Full carbon from ...

[jeffg]

Merlin?!?

[dbrk]

Carbon, The New Aluminum...uhhhh....Titanium...uhh...whatever.

The pictures that really scared me from the Eurobike show (on cyclingnews) were the carbon forks, cranks, and brakes that are now all cut out, sort of like what we did to aluminum parts in the late 70s. Look at this fork: http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/tech/shows/?id=eurobike/part4/GF7U9426

(Sorry, I'm not computer savvy enough to reduce this or make it easier).
The picture---if you don't want to go there---is a carbon fork whose blades look non-existent for the amount cut out of them...Yeah, sure, I would descend on that...Carbons proponents will say it is stronger than steel. I say, I have seen this stuff break, snap, splinter, and near-impale just regular guys (not hammering clydesdales or anything). I am so glad that this stuff doesn't interest me any more than my desire to express my disaffections.

dbrk

[Bruce K]

Douglas;

If you read the caption, the fork you showed is part of a design collaboration with the Jordan F1 team.

Since all F1 cars are almost ALL carbon fiber (right down to the brake rotors) it might not be as scary as it seems, even for a Clydsdale.

In theory they have built a truss to resist forward-to-back flex and that should be at least as strong as a single tube and probably stronger. The lateral flex would be where they might be giving up something, but here they have 4 tubes instead of 2, 2 on each side. In theory that would give you 4 faces of tube resisiting lateral forces for a total of 8.

Again, in theory this fork could be lighter and still resist the same forces.

Just some musings as to what they were trying to achieve besides a cool new look.

BK

[Andreu]

It looks to me like only one arm of the fork is "cut out". The other arm is complete ?
I am happy with iron (plus a little carbon) but with the abundance and popularity of all-things carbon are we not in danger of having some of these traditional materials disappear from bike building in a few years time?
Just a thought.
A

[Bruce K]

Hard to tell Andreu.

It appears that the upper portion may be cut out. If so, I am not sure why the 2 sides would differ on the front. On the rear there may be issues of drive side vs non-drive side but who knows....

This could also be a display showing the possibilities for the future.

BK

[Smiley]

Don't be surprised if the Ottrott does not evolve over time to have more Carbone parts in it. You got to give people what they want and that's the new fad . I am stuck with a DKS fad of my own.

[zap]

That Oval fork has been around for a year now. It's not light weight by any means at over 500g. It's designed to improve aerodynamics.

Regarding carbon composites, F1 cars could not take the abuse they currently experience without the use of super strong carbon components. No other material can stand up to FIA/F1 safety requirements either, which has the most stringent safety requirements (medical staff excluded) in motorsports today.

Again, quality of any structure regardless of material depends greatly on the designer and builder.

[Sandy]

With the carbon ST rear, carbon top tube, carbon down tube, and carbon fork, there isn't much left- chain stays, head tube, and seat tube.

Fully evolved,


Serotta Sandy

[zap]

And when are they going to incorporate an integrated headset?

[Smiley]

Sandy ,
I think a cabone head tube will be next as its just pretty that way like the Old Specialized bikes and I would not be shocked if the seat ube does not become a CC cabon tube . Then there's nothing left other than the lugs and the chain stays . I'll bet the head tube is next and don't bet on the integrated heat set zap cause it will force fitters to just raise the head tube more than we do now .

[zap]

Just make the headtube a little longer to compensate for the stack height. Nice shapely headtube in carbon would look really sharp....

So with an all carbon Ottrott coming, is Sandy going to sell his :D

[bostondrunk]

wow, congrats to merlin for producing one ugly frameset!!!

Sometimes I gotta think, doesn't a company ever think to themselves "Whats gonna make someone buy our bike over someone elses?".
I dunno, nothing in this case. I think they should have stuck to titanium, something they are really great at....

[jerk]

further proof that amercian product managers' idiocy has yet to outpace the technical know how and manufacturing capabilities of red china. all power to the soviets.

jerk

[Dekonick]

new coke! Pepsi clear! etc...

Ill admit specialized fighter planes may be made from plastic and glue but I would rather have steel. :cool:

[Jeff N.]

And when are they going to incorporate an integrated headset?I hope never! I detest integrated headsets. Jeff N.

[gasman]

wow, congrats to merlin for producing one ugly frameset!!!

Sometimes I gotta think, doesn't a company ever think to themselves "Whats gonna make someone buy our bike over someone elses?".
I dunno, nothing in this case. I think they should have stuck to titanium, something they are really great at....

