CFRP drawbacks

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

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).

yes, with the key being that it doesn't collapse. but the building is
not re-occupiable - in that respect it's failed. cfrp typically fails
in much the same way - it doesn't shatter like glass.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

I have yet to see any evidence of that. Failures to-date of carbon fiber
joints that I have seen have always been in the category of an
improperly-performed procedure (not prepared properly, too-tight a fit
causing a squeegee effect on the adhesive etc). Which is no different
whatsoever from what we'd see in a brazed or welded frame that wasn't
properly joined... the result being a joint that failed prematurely.

If outgassing and plastic degradation where an issue, despite the use of
adhesives and UV inhibitors used in applications that suffer use in
dramatically worse conditions than bicycles, then I'd start wearing a hard
hat all the time in case various things up in the sky start dismantling
themselves.

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

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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.

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

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

jim beam said:

Peter Cole wrote:
<snip [censored]>

> 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.

go ahead and dent your own! i keep inviting you to do so. buy it from
a plane modeling shop, then report your results.

Quoted message said:

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.

It is unquestionably true that the marketplace no longer demands the
lifespan out of a modern lightweight frame that they once did. It doesn't
matter what the material is; if the demand is to be as light as possible,
you *will* be sacrificing lifespan and durability. It cannot be any other
way. If we demand 2lb carbon frames, 3.25lb steel frames, 3lb ti and 2.5lb
aluminum frames, there is no possible way they'd be as strong as frames just
25% heavier. Frames of those weights are built at the edge of what can be
reliably built and ridden.

In most cases, these new lightweight frames are stronger, when not exposed
to some of the harsher realities of life, than their considerably-heavier
counterparts of years past. And they are in fact remarkably light. But as
you put materials where the structure needs them and remove it from those
areas where you *hope* it doesn't... which is pretty much how we've come to
lighter weight frames... the result can only be obvious. And further,
advanced engineering means that somebody is aware of typical rider
capabilities and, instead of designing for the worst-case scenario, which
might yield a bike that would last 3x forever under a typical rider, we now
have the means to build something that will predictable last a "reasonable"
lifespan, which will be adequate for 97% but not the remaining 3% who will
eventually exceed its design limits.

And again, that's not a material-specific phenomenon, although carbon fiber
*is* responsible, I feel, for causing this trend to accelerate with
more-traditional materials, as they try to compete with carbon (by building
lighter frames).

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

"catzz66" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

catzz66 said:

[email hidden] wrote:

>
>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.

Peter Cole said:

jim beam said:

_ said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message 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.

And, as long as nobody knocked it over, it wouldn't crack.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...and it all starts again.

Quoted message 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

..and it all starts again.

of course - he's not interested in information, just contest. facts
simply get in the way so must be ignored to continue the game.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

It is unquestionably true that the marketplace no longer demands the
lifespan out of a modern lightweight frame that they once did.

I think that's only partially true. At the top end of the market,
maybe. For probably 90% of the market, nope. Heck, even some of the
top end of the market don't fall for the myth of "obsolete in two years"
that drives the market for companies like Trek.

Shimano recently stated that some 17 million Americans have stopped
cycling in the past 10 years, apparently citing that bikes have become
too high-tech for most customers to be comfortable with. At my friend
Jim's bike shop, the majority of customers come in with the worthy steed
they have been riding for many years. When I look at the bikes I see
people riding around, I see more bikes that are 25-30+ years old than
bikes that are 5 years old (except off-road).

The section of the market that thinks a 5 year service life is plenty is
quite small. Bike makers seem to have forgotten that, as have a number
of us in this newsgroup.

Tim McNamara said:

Shimano recently stated that some 17 million Americans have stopped
cycling in the past 10 years, apparently citing that bikes have become
too high-tech for most customers to be comfortable with. At my friend
Jim's bike shop, the majority of customers come in with the worthy steed
they have been riding for many years. When I look at the bikes I see
people riding around, I see more bikes that are 25-30+ years old than
bikes that are 5 years old (except off-road).

