CFRP drawbacks

Quoted message said:

_ said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel, but
rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame
from carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would
likely be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these
days.

It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
difference to
which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.

jim beam said:

the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were as
over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and
it wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.

The adhesives and plastics degrade and outgas over such a time span.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip [censored]>

Quoted message said:

Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.

you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
failure.

let's be more specific, since /you/ failed to be: that's /plastic/
deformation. /elastic/ deformation is what precedes that - a point
which you seem anxious to avoid in previous posts.

Quoted message said:

you therefore want to push deformation out along the
stress/strain graph as far as you can. that's what cfrp does. and with
better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that purports to
be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability to grasp
basic fundamentals.

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
bike life and planned obsolescence.

catzz66 said:

Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade over
a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the bulk of
riders I admit. As always YMMV.

There's probably more obsolescence built into me than built into my bike
frame. =]

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

_ said:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
>>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
>>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
>> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
>> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel,
> but rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike
> frame from carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh,
> it would likely be far more durable than what passes for armor in
> Iraq these days.
>

It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
difference to
which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.

the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were
as over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping
up a wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a
century. and it wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.

And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.

that's "knocked over" by a passing f-16 into an industrial garbage
crusher? or "knocked over" by ear wax into a pit of foam cubes?

your definitionless [censored] is truly amazing coming from a purported
"engineer".

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] wrote:
>> For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
>> bike life and planned obsolescence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

catzz66 wrote:
> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

Quoted message said:

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel, but
rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame from
carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would
likely be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these days.

I did note that a 50+year life for a ($29 new) bicycle may not be a
requirement for most riders.
That doesn't change the degradation of adhesives over such a time span.

do you want to hold bike tires to that same standard too? how about
saddles, handlebar tape and paint? what about rusty steel?

fact is, cfrp hasn't been around long enough for it to be condemned out
of hand like this. it's simple enough to protect from weathering, and
degradation of the polymer is not necessarily any more likely than the
degradation of your old bakelite telephone. and what about wood?

jim beam said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip [censored]>

Quoted message said:

Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.

you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
failure.

let's be more specific, since /you/ failed to be: that's /plastic/
deformation. /elastic/ deformation is what precedes that - a point
which you seem anxious to avoid in previous posts.

Quoted message said:

you therefore want to push deformation out along the stress/strain
graph as far as you can. that's what cfrp does. and with better
fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that purports to be an
"engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability to grasp basic
fundamentals.

OK, I'll make it easy for you. Show me some dented CFRP.

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

_ wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad
>>>> wrecks, would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as
>>>> long as anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city
>>>> rider.
>>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
>>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will
>>> degrade over a similar time span. That may have no practical
>>> effect for the bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
>> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel,
>> but rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike
>> frame from carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh,
>> it would likely be far more durable than what passes for armor in
>> Iraq these days.
>>
>
> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
> difference to
> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.

the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were
as over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping
up a wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a
century. and it wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.

And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.

that's "knocked over" by a passing f-16 into an industrial garbage
crusher? or "knocked over" by ear wax into a pit of foam cubes?

A teenager will do. Into whatever else you have in your garage, you
know, like shovels, lawnmowers, other bikes.

catzz66 said:

Quoted message said:

For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
bike life and planned obsolescence.

Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks, would
you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as anything else
in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

Dear C,

First, most bikes in regular daily use by ordinary riders collect
plenty of dings, dents, nicks, and damage without "bad wrecks"--just
the chains and padlocks favored by such riders can easily damage
carbon fiber bikes.

(You don't see too many carbon-fiber chains or padlocks.)

Second, I suspect that many carbon-fiber road frames are bought
because riders think that the frames will be lighter, stronger,
faster, and able to leap--

Er, they buy carbon-fiber frames for the same reason this year that
they will be buying a replacement next year, even if the old bike
works fine: they want something new, something different, something
ever-so-slightly technically better, and they're willing to pay for
it.

To those riders, carbon fiber offers a practical advantage because it
can be made to look new and exciting at every Interbike much more
easily that older frame materials.

But for "regular daily use" by "an ordinary city rider", it's hard to
think of a non-psychological advantage to a carbon-fiber frame. It
costs more, it's more easily damaged, and no "ordinary city rider"
would notice the difference in weight or strength.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

catzz66 said:

Quoted message said:

For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
bike life and planned obsolescence.

Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks, would
you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as anything else
in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

Dear C,

First, most bikes in regular daily use by ordinary riders collect
plenty of dings, dents, nicks, and damage without "bad wrecks"--just
the chains and padlocks favored by such riders can easily damage
carbon fiber bikes.

