Crap cage

[froze]

I've never broken metal parts, and never used a torque wrench on metal parts. It's funny how things are different for some people, that mechanic, and the owner of the LBS I know in town says they see a lot more broken CF parts than they did in the metal day, which is why there is still a lot of original metal parts on bikes still in use going back to the 60's. The evidence of metal parts lasting is in the fact that there are a lot of original condition bikes from the 60's and forward that are still around and still rideable. Be interesting to see how many original CF things will be left after 50 years...of course I probably won't be around to have that discussion in 40 years because I'll be 104, but maybe? I can see someone in 40 years arguing about the CF lasting 50 years which is better than steel, but then someone will say ahh but there are bikes around from the 60's that are still rideable and those metal parts haven't broken in over 100 years so it would be interesting to see if there is any CF stuff around that will be 100 years old! There are steel bikes with steel parts that are still being used that have been around even before the 60's but a lot of those really old bikes were junked over the years by misguided people clearing out their "junk" in garages and tossing them into the trash.

 

[Lv426]

Totally agree with froze . Carbon is definitely easier to over tighten , no argument there. We are seeing the first second generation of carbon bikes being called classics . Mainly pro racing bikes like the early madones etc. GCN did a feature on a Orca. You definitely can't chuck a carbon bike around like a steel one. I'm not really a steel fan but can apppreciate the style and design .

 

[froze]

The unsettling thing for me concerning CF, is that my mechanic at the LBS here in town had me walk over to an $4,000 CF Trek and had me squeeze the top tube with my index finger and my thumb, and the tube actually pressed inward when I did that, it didn't press inward a lot, but it did press inward. Having said that my newest bike I bought in 2013 has a Enve 2.0 CF fork, the idea of a CF fork is a bit unsettling for me as well, I opted to exchange the Lynskey branded generic CF fork for the Enve 2.0 after I read that the Enve 1.0 was rated for (I can't recall the exact weights, but they're close) a 240 pound rider and the 2.0 was rated for a 350 pound rider, I only weigh 170 so according to the fork specs the 1.0 would have been fine, but I went with the 2.0 so that the fork would be way over engineered for my weight and thus, hopefully, the failure rate would be considerably less. Maybe that's flawed logic on my part but I felt better about that fork being on the bike. Lynskey couldn't give me any rider weight limits on their generic fork.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Bike and component manufacturers recommend and require torque wrenches for a reason. End of..

And no one has ever broke a carbon bike with a torque wrench :lol: "end of" :lol:

Well maybe you can show me all those people that have broke their frames using torque wrench.

 

[Lv426]

Re: Re:

Bike and component manufacturers recommend and require torque wrenches for a reason. End of..

And no one has ever broke a carbon bike with a torque wrench :lol: "end of" :lol:

Well maybe you can show me all those people that have broke their frames using torque wrench.

Yeah because over all the years my bike mechanic friend saw broken carbon parts he took photos
Seriously.
The point is ,it happens . If you want to use one that's fine I'm only telling you from the point of view of a very experienced mechanic. I'm sure there are plenty of mechanics who use one all the time but sh£t happens.
It's not a argument I'm just pointing out someone's preference. Relax. I'm sure there are plenty of carbon disasters created without a torque wrench. It's not rocket science. Don't over tighten a bolt. Torque wrench or not, simple.Chill out have a banana :lol:







:

 

[winkybiker]

Re:

I've never broken metal parts, and never used a torque wrench on metal parts. It's funny how things are different for some people, that mechanic, and the owner of the LBS I know in town says they see a lot more broken CF parts than they did in the metal day, which is why there is still a lot of original metal parts on bikes still in use going back to the 60's. The evidence of metal parts lasting is in the fact that there are a lot of original condition bikes from the 60's and forward that are still around and still rideable. Be interesting to see how many original CF things will be left after 50 years...of course I probably won't be around to have that discussion in 40 years because I'll be 104, but maybe? I can see someone in 40 years arguing about the CF lasting 50 years which is better than steel, but then someone will say ahh but there are bikes around from the 60's that are still rideable and those metal parts haven't broken in over 100 years so it would be interesting to see if there is any CF stuff around that will be 100 years old! There are steel bikes with steel parts that are still being used that have been around even before the 60's but a lot of those really old bikes were junked over the years by misguided people clearing out their "junk" in garages and tossing them into the trash.

