Carbon Fiber 300 times stronger?

[Tony]

Interested video of a mtb company making frames here in the US.
They are claiming 300 times stronger and much less time to produce than traditional carbon manufacturing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqa2oG5Uhys&t=599s

[FriarQuade]

300 times tougher, not stronger. Very, very big difference. Toughness is impact strength, stronger is your typical yield/tensile number.

I have a Shred Dog from Guerrilla Gravity and it's a RAD bike. Definitely going to have to give the new one a shot once it's time.

[wooly]

I’m excited for GG. I’ve had a Trail Pistol and Pedalhead and love the company. I would definitely look at getting one of these in the future. Smash for me!

[Mikej]

So then why are they using an aluminum rear triangle instead of 300 times stronger? I need to see a hammer test vs ti -

[hollowgram5]

So then why are they using an aluminum rear triangle instead of 300 times stronger? I need to see a hammer test vs ti -That's a really good question. If you reach out to them and get at answer, let us all know.

I can speculate a few scenarios that make sense in my head:

I would imagine that is partly due totally the fact that keeping the rear end swap kit (to convert the main triangle from one bike setup to another) made out of aluminum helps to keep the costs down.

It could be that they knew they could get the bike to market faster with the aluminum rear end, and they are looking at how to produce a "strong enough" carbon set up in the future. With all the linkage and pivot points, it might not be quite as cost effective for the smaller outfit that is GG.

In one of the videos, they basically say that for $2440 you get frame and shock, for an additional $450 you can get a different rear seats at setup and swap the amount of travel to have one of the other models.

They also talk about ensuring they are trying to keep pricing affordable. They seem to have an innovative process to make the main triangle, that saves them a lot of production time and inventory.

[rain dogs]

They stated 300%, not 300 times and that's important because I think like most "hype-it" companies they are using that as:

If it took a force of "1" to cause impact damage with their previous construction, and they measure a force of 1,1 as a 110% increase, then a force of 3 would be a 300% increase, and thus 300% stronger vs impact.

Which actually would be 3 times the impact force, vs 300 times the impact force.

But maybe I'm stating the obvious? Current carbon fiber mountain bike design builds structures that can resist a huge amount of impact force before there is damage. I cannot imagine or believe someone can make a frame that can withstand 300 times that force by changing resin.... or heck, even by lacing it with unobtanium.

In any case, if I'm correct, and they are telling the truth, 3 times the impact force is a massive, massive improvement.

[Mikej]

They stated 300%, not 300 times and that's important because I think like most "hype-it" companies they are using that as:

If it took a force of "1" to cause impact damage with their previous construction, and they measure a force of 1,1 as a 110% increase, then a force of 3 would be a 300% increase, and thus 300% stronger vs impact.

Which actually would be 3 times the impact force, vs 300 times the impact force.

But maybe I'm stating the obvious? Current carbon fiber mountain bike design builds structures that can resist a huge amount of impact force before there is damage. I cannot imagine or believe someone can make a frame that can withstand 300 times that force by changing resin.... or heck, even by lacing it with unobtanium.

In any case, if I'm correct, and they are telling the truth, 3 times the impact force is a massive, massive improvement.

No, you’re pretty much spot on- I think they meant (and I meant 300% (3x)) but somehow got my specs crossed.

[Mark McM]

They stated 300%, not 300 times and that's important because I think like most "hype-it" companies they are using that as:

If it took a force of "1" to cause impact damage with their previous construction, and they measure a force of 1,1 as a 110% increase, then a force of 3 would be a 300% increase, and thus 300% stronger vs impact.

Which actually would be 3 times the impact force, vs 300 times the impact force.

But maybe I'm stating the obvious? Current carbon fiber mountain bike design builds structures that can resist a huge amount of impact force before there is damage. I cannot imagine or believe someone can make a frame that can withstand 300 times that force by changing resin.... or heck, even by lacing it with unobtanium.

In any case, if I'm correct, and they are telling the truth, 3 times the impact force is a massive, massive improvement.

As noted earlier, they said that their carbon fiber is 300% tougher, not 300% stronger. Strength is the measure of the amount of force to break something, whereas toughness is the measure of how much energy it takes to break something.

In many ways, strength and toughness are orthogonal properties. A strong material may be able to withstand a large force with, but at increased force it may shatter. Whereas a tough material may not take as much force without giving, but instead of breaking it will deform. Examples might be hardened glass (strong, but not tough) or polyurethane plastic (tough, but not strong).

In the case of many materials (including carbon fiber), increasing strength decreases toughness, and vice versa.

[dougefresh]

So then why are they using an aluminum rear triangle instead of 300 times stronger? I need to see a hammer test vs ti -

hammer test here (vs. aluminum not ti) as well as details about why they didn't do the stays (yet) out of carbon

https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/Revolutionizing-Carbon-Bikes-with-Guerrilla-Gravity-The-Inside-Line-Podcast,2613