Broken Carbon Bars

raelwelcome said:

Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

or

http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported another
broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
they've been impacted but appear OK). I cannot think of a worse application
than a bar designed for normal road use on a 'cross bike. (Or does FSA make
a beefier version for 'cross use?)

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

raelwelcome said:

Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

or http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported another
broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported another
broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
they've been impacted but appear OK).

But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

raelwelcome said:

Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

or http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported another
broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

Peter Cole said:

raelwelcome said:

Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

or

http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
cross bike after that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
they've been impacted but appear OK).

But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).

Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
sometimes).

Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
the line?

Ultimately, the line is drawn by consumers and lawyers. Not me, not people
on rbt.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
they've been impacted but appear OK).

But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

raelwelcome wrote:
> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

Jim Behning said:

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

raelwelcome said:

Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

Quoted message said:

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Quoted message said:

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Quoted message said:

Dumb application.

One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
cross bike after that.

Aluminum is not a guaranty of strength. I broke a pair of aluminum
bars that were OE on a cross bike -- after less than a year of
commuting. With that said . . . DAMN! I own a pair of those FSA
bars. They are really comfortable, and I got them cheap (they are
otherwise horrendously expensive). It looks like they broke about
where there is a hole in the bar for internally routing the brake
cables. Now I am going to be paranoid. I wish we knew the history of
these bars. -- Jay Beattie.

Jim Behning said:

Peter Cole said:

raelwelcome said:

Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

or

http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
cross bike after that.

strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.

the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption. no
way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.

Jay Beattie said:

On Oct 8, 4:55 pm, Jim Behning

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

raelwelcome wrote:
> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dumb application.

Quoted message said:

One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
cross bike after that.

Aluminum is not a guaranty of strength. I broke a pair of aluminum
bars that were OE on a cross bike -- after less than a year of
commuting. With that said . . . DAMN! I own a pair of those FSA
bars. They are really comfortable, and I got them cheap (they are
otherwise horrendously expensive). It looks like they broke about
where there is a hole in the bar for internally routing the brake
cables. Now I am going to be paranoid. I wish we knew the history of
these bars. -- Jay Beattie.

In fact, those are the exactly the bars I'm planning to buy.

Right now I've got an interesting pair of carbon/aluminum mix that,
with the handlebar tape on, look to the uninitiated like the FSA style
bars and which are almost as comfy but which aren't quite right
(haven't tracked down the source of non-rightness in them, just that
while they are better than the bars I previously had and vastly
superior to the FSA bars in that they were IN THE SHOP on the SAME DAY
as my bike build there is a wrongness.)

-M

jim beam said:

Jim Behning said:

Peter Cole said:

raelwelcome wrote:
> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran
> across this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.

Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.

Dumb application.

One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
cross bike after that.

strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.

I doubt that any single individual's experience represents a
statistically meaningful sample.

Quoted message said:

the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption.

You must have the "microscope plug-in" for your browser. No way you can
make out that level of detail.

Quoted message said:

no
way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.

You know this, how? She doesn't mention a prior crash, she doesn't
mention creaking or flex.

"Blame the user", where have I heard that before?

I thought your claim was that all CF bars failed from over-clamping? Or
crappy Chinese process control? It looks like simple brittle failure to
me. Where's that "headroom"?, that "impact tolerance"?

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>
> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>
> Dumb application.
My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
they've been impacted but appear OK).

But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).

Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
sometimes).

Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
the line?

Ultimately, the line is drawn by consumers and lawyers. Not me, not people
on rbt.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident. You seem to be asking whether the bars were suitable for
'cross, or whether they had been crashed and not replaced because of
expense.

We don't know whether they were crashed, no mention was made of it, so
I'm thinking not. I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
place for crash damage. If they were crashed, that gets us into the
whole "can CF be inspected" thing, and what constitutes a "crash" over
normal wear and tear.

As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.

jim beam said:

the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption. no
way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.-

Cue Jambo talking about "singing carbon"...

On Oct 8, 5:07 pm, Jay Beattie <[email hidden]> wrote:
Now I am going to be paranoid. I wish we knew the history of

Quoted message said:

these bars. -- Jay Beattie.

She did specify that she got them used.

Peter Cole said:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
sometimes).

Quoted message said:

Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
the line?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
place for crash damage.

Agreed - quite possibly a QC problem, but I don't think that there is
info from the photo and/or the text to make a definitive judgement.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.

No, you're absolutely right.

Aside from this particular incident though, and your comments to Jim
below about "user error", Mike does have a point about the suitability
of parts for the application.

You'd hope that all responsible staff in an LBS would point out that
the lightweight stem/bars/wheels/whatever is not suitable for off-road/
loaded touring/cross/"a gentleman of your build".

Likewise, you'd hope that the shop would mention proper installation
procedure to the purchaser, and point out the recomended torque
figures on the stem - I've seen two sets of cabon bars destroyed by
over-enthusiasam with the allan key/lack of familiarity with the
concept of a torpue wrench.

