What do we really know about composites?

[AndrewS]

Pez's latest round of hating the haters got me thinking, once again, about all the carbon controversy. I worked in 4 busy bike shops between 1990 to 1995 in Chicago and Wisconsin. I sold and worked on Treks, Kestrels, Litespeed, Giants, Bridgestone, Centurian and a bunch of high end and low end other brands. In that time I saw a handful of frame failures that happened while simply riding, and many of them were steel. No rash of carbon/aluminum lug failures, cracked Cannondales or whatever people like to picture from that time. That includes all the bonded Trek aluminum and carbon/aluminum mountain bikes that sold like hotcakes during the huge MTB boom and were ridden with gusto and rigid forks in the Kettle Moraine.

I spoke to a friend the other day that said his shop had nine (9) cracked Cervelos awaiting warrantee replacement.

We all know that there is no statistical clearinghouse for bicycle failures. The only such public database of that kind I know is operated by NTSB and NASA. We can only try to make sense of what we experience and read about. Questions:

1. What other industry makes use of carbon fiber construction in a manner that is similar to bicycle frames, in terms of ply number, methods and stresses? I was once at an F/A-18 crash site, and none of the mangled composite I saw was much thinner than a quarter inch. One of the past presidents of Kestrel who came from aviation said that the bike designers were doing things that any aviation person would say shouldn't work. He was making a point about pioneers, but the statement stands.

2. There have been more than a hundred composite bicycle companies. Where did all these composite designers comes from? We believe that our very modern looking bikes are the result of long experience and standards borrowed from other composite industries. Which ones? There's only so many aerospace companies in the world, and they pay better than bicycle companies do. So where are the people and expertise to both design and test cutting edge designs coming from? Who wrote the finite analysis programs specific to carbon bicycles?

3. Why do we assume that there is extensive testing going on? One always hears that "no company would release an unsafe product". Sure they would, and have since before the industrial revolution. The real question is really whether a lack of testing that results in failures is likely to end up in a losing court case with major damages. Even in cases with a recalled fork (I had a Giant with this), I've never heard of a big bike company losing a class action suit due to failure induced injuries. Have you? So if your company is using the same construction practices as other brands, why institute an expensive test program? The computer model says it is okay, so build it.


People have lots or reasons to be skeptical about composites. We are told that it has nearly 10 times the tensile strength of any bicycle metal, yet the frames are only a small percentage lighter, and are more fragile in handling. We are told that the material has an infinite fatigue life, but lifetime warranties are no longer a standard. And we're told that anecdotally observing the number of failures makes us "haters", usually by people who seem much more emotional about it.

I don't know what's actually going on, but I haven't seen those questions asked before. I think carbon fiber is good for bicycles and other sports gear (some of the first composite bikes built by the people who went on to Kestrel and Aegis made tennis rackets first). I think that an awful lot of testing did go on at one time by those people, but the industry is probably still leaning on that data. I think that all new materials go through an experimental period where the boundaries are tested, and we are still in that period for carbon fiber. Just as a sub-2 pound ti frame ended up being too light, maybe stay diameters and wall thicknesses on composites need to be adjusted back up.

This isn't a denouncement of carbon fiber - it's a discussion. Anyone with insight into the above 3 questions ought to have something valuable to share.

[130R]

cheap carbon:

http://www.youtube.com/v/p92Stnnigjs

expensive carbon:

http://www.youtube.com/v/3cZiYnIifYY

[Charles M]

I call Troll....


Unless you can:

--show me all of the testing data of bikes from [insert all of our favorite metal builders]

--List the number of engineers used contracted or full time in house at all of our favorite metal builders.

--Tell us what other high end industry is using say lugged steel in the same thickness as bicycles to build their fighter jets? (my answer to your carbon question would be formula 1, motogp, aerospace and defense. the wings and chassis of some of the drones as a single example of which there are loads... but again, you first.)

--And name the 100 composite bicycle companies lacking engineers...


It would only be fair to ask you to do this right?


But dont...

There's no need because this is just bs...







I have been in several of the major manufacturers of carbon (guys producing for multiple companies) and pretty much all of them test in house and most send them to secondary testing from places like EFBE.DE (http://www.efbe.de) who provide loads of testing and also build and sell the test kits used in many companies

In fact, with the new en safety testing for all parts, pretty much everything gets tested...





All that said,


I don’t for a split second think that Kelly Bedford needs an in house engineer to test the bike I buy from him... Same for the next Bike I'm get from Nick Crumpton or (if I would have ordered one in 1999) from Richard Sachs.


What I would want is for production companies to provide safe product and despite your lack of industry experience and manufacturer knowledge, there is a TON of testing going on for virtually all products.

For every picture you can show me of a production metal bike in a testing jig, I can show you a couple of carbon bikes...





At the end of the day this is the same anti carbon bull***** in a new wrapper. To imply that metal is X and carbon is Y as related to cycling is lots of times just biased garbage and testing and engineering is one of the WORST EVER attempts at it simply because performance carbon makes up such a large part of product offering that it also makes up a large part of testing and R&D.


Simply put, production bikes in all materials are tested in similar fashion.



Carbon controversy my a$$...

[chuckred]

I was in the LBS one day, and the mechanic had an old carbon bar that was going to be thrown out, so he was going to saw it in half to prevent some one from grabbing it and using a perhaps dangerous part. I told him about the stories I've heard of carbon bars failing suddenly and wondered how easy it would be to break it.

We tried crushing it in a vice then levering it to see if we could break it. We smashed it against the counter, the concrete floor, with a hammer, etc. We started sawing it and then tried the same thing.

I wouldn't want to ride it after all that, but we never did succeed in destroying it until he got the hacksaw out again.

Not saying carbon doesn't break, and that you don't need to be careful. But, I'm a bit more confident after that.

[AndrewS]

Actually, Pez, I wasn't comparing the testing of carbon vs. metal. I didn't think any of them are tested that much - steel frames are over a century old and much of their testing was trial and error over that time. When other metals were substituted, the same process occurred, and worked out overtime because metals behave more like each other than different.

Nor am I saying that there is NO testing. But what kind of tests, and written by who under what criteria? Are post minor-impact tests done, for instance?


Clearly, this industry is full of smart people. In the old days those people were either self trained or inherited a legacy of rules of thumb - not engineering degrees. Composites are essentially different than metals in both how they are utilized AND tested in all industries. Bicycles appear to use composites in ways that are unique to that industry.

BS is when you tell someone to stop asking question. Are more bicycle frames breaking or not?

[endosch2]

I worked for one of the major bike companies for 10 years and there is a lot of testing that goes on. No major company wants to have frames fail and there are a lot of ways to test them.

This is like a conspiracy theory thread. I agree with Pez and you could have this discussion about any small builder and steel.

[AndrewS]

I worked for one of the major bike companies for 10 years and there is a lot of testing that goes on. No major company wants to have frames fail and there are a lot of ways to test them.

This is like a conspiracy theory thread. I agree with Pez and you could have this discussion about any small builder and steel.
Are more frames failing these days or not?

