bustedcarbon.com

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 28, 2009
64
0
0
Yet the number of carbon fames increases if is not taking over all other materials? Makes you feel odd doesn't it.
it would only be odd if durability or impact resistance was their primary concern. I would love a carbon fiber frame but I would hate to drop one.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
Zigster said:
it would only be odd if durability or impact resistance was their primary concern. I would love a carbon fiber frame but I would hate to drop one.
I've dropped mine with no issues, heck I even skidded one across a street and got up to ride again, but my right side was way worse than the bike. They are not as fragile as people say they are. Sure if you hit it with a sledge hammer you are bound to break it but then again who's going to hit it with a sledge hammer. All human made products will fail at one point or another, most due to incorrect use or accident. Just look at the Formula 1 race cars, they're mostly all carbon now yet they go over 200 mph and stay in one piece, well till they ram into a wall or each other.

In closing, would you rather the bike break/fail/crack or you? If the bike can take up some of the energy when it is crashed and fail catastrophically and not you well you can always buy another bike. These are some of the testing and approval the UCI is trying to do at the Pro level to improve safety and it will eventually trickle down to us. Some of us have seen those old wheels that were so tough that if you hit something head on you'd be bounced back with it, not a good thing. Instead a wheel that collapses or fails and takes some of that energy so you don't end up being tossed back into the race field or traffic! So if carbon fails catastrophically it means it is eating up some of the energy that instead you'd be eating up with your body, not a good thing. Future frames if done right will help lessen human injury. Sure if you jump off or are tossed off the bike things are different but you can't plan for every possible accident. Its a start people, don't be scared of equipment breaking but be scared of your body breaking. Things to consider and ponder a bit before making a snap judgement.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,703
0
0
ElChingon said:
............don't be scared of equipment breaking but be scared of your body breaking.
You ever have a carbon sliver? I have from cutting my ski poles, painful as all get out! Saw a friend of mine get caught in a pile-up on the track, his frame shattered and a couple guys had to hold him down while they pulled a 3 inch carbon sliver out of his leg, sounded like he was giving birth. :eek:
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
You ever have a carbon sliver? I have from cutting my ski poles, painful as all get out! Saw a friend of mine get caught in a pile-up on the track, his frame shattered and a couple guys had to hold him down while they pulled a 3 inch carbon sliver out of his leg, sounded like he was giving birth. :eek:
Yes, sanding down a carbon part that had its paint chipped off, it got in through my skin on my fingers faster than a surgical razor blade. I cut part of my skin off to make sure it was all out, no sense in risking it as I felt little pin ***, but not after removing some of that rough skin in that area. I've done the same thing after a grinder session without gloves or wood working. Live and learn.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
ElChingon said:
Yet the number of carbon fames increases if is not taking over all other materials? Makes you feel odd doesn't it.

Maybe we'll see some weekly TV news show do an in debt analysis on its failure rate and how the world should stop using it. Better yet call AirBus I hear their new planes are mostly carbon as well, guess many will never fly again due to its failure rates :D, looks like I will be getting a whole row to myself again on long flights.
the volume argument is irrelevant. bike companies and marketeers will offer whichever material offers them the greatest margins. take a look at the cost of open mould frames ex China and get back to us with another model which makes sense if you are trying to SELL bikes.

And please....are you suggesting that the amount of engineering nouse that is spent on a bike frame is equivalent or greater than that invested at Boeing (or Airbus)?
 
Jun 10, 2009
606
0
0
Zigster said:
please learn how to use google properly
"cracked titanium frame"
97 results
"cracked carbon frame"
9,670 results

think about that huge discrepancy
1) considering how much longer titanium has been a common frame material
2) how many of those cracks were in mountain bikes

Learn how to use Google properly:confused:? I click on your linked searches and get "about 4340" results for your second search...

Anyhow, using the oracle that is Google to definitively answer this question is nice in theory, but overlooks the fact that carbon frame road bikes are orders of magnitude more common than Ti frames ever were. I wouldn't be surpised if there were more carbon bikes sold this year alone than Ti bikes ever made (gratuitous unsubstantiated conjecture).

But you're right, carbon is a bad material to make bicycle parts which are subject to high stresses from, just look at the forks, the part least able to be braced against high loads, and most likely to cause a crash in the event of unexpected failure. Almost all bike forks are made from steel or titanium, even the forks going on high-end carbon bikes.

Wait a minute, I think I got that the wrong way around...

As for MTB's I see more carbon Orbeas, Giants, Specialized epics, Mojos and SC Blurs around than I do Ti bikes. Perhaps it's because all the Ti MTBs have broken...;)
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Before couple of days i have been watching some doc about carbon drive shaft for F1 cars. They have been tested both alu and carbon, carbon kills alu for sure.

The problem here is that same carbon used for F1 drive shaft (we can just imagine forces:eek:) is not same one used for 1000 or 1500 euro carbon bikes.
What do you think how much is factory cost ebay "el cheepo" carbon frame when Dude selling it for 250USD or so?