This is internally inconsistent. I mean not what
you're saying, but the statement attributed to Shimano
and its interpretation. If most cyclists are hanging
on to their bike for years, how could it be that a
large number of cyclists are hanging it up because
modern bikes are too complicated? The majority don't
have a modern bike and aren't in the market for one.

I have no data, but it seems to be like the mode
of the cyclist distribution is riding a roughly
6-8 speed mountain bike (about 5-20 years old) or an
older 5-7 speed road bike (10-30 years old), or a
department store bike. I may be biased by living
near a large university on one of its commute routes
and seeing what the undergrads ride.

I've seen this statement about 17 million people
stopping cycling a few times recently, and it just
doesn't sound reasonable. I'm not even sure how
you'd measure it. Sometimes people take up a hobby,
then stop it, and so on, but that's not the same as
a long-term decline in the cycling population. If
it's coming from Shimano as a statement about how
modern bikes are too high-tech, it's probably
marketing speak for selling twist shifters, gearhubs,
auto-shifting bikes, or some such. Technology like
that (even gearhubs) are not going to get more people
on bikes. Better roads and so on and so forth ...
but you probably heard that from Frank Krygowski
many times, so I'll shut up now.

CFRP and its pros and cons are semi-irrelevant to
the "average" cyclist. The average cyclist - not the
average RBT reader - may or may not know how to fix a
flat, and brings it into the shop to have it done.

Ben

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is unquestionably true that the marketplace no longer demands the
lifespan out of a modern lightweight frame that they once did.

I think that's only partially true. At the top end of the market,
maybe. For probably 90% of the market, nope. Heck, even some of the
top end of the market don't fall for the myth of "obsolete in two years"
that drives the market for companies like Trek.

I should have defined things better. I was talking about the marketplace for
the upper-tier framesets.

As for product cycles, Trek is only recently getting into the game you're
talking about. The original OCLV platform was almost unchanged from 1992
through 2003. That represented an 11-year run, with minor changes (moving
from 1 to 1 1/8" headset and a beefed-up bottom bracket). In 2004 the Madone
made its appearance, with only a 4-year run that ended in 2007. It's fairly
safe to assume they've taken on a 4-year product cycle for the future,
similar to Shimano.

In general, you'll see longer product cycles for domestic manufacturing than
for imports, due to the cost of tooling and R&D. That's presented problems
for Trek in the past, as other manufacturers have come out with very
different-looking product almost on a yearly basis, and Trek marketing
failed to recognize the value in something that's gradually refined &
improved over the years, rather than starting over each year or two.

Quoted message said:

Shimano recently stated that some 17 million Americans have stopped
cycling in the past 10 years, apparently citing that bikes have become
too high-tech for most customers to be comfortable with. At my friend
Jim's bike shop, the majority of customers come in with the worthy steed
they have been riding for many years. When I look at the bikes I see
people riding around, I see more bikes that are 25-30+ years old than
bikes that are 5 years old (except off-road).

You're riding different places than I am! People 'round here give me a bad
time because I don't get a new bike more often than once every 3-5 years.
And it would probably be less often than that except that people expect to
see me on something I sell currently at the shop.

Quoted message said:

The section of the market that thinks a 5 year service life is plenty is
quite small. Bike makers seem to have forgotten that, as have a number
of us in this newsgroup.

The number of people who buy new bikes every 5 years may not be very large,
but you're mistaken if you believe it's not a very large part of the market
in terms of $$$. It's also a part of the market that represents who the
product managers are, which can be a real problem. They need to be designing
bikes for the majority of our customers, not the small subset that their own
preferences represent. So if you believe that there's a large chunk of the
market that would like to buy a great $1500-$2000 bike (which is true), and
that these folk aren't getting the choices and quality they should (which is
also true), you now know why. We fight this battle constantly.

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

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

It is unquestionably true that the marketplace no longer demands the
lifespan out of a modern lightweight frame that they once did.