[rice rocket]

Are more frames failing these days or not?
Percentage wise? Probably not.

The "bleeding edge" frames have low market adoption rates, and the lower end frames have more weight, and (one would hope) higher factors of safety. Amateurs don't abuse a bike nearly as hard as a pro would either. Ridership has gone up significantly in the past decade though, so aggregate numbers might be the same or higher? I doubt anyone runs around to take statistics of this though.

[AndrewS]

Percentage wise? Probably not.

The "bleeding edge" frames have low market adoption rates, and the lower end frames have more weight, and (one would hope) higher factors of safety. Amateurs don't abuse a bike nearly as hard as a pro would either. Ridership has gone up significantly in the past decade though, so aggregate numbers might be the same or higher? I doubt anyone runs around to take statistics of this though.
I should have said "Are more high end frames failing these days or not?" Sure, the aluminum hybrid market is probably pretty unaffected.

No, their are no stats. But when I read and see pictures of three separate failures of a particular high end Fuji models seat stays, it makes me take notice. Seatstays? Fuji initially denied all three claims because "riding stresses can't break a tube in the middle", then recanted and replaced them. The nine Cervelos in one shop stopped me cold - how is that even possible? In six years of intense mountain bike boom sales and ridership, I don't think I saw nine warranty frames total! And I know multiple people that are riding their third OCLV frame.

Does anyone remember hearing stuff like that during the MTB boom, or back in the '70s bike boom?

Am I hearing lies? Are there that many more Cervelos sold today than lightweight MTBs sold in the early '90s? The total sales for US sold bicycles have been pretty constant since 1983 - between 9 and 12 million a year.

[rice rocket]

Excuse me, I thought we were focusing on road bikes here...

[AndrewS]

Mostly, since hardly any composite mountain bikes are sold any more, despite being the largest market share, so it's hard to include them now. But that wasn't the case 20 years ago, when they were the bleeding edge.

[EDS]

I should have said "Are more high end frames failing these days or not?" Sure, the aluminum hybrid market is probably pretty unaffected.

No, their are no stats. But when I read and see pictures of three separate failures of a particular high end Fuji models seat stays, it makes me take notice. Seatstays? Fuji initially denied all three claims because "riding stresses can't break a tube in the middle", then recanted and replaced them. The nine Cervelos in one shop stopped me cold - how is that even possible? In six years of intense mountain bike boom sales and ridership, I don't think I saw nine warranty frames total! And I know multiple people that are riding their third OCLV frame.

Does anyone remember hearing stuff like that during the MTB boom, or back in the '70s bike boom?

Am I hearing lies? Are there that many more Cervelos sold today than lightweight MTBs sold in the early '90s? The total sales for US sold bicycles have been pretty constant since 1983 - between 9 and 12 million a year.

Another carbon hate thread. This is so productive.

Do you really think Giant, Time, Look, etc. don't know what they are doing with respect to making a carbon bike? Giant has been doing it for 20 years.

[AndrewS]

I know. I sold some of Giants first Cadex road and mountain bikes. Nice stuff.

Where's the hate?

You know, nothing I wrote has any point if more upper end bicycles aren't breaking these days. If they aren't, then there must be a good explanation for some of the items I mentioned.

If they are breaking in slightly greater numbers - and not necessarily from ALL makers (one hears little about Giant problems), I just want to discuss why that might be. Calling that hate is pointless.

[oldpotatoe]

Pez's latest round of hating the haters got me thinking, once again, about all the carbon controversy. I worked in 4 busy bike shops between 1990 to 1995 in Chicago and Wisconsin. I sold and worked on Treks, Kestrels, Litespeed, Giants, Bridgestone, Centurian and a bunch of high end and low end other brands. In that time I saw a handful of frame failures that happened while simply riding, and many of them were steel. No rash of carbon/aluminum lug failures, cracked Cannondales or whatever people like to picture from that time. That includes all the bonded Trek aluminum and carbon/aluminum mountain bikes that sold like hotcakes during the huge MTB boom and were ridden with gusto and rigid forks in the Kettle Moraine.

I spoke to a friend the other day that said his shop had nine (9) cracked Cervelos awaiting warrantee replacement.

We all know that there is no statistical clearinghouse for bicycle failures. The only such public database of that kind I know is operated by NTSB and NASA. We can only try to make sense of what we experience and read about. Questions:

1. What other industry makes use of carbon fiber construction in a manner that is similar to bicycle frames, in terms of ply number, methods and stresses? I was once at an F/A-18 crash site, and none of the mangled composite I saw was much thinner than a quarter inch. One of the past presidents of Kestrel who came from aviation said that the bike designers were doing things that any aviation person would say shouldn't work. He was making a point about pioneers, but the statement stands.

2. There have been more than a hundred composite bicycle companies. Where did all these composite designers comes from? We believe that our very modern looking bikes are the result of long experience and standards borrowed from other composite industries. Which ones? There's only so many aerospace companies in the world, and they pay better than bicycle companies do. So where are the people and expertise to both design and test cutting edge designs coming from? Who wrote the finite analysis programs specific to carbon bicycles?

3. Why do we assume that there is extensive testing going on? One always hears that "no company would release an unsafe product". Sure they would, and have since before the industrial revolution. The real question is really whether a lack of testing that results in failures is likely to end up in a losing court case with major damages. Even in cases with a recalled fork (I had a Giant with this), I've never heard of a big bike company losing a class action suit due to failure induced injuries. Have you? So if your company is using the same construction practices as other brands, why institute an expensive test program? The computer model says it is okay, so build it.


People have lots or reasons to be skeptical about composites. We are told that it has nearly 10 times the tensile strength of any bicycle metal, yet the frames are only a small percentage lighter, and are more fragile in handling. We are told that the material has an infinite fatigue life, but lifetime warranties are no longer a standard. And we're told that anecdotally observing the number of failures makes us "haters", usually by people who seem much more emotional about it.

I don't know what's actually going on, but I haven't seen those questions asked before. I think carbon fiber is good for bicycles and other sports gear (some of the first composite bikes built by the people who went on to Kestrel and Aegis made tennis rackets first). I think that an awful lot of testing did go on at one time by those people, but the industry is probably still leaning on that data. I think that all new materials go through an experimental period where the boundaries are tested, and we are still in that period for carbon fiber. Just as a sub-2 pound ti frame ended up being too light, maybe stay diameters and wall thicknesses on composites need to be adjusted back up.

This isn't a denouncement of carbon fiber - it's a discussion. Anyone with insight into the above 3 questions ought to have something valuable to share.

Not bad, only took 3 posts to get the response from who I thought would be second.

Bad mouth their wife but don't go bad mouthin' their bike frame material!!

I would like to know also. Been in the trenches for 25 years..never saw a lot of anything break until Kestrel made their 4000 in late 80s, they all broke.
Fair amount of aluminum, still carbon. Carbon is nice but the market is awash with it, expect some to break.

No carbon fiber in the strictest sense in any aircraft. Boron/carbon blends but it ain't the same as a bicycle.