What am I missing ? I don't think it is particularly ugly. I do think they make a nice looking Ti bike and I don't see anything wrong with this bike other than the color does nothing for me. Nude carbon can be nice but only if there is only a bit revealed.

[Russ]

Looks like that fork, goes great with this crankset, no?

IMO, if one has the time/money it's good to experiment with all this new stuff (carbon or otherwise), just like DBRK likes to experiment with the classic stuff.

How are we going to know if the stuff really works? From a magazine review? I have learned not to turst those anymore. From the LBS, seldom.... Although my LBS is great! From a friend, perhaps.

Now, I remember all the bad things they used to say about FSA when they first came out... and look now! They are everywhere.

I was skeptical about the Stronglight Pulsion crankset.... But I went ahead and tried it. I think it is the best carbon crankset I've owned so far!

[slowgoing]

you can store your Cliff bars in those cutouts, I think. But don't do it with the cranks, rotating weight and all.

The way carbon carries a load in one direction but is totally useless in another scares me. Sure, your 150 gram fork might be fine until one day a squirrel runs into it from the side and it collapses like a coke can (or however else it fails catastrophically) and meanwhile you get to see what it's like to use your face as a brake on the pavement. Stick some old fashioned rebar in there!

[Needs Help]

Stick some old fashioned rebar in there!
lol.

[Russ]

you can store your Cliff bars in those cutouts, I think. But don't do it with the cranks, rotating weight and all.

The way carbon carries a load in one direction but is totally useless in another scares me. Sure, your 150 gram fork might be fine until one day a squirrel runs into it from the side and it collapses like a coke can (or however else it fails catastrophically) and meanwhile you get to see what it's like to use your face as a brake on the pavement. Stick some old fashioned rebar in there!

I read this post and I just shake my head.... When does riding steel guaranteed you a "safer" ride? By the way, the Cliff bars would fit better on the deep pockets of one of those wool jerseys that could reach your rear wheel when they get wet and heavy.... sorry DBRK, not an attack on you, just using the same langauge as the quote...

Yeah, I heard enough of "steel is real.." and "weight weenies..." But if it was up to some of us in this forum, I gather NASA would still be using the Apollo Capsules! :p

By the way, I am not advocating to go for all the crap that is produced out there... I just wish to note that there is a person, a place, an application and a product for everything-bicycle out there. Unfortunatelly, some of us will learn sooner or later, that there are things called "progess", "invention", and "market competition" and they are ineviatble!

[Andreu]

Russ, totally agree about having to push the boundary back on technology.
However, I see alot of companies today that sell "me too" products and are just bad copies. Carbon is sometimes overused and misused in my opinion. I am not sure of the proportions but I get the impression that in 80% of occassions there is no advantage in the design/material change and companies are following a trend (good or bad?).
Steel too has been improved greatly in the last twenty years!
A

[Russ]

You are right! And that is the reason I included "market competition" in my post. Do you think that Campy carbon cranksets are better than FSA? To me they are very close!!! As a matter of fact, I can not tell the difference....

But, who is to say that Campy is doing wrong by making their own carbon cranksets to stay competitive!

I think the safer approach when buying "new" stuff is to analyze the market and see who's producing what, and who's using what... normally the bigger or older companies (Campy, Shimano, FSA, etc.) do not put something out in the market that may be of too bad quality, because of liabilities. They also have more money for R&D. So their products tend to be (somewhat) better than what a small company or a single individual can produce....

[lnomalley]

I find it amusing to read people's criticisms of components that have never used and I can't imagine why anyone offers an opinion on something they have no experience with just based on a photo. My team (Team DBL, Big Brother/Big Sister) has been fortuneate enough to be sponsored by Oval. We've spent the last year racing on Oval stems, seat posts, and Forks (take a look at Seven's aluminum stems and seatposts.. it seems that Oval is good enough for them).

After a full season on the Oval fork, I can't say enough good things about it. Its stiff and dependable, it tracks well, and its as good as any carbon fork I've ridden. The open areas actually work differently than you might imagine.. they are there to combat the wind coming off the spinning wheel from behind the fork. We've had a full season of everything you can imagine (including sprint crashes) and we've never broken an Oval fork (everything from 35 plus to cat 1-4).

There are some pretty large specimens on our team... in fact, we just set a masters world record in the kilo on the Oval fork and the guy riding basically is almost a gorilla (sorry Antony but look in the mirror .. you are scary).