I think that's only partially true. At the top end of the market,
maybe. For probably 90% of the market, nope. Heck, even some of the
top end of the market don't fall for the myth of "obsolete in two years"
that drives the market for companies like Trek.

Shimano recently stated that some 17 million Americans have stopped
cycling in the past 10 years, apparently citing that bikes have become
too high-tech for most customers to be comfortable with. At my friend
Jim's bike shop, the majority of customers come in with the worthy steed
they have been riding for many years. When I look at the bikes I see
people riding around, I see more bikes that are 25-30+ years old than
bikes that are 5 years old (except off-road).

The section of the market that thinks a 5 year service life is plenty is
quite small. Bike makers seem to have forgotten that, as have a number
of us in this newsgroup.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

If outgassing and plastic degradation where an issue, despite the use of
adhesives and UV inhibitors used in applications that suffer use in
dramatically worse conditions than bicycles, then I'd start wearing a hard
hat all the time in case various things up in the sky start dismantling
themselves.

I'd have to agree, at least with the currently used materials. Polyester
and epoxy composites (fiberglass) have been around for a long enough
time that degradation doesn't seem to be a problem. I have 2 40+ year
old fiberglass boats.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

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 Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.

Quoted message said:

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

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

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

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

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.

It is unquestionably true that the marketplace no longer demands the
lifespan out of a modern lightweight frame that they once did. It doesn't
matter what the material is; if the demand is to be as light as possible,
you *will* be sacrificing lifespan and durability. It cannot be any other
way. If we demand 2lb carbon frames, 3.25lb steel frames, 3lb ti and 2.5lb
aluminum frames, there is no possible way they'd be as strong as frames just
25% heavier. Frames of those weights are built at the edge of what can be
reliably built and ridden.

I disagree. A 3 pound ti frame and a 3.25 steel frame, just like the
ones we sell(Waterford and Moots), will not have a short lifespan. A 2
pound ti frame(like the Litespeed Ghasallo) will have reliability
problems but 3 and 3.25 for ti and steel is common. 2 pound carbon
frames can and do have reliability problems.
But ya know, in the modern bike shop, all that can be measured is
weight. Too bad because in the bike/rider equation, many more things
than weight are important but the sales person can only heft the bike
and say, 'see how light it is?"...

Quoted message said:

In most cases, these new lightweight frames are stronger, when not exposed
to some of the harsher realities of life, than their considerably-heavier
counterparts of years past. And they are in fact remarkably light. But as
you put materials where the structure needs them and remove it from those
areas where you *hope* it doesn't... which is pretty much how we've come to
lighter weight frames... the result can only be obvious. And further,
advanced engineering means that somebody is aware of typical rider
capabilities and, instead of designing for the worst-case scenario, which
might yield a bike that would last 3x forever under a typical rider, we now
have the means to build something that will predictable last a "reasonable"
lifespan, which will be adequate for 97% but not the remaining 3% who will
eventually exceed its design limits.

And again, that's not a material-specific phenomenon, although carbon fiber
*is* responsible, I feel, for causing this trend to accelerate with
more-traditional materials, as they try to compete with carbon (by building
lighter frames).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"catzz66" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:56:07 -0500, catzz66
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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:

Quoted message said:

Dear C,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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--

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

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?

Aluminum yes, steel not usually and titanium I don't know. But I've
seen lots of dented steel frames in use for years afterwards with no
failures.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

"Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.

Thing is, for 99% of cyclists it makes not one whit of difference in
terms of perceptible ride quality or performance if the frame weighs 3.5
pounds or 2.5 pounds. The difference it makes is in talking points and
self-aggrandizement.