(You don't see too many carbon-fiber chains or padlocks.)

Second, I suspect that many carbon-fiber road frames are bought
because riders think that the frames will be lighter, stronger,
faster, and able to leap--

Er, they buy carbon-fiber frames for the same reason this year that
they will be buying a replacement next year, even if the old bike
works fine: they want something new, something different, something
ever-so-slightly technically better, and they're willing to pay for
it.

To those riders, carbon fiber offers a practical advantage because it
can be made to look new and exciting at every Interbike much more
easily that older frame materials.

But for "regular daily use" by "an ordinary city rider", it's hard to
think of a non-psychological advantage to a carbon-fiber frame. It
costs more, it's more easily damaged, and no "ordinary city rider"
would notice the difference in weight or strength.

All your comments make sense, of course, but I still am unable to make
the leap to shorter bike life and planned obsolescence. I guess time
will tell how long these frames will last.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>> For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
>>> bike life and planned obsolescence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> catzz66 wrote:
>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote
> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel, but
rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame
from carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would
likely be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these
days.

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

I did note that a 50+year life for a ($29 new) bicycle may not be a
requirement for most riders.
That doesn't change the degradation of adhesives over such a time span.

jim beam said:

do you want to hold bike tires to that same standard too? how about
saddles, handlebar tape and paint? what about rusty steel?

fact is, cfrp hasn't been around long enough for it to be condemned out
of hand like this. it's simple enough to protect from weathering, and
degradation of the polymer is not necessarily any more likely than the
degradation of your old bakelite telephone. and what about wood?

Sorry to be unclear. I thought this would be an obvious point, not an
argument.

Science News covered the Smithsonian's difficulties with degradation of
plastic items from the 1950s and 1960s a couple years back which got me
thinking about the subject. Ever notice how you bed a windshield and
then a mere 12 or 15 years later the car leaks again as the silicone
sealer degrades? Bathroom ceramic tiles fall out at 25-30 years when
the adhesive degrades. If you don't flat for 3 years your tubular
cement degrades. Many groups of plastics such as the adhesives and
clear coats used with modern composite frames are just not going to go
50 years. These polymers aren't Bakelite, which is a distinctly
different group. 20-year Vitus, Alan and Trek aluminum frames show
these problems already. Humidity and UV may be extenuating factors.

Again this certainly is not a deciding issue for most riders (average
first-owner life span is, what, 3-4 years?).

Agreed, carbon per se isn't the problem, it's inert. Making a glued
plastic-coated carbon structure with various glued fittings likely may
be a problem over long time spans.

p.s. my own telephone _is_ Bakelite. With a dial. Made on Western Avenue
in Chicago. It's newer than my bike but it seems to work OK.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In article <[email hidden]>,

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
bike life and planned obsolescence.

catzz66 said:

Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks, would
you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as anything else
in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade over
a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the bulk of
riders I admit. As always YMMV.

Are you sure that is not 1853? Last time I heard it as 1973.
Your bicycle is getting old fast. 🙂

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
> bike life and planned obsolescence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

catzz66 said:

Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks, would
you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as anything else
in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade over
a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the bulk of
riders I admit. As always YMMV.

Michael Press said:

Are you sure that is not 1853? Last time I heard it as 1973.
Your bicycle is getting old fast. 🙂

Here it is:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/SPORTS05.JPG
Bought it used, before I worked here.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Peter Cole said:

...
A teenager will do. Into whatever else you have in your garage, you
know, like shovels, lawnmowers, other bikes.

BICYCLES BELONG IN THE HOUSE, NOT THE GARAGE!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Andrew Muzi mused:

Quoted message said:

...
I did note that a 50+year life for a ($29 new) bicycle may not be a
requirement for most riders....

According to the government's inflation calculator, that is $225 in 2007
dollars, or about as inexpensive as you will find a real [1] new bicycle.

[1] Opposed to a bicycle shaped object (BSO).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

jim beam' aka evan williams said:

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip [censored]>

Quoted message said:

Just show me the deformed CFRP & we'll put this issue to rest.

you still don't get it. in structural applications, deformation /is/
failure. you therefore want to push deformation out along the
stress/strain graph as far as you can. that's what cfrp does. and with
better fatigue. and with lighter weight. for someone that purports to
be an "engineer", you have a pretty damned scary inability to grasp
basic fundamentals.