I've not experienced this legendary durability with metal frames and forks. I've had a Reynolds 531 frame crack from fatigue, and a Tange Prestige MTB steerer tube crack through use (fortunately near the top bearing race and the quill stem kept it together). I've also snapped a Campag alloy crank-arm (I know, it's the watts I'm pushing ). Steel chains and spokes - yes - broken plenty of those too. Carbon anything? Never broken it.

 

[froze]

Re: Re:

I've never broken metal parts, and never used a torque wrench on metal parts. It's funny how things are different for some people, that mechanic, and the owner of the LBS I know in town says they see a lot more broken CF parts than they did in the metal day, which is why there is still a lot of original metal parts on bikes still in use going back to the 60's. The evidence of metal parts lasting is in the fact that there are a lot of original condition bikes from the 60's and forward that are still around and still rideable. Be interesting to see how many original CF things will be left after 50 years...of course I probably won't be around to have that discussion in 40 years because I'll be 104, but maybe? I can see someone in 40 years arguing about the CF lasting 50 years which is better than steel, but then someone will say ahh but there are bikes around from the 60's that are still rideable and those metal parts haven't broken in over 100 years so it would be interesting to see if there is any CF stuff around that will be 100 years old! There are steel bikes with steel parts that are still being used that have been around even before the 60's but a lot of those really old bikes were junked over the years by misguided people clearing out their "junk" in garages and tossing them into the trash.

I've not experienced this legendary durability with metal frames and forks. I've had a Reynolds 531 frame crack from fatigue, and a Tange Prestige MTB steerer tube crack through use (fortunately near the top bearing race and the quill stem kept it together). I've also snapped a Campag alloy crank-arm (I know, it's the watts I'm pushing ). Steel chains and spokes - yes - broken plenty of those too. Carbon anything? Never broken it.

Well what can I say, everything breaks so does carbon, it's all over the internet about carbon breaking. Maybe you're pushing more watts than me, I only made it Cat3 racing in Southern Calif which meant a lot of mountain stuff, you're probably pro level and beyond since even the pros didn't break their metal stuff as often back in the day like they break their CF stuff today. The only bike I ever broke from just riding and not crashing was a scandium frame that cracked at the top of the headtube after only 8,000 miles. Fatigue, well my main racing bike I use to use when I raced Cat3 I still have, it's a 531cs tubeset, it has over 160,000 miles on it and it still hasn't fatigued or cracked...but not sure how long the 531c or the 531p would have lasted, those were actually designed for lighter riders between 175 and 180 (can't recall the weights anymore) but the cs was designed for 220 pound rider, even though I only weighed 155 when I raced. I've always been into the over engineering thing rather that pushing the limits of materials so I got the cs. When I test rode the c and the cs I could get the chain to rub both sides of the front derailleur on the c but not on the cs, and since I was training and racing in mountains I chose the stiffer and heavier (by about 1/4 of pound if memory serves me) cs frameset.

I have a friend that tours on the 531st tubeset, he weighs about 220 pounds and usually carries about 70 to 80 pounds of gear with him, he has over 200,000 on his and no issues, and he's been all over the US and Canada. And 531st is still sought after after all these years, why? because it has a solid reputation in the touring world.

There was one person I knew of that cracked...actually the frame collapsed, using 531p...but he had drilled holes in the frame trying to lighten it up like he did with his components, the components held up the frame did not! It was funny afterwards, he was hurt but just lots of road rash and a cut that required stitching, we still laugh about that one all these years later. He did manage to get that bike weight down to 16 pounds though, while mine weighed 20; thankfully his broke on a training ride and he had backup bike, the team captain wouldn't been real happy if the bike broke during a race; needless to say he didn't drill any more frames.

 

[42x16ss]

Been riding CF frames since 2006 (Giant, Specialized, Cannondale and now Johnson) and only had issues with strength twice - when I was hit by a car, and when a tri geek decided to use aero bars in the bunch and ran me into a traffic island at 40kmh.

However I've cracked two CAADs and a Soloist through regular riding and racing...