About 10-12 years ago, on a club training ride, one of the masters
racers showed up with a then top-of-the-line and state of the art Look
CF frame, a KG-whatever. The racer in question worked for the MN
Department of Agriculture as an inspector and was (in)famous for doing
lunch hour intervals and 100 mile training rides daily, pretty much
dominating his category. My friend Mark was curious and chatted with
the guy about his bike, commenting that it was the first Look frame he'd
seen being ridden by a non-professional. The guy turns and thunders at
Mark "whaddya mean a non-professional!?!?!?!?" Mark was a bit taken
aback and later- on his lugged steel Rodriguez- dropped the offensive
masters racer good and proper up the biggest hill on the ride.

It cracks me up that some people get all twisted up about folks wearing
pro team jerseys when they haven't "earned them" by being good enough to
be pros, but not about people riding "pro level" bike when they are 55
years old and 30 pounds overweight and can't even average 18 mph on
rolling terrain...

"Legacy" frame

Quoted message said:

materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.

That's not what I said.

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

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

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 Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.

Quoted message said:

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

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jim beam wrote:
> _ wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:13:26 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

>> 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.

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Tim McNamara said:

Shimano recently stated that some 17 million Americans have stopped
cycling in the past 10 years, apparently citing that bikes have
become too high-tech for most customers to be comfortable with. At
my friend Jim's bike shop, the majority of customers come in with
the worthy steed they have been riding for many years. When I look
at the bikes I see people riding around, I see more bikes that are
25-30+ years old than bikes that are 5 years old (except off-road).

This is internally inconsistent. I mean not what you're saying, but
the statement attributed to Shimano and its interpretation. If most
cyclists are hanging on to their bike for years, how could it be that
a large number of cyclists are hanging it up because modern bikes are
too complicated? The majority don't have a modern bike and aren't in
the market for one.

Don't confuse my observations of what bikes I see people riding locally
and what Shimano has reported as the results of their survey. What
you're seeing as "internally inconsistent" is a conflation of my
observations locally and Shimano's reported report (which I have not
been able read myself, only references made to it).

Quoted message said:

I have no data, but it seems to be like the mode of the cyclist
distribution is riding a roughly 6-8 speed mountain bike (about 5-20
years old) or an older 5-7 speed road bike (10-30 years old), or a
department store bike. I may be biased by living near a large
university on one of its commute routes and seeing what the
undergrads ride.

I see a mix of college students (I live within two miles of a Big Ten
university and five private colleges), urban hipsters and middle aged
bike commuters. Since I stopped racing at the end of 2000, I see few
racers since I don't go on group training rides.

Quoted message said:

I've seen this statement about 17 million people stopping cycling a
few times recently, and it just doesn't sound reasonable. I'm not
even sure how you'd measure it. Sometimes people take up a hobby,
then stop it, and so on, but that's not the same as a long-term
decline in the cycling population. If it's coming from Shimano as a
statement about how modern bikes are too high-tech, it's probably
marketing speak for selling twist shifters, gearhubs, auto-shifting
bikes, or some such. Technology like that (even gearhubs) are not
going to get more people on bikes. Better roads and so on and so
forth ... but you probably heard that from Frank Krygowski many
times, so I'll shut up now.

Not having been able to read the source material attributed to Shimano,
I dunno how they measured it. The references I have seen refer to it as
a survey, but how that survey was conducted is unknown to me. What I
have read indicates that the survey reported that 17 million Americans
stopped riding in the past decade, and that the reason those people
cited was that bikes and bike shops have too much emphasis on high tech.

My long term opinion is that the perfect bike for about 75% of the
population is patterned on the old "English" three speed. Upright
position, simple shifting, fenders, chain guard, dead reliable and
inexpensive. The silly gearing spacing would need to be tweaked to be
more useful and the bike could easily be made to weigh under 25 pounds
and cost well under $500. Sell a million of 'em.

Quoted message said:

CFRP and its pros and cons are semi-irrelevant to the "average"
cyclist.

True.