[oliver1850]

There have always been some failures. I remember my Cannondale dealer telling me my crit frame would eventually crack near the fd mount, as he had seen several of them. This was around 1990. Also had a former pro rider tell me that he had broken several OCLV frames in "normal" use. He still likes those frames, though. We've all seen various steel bike frame failures. I recently saw an old Ti frame on ebay with the seat tube totally broken through at the bb. But you'd have to have access to the warranty history of some outfit like Trek to get a good idea whether the failure rate is more for one material or another, or greater now than previously.

I worked with carbon and various other composites 25 years ago in Indy cars. Our team had a small composites shop. We tested things on the track, and failures did happen. But things change very quickly. Check out the Applied Composites Engineering site. They started out around the time I was involved in Indy cars, and we did some business with them. They are the former parent company of Zipp, and a certified supplier to Bell Helicopter and Gulfstream, among others. I'm sure they are not lacking in the product testing area.

I own steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon bikes. I've never felt that catastrophic failure was imminent when riding any of them. All materials fatigue, and all will fail. But if you really doubt the basic strength of carbon, take a look at the 1984 Michigan 500 crash with Chip Ganassi and Al Unser Jr. Play the youtube video through and see the tub of Ganassi's car up against the guardrail. It's remarkably intact, after a huge impact. I don't think Chip would still be with us without carbon. Later in the race, my car was involved in another crash. On Monday after, I took the tub out and put it in the dumpster. Our driver didn't even get a scratch, but the car was almost completely destroyed.

All that said, more or less in defense of it as a material, and believing it's entirely suitable for bikes, I still prefer metal frames. I know that's partly because I used to have to work with carbon. It's nasty stuff, the dust works its way into your skin, eyes, respiratory system, and is very irritating. This has made me realize that I'm now a retrogrouch. I used to think friction shifters and Cobalto brakes were silly, when there were better things available. Now I'm the silly one.

[AndrewS]

Oldpotatoe,

You run a shop. Do you sell many nicer composite bicycles, and if so do you think the numbers are any different than 20 years ago?

[rice rocket]

Our driver didn't even get a scratch, but the car was almost completely destroyed.
We can swap anecdote after anecdote about this, but everything revolves around factor of safety that manufacturers engineer to.

Guess what? Someone can also make a steel survival cell that'll survive a 250 mph crash, just as easily as someone can make one about a aluminum one or a titanium one or a wooden one. You're not proving anything by doing so, other than someone engineered their solution to survive.

The completed solutions might have different weights though, which is why carbon usually comes out on top when strength to weight is of importance. Carbon allows you to manipulate the final shape how you want it so you can add strength where it's needed and remove it where it's unnecessary.

[oliver1850]

We can swap anecdote after anecdote about this, but everything revolves around factor of safety that manufacturers engineer to.

Guess what? Someone can also make a steel survival cell that'll survive a 250 mph crash, just as easily as someone can make one about a aluminum one or a titanium one or a wooden one. You're not proving anything by doing so, other than someone engineered their solution to survive. The completed solutions might have different weights though, which is why carbon usually comes out on top when strength to weight is of importance.


yes, I agree totally. Carbon's strength to weight ratio is what makes it such a great material for anything where light weight is a priority. My point was just that. A few years earlier, those impacts would have been much more likely to be fatal, because the cars would have been built to the same weight, out of aluminum.

[Charles M]

Actually, Pez, I wasn't comparing the testing of carbon vs. metal. I didn't think any of them are tested that much - steel frames are over a century old and much of their testing was trial and error over that time. When other metals were substituted, the same process occurred, and worked out overtime because metals behave more like each other than different.

Nor am I saying that there is NO testing. But what kind of tests, and written by who under what criteria? Are post minor-impact tests done, for instance?


Clearly, this industry is full of smart people. In the old days those people were either self trained or inherited a legacy of rules of thumb - not engineering degrees. Composites are essentially different than metals in both how they are utilized AND tested in all industries. Bicycles appear to use composites in ways that are unique to that industry.

BS is when you tell someone to stop asking question. Are more bicycle frames breaking or not?



you're just twisting it a bit now after clearly labeling the thread "what really do we know about composites"... Then asking suggestive questions with carbon and composite as the main subject, followed with your lead...




People have lots or reasons to be skeptical about composites....



It's chicken*****... But it may not be trolling.

It may simply be that I was underestimating things in thinking you had a bit of a lack practical knowledge to back up your carbon fears.

Statements like...

Mostly, since hardly any composite mountain bikes are sold any more...

makes me think you have no practical current product knowledge at all...

These companies are not exactly small and the volume of carbon sold on the MTB side isn't either.

http://www.trekbikes.com/images/sections/bikes/mountain_full_suspension_home_2.png
http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Specialized/6562?$Display$
http://www.cannondale.com/usa/usaeng/CannondaleFiles/ProductImages//580_400_5588_sourceImage.jpg
http://www.feltbicycles.com/Resources/ProductPhotos/Bikes/EDICT_LTD_2011_SMALL(1).jpg
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww150/thepathbikeshop/Bikes/2011SantaCruzBlurLTC.jpg
http://www.bmc-racing.com/typo3temp/pics/71db4801db.jpg

And lets remember...

I didn't say anything at all against metal or that metal or carbon are tested differently, in fact I said the testing is the same.

(aside, if you asked me for a dream mtb it would be a YBB rear ended Ti bike with lefty fork...)



My point was that this seems like another bull***** troll thread suggesting, via questions, that carbon isn't properly tested or developed or...



I love metal

I would have no problem at all if the last bike I ever had were custom steel or Ti or carbon.


My point is chicken***** material bashing is chicken***** material bashing... Trying to run people in circles bashing in question form is just that much more chicken*****.




...and apologies all for being cranky, but I don't bother with a lot of finesse when cleaning out the cyber gutter. Apologies as well Andrew. I like a lot of what you post here and LOVE a lot of what you bring up. I wouldn't sit for steel hate any more than carbo, but then you just don't see carbon guys so threatened by other materials they have to cry about it.

[AndrewS]

Thanks for the update on carbon vis MTBs, Pez. I hadn't been following them lately.

I don't think you can call me thoughtful and a chicken**** basher at the same time. There's an interrupt in there somewhere. I don't think everything carbon is suspect and I use carbon forks.


The questions I posed are based on a premise that everyone seems to be avoiding, including you: Are we seeing higher failure rates in some of these bicycles?

You don't comment on that, nor on how the industry figured out it was okay to make bikes the way they do, now. But you do a good job making it sound like I'm doing nothing more than putting a stick in a hornet's nest.

There's a couple of really easy ways of shutting this thread down:
1. Someone with inside knowledge of a composite bike firm's warranty rate could throw out some comparison numbers. Cervelo and Trek would be really good ones to hear from, since they seem to get a lot of the complaints.

2. Draw a comparison to another composite product that is made and performs similarly. I'm from the aviation world - that isn't it. And tennis rackets are solid.