I just sold mine carbon frame for less then 200 euro, sick and tired of plastic cheep carbon. If i gonna buy carbon frame IMHO it would not be less then 2000 euro for frameset, then we are talking about decent carbon.

What about scandium?
 
oldborn said:
Before couple of days i have been watching some doc about carbon drive shaft for F1 cars. They have been tested both alu and carbon, carbon kills alu for sure.

The problem here is that same carbon used for F1 drive shaft (we can just imagine forces:eek:) is not same one used for 1000 or 1500 euro carbon bikes.
What do you think how much is factory cost ebay "el cheepo" carbon frame when Dude selling it for 250USD or so?

I just sold mine carbon frame for less then 200 euro, sick and tired of plastic cheep carbon. If i gonna buy carbon frame IMHO it would not be less then 2000 euro for frameset, then we are talking about decent carbon.

What about scandium?
Scandium isn't a frame material but a material added to aluminum in small amounts to supposedly make the tubes thinner, but as strong. Unfortunately, the marketeers have taken to calling aluminum frames, rims, etc., with 'scandium' in them at amounts way less than 5%, 'scandium'.
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Bustedknuckle said:
Scandium isn't a frame material but a material added to aluminum in small amounts to supposedly make the tubes thinner, but as strong. Unfortunately, the marketeers have taken to calling aluminum frames, rims, etc., with 'scandium' in them at amounts way less than 5%, 'scandium'.
Yes i know it is rare and expensive material, thanks. I saw couple a MTB frames with "scandium" decal for really big money.
 
Jun 28, 2009
64
0
0
dsut4392 said:
Learn how to use Google properly:confused:? I click on your linked searches and get "about 4340" results for your second search...
try again, the intarwebs were momentarily clogged with broken R-SYS photos
 
Mar 12, 2009
331
0
0
It is not the material it is the way that it is engineered. However, with the constraints of bike design some materials will be inherently more durable when all else is close to equal. Anecdotal stories do not a trend make. We know someone who did or did not this or that but we lack the big picture and should not base our opinions on such a limited sample.

Carbon is inherently more suceptible to inadvertent damage when stressed in a way that it was not designed to be stressed. ie. Impacts from a fall or crash. It also, may not show damage and the failure mode may be sudden and catastrophic. This is why carbon is a bit disposable and may fail in circumstances that other frames can withstand. However, it does offer some amazing properties when engineered well that other materials do not. And yes it can be repaired. Still I do prefer to ride Ti for the overall durability and forgivness of less than perfect care of an owner. Ride quality, stiffness, and mass are all close enough to carbon to not matter to a non-pro racing a grand tour.

There is no argument to be made about the crumple effect of carbon to reduce injury. The body is not attached to the bike in a way that restrains and thus will leave the bike upon impact due to simple momentum. No frame can stop this or absorb energy that would not be transferred to the rider anyway. Until we use airbags and seat belts on bikes there is no crash engineering to be done.
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
0
0
Zigster said:
please learn how to use google properly
"cracked titanium frame"
97 results
"cracked carbon frame"
9,670 results

think about that huge discrepancy
1) considering how much longer titanium has been a common frame material
2) how many of those cracks were in mountain bikes
I'm not debating carbon vs Ti reliability, but doing a google search to prove a point...

I'm guessing there are FAR more carbon frames in use than Ti given the price points of the two materials.
 
Jun 28, 2009
64
0
0
I'm not debating carbon vs Ti reliability, but doing a google search to prove a point...

I'm guessing there are FAR more carbon frames in use than Ti given the price points of the two materials.
good point, but using the same despised tool we can easily establish a baseline or null model
http://www.google.com/search?q="titanium+bicycle+frame"
986,000 results

http://www.google.com/search?q="carbon+bicycle+frame"+OR+"carbon+fiber+bicycle+frame"
http://www.google.com/search?q="carbon+bicycle+frame"+OR+"carbon+fiber+bicycle+frame"
3,210,000 results

So "carbon (fiber) bicycle frame" is at least three times more common than "titanium bicycle frame" but 100 times more associated with "cracked".

Can we use that contingency table to derive a test statistic and p-value?

> x <- matrix(c(97,9670,986000,3210000),ncol=2)
> x
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 97 986000
[2,] 9670 3210000
> chisq.test(x)

Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction

data: x
X-squared = 2748.448, df = 1, p-value < 2.2e-16
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
Then we may need to ad an extra parameter.

Number of Users of (Ti and Carbon) Frames with an internet connection or simpler who actually post.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
It seems to me that most busted carbon is user error.

perhaps some of the pics here are older technology..