Ride the fork and see for yourself and then offer an opinion. I would buy one in a second and am planning on using last year's on my yet to be built TT rig.

This forum is only as meaningful as the views posted here.... I dont know what insight anyone gains by forming armchair opinions on something that you have no experience with.. frankly it devalues anything else that comes from your keyboard and it hurts manufacturers that are out there trying to innovate because people tend to believe what they read. Fiction turns into fact all to easily.

Also, our sponsorship is intact for next year.. if I thought the fork sucked I'd have no problem saying so here. It doesn't suck.

Thanks ... say hi to the Oval guys at Interbike.. its a killer product. Good luck out there...happy riding.

[Sandy]

Excellent response, from an entirely different perspective- from a cyclist who actually uses the product. That perspective is quite meaningful. I think that most have never seen the fork, and are simply making their comments based upon how they look, and the direction in which marketing, sales, and innovations are headed.


Sandy

[Andreu]

I re-read the posts and there seems to be a well balanced set of views and opinions on show. I don´t think anyone is pretending (or otherwise) to have used this piece of kit.
If we only had scientific (which from time to time I advocate) posts or posts from people that had only used the kit the forum would be pretty boring in my opinion.
And anyway...this style of fork will probably be de rigueur in a few years time ...so DBRK beware.
I am currently not a big fan of the new carbon handlebars for example...people want them but do we need ´em? Like integrated head sets versus .......blah blah. I don´t see truly compelling arguments for a lot of this "new" stuff - just hype. And sometimes hype and innovation cooincide.
Yours Traditionally,
A
PS glad to read someone who actually has used the fork in question and it works!

[Kevan]

Given the right approach to building this plastic stuff, it's terrific.

[dbrk]

I too am glad to hear that someone has used this fork though in my own all-too-traditionalist and thereby reluctant mind this past summer's experience (not mine) of broken, _snapped_ carbon steerer tubes and other carbon bits gives me plausible pause. There are too many examples to cite and I'm too lazy and pragmatical to list them but Boonen comes to mind, no? When a steel fork gets rammed or smacked it doesn't snap in two! Sure, carbon is the future. I hope it gets tested, proves itself safer and safer, and brings folks lots of joy (honest, I do).

The other point is that ugly (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

My backward view of things expressed publicly to misinform and offer opinion based on no direct experience will undoubtedly cause irreparable harm to this innovative and progressive industry that yearly produces something that improves appreciably and qualitatively our enjoyment of the sport. This is why my next bike will have a 1954 Campagnolo Paris-Roubaix rear derailleur and it will be New Old Stock. At least one of these two statements is true and the latter is certainly true; the rest is just conjecture.

dbrk

[William]

The way carbon carries a load in one direction but is totally useless in another scares me. Sure, your 150 gram fork might be fine until one day a squirrel runs into it from the side and it collapses like a coke can (or however else it fails catastrophically) and meanwhile you get to see what it's like to use your face as a brake on the pavement. Stick some old fashioned rebar in there!

I was having a conversation with the mechanic at the shop I frequent yesterday and a related topic came up when our conversation came around to carbon frames for big boys. The problem (as he relates it) is carbons propensity to fail catastrophically with out warning. Usually with other materials you get an indication that something is happening (if you’re tuned to your bike), when carbon goes, it just goes. If you lean the bike up against something, it falls over or bumps things, you’re asking for trouble. A little “dink” in carbon is not the same as a “dink” in steel. Not something you want to discover when sprinting or ripping down a decent. I seem to remember hearing of number of carbon bars, components, and frames breaking in the Tour and other races this year.

Maybe I’m off base here, but carbon in the long haul is up in the air for me right now. I don’t think one will last (safely) longer than steel, Ti, or even todays aluminum. It’s the equivalent of the racers (and the markets) throw-away philosophy. Use for a couple years and then toss it (and buy another).

"It's lighter, and stronger" ( ? And costs us less to make, and you'll have to replace it in a couple years........can you say Planned obsolescence?).

But hey, I could be wrong. :)

William

[vaxn8r]

First of all, everything breaks. Even catastrophically. I can cite many examples none of which were CF bits, all of which were name brand. One such was a ti frame which catastrophically failed at a weld.

If you take comfort in the fact that you would never touch anything CF, I guess that's OK. But our sport is inherently dangerous and CF is, by far and away, the very least of our worries when it comes to injury.

I've been an advocate of not offering opinions on products one hasn't personally at least tried. In other words, I completely agree with Inomalley. Great post.