So my premise could be right or wrong, and my questions might miss the mark. But I'm no "hater", since I have owned and ridden all sorts of materials. And your evangelism doesn't particularly want to make me shut up. In fact, the more you shout this down, the more interested I become. You inspire me, Pez. :)

[jlwdm]

Where have you guys been hiding? The material does not matter. The only thing that matters on a frame is the weight.

This was confirmed for me at a friend's house in Scottsdale last Spring. My friend and his wife had a couple from San Diego staying with them and the husband did some bike riding. He asked me what kind of bike I rode - Serotta did not mean anything to him. Then he went to the final question - how much does your bike weigh? No questions about what kind of riding I do.

Jeff

[dekindy]

With the vast exchange of information between consumers today it is my opinion that manufacturers are being held to a higher standard than ever and that if there were a statistically significant rise in the number of frame failures now versus historical and between materials, it would be obvious. So I conclude that failure rates now are at least equal to or less than historical numbers. It would be comforting to have the vast statistical information available on some products, like automobiles, but certainly not necessary. I am more worried about being killed by a terrorist or run over while riding my bicycle 4,000+ miles per year on the highway than the F3 fork or carbon seat stays on my Serotta Legend failing or becoming unbonded.

[rugbysecondrow]

Your questions are not legitimate ones. I doubt anybody would be able to answer them in a way you would find sufficient. It seems you are looking for a fight and trying to stir **** up...looks like you have succeeded. Fine job. :beer:

[AndrewS]

Your questions are not legitimate ones. I doubt anybody would be able to answer them in a way you would find sufficient. It seems you are looking for a fight and trying to stir **** up...looks like you have succeeded. Fine job. :beer:
I'm sorry this thread doesn't provide you with the opportunity to post semi-nude pictures of women. Better luck next time in your search for quality discussion.

[HenryA]

AndrewS did pose some valid questions but instead of answers he got vomited on. I can only suppose that it is because the responders can't answer the questions adequately.

Carbon fiber makes good bike frames and bad bike frames - its up to the builder - just like any other material. But there is also the fact that all currently used frame materials have positive and negative characteristics that should be used to determine their best use.

If any of you carbon lovers can tell us all about the fibers and resins used in your favorite then go ahead. The truth, I suspect, is that 99.99% of you don't have the faintest idea what's really in that frame or how its put together.

But entertain us anyway.

[rugbysecondrow]

AndrewS did pose some valid questions but instead of answers he got vomited on. I can only suppose that it is because the responders can't answer the questions adequately.

Carbon fiber makes good bike frames and bad bike frames - its up to the builder - just like any other material. But there is also the fact that all currently used frame materials have positive and negative characteristics that should be used to determine their best use.

If any of you carbon lovers can tell us all about the fibers and resins used in your favorite then go ahead. The truth, I suspect, is that 99.99% of you don't have the faintest idea what's really in that frame or how its put together.

But entertain us anyway.
What valid question's'? If they are legit then you take as stab at answering them. Some people attempted to answer them, but are met with only more questions. It is called an agenda.

I also don't seem to follow your point about 99.99% of us knowing what is in or not in a carbon frame...I doubt that same percentage can quote the metalergy of various TI or Steel frames, but that is not the point you wanted to make, is it.

It seems that your last sentence is correct, entertainment and not discussion is the point of this thread.

With that in mind, I am going to make this thread worth viewing...

Anybody need a good mechanic?

[rugbysecondrow]

I'm sorry this thread doesn't provide you with the opportunity to post semi-nude pictures of women. Better luck next time in your search for quality discussion.

Maybe we can all stop fighting and find this lady some carbon bars that won't rust...call it Public Service.

[rice rocket]

If any of you carbon lovers can tell us all about the fibers and resins used in your favorite then go ahead. The truth, I suspect, is that 99.99% of you don't have the faintest idea what's really in that frame or how its put together.

But entertain us anyway.
Serious? We all need degrees in carbon fiber (does that even exist?) to own a bike?

Tell us about steel alloys and titanium alloys, Mr. Metallurgist.


No, Wikipedia is not a valid source.

[Louis]

This is about as silly as it can get.

What exactly is known about metals that is not known about composites? Mechanical properties? Known or knowable. Fatigue properties? Known or knowable. Damping properties? Known or knowable. Sensitivity to UV or contaminants? Known or knowable. Sensitivity to temperature? Known or knowable. I could continue. Just because something is anisotropic and the layman is not familiar with the properties does not mean that it is unknowable.

I don't know what model F-18 you saw, but what exactly do the design decisions made on a high-performance Navy aircraft have in common with a bicycle? Have you ever seen the landing gear on an F-18? It's just a tad beefier than the wheels and fork / rear triangle on a bike. So what does that tell us? Maybe my Mavic OP's are too wimpy...

[AndrewS]

This is about as silly as it can get.

What exactly is known about metals that is not known about composites? Mechanical properties? Known or knowable. Fatigue properties? Known or knowable. Damping properties? Known or knowable. Sensitivity to UV or contaminants? Known or knowable. Sensitivity to temperature? Known or knowable. I could continue. Just because something is anisotropic and the layman is not familiar with the properties does not mean that it is unknowable.

I don't know what model F-18 you saw, but what exactly do the design decisions made on a high-performance Navy aircraft have in common with a bicycle? Have you ever seen the landing gear on an F-18? It's just a tad beefier than the wheels and fork / rear triangle on a bike. So what does that tell us? Maybe my Mavic OP's are too wimpy...
You make my point. Aviation does not use composites like the bicycle industry has chosen to. Who taught the bicycle experts to use carbon fiber like they do? Aviation is one of the only real industries that have expertise in composites.

[Louis]

You make my point. Aviation does not use composites like the bicycle industry has chosen to. Who taught the bicycle experts to use carbon fiber like they do? Aviation is one of the only real industries that have expertise in composites.

You're setting the bar a bit high if you expect bike frame manufacturers to design and test to even a fraction of the detail used by aircraft manufacturers. I don't think that's a fair comparison, whether you're talking composite or metal bike frames - few of us could afford a bike that was designed, analyzed and tested to the criteria used in the civilian or military aircraft industry.

[EDS]

You make my point. Aviation does not use composites like the bicycle industry has chosen to. Who taught the bicycle experts to use carbon fiber like they do? Aviation is one of the only real industries that have expertise in composites.

How do you figure that bicycle companies to not have expertise in composites? Tons of manufacturers have been making frames using carbon for over a decade and probably have learned a little along the way. Do you think Trek has not done any testing or learned anything since building their first carbon fiber bike?

Who taught the aviation experts to use carbon fiber like they do?

[AndrewS]

You're setting the bar a bit high if you expect bike frame manufacturers to design and test to even a fraction of the detail used by aircraft manufacturers. I don't think that's a fair comparison, whether you're talking composite or metal bike frames - few of us could afford a bike that was designed, analyzed and tested to the criteria used in the civilian or military aircraft industry.
I agree, but the bike industry has put itself in rather fresh territory.