My anecdotal observations of my friend Jim's bike shop are that riders
come on and rejoice to find simple bikes with very little tech speak
about them. He sells steel framed bikes, no CF/Ti/few Al, is not a
franchised dealer for any major brand, and basically sells the stuff he
uses. There are no mountain bikes, nothing with suspension at all, not
even bikes with Ergo or STI. He's got bikes with fenders, often with
internal gear hubs, fat tires (including selling lots of 650B), solid
racks, etc. He sells ANT bikes, various Rivendell lines, Surly,
Kogswell, some Breezers; Nitto bars and stems and racks, Berthoud and
Banjo Brothers and Ortleib bags, Brooks saddles, etc.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is unquestionably true that the marketplace no longer demands
the lifespan out of a modern lightweight frame that they once did.

I think that's only partially true. At the top end of the market,
maybe. For probably 90% of the market, nope. Heck, even some of
the top end of the market don't fall for the myth of "obsolete in
two years" that drives the market for companies like Trek.

I should have defined things better. I was talking about the
marketplace for the upper-tier framesets.

Even there I disagree. Among racers, perhaps. Among non-racers, less
so. Racers have more of a tendency to think of bikes as consumables
rather than durables but not so much other people.

Quoted message said:

As for product cycles, Trek is only recently getting into the game
you're talking about. The original OCLV platform was almost unchanged
from 1992 through 2003. That represented an 11-year run, with minor
changes (moving from 1 to 1 1/8" headset and a beefed-up bottom
bracket). In 2004 the Madone made its appearance, with only a 4-year
run that ended in 2007. It's fairly safe to assume they've taken on a
4-year product cycle for the future, similar to Shimano.

In general, you'll see longer product cycles for domestic
manufacturing than for imports, due to the cost of tooling and R&D.
That's presented problems for Trek in the past, as other
manufacturers have come out with very different-looking product
almost on a yearly basis, and Trek marketing failed to recognize the
value in something that's gradually refined & improved over the
years, rather than starting over each year or two.

Not just Trek's marketing. Marketing departments in general have lost
sight of the value of refinement and development over time. They want
everything to be POW! Big hit, millions of units, replace with with
some other POW! next year to sell more millions of units. Novelty is
more important to marketers than utility.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shimano recently stated that some 17 million Americans have stopped
cycling in the past 10 years, apparently citing that bikes have
become too high-tech for most customers to be comfortable with. At
my friend Jim's bike shop, the majority of customers come in with
the worthy steed they have been riding for many years. When I look
at the bikes I see people riding around, I see more bikes that are
25-30+ years old than bikes that are 5 years old (except off-road).

You're riding different places than I am! People 'round here give me
a bad time because I don't get a new bike more often than once every
3-5 years. And it would probably be less often than that except that
people expect to see me on something I sell currently at the shop.

I have no doubt that there are many differences in the cycling
demographics between where you ride and where I ride. California is
culturally (and geographically and climatically) quite different from
Minnesota. Heck, when Lindsey Lohan was in town making a movie, she
couldn't get served in bars because she was underage- rather a bit
different than her life in California in which bars and clubs very
publicly ignore the drinking age to serve alcohol to famous people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The section of the market that thinks a 5 year service life is
plenty is quite small. Bike makers seem to have forgotten that, as
have a number of us in this newsgroup.

The number of people who buy new bikes every 5 years may not be very
large, but you're mistaken if you believe it's not a very large part
of the market in terms of $$$.

Oh I have no doubt that the people who replace bikes often are a big
voice in terms of dollars spent. The problem, of course, is that if
manufacturers put their resources into chasing that clientele they will
risk alienating far larger numbers of customers. I have seen many times
people walking into a bike shop, seeing the prominently featured $4000
bikes, getting a stricken look on their faces and turning around and
leaving the shop without even asking if there are cheaper bikes
available. Maybe they go and buy a BSO at Wal*Mart. Maybe they go home
and resurrect the Huffy. Or maybe they go back to watching TV.

Quoted message said:

It's also a part of the market that represents who the product
managers are, which can be a real problem. They need to be designing
bikes for the majority of our customers, not the small subset that
their own preferences represent.