Really? In design of non-critical buildings for earthquake loading, the
goal is to allow the occupants to safely exit the building. Quite severe
and easily noticeable (e.g. concrete spalled off columns and beams and
the underlying reinforcing steel twisted) deformation is acceptable, as
long as collapse does not occur. A material that failed in a brittle
manner would not be acceptable (which is why ACI 318 requires concrete
structural member to fail by the reinforcing steel yielding in tension
and not the concrete failing in compression).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] wrote:
>> For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
>> bike life and planned obsolescence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

catzz66 wrote:
> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks, would
> you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as anything else
> in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade over
a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the bulk of
riders I admit. As always YMMV.

Michael Press said:

Are you sure that is not 1853? Last time I heard it as 1973.
Your bicycle is getting old fast. 🙂

Here it is:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/SPORTS05.JPG
Bought it used, before I worked here.

Neat. I had to have been thinking of some other 1973 bicycle.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.

Excuse me? As if steel and aluminum and titanium frames haven't had their
lives shortened due to being knocked over and severely dented?

This is entirely about how the material is being used. If someone wanted to
make a 5 pound frame out of carbon fiber, they could do so in a way that
would surpass the lifespan of any similar-weight steel or titanium or
aluminum frame, probably by an order of magnitude, as far as being knocked
over, or center-punched by a car, or just about anything short of a James
Bond scenario where somebody uses some sort of epoxy-eating acid of some
sort.

But where would the market be for such a frame? Incredibly small, I'd think.
You'd be building a frame both stronger and far more expensive than a market
exists for. Better to use a cheaper material and settle for something that's
strong enough for the task at hand.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm going to be saying it until I'm unable
to talk or type. You can build a very nice frame out of carbon, titanium,
steel or aluminum. You just have to work with the materials strengths and
know their weaknesses. *All* materials have strengths and weaknesses. But
somehow we seem to forget about the problems of some of the "legacy" frame
materials when trashing the new stuff.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

_ said:

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
>>> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
>>> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.
>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
>> over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
>> bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel, but
> rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike frame from
> carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh, it would likely
> be far more durable than what passes for armor in Iraq these days.
>

It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the difference
to
which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.

the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame were as
over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life propping up a
wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last a century. and it
wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.

And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole said:

jim beam wrote:
> _ wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad
>>>>> wrecks, would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as
>>>>> long as anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city
>>>>> rider.
>>>> My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
>>>> Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will
>>>> degrade over a similar time span. That may have no practical
>>>> effect for the bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.
>>> But that has nothing to do with the fact that your bike is steel,
>>> but rather how it was designed. If you were to construct a bike
>>> frame from carbon fiber that weighed as much as your 1953 Raleigh,
>>> it would likely be far more durable than what passes for armor in
>>> Iraq these days.
>>>
>>
>> It has rather a lot to do with the fact that it is steel. Brazing
>> carbonfibre-reinforced plastic is not an option; that is the
>> difference to
>> which Muzi pointed as the reason he believed his frame to have lasted.
>
> the joining method has nothing to do with it. if the cfrp frame
> were as over-built and under-stressed and spent most of its life
> propping up a wall in the garage like the raleigh, it too would last
> a century. and it wouldn't fatigue. and it wouldn't rust.

And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.

that's "knocked over" by a passing f-16 into an industrial garbage
crusher? or "knocked over" by ear wax into a pit of foam cubes?

A teenager will do. Into whatever else you have in your garage, you
know, like shovels, lawnmowers, other bikes.

you're avoiding the definition of the impact you think is a problem. as
usual. spell it out. put numbers on it. i want impact energy and
contact area.

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

Peter Cole said:

...
A teenager will do. Into whatever else you have in your garage, you
know, like shovels, lawnmowers, other bikes.

BICYCLES BELONG IN THE HOUSE, NOT THE GARAGE!!!

i second that.

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] wrote:
>> For ordinary riders, carbon-fiber seems like a move toward shorter
>> bike life and planned obsolescence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

catzz66 wrote:
> Why would you say that, Carl? If you don't anticipate bad wrecks,
> would you not think a CF road bike frame would last as long as
> anything else in regular daily use of an ordinary city rider.

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

My 1953 Raleigh in daily use runs as nicely as the day it left
Nottingham. Inherently, the adhesives of a bonded bike will degrade
over a similar time span. That may have no practical effect for the
bulk of riders I admit. As always YMMV.

Michael Press said:

Are you sure that is not 1853? Last time I heard it as 1973. Your
bicycle is getting old fast. 🙂

Here it is:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/SPORTS05.JPG
Bought it used, before I worked here.

two dynamos? hub brake rear? if the latter, why the radial spokes?