You can either borrow mature technology from elsewhere, or develop it yourself. If you are engaged in rapid development and attempting to make noticeable reductions in weight on every new model, you have an increased responsibility to know exactly what is going on. Trek made almost no changes to the OCLV frame between 1992 and 2005. Now bikes get lighter every year. How did this happen, exactly?

[AndrewS]

How do you figure that bicycle companies to not have expertise in composites? Tons of manufacturers have been making frames using carbon for over a decade and probably have learned a little along the way. Do you think Trek has not done any testing or learned anything since building their first carbon fiber bike?

Who taught the aviation experts to use carbon fiber like they do?
The aviation industry has worked very hard at this, and used some of the most extensive and expensive testing procedures that exist anywhere. We are talking about the people that broke the sound barrier, went to the moon and are paid by the largest military spending on earth. Despite that, the history of composites includes several notable aviation failures. Airframes that needed to be recalled, Rolls Royce engine programs that were abandoned.

In contrast, the bicycle industry has done very well for itself. Pretty good considering the contrast you rightly make.

[Lifelover]

No. More frames (percentage wise) are not breaking. The internet just allows you to hear about damn near everyone that does.

And *** do you mean about the bike industry using carbon fiber in a different manner than anyone else?

They use it to make a lighter, stronger structure. How is that different. Of course a top tube is thinner than a Fn airplane wing.

Whatever, clearly you have decided it is your time to be the forum expert. Have at it.

[AndrewS]

No. More frames (percentage wise) are not breaking. The internet just allows you to hear about damn near everyone that does.

And *** do you mean about the bike industry using carbon fiber in a different manner than anyone else?

They use it to make a lighter, stronger structure. How is that different. Of course a top tube is thinner than a Fn airplane wing.

Whatever, clearly you have decided it is your time to be the forum expert. Have at it.
How thin is too thin? More specifically, what is the minimum number of plys for a stable structure?
Where do you get your information about failure rates?

Why does your point have so little merit that you can't make it without an insult?

[rwsaunders]

I've always found Calfee's site to be quite informative regarding all things carbon fiber.

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm

[AndrewS]

I've always found Calfee's site to be quite informative regarding all things carbon fiber.

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm
I like that site, too. When I posted a thread about it I was told the information is hopelessly out of date. Here's another similar one:
http://www.aegisbicycles.com/about.html

[dd74]

I agree, but the bike industry has put itself in rather fresh territory.
How fresh? I've experienced leaps and bounds in performance and safety between my first carbon bike, a Peugeot PY10fc, and now my latest, which is a Ridley Orion. Three-and-a-half decades separate these two frames.

The Peugeot was simply dangerous. It's flex from glued carbon tubes was so horrendous, to descend any road with curves was a suicide mission, as well as sprinting to catch a yellow light. Often times it felt that frame was close to some sort of failure.

The Ridley, maybe because of its monocoque design or the amount of fibers in the frame, truly does ride like a metal frame - actually more like Ti than steel as carbon hasn't yet learned to provide that steel bounciness. I grant that the bike's overall light weight, much of that coming from the frame and its stiffness, might get an unknowing rider into trouble in curvy downhills, but honestly, it tracks as well as any non-carbon bike I've had.

I have to believe the later carbon bikes are as safe within their element as are the latest cars, both of which are much safer than one or two decades ago. If not on the level sheer mass of carbon's popularity, lawyers and threatened lawsuits have put further pressure on the industry (check those lawyer tabs on carbon forks).

The only time I've seen a cracked and/or broken carbon frame is one that did so after colliding with something else - a car, a curb, a wall, a lamppost. The frame did not destroy on its own merits of being ridden, even when ridden hard. What I'm more worried about with carbon is a deep scratch from a rock or car part, etc, striking and cutting the frame, compromising its integrity. That, and the overall durability of carbon. That's when I start to consider steel or Ti.

[CaptStash]

2. Draw a comparison to another composite product that is made and performs similarly. I'm from the aviation world - that isn't it. And tennis rackets are solid.

So my premise could be right or wrong, and my questions might miss the mark. But I'm no "hater", since I have owned and ridden all sorts of materials. And your evangelism doesn't particularly want to make me shut up. In fact, the more you shout this down, the more interested I become. You inspire me, Pez. :)

Other industries using carbon fiber and pushing the limit like cycling does:

Sailing = Carbon fiber spars and hulls.
Rowing shell builders (Van Dusen introduced a carbon fiber rigger in the late 70's that was produced using a sock weaving machine). My single is from way back in 1992, is 26 ft. long and weighs all 28 pounds (with aluminum wing rigger).
Rowing oar builders (Concept II was building carbon fiber oars in the early 80's). The ultralight oars available today have a structure that is very similar to the tubes used in some lugged carbon bikes (like the Meivici).
And last but not least, the local guys from Seattle who are building a whole wide bodies airplane out of carbon fiber. 787 anyone?

Andrew, I do understand your question: "Is there a high failure rate on high end carbon frames?" Maybe. Certainly no manufacturer is going to admit to that. But it is a self limiting phenomena. You can't continue to make a product that fails and stay in business. I do know that one of the reasons builders moved away from scandium (which can built almost as light as carbon - my scandium frame weighs 1100 grams) was a high failure rate.

It's certainly reasonable to assume that an 800 gram carbon frame is likely to be a bit more fragile than a 1200 gram frame. At some point you reach a limit until new materials allow you to go further (carbon nano-tubes anyone?). At the end of the day though, I guess I just don't understand what you are driving at. What is your concern, that bikes are catastrophically failing underneath people, like the infamous Rivendell exploding carbon forks?

CaptStash....

[rice rocket]

How thin is too thin? More specifically, what is the minimum number of plys for a stable structure?

I don't even understand what you're getting at here.

You can make 20-ply unidirection high modulus fiber be weaker in certain loading conditions than 2-ply layup of low grade 3k woven fiber if you wanted. It's not just the material, it's the layup and the process.

You're clearly fishing for a reaction here, I just don't know what...

[AndrewS]

I don't even understand what you're getting at here.

You can make 20-ply unidirection high modulus fiber be weaker in certain loading conditions than 2-ply layup of low grade 3k woven fiber if you wanted. It's not just the material, it's the layup and the process.

You're clearly fishing for a reaction here, I just don't know what...
Well, it seems like sometimes carbon bikes experience tube failures where the crack completely severs the tube. If we assume good process, could that type of failure have anything to do with the small number of alternating layers (as compared to something like a wing lay up) allowing cracking to propagate faster? And could thin walls lack of crush resistance contribute to failures due to seemingly inconsequential impacts?

Engineering doesn't always scale. A ten foot long tube that's 20 layers thick might not serve as a good model for a two foot tube that's 4 layers thick. But if your assumptions about composite design come from larger scale devices, you may not get the same results by scaling down. This is similar to the fact that you wouldn't build a tower crane out of two huge tubes, and we don't (normally) use lattice construction for the elements of a bicycle.

[spartacus]

What I'm more worried about with carbon is a deep scratch from a rock or car part, etc, striking and cutting the frame, compromising its integrity. That, and the overall durability of carbon. That's when I start to consider steel or Ti.