Ps. CF is the future and I'm more than happy about it because it does what they claim it does. Super strong, light and yes, dependable when done properly....just like everything else. :)

[William]

True, I can’t give an opinion on the ride quality or handling characteristics of CF because I have never ridden one. But, I have seen many examples of CF usage among friends and team mates over thousands of miles, talked with people in the industry, and read about testing and failure rates of CF. So, I’ll throw my $.02 in for people to take as they will.

Yes, I to have experienced and seen many examples of failures in metal/alloy components and frames. I have broken two metal frames myself. But they gave some warning to their impending doom by deformation and/or sound just before it let go. That doesn’t mean that an aluminum or steel part can’t let go with out a warning, they can and do. What I have read about and seen of carbon is its tendency to just “snap” without warning. Carbon fiber technology is not a mature science in the bike industry, and in it’s short history, I’ve seen, read, and been told about many more failures of carbon than that of steel (in the same time frame). Now, don’t get me wrong, I think carbon will have a permanent place in cycling as it matures. But for larger/stronger riders (which is what I said in my other post) like myself, it’s not reliably there yet. Every time I go into a shop and start looking at or talking about CF components or frames, I’m always steered away from them, seat posts, bars, cranks, and even frames. I’m told every time that I’m better off going with steel/aluminum/Ti. Why? The CF stuff is generally more expensive, why aren’t they trying to work the sale? I’m told the steel/alum/Ti is stronger and more reliable. Likely they don’t want to take the chance and have to warranty the product a bunch of times before they put me on back on steel. They see more of this stuff come in and out the door than you or I. The gentle man that I spoke with the other day is in his 40’s and has been working on bikes his whole life. He’s seen it all come and go so I’ll put a little stock in his word as well.

Ps. CF is the future and I'm more than happy about it because it does what they claim it does. Super strong, light and yes, dependable when done properly....just like everything else

I agree, I just don’t think it’s quite there for us bigger boys. If some one wants to make me a CF frame and give it to me to run big boy testing on it, I’ll do it. But at this point in its development, I’m not going to plunk down $1,000 and up on CF in this stage of the game.

William :)

[jerk]

there is carbon done well and there is carbon done poorly. colnago, trek and cervelo do a great job with carbon. parlee and calfee do a great job. most everyone else does a worse job with carbon than they do with other materials. the jerk has seen pretty much every carbon frame cut in half after being torture tested by wisconsin lab rats at trek. the aforementioned frames were great.....the looks, the scott, the specialized, the derosa, the orbea, the kestrel and some others the jerk is foregetting were downright awful. inconsistent, bladders left everywhere, bondo like filler throughout....but i guess that's what happens when you try to translate 35 dollar tennis racket construction techniques into bicycle frame manufacture....

as an aside, dbrk- a paris-roubaix rder? is that that horrible thing that you have to pedal backwards to shift, taking your life in your hands while the wheel flops around in the drop out? that's wonderful. send the jerk pictures.

jerk

[bostondrunk]

Lots of parts will fail, regardless of material. Look at the newer alloy stems that snap...
And for CF framesets, well, if they can handle someone the size of George Hincrapie, Jan Ulrich, etc., then it can probably stand up to William.!
:bike: :D


True, I can’t give an opinion on the ride quality or handling characteristics of CF because I have never ridden one. But, I have seen many examples of CF usage among friends and team mates over thousands of miles, talked with people in the industry, and read about testing and failure rates of CF. So, I’ll throw my $.02 in for people to take as they will.

Yes, I to have experienced and seen many examples of failures in metal/alloy components and frames. I have broken two metal frames myself. But they gave some warning to their impending doom by deformation and/or sound just before it let go. That doesn’t mean that an aluminum or steel part can’t let go with out a warning, they can and do. What I have read about and seen of carbon is its tendency to just “snap” without warning. Carbon fiber technology is not a mature science in the bike industry, and in it’s short history, I’ve seen, read, and been told about many more failures of carbon than that of steel (in the same time frame). Now, don’t get me wrong, I think carbon will have a permanent place in cycling as it matures. But for larger/stronger riders (which is what I said in my other post) like myself, it’s not reliably there yet. Every time I go into a shop and start looking at or talking about CF components or frames, I’m always steered away from them, seat posts, bars, cranks, and even frames. I’m told every time that I’m better off going with steel/aluminum/Ti. Why? The CF stuff is generally more expensive, why aren’t they trying to work the sale? I’m told the steel/alum/Ti is stronger and more reliable. Likely they don’t want to take the chance and have to warranty the product a bunch of times before they put me on back on steel. They see more of this stuff come in and out the door than you or I. The gentle man that I spoke with the other day is in his 40’s and has been working on bikes his whole life. He’s seen it all come and go so I’ll put a little stock in his word as well.