Sure. And that's an issue in many industries, not just bikes. That's
exactly who Linux is not the dominant computer OS- it's designed by
enthusiasts for enthusiasts and generally with disdain for Joe Average.
The audio-visual industry seems to fall into the same thing. So did
Detroit. The reason is simple enough: it doesn't cost that much more
to make a high end product but the price tag- and thus the profit
margin- is much bigger.

Quoted message said:

So if you believe that there's a large chunk of the market that would
like to buy a great $1500-$2000 bike (which is true), and that these
folk aren't getting the choices and quality they should (which is
also true), you now know why. We fight this battle constantly.

And good luck to you!

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

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

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

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

On this we can agree.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

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....

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

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).

I did not start with the idea of a perpetual bike. I've owned quite a
few, albeit only a couple at a time, just never found anything which
rides as well for my usual errands and commute.

To make a classic Raleigh Sports or similar machine today, (brazed
lugged steel, running gear of forged steel with 4-layer plate, etc)
would cost a fortune. Today's bikes are of radically more efficient
manufacture, cheaper, lighter generally.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tim McNamara said:

...
About 10-12 years ago, on a club training ride, one of the masters
racers showed up with a then top-of-the-line and state of the art Look
CF frame, a KG-whatever. The racer in question worked for the MN
Department of Agriculture as an inspector and was (in)famous for doing
lunch hour intervals and 100 mile training rides daily, pretty much
dominating his category....

I must disagree with Tim's choice of words. If this guy rode that much,
he did not "work" for the MN Department of Agriculture, but was
"employed" by the MN Department of Agriculture. The two are not the same.

--
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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Aluminum yes, steel not usually and titanium I don't know. But I've
seen lots of dented steel frames in use for years afterwards with no
failures.

The most-common failure mode for steel was the buckled downtube. If steel
frames were still made of .9/.6mm tubing, that's probably still what you'd
see, instead of the cracks near welds, bottle fittings and downtube shifter
bosses. As for "dents", 3.5lb steel frames tend to get "crunched" rather
than merely dented.

But we need to get back to something "real" here, which is that we're
comparing very light frames of each material, *not* very light carbon frames
against 5lb steel frames.

Quoted message said:

Thing is, for 99% of cyclists it makes not one whit of difference in
terms of perceptible ride quality or performance if the frame weighs 3.5
pounds or 2.5 pounds. The difference it makes is in talking points and
self-aggrandizement.

I think weight, by itself, is focused on too much simply because it's one of
the few easily-quantifiable parameters that everyone can agree upon. What
people cannot agree upon is the idea that different materials impart a very
different ride quality, most of it, I believe, tied not to vibration damping
per se, but audible cues. Different materials *sound* different, and that,
for many, is a key component of their perception of ride quality. Beyond
that, I will argue that carbon does a great job at eliminating road buzz,
and others will argue that it's irrelevant because there's far more
compliance in the tires than the sum of everything else on the bike. Maybe
it really does all come down to audible differences, which are often felt as
much as heard.

Quoted message said:

It cracks me up that some people get all twisted up about folks wearing
pro team jerseys when they haven't "earned them" by being good enough to
be pros, but not about people riding "pro level" bike when they are 55
years old and 30 pounds overweight and can't even average 18 mph on
rolling terrain...

Funny the things we get worked up about. The pro jesey thing probably
affects a very small number of us (those of us who, in a past life, raced
ourselves, and if we were even marginally competitive, you simply did not,
ever, wear a jersey that you weren't "worthy" of wearing. But for the most
part, while we wouldn't consider wearing, say, a Molteni jersey... we didn't
have much issue with anyone who did, providing they weren't pretending too
hard to be Eddy Merckx.

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

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

Mike Jacoubowsky 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?

Aluminum yes, steel not usually and titanium I don't know. But I've
seen lots of dented steel frames in use for years afterwards with no
failures.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

"Legacy" frame materials, what a hoot...like talking about a Model T
or something. These 'legacy' materials haven't gone anywhere. Just
because trekspecializedgiant have sold their soul