Me too.

[rice rocket]

Well, it seems like sometimes carbon bikes experience tube failures where the crack completely severs the tube. If we assume good process, could that type of failure have anything to do with the small number of alternating layers (as compared to something like a wing lay up) allowing cracking to propagate faster? And could thin walls lack of crush resistance contribute to failures due to seemingly inconsequential impacts?

Engineering doesn't always scale. A ten foot long tube that's 20 layers thick might not serve as a good model for a two foot tube that's 4 layers thick. But if your assumptions about composite design come from larger scale devices, you may not get the same results by scaling down. This is similar to the fact that you wouldn't build a tower crane out of two huge tubes, and we don't (normally) use lattice construction for the elements of a bicycle.
The crack doesn't sever the tube, its the force that created the crack in the first place acting on a weakened tube that causes it to break. Guess what? Same thing happens in aluminum/steel/your favorite metal.

It has NOTHING to do with the number of layers, it has EVERYTHING to do with factors of safety.

I can make a boat out of a 10 layers of 24k tow woven fibers, or I can make one out of 60 layers of 1k tow. I can use unidirectional fibers or I can use woven fibers. I can use 2:1 fiber to resin ratio, or I can be forced to use a .7:1. I can use different resins with vary elasticities. All these things factor into the final strength and yield characteristics of the finished product.

Okay so I slightly exaggerated, because the matrix material in 20 layers itself would probably be strong enough to withstand the "unaccounted for" forces.

Regardless, I don't think you understand the material enough to make these blanket statements you're grasping for. Are you looking for a safer bike? The answer is what it's always been since the beginning of time, add more material.

[R2D2]

I agree, but the bike industry has put itself in rather fresh territory.

You can either borrow mature technology from elsewhere, or develop it yourself. If you are engaged in rapid development and attempting to make noticeable reductions in weight on every new model, you have an increased responsibility to know exactly what is going on. Trek made almost no changes to the OCLV frame between 1992 and 2005. Now bikes get lighter every year. How did this happen, exactly?

You could say the same for Ti tubing and Stainless Steel tubing. And stainless tubing had a pretty bad track record on "slipping" out of lugs.
And Ti has been hydro formed for a few years now. So shouldn't the same questions apply to these new materials and techniques also?
The new materials aren't used in the same manner as aerospace, for example, because they aren't contructing bicycle frames.
For another example, a lot of cheaper Ti came from Russian nuclear reactor plumbing.
So if we are going to examine more modern materials let's look at all of them.

[Lifelover]

How thin is too thin? More specifically, what is the minimum number of plys for a stable structure?
Where do you get your information about failure rates?

Why does your point have so little merit that you can't make it without an insult?

I concede. You are right. Everyone should do as you say. The world would be better place. I apologize for ever questioning you.

[rugbysecondrow]

...

[oldpotatoe]

Oldpotatoe,

You run a shop. Do you sell many nicer composite bicycles, and if so do you think the numbers are any different than 20 years ago?

Well. we are a little different in that we start with a fit, order a frame and build it here. No 'bikesorwheelsouttaboxes'. We sell mostly metal(steel/ti) but have sold carbon in the past(Calfee, Look, Colnago) and all the carbons have had warranty issues. I have not had to warranty a Waterford/Gunnar since I have sold them(10 years). I have seen 2 Moots for warranty but both were aluminum rear ends for full sus MTB frames.

'Seems' like more carbon is breaking but that may be influenced by my personal feelings about carbon(don't really like it, have owned it, sold it, now have steel and Ti, plus I see the market awash with carbon). Carbon is viewed as some sort of miracle material but like all of them, have pluses and minuses.

[flydhest]

There's a couple of really easy ways of shutting this thread down:


There's another one, which is for the civility to dry up in the discussion. Interesting topic, but various people in this thread have started to toe the line of friendliness.
(signed, your friendly neighborhood moderator)

[Lifelover]

.... but have sold carbon in the past(Calfee, Look, Colnago) and all the carbons have had warranty issues.......


Every single Carbon Fiber frame has had warranty issues?

I should have no reason to question this but it seems like an over statement at least.

[54ny77]

Most of the time I prefer spaghetti, but sometimes I like to mix it up with mostaccioli or rotini.

[Charles M]

You make my point. Aviation does not use composites like the bicycle industry has chosen to. Who taught the bicycle experts to use carbon fiber like they do? Aviation is one of the only real industries that have expertise in composites.


Actually composite engineering is in a lot of industry... And a lot of the same practices cross over between aerospace, defense, motor sport and cycling.


Composite tech in Bikes is very frequently handled by the same engineers as handle aerospace and motor sport. A great example of that would be Indianapolis / speedway Indiana, where within a couple of blocks, the composites facilities of Cycling, defense, aerospace and motorsport are combined and both the engineers and production labor for those companies are in and out of each others doors very frequently on contract or salary basis when one company gets busy and another gets slow...


I can understand you being "from" the aviation industry if you don’t see how a "Composite" by definition would be something that can be made to apply well to a broad range of uses...


An example of a guy that is actually successfull and still in aviation is the person in charge of the design and manufacturing at MadFiber wheels... He's been at Boeing for a long time and still teaches composites engineering.




But all of this boils down.

How thin is too thin? More specifically, what is the minimum number of plys for a stable structure?


This exceptionally stupid question sums up what you're really doing here...

Of course nobody can answer your question because you don't define what the structure is. But you're very clearly not looking for answers


You want to make statements in the form of overly general questions and then in typical troll fashion, you'll ignore any info and just redirect to keep running this around...


I'm done with this thread and simply going to the user control panel (User CP) and clicking the buddy / ignore list button and adding AndrewS... Simple. ;)

[auto_rock]

...

[William]

http://assets.knowyourmeme.com/i/6512/original/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

;)

[rugbysecondrow]

But you're very clearly not looking for answers


You want to make statements in the form of overly general questions and then in typical troll fashion, you'll ignore any info and just redirect to keep running this around...


I'm done with this thread and simply going to the user control panel (User CP) and clicking the buddy / ignore list button and adding AndrewS... Simple. ;)


100% agree. Well put...better than what I wrote so I deleted mine.

[oldpotatoe]

Every single Carbon Fiber frame has had warranty issues?

I should have no reason to question this but it seems like an over statement at least.

Well, don't know about the Giants sold down the street. All three brands I sold, Calfee, Look, Colnago-carbons I sold had warranty returns. Not really all of them(obvious) but Dragonfly-delaminated down tube, Tetra-cracked seat tube, head tube, Colnago-busted BB shell, some others.

[BCS]

.
I'm done with this thread and simply going to the user control panel (User CP) and clicking the buddy / ignore list button and adding AndrewS... Simple. ;)


You held out for longer than I expected :D

[BillG]

An example of a guy that is actually successfull and still in aviation is the person in charge of the design and manufacturing at MadFiber wheels... He's been at Boeing for a long time and still teaches composites engineering.


Have you had a chance to ride a set of MadFiber wheels?