Where does that leave mail order or internet sales?
Where does that leave sales from shops which are not as clued in (or
as responsible)?

....and this isn't limited to the carbon/non-carbon debate either - it
applies to any very light weight or limited lifespan product, e.g. the
very lightweight Velocity OC rims.

Regards,

bookieb.

bookieb said:

Peter Cole said:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
sometimes).
Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
the line?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
place for crash damage.

Agreed - quite possibly a QC problem, but I don't think that there is
info from the photo and/or the text to make a definitive judgement.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.

No, you're absolutely right.

Aside from this particular incident though, and your comments to Jim
below about "user error", Mike does have a point about the suitability
of parts for the application.

You'd hope that all responsible staff in an LBS would point out that
the lightweight stem/bars/wheels/whatever is not suitable for off-road/
loaded touring/cross/"a gentleman of your build".

Likewise, you'd hope that the shop would mention proper installation
procedure to the purchaser, and point out the recomended torque
figures on the stem - I've seen two sets of cabon bars destroyed by
over-enthusiasam with the allan key/lack of familiarity with the
concept of a torpue wrench.

Where does that leave mail order or internet sales?
Where does that leave sales from shops which are not as clued in (or
as responsible)?

...and this isn't limited to the carbon/non-carbon debate either - it
applies to any very light weight or limited lifespan product, e.g. the
very lightweight Velocity OC rims.

All good points. Re: the last one, "stupid light" has been around since
bikes have been around. My concern with CF is that it's selling point is
weight savings, so it's pushed into "stupid light" more or less
automatically. Mike and others may argue that CF doesn't have to be made
that way, and they're right, but market pressures will push things that
way inevitably. Since CF carries a price premium (because it's
inherently labor intensive), the market pushes for cost cutting, too.

In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
"previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
damage and then catastrophically fail.

bookieb said:

Peter Cole said:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
sometimes).
Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
the line?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
place for crash damage.

Agreed - quite possibly a QC problem, but I don't think that there is
info from the photo and/or the text to make a definitive judgement.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.

No, you're absolutely right.

Aside from this particular incident though, and your comments to Jim
below about "user error", Mike does have a point about the suitability
of parts for the application.

You'd hope that all responsible staff in an LBS would point out that
the lightweight stem/bars/wheels/whatever is not suitable for off-road/
loaded touring/cross/"a gentleman of your build".

Likewise, you'd hope that the shop would mention proper installation
procedure to the purchaser, and point out the recomended torque
figures on the stem - I've seen two sets of cabon bars destroyed by
over-enthusiasam with the allan key/lack of familiarity with the
concept of a torpue wrench.

Where does that leave mail order or internet sales?
Where does that leave sales from shops which are not as clued in (or
as responsible)?

...and this isn't limited to the carbon/non-carbon debate either - it
applies to any very light weight or limited lifespan product, e.g. the
very lightweight Velocity OC rims.

All good points. Re: the last one, "stupid light" has been around since
bikes have been around. My concern with CF is that it's selling point is
weight savings, so it's pushed into "stupid light" more or less
automatically. Mike and others may argue that CF doesn't have to be made
that way, and they're right, but market pressures will push things that
way inevitably. Since CF carries a price premium (because it's
inherently labor intensive), the market pushes for cost cutting, too.

In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
"previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
damage and then catastrophically fail.

Quoted message said:

In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
"previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
damage and then catastrophically fail.

I don't see it as a shortcoming of carbon fiber as much as a failure to
exercise reasonable care in choice of equipment. Those are, near as I can
tell, road handlebars. Even aluminum handlebars fail in cyclocross; it's an
environment in which crashing is *not* the exception, it's the norm. And
there's no way a carbon fiber road bike handlebar is designed to withstand
multiple crashes. That's not why you buy them; the market looks to carbon
for its lightweight and vibration-damping characteristics. Unless a
manufacturer is going to produce a carbon fiber handlebar that's
specifically made (and thus durable enough) for 'cross use, I have to put
this failure into the suspect column for user error... the error, in this
case, being poor choice of equipment.

That's not to say that the bars might be defective, or designed poorly. But
they've certainly been used in an application guaranteed to bring out the
worst in them. That, to me, doesn't make sense. It's like all the
stupid-light mountain bike forks of yesteryear, that would fail in use.
Riders wanted stupid-light, but eventually lawyers got involved and forks
are now heavier, and much stronger, than they used to be.

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

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

Quoted message said:

bookieb said:

Peter Cole said:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

> Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon
> fiber
> handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a
> mountain
> bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
> sometimes).
> Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too
> big
> for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+
> pound
> guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we
> draw
> the line?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
place for crash damage.

Agreed - quite possibly a QC problem, but I don't think that there is
info from the photo and/or the text to make a definitive judgement.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.

No, you're absolutely right.

Aside from this particular incident though, and your comments to Jim
below about "user error", Mike does have a point about the suitability
of parts for the application.