I agree, I just don’t think it’s quite there for us bigger boys. If some one wants to make me a CF frame and give it to me to run big boy testing on it, I’ll do it. But at this point in its development, I’m not going to plunk down $1,000 and up on CF in this stage of the game.

William :)

[Andreu]

For me, the question (apart from how bad it can look) is not the fact that it can and will withstand great loads but the thought of it failing in mid descent/sprint or whatever. Its like trying to convince me that flying is safe......it´s purely irrational.
Is there any data/information to say that Carbon does fail catastrophically or is this another old wives tale? I have broken three chains and one axle on the bottom bracket and both times it was pretty catastrphic....i.e. it was working fine one second and the next second it was in bits. Both metal.

A

[bostondrunk]

I have yet to see any frame fail catastrophicalagistacally. I'm sure it has happend, but its not something that happens too damn often.
And who's to say that you wouldn't hear some serious creaking if the carbon were cracking? Is it really any different than saying your aluminum frame can crack and snap in a moments notice?

[Tom]

I'd be worried about gouges. I was all freaked about a carbon fork the first time I got one but I am a lot less worried now. It's out front where I can see what it's getting into so I can avoid most things.

I'll never go with a carbon rear triangle on a metal bike, though, because just in this year I've had a chunk of metal strapping and a Ksyrium metal spoke tear through the seat and chain stays. Both cases gouged the paint right to shiny metal. My info might be bad but I am thinking that wouldn't be very good for carbon.

I'd have to grow eyes in my butt to keep the back end of the bike clear of trouble but then I'd have BBDave in my vision for entire rides at a time. Not a good tradeoff. Heh heh.

[William]

BD wrote:
well, if they can handle someone the size of George Hincrapie

Hmmm, George is 6' 3" and 185lbs.
William is 6' 6" and 255lbs.

Apples and oranges my drunk friend, apples & oranges. :)


William :beer:

[zap]

So William, you haven't flown on a major jetliner lately. Plenty of carbon composites on jetliners these days. I just don't understand why we don't have more crashes....

Here I go again with the airplane analogy...

William, seriously now, your weight and power is not a problem. As we've mentioned many times, it's the quality of construction. Some of the most durable bike frames available are made out of carbon composites and al.

In the bike biz, there are plenty of people who think..........Oh never mind.

[bostondrunk]

Any frame on the market should have a seat tube that can support your weight.
And I'm guessing that top male track racers and crit racers generate a lot more pure power than you, or anyone else here, and they don't seem to be breaking frames left and right. I'm just sayin, don't fool yourself...
Now titanium pedal spindles and mavic Gel280 rims, yeah, they ain't made for someone of your girth!! ;) :bike:

[MadRocketSci]

boeing uses a "safety" factor of about 1.3 (or is it 1.7? i don't remember) in designing aircraft. This means they go into their models, calculate maximum worst case stresses, strains, and then design the structure to withstand 1.3x that for however many cycles needed. They can't overbuild too much without compromising performance, but the engine capabilities and flight conditions are well known and thus the structure is very robust. Slap a max cargo weight on there and you're done....

For bikes, unless it's a custom job, the engine is a pretty big variable. How much power can it put out? How much does it weigh? All of these will affect the stresses in the tubes and joints. If you overbuild to accomodate a heavy powerful rider, then the bike won't be competitively light; if you underbuild then you are stressing out the frame and making it more prone to failure. Do you design for a typical rider, or the most powerful sprinter out there? What's the safety factor to account for unknowns and model deficiencies? It's all a balancing act and with the number of builders out there not everyone's gonna get it right all the time...

i guess my point is that if you design for robustness, then carbon fiber can be very reliable, as shown in the aerospace industry. however, if you're trying to eliminate every last ounce.....

[zap]

Madrocketsci-good post.

The Look Monoblade carbon frame that I have was also designed in conjunction with a track frame so its far from light. Its stiffer than my Klein! My wife tested a Monoblade 2 sizes smaller and found the ride to be veeery stiff. I suspect that Look did not fine tune the carbon layup for each size, so the ride of smaller sizes was severly compromised. A female pro who raced in the TdFF on a Look monoblade 2 sizes smaller than mine also said it was too stiff.