[benb]

Maybe what Andrew wants to ask but couldn't or wouldn't is do we really believe the bike companies are actually valuing durability & safety enough.

The market is telling them to make it as light as possible, and there is no counteracting force that is stopping them from making it dangerously light.

That's very different from aviation, boating, military, auto racing, etc.. where the perceived risks and liabilities are higher, and regulations are keeping dangerous designs in check. All you've got in bicycling is the CPSC right? Do you trust them?

I personally want to ride a conservatively built bike that I trust to be strong. I have two counteracting fears with bicycles:

- The small shop, these guys usually use conservative designs, so you'd hope their bikes are safe. But if they're using a custom geometry or trying to experiment with light tubes I doubt very many of them are qualified to do the engineering to prove their design personally, they are too small & don't necessarily have the money to employ or consult with an engineer.

- The giant company, these guys employ engineers who can prove their designs, but my fear is management/sales are driving the process, and the engineer is told light weight is the most important factor and if he voices durability/safety concerns he just gets shouted down. (Which is something every engineer is familiar with.. if there is no opposing force for safety, management/sales will always force the hand to make more $$)

I don't think either of these cases is any different for carbon then any other material, I just think carbon gets the most fear because:

- It is the hot material
- Bike production is using different models then it did in decades past, now everything is outsourced, etc..
- The light is right mantra has gotten more out of control then in the past?
- The bike industry is affected by the common "next quarters result as opposed to long term success" that is seen across many businesses these days

Even if a company is doing quality testing on their prototypes, what is the QA process that they use to test the production frames which just show up on a boat from China? Don't kid me and say bike companies are doing anything particularly fancy to ensure each bike is coming off the line within specs like Boeing or an F1 chassis manufacturer is doing.

I don't think it's ridiculous for Andrew to ask these questions.. all we get from most bike companies is marketing fluff. I don't think it's outrageous to want to know as bicycling is an inherently dangerous activity.

I think the mere fact that they release flexy bikes and then revise them in later years to fix the issues shows they are operating in a much shakier fashion then other composite industries. If an airplane or race car is not stiff enough you think they sell it and fix it next year? No they delay the product and fix it before release! (And I'm thinking of the early aluminum bikes here too)

It's not about design specifics.. it's about wanting to know where safety is being placed in the grand scheme of priorities.

[ergott]

Well, don't know about the Giants sold down the street. All three brands I sold, Calfee, Look, Colnago-carbons I sold had warranty returns. Not really all of them(obvious) but Dragonfly-delaminated down tube, Tetra-cracked seat tube, head tube, Colnago-busted BB shell, some others.

Every single material has had warranty issues. It has nothing to do with the material. Designers will push the limits of the material with carbon because that's where the money is. When steel was the only option, there were plenty of scary frames that pushed the limits and failed.

[BengeBoy]

List of things I'm worried about this morning:

1. Distracted drivers killing me while I'm riding my bike to work.
2. Whether my furnace will get fixed or not.
3. Why is my son (at college) not answering my emails?
4. Do they still sell Four Loko at my son's college campus?
5. Where did I leave my watch?
6. Global warming.
7. I'm too fat.
8. Running late, again.
9. Really hope Fernando Alonso doesn't win the F1 championship this year, but I'm not sure who I like more.
10. Spanish beef. Might ruin my racing career.
11. Damn, I haven't updated my will for 15 years.
12. When was the last time I saw the dentist?
13. I'm not walking my dog nearly enough.
14. I ought to get my email inbox down below 100 unanswered emails this morning.
....
101. The folks who made my bike frame haven't noticed that they live in the most litigious era in human history and are cutting corners on its construction.

[rice rocket]

Alonso is a pompous ass, but so are all F1 drivers. ;)

I actually hope Alonso wins, because it'll force Red Bull to re-evaluate their losing proposition. They should've thrown their weight behind Webber months ago, but Vettel is Horner's golden boy. Button is lucky Ron Dennis stepped down as team principal, because he woulda been thrown under the bus at McLaren to support Hamilton (or well, he probably wouldn't have joined the team if Dennis was still running the ship).

[rugbysecondrow]

List of things I'm worried about this morning:

1. Distracted drivers killing me while I'm riding my bike to work.
2. Whether my furnace will get fixed or not.
3. Why is my son (at college) not answering my emails?
4. Do they still sell Four Loko at my son's college campus?
5. Where did I leave my watch?
6. Global warming.
7. I'm too fat.
8. Running late, again.
9. Really hope Fernando Alonso doesn't win the F1 championship this year, but I'm not sure who I like more.
10. Spanish beef. Might ruin my racing career.
11. Damn, I haven't updated my will for 15 years.
12. When was the last time I saw the dentist?
13. I'm not walking my dog nearly enough.
14. I ought to get my email inbox down below 100 unanswered emails this morning.
....
101. The folks who made my bike frame haven't noticed that they live in the most litigious era in human history and are cutting corners on its construction.

Awesome...Maybe your son has some hot lady friend(s) he is entertaining. :)

I often think I am not walking my dog enough, then when I walk the dog I think I am not playing with my kids enough, when I am playing with my kids I think I should do this more often (which is also funny because I play with them all the time everyday). When I ride, I get excited that I might be able ride with them someday, but I don't feel anything lacking... Funny how life works.

[fiamme red]

12. When was the last time I saw the dentist?Thanks for reminding me. I'm going to schedule a check-up later today. :)

[JMerring]

Alonso is a pompous ass, but so are all F1 drivers. ;)


why do you think that? i didn't like him when he was with renault but have since come around; same with rafa. i'm generally no fan of spanish athletes but both alonso and rafa actually seem like nice guys. so too massa, button and rubens. schumey was pompous but then he kind of had a right to be, what with being the greatest of all time and all; don't understand why he unretired, tho. it has been another great f1 season.

[DRB]

..."I'm done with this thread and simply going to the user control panel (User CP) and clicking the buddy / ignore list button".

That's what I was looking for.

[rice rocket]

why do you think that? i didn't like him when he was with renault but have since come around; same with rafa. i'm generally no fan of spanish athletes but both alonso and rafa actually seem like nice guys. so too massa, button and rubens. schumey was pompous but then he kind of had a right to be, what with being the greatest of all time and all; don't understand why he unretired, tho. it has been another great f1 season.
That's true, he's definitely matured as a person.

That said, I wouldn't think any F1 driver would hesitate to say they are the best driver on the grid. They all have their idols, whether its Senna, James Hunt, Jim Clark, etc...but they'll always think they're the best, and the only reason they're not on top is because of and uncompetitive car or some other unfortunate series of events.