I do worry that my chain suck on a shift will weaken my chainstay however
 
Jun 10, 2009
606
0
0
Zigster said:
good point, but using the same despised tool we can easily establish a baseline or null model
http://www.google.com/search?q="titanium+bicycle+frame"
986,000 results

http://www.google.com/search?q="carbon+bicycle+frame"+OR+"carbon+fiber+bicycle+frame"
http://www.google.com/search?q="carbon+bicycle+frame"+OR+"carbon+fiber+bicycle+frame"
3,210,000 results

So "carbon (fiber) bicycle frame" is at least three times more common than "titanium bicycle frame" but 100 times more associated with "cracked".

Can we use that contingency table to derive a test statistic and p-value?
Dear Mr Zigster

I wish to advise that the peer review panel has rejected your research thesis. While the the statistics contained appear convincing to the untrained eye, on review it is evident that you've left a great many variables unaccounted for, your search criteria remain ill-defined, and both observer bias and researcher bias have been studiously ignored.

The most glaring omission is that different materials have different failure modes. If you're trying to relate absolute failure rates for two different materials, you can't restrict your analysis of failures to a failure mode which is common in one material and uncommon in the other.

You've also ignored the fact that your search for "cracked carbon frame" will pull up all references containing those three terms, when the "cracked", "carbon" and "frame" may each be a separate part of the bicycle. Please note that this error is multiplicative, not additive.

Lastly, the peer review panel questions the relevance of the article. Surely the purpose of a bicycle is for riding, and the "durability" is at best a secondary consideration, to be considered with price and expected lifespan with regard to frequency of planned upgrades. At this time, in the experience of the review panel, the vast majority of bicycle riders find the durability of their bicycle frame of any construction material to be satisfactory. However, the panel may consider your article for resubmission should you choose to address this issue along with resolving the other shortcomings mentioned above.

Kind Regards...
The Editor

(and no, I never had a rejection letter for any of my papers so I'm only guessing at how they go!)
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
dsut4392 said:
Dear Mr Zigster

I wish to advise that the peer review panel has rejected your research thesis. While the the statistics contained appear convincing to the untrained eye, on review it is evident that you've left a great many variables unaccounted for, your search criteria remain ill-defined, and both observer bias and researcher bias have been studiously ignored.

The most glaring omission is that different materials have different failure modes. If you're trying to relate absolute failure rates for two different materials, you can't restrict your analysis of failures to a failure mode which is common in one material and uncommon in the other.

You've also ignored the fact that your search for "cracked carbon frame" will pull up all references containing those three terms, when the "cracked", "carbon" and "frame" may each be a separate part of the bicycle. Please note that this error is multiplicative, not additive.

Lastly, the peer review panel questions the relevance of the article. Surely the purpose of a bicycle is for riding, and the "durability" is at best a secondary consideration, to be considered with price and expected lifespan with regard to frequency of planned upgrades. At this time, in the experience of the review panel, the vast majority of bicycle riders find the durability of their bicycle frame of any construction material to be satisfactory. However, the panel may consider your article for resubmission should you choose to address this issue along with resolving the other shortcomings mentioned above.

Kind Regards...
The Editor

(and no, I never had a rejection letter for any of my papers so I'm only guessing at how they go!)
Wow! And we didn't even get to the submission format restrictions/requirements, still waiting to see the abstract :D
 
Apr 5, 2010
242
0
0
dsut4392 said:
Dear Mr Zigster

[snipped] Surely the purpose of a bicycle is for riding, and the "durability" is at best a secondary consideration, to be considered with price and expected lifespan with regard to frequency of planned upgrades.
The state of your Rapha may be be your primary consideration, but for some riders, bike durability is actually issue number one. Consider this rider:

http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/6545344/

Lest you mock the unrefined sartorial sense of the above rider thereby excluding his experience from the statistically relevant, consider this racer woman:



The build and material quality of her wheels, I suspect, are about to become issue numbers one and two for her. Matching her Oakley frames to her jersey colour may be bumped out of the top three (she was uninjured so it's okay to make fun of the crash, right?).

The stats are out there.
 
Jun 28, 2009
64
0
0
she is probably just grateful that $900 wheel collapsed so she didn't "end up being tossed back into the race field"
 
Mar 13, 2009
571
0
0
oldborn said:
Before couple of days i have been watching some doc about carbon drive shaft for F1 cars. They have been tested both alu and carbon, carbon kills alu for sure.

The problem here is that same carbon used for F1 drive shaft (we can just imagine forces:eek:) is not same one used for 1000 or 1500 euro carbon bikes.
What do you think how much is factory cost ebay "el cheepo" carbon frame when Dude selling it for 250USD or so?

I just sold mine carbon frame for less then 200 euro, sick and tired of plastic cheep carbon. If i gonna buy carbon frame IMHO it would not be less then 2000 euro for frameset, then we are talking about decent carbon.

What about scandium?
I understand that Time are unique in that they weave their own carbon

Personal opinion, it is not carbon you need to worry about, it is the glue (resin)
You thing the prepreg used by the low grade factories is "worlds best practice"???
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY