazine and their product tests?

[ada@prorider.or]

Ergott,

This just in from our friends at Velo:

The carbon is an especially robust concoction called 46HM3K, which, Pinarello says, is the strongest carbon he's found anywhere in the world (it comes from Japan), and which allows him to cut the frame weight to 990 grams in a 54cm size.

here a much stronger one

T1000GB-12000 T1000GB 12000 6370
63.70 about 1/3 stronger

and beleive me its not the only one

as they say in holland
in country of blind one eye is king

[ada@prorider.or]

Thank you Cees,

I was only looking at eFBe tests 2 nights ago.

Speaking of performance tests....what do think of Tour Magazine and their product tests?


did see it only heard from other's

[ergott]

here a much stronger one

T1000GB-12000 T1000GB 12000 6370
63.70 about 1/3 stronger

and beleive me its not the only one

as they say in holland
in country of blind one eye is king

So what do all those numbers mean? I see 1000 and 12000 twice and 6370 and 63.70. Are those redundant numbers? What does it all mean? :crap:

[ada@prorider.or]

So what do all those numbers mean? I see 1000 and 12000 twice and 6370 and 63.70. Are those redundant numbers? What does it all mean? :crap:
fiber T1000 (name of fiber)
12000 is filament's (have have also 6000 specialy mad for us)
6370 is tensile strenght in Mpa (650 in kgf)

[Carboner]

Trek uses 150/120/110/55 numbers with a lower number being lighter and stiffer. I don't know how to compare this to Pinarello's numbers and most companies seem to just make up terms.

I think that most of the questions have already been answered, but just to reiterate what cees had posted a little while back. There are a few different properties that carbon bike manufacturers post (often without units or indication of what they refer to) and comparing them is often comparing apples to oranges.

The 150/120/110/55 numbers that Trek lists are actually the weight of the carbon used in their frames. It is in units of grams per square meter (or gm^2 or gsm). It refers to the DRY fiber weight of the carbon. In the case of Trek all of these (as far as I know) are for unidirectional carbon, and not a woven cloth (either plain weave or twill, or whatever). If you’ve ever chipped off the paint off an OCLV, you’ll notice that it’s not a weave underneath.

The weight of the fiber does not necessarily say anything about the strength - most weights are available with different tensile strengths and tensile moduli (ksi and msi or MPa or GPa). As well since it’s a dry weight, it does not refer to the resin at all. There are different resin compounds that have different chemical properties. The resin content can differ for identical fiber types (30%, 40% etc) changing the properties of the final product.

Finally, keep in mind that every measurement (other than simple counting) can be done in either Metric or English units. A bigger number might not mean stronger, or a smaller number might not mean lighter if they are measured in different scales. It’s not tough to mess up. NASA has sent satellites crashing into planets because of this before.

If you’re not familiar with all of the physical characteristics that differentiate all of the types of carbon, I wouldn’t put too much weight in them. IF you do decide to look at the numbers, I would probably only use them to compare bikes within the product range of a single manufacturer. Odds are, the units are the same and they are comparing the same properties (all else equal, an OCLV with 110 fibers instead of 150 will probably be lighter and might still feel the same – test ride them to double check). Looking at two different manufacturers might be more trouble than it’s worth and might steer you away from a potentially great product before you’ve even tried it out.

Even armed with all the technical knowledge in the world, there is no substitute for finding a bike or component that feels exactly how you want it to.

Hope that helped and didn’t just add technical ramblings…

[ada@prorider.or]

I think that most of the questions have already been answered, but just to reiterate what cees had posted a little while back. There are a few different properties that carbon bike manufacturers post (often without units or indication of what they refer to) and comparing them is often comparing apples to oranges.

The 150/120/110/55 numbers that Trek lists are actually the weight of the carbon used in their frames. It is in units of grams per square meter (or gm^2 or gsm). It refers to the DRY fiber weight of the carbon. In the case of Trek all of these (as far as I know) are for unidirectional carbon, and not a woven cloth (either plain weave or twill, or whatever). If you’ve ever chipped off the paint off an OCLV, you’ll notice that it’s not a weave underneath.

The weight of the fiber does not necessarily say anything about the strength - most weights are available with different tensile strengths and tensile moduli (ksi and msi or MPa or GPa). As well since it’s a dry weight, it does not refer to the resin at all. There are different resin compounds that have different chemical properties. The resin content can differ for identical fiber types (30%, 40% etc) changing the properties of the final product.

Finally, keep in mind that every measurement (other than simple counting) can be done in either Metric or English units. A bigger number might not mean stronger, or a smaller number might not mean lighter if they are measured in different scales. It’s not tough to mess up. NASA has sent satellites crashing into planets because of this before.

If you’re not familiar with all of the physical characteristics that differentiate all of the types of carbon, I wouldn’t put too much weight in them. IF you do decide to look at the numbers, I would probably only use them to compare bikes within the product range of a single manufacturer. Odds are, the units are the same and they are comparing the same properties (all else equal, an OCLV with 110 fibers instead of 150 will probably be lighter and might still feel the same – test ride them to double check). Looking at two different manufacturers might be more trouble than it’s worth and might steer you away from a potentially great product before you’ve even tried it out.

Even armed with all the technical knowledge in the world, there is no substitute for finding a bike or component that feels exactly how you want it to.

Hope that helped and didn’t just add technical ramblings…

i totaly agree
i only want to comment that numbers are there to compare
and in netherlands its forbidden by law to publish any data other the the SI(system international) if all others also do that you do not get those problems as you stated and people really can compare
so i really want to say use the right number's
so the SI system!!!!!
cees

[ergott]

A big thanks to Carboner for that last post. I guess the bottom line is that the carbon bikes from the top manufacturers have to be at least good. I've never read about any "high end" bikes being complete duds.

There are just too many material compositions and manufacturing processes to really say that there is a best way to do it. It just seems that every frame producer out there became a "carbon expert" in the last few years. Did they all really get right so fast?