But I agree, great season. We need more wet races. :D

[BCS]

List of things I'm worried about this morning:

1. Distracted drivers killing me while I'm riding my bike to work.
2. Whether my furnace will get fixed or not.
3. Why is my son (at college) not answering my emails?
4. Do they still sell Four Loko at my son's college campus?
5. Where did I leave my watch?
6. Global warming.
7. I'm too fat.
8. Running late, again.
9. Really hope Fernando Alonso doesn't win the F1 championship this year, but I'm not sure who I like more.
10. Spanish beef. Might ruin my racing career.
11. Damn, I haven't updated my will for 15 years.
12. When was the last time I saw the dentist?
13. I'm not walking my dog nearly enough.
14. I ought to get my email inbox down below 100 unanswered emails this morning.
....
101. The folks who made my bike frame haven't noticed that they live in the most litigious era in human history and are cutting corners on its construction.
Lmao. post of the day.

[AndrewS]

Apologies as well Andrew. I like a lot of what you post here and LOVE a lot of what you bring up.
I'm done with this thread and simply going to the user control panel (User CP) and clicking the buddy / ignore list button and adding AndrewS... Simple.
So much passion. It is amazing how insulted people can get by having a conversation over stuff. Especially in a conversation that some people here find interesting and with merit.

I wrote this because I visit another general cycling board that has a much wider ridership than this one, and posts about warranty concerns are common. They come with pictures, reference specific people at well known bike stores and the customer service side of the affected companies. There was enough there to make me start wondering if there were patterns, and want to talk about it with better informed and more mature people.

That was a fail. The readership of this board has a culture that accepts no potential criticism of products and will defend that attitude with insulting language that wouldn't be acceptable on my forums. Maybe this is a feature that keeps the board subject matter from becoming contentious (as members, instead of topics are made unwelcome), maybe it is out of some misplaced fear of insulting our host.

I don't pretend to be an expert on many things. But I like to find out stuff, and asking questions, being given information and changing my mind are all parts of that process. I learned and am now able to do some amazing things by asking (sometimes dumb) questions. This would have been no different, if the people here were actually willing to share what they know, rather than just their contempt.

[rice rocket]

Awesome...Maybe your son has some hot lady friend(s) he is entertaining. :)

I often think I am not walking my dog enough, then when I walk the dog I think I am not playing with my kids enough, when I am playing with my kids I think I should do this more often (which is also funny because I play with them all the time everyday). When I ride, I get excited that I might be able ride with them someday, but I don't feel anything lacking... Funny how life works.
Get your kids on some mountain/cross bikes, go find a park, and lead your dog around. :) Your dog might like the change of pace (although that's hard to say without knowing the age of your dog).

That's my plan anyways...whenever I finish this cross bike, except, I have no kids...but hopefully my g/f will join me on some of these trips.

[rugbysecondrow]

So much passion. It is amazing how insulted people can get by having a conversation over stuff. Especially in a conversation that some people here find interesting and with merit.

I wrote this because I visit another general cycling board that has a much wider ridership than this one, and posts about warranty concerns are common. They come with pictures, reference specific people at well known bike stores and the customer service side of the affected companies. There was enough there to make me start wondering if there were patterns, and want to talk about it with better informed and more mature people.

That was a fail. The readership of this board has a culture that accepts no potential criticism of products and will defend that attitude with insulting language that wouldn't be acceptable on my forums. Maybe this is a feature that keeps the board subject matter from becoming contentious (as members, instead of topics are made unwelcome), maybe it is out of some misplaced fear of insulting our host.

I don't pretend to be an expert on many things. But I like to find out stuff, and asking questions, being given information and changing my mind are all parts of that process. I learned and am now able to do some amazing things by asking (sometimes dumb) questions. This would have been no different, if the people here were actually willing to share what they know, rather than just their contempt.

So you came here with an agenda, disquised it as questions, we saw through that and called you on it and now we are the dicks for doing so? Did you ever think it is your tactic and the disengenuine post rather than your topic that got rubbed people wrong? I think you know that, did it intentionally and are now just playing the victim.

:beer:

[rice rocket]

http://imgur.com/IUp0p.jpg

[54ny77]

http://www.wavlist.com/movies/317/ofsp-dohere.wav

[rugbysecondrow]

Get your kids on some mountain/cross bikes, go find a park, and lead your dog around. :) Your dog might like the change of pace (although that's hard to say without knowing the age of your dog).

That's my plan anyways...whenever I finish this cross bike, except, I have no kids...but hopefully my g/f will join me on some of these trips.

I take my 4 year old in the trailer and I have a 13 month old that likes to ride the Ibert. My wife likes to ride some too, so we do some family excursions which is nice, but it is a production getting out of the house sometimes. I normally get out before they wake up or while they are having afternoon quiet time...a good compromise for all. :beer:

[rice rocket]

Haha, yeah totally understand. I remember the production it used to be to get 4 bikes and equipment to and from places when I was a child.

It made for cute pictures though. :)

[AndrewS]

So you came here with an agenda, disquised it as questions, we saw through that and called you on it and now we are the dicks for doing so? Did you ever think it is your tactic and the disengenuine post rather than your topic that got rubbed people wrong? I think you know that, did it intentionally and are now just playing the victim.

:beer:
Agenda? You mean to find out if there was a discernable pattern or merit to claims that some (not all) brands were getting dangerous? Yeah, you saw right through that. Probably because I said so.

You know where the Ignore button is Rugby. Please use it. I'm so tired of reading your sexist posts and frat boy attacks on everything including classifieds. You bring no value to this board, unless the use of the :beer: button is considered useful.

[rugbysecondrow]

Haha, yeah totally understand. I remember the production it used to be to get 4 bikes and equipment to and from places when I was a child.

It made for cute pictures though. :)

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=80405&highlight=trailer

If you scroll part way down, you can see my setup. I don't know if other Dad's feel like this, but I often feel like a Sherpa.

[rice rocket]

Hope it's flat out there, I couldn't manage a singlespeed w/ 20% grades that exist all around my house.

My friend just crashed his bike 2 weeks ago with kid in tow. He said it was slow, but enough to break his bars and bend a wheel. Flipped the trailer, kid landed on his noggin. Both are totally fine, but made me reconsider bike trailers w/ precious cargo. Not sure that's any safer than a 4 year old on a bike though...

[flydhest]

OK, contentiousness is officially out of hand. Rugby and rice rocket, please start another thread on trailers, I'm actually rather curious to learn more.

Everyone else, carbon as a material is a wonderful topic, but this thread has run its course.

[rugbysecondrow]

Hope it's flat out there, I couldn't manage a singlespeed w/ 20% grades that exist all around my house.

My friend just crashed his bike 2 weeks ago with kid in tow. He said it was slow, but enough to break his bars and blue a wheel. Flipped the trailer, kid landed on his noggin. Both are totally fine, but made me reconsider bike trailers w/ precious cargo. Not sure that's any safer than a 4 year old on a bike though...

Agreed. I ride on the path where there are some inclines, but no real hills. My hood has a few and on they way to the path there are some, but nothing too great. I don't ride up the steep 18% grades we have with them.

The SS works well, just get up and pedal. I like having it be simple plus it is on a couplered bike so it all breaks down real well for trips.

I have a friend who thinks I am stupid for taking the trailer on the bike path which crosses some traffic, but in the nex breath wants to teach his daughter how to ride so she can come out...I would like to do both but I think they have equal, albeit varying, risks.

Thanks