You'd hope that all responsible staff in an LBS would point out that
the lightweight stem/bars/wheels/whatever is not suitable for off-road/
loaded touring/cross/"a gentleman of your build".

Likewise, you'd hope that the shop would mention proper installation
procedure to the purchaser, and point out the recomended torque
figures on the stem - I've seen two sets of cabon bars destroyed by
over-enthusiasam with the allan key/lack of familiarity with the
concept of a torpue wrench.

Where does that leave mail order or internet sales?
Where does that leave sales from shops which are not as clued in (or
as responsible)?

...and this isn't limited to the carbon/non-carbon debate either - it
applies to any very light weight or limited lifespan product, e.g. the
very lightweight Velocity OC rims.

All good points. Re: the last one, "stupid light" has been around since
bikes have been around. My concern with CF is that it's selling point is
weight savings, so it's pushed into "stupid light" more or less
automatically. Mike and others may argue that CF doesn't have to be made
that way, and they're right, but market pressures will push things that
way inevitably. Since CF carries a price premium (because it's inherently
labor intensive), the market pushes for cost cutting, too.

In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
"previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
damage and then catastrophically fail.

jim beam said:

strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.

How many aluminum bars have you had? How many carbon bars?

I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.

That's because I don't want to spend more on bars than I do on a set
of wheels, especially when so many very good aluminum bars are
available at a small fraction of the price of FSA K-Wings.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
"previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
damage and then catastrophically fail.

I don't see it as a shortcoming of carbon fiber as much as a failure to
exercise reasonable care in choice of equipment. Those are, near as I can
tell, road handlebars. Even aluminum handlebars fail in cyclocross; it's an
environment in which crashing is *not* the exception, it's the norm. And
there's no way a carbon fiber road bike handlebar is designed to withstand
multiple crashes. That's not why you buy them; the market looks to carbon
for its lightweight and vibration-damping characteristics. Unless a
manufacturer is going to produce a carbon fiber handlebar that's
specifically made (and thus durable enough) for 'cross use, I have to put
this failure into the suspect column for user error... the error, in this
case, being poor choice of equipment.

That's not to say that the bars might be defective, or designed poorly. But
they've certainly been used in an application guaranteed to bring out the
worst in them. That, to me, doesn't make sense. It's like all the
stupid-light mountain bike forks of yesteryear, that would fail in use.
Riders wanted stupid-light, but eventually lawyers got involved and forks
are now heavier, and much stronger, than they used to be.

I guess what you're saying is that CF is fine for 'cross if the bars are
adequately strong to begin with? Or that CF isn't good for 'cross
because crashes are part of the game (and CF doesn't crash well)?

I don't know much about 'cross equipment, but I thought 'cross riders
usually used road bars. Wrong?

Quoted message said:

I guess what you're saying is that CF is fine for 'cross if the bars are
adequately strong to begin with? Or that CF isn't good for 'cross because
crashes are part of the game (and CF doesn't crash well)?

No. What I'm saying is that it's dumb to use a carbon-fiber bar that was
designed primarily to be light, in an application where it's normal to have
crashes. And that particular bar isn't in any way reinforced for 'cross
application. It's got a cool shape that people like, and it's substantially
lighter than a similar aluminum bar would be.

Quoted message said:

I don't know much about 'cross equipment, but I thought 'cross riders
usually used road bars. Wrong?

They use heavier road bars, not the stupid-light stuff. People break
stupid-light aluminum parts all the time in 'cross use. Smart people know
better. But with carbon fiber, I don't know that you even have the choice of
something beefed-up for 'cross use, and using a standard road bar is just
asking for trouble. But, some people have more money than sense, and figure
what the heck, they want the advantage, they just won't crash. In 'cross.
Sure.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
"previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
damage and then catastrophically fail.

I don't see it as a shortcoming of carbon fiber as much as a failure to
exercise reasonable care in choice of equipment. Those are, near as I can
tell, road handlebars. Even aluminum handlebars fail in cyclocross; it's
an environment in which crashing is *not* the exception, it's the norm.
And there's no way a carbon fiber road bike handlebar is designed to
withstand multiple crashes. That's not why you buy them; the market looks
to carbon for its lightweight and vibration-damping characteristics.
Unless a manufacturer is going to produce a carbon fiber handlebar that's
specifically made (and thus durable enough) for 'cross use, I have to put
this failure into the suspect column for user error... the error, in this
case, being poor choice of equipment.

That's not to say that the bars might be defective, or designed poorly.
But they've certainly been used in an application guaranteed to bring out
the worst in them. That, to me, doesn't make sense. It's like all the
stupid-light mountain bike forks of yesteryear, that would fail in use.
Riders wanted stupid-light, but eventually lawyers got involved and forks
are now heavier, and much stronger, than they used to be.

I guess what you're saying is that CF is fine for 'cross if the bars are
adequately strong to begin with? Or that CF isn't good for 'cross because
crashes are part of the game (and CF doesn't crash well)?

I don't know much about 'cross equipment, but I thought 'cross riders
usually used road bars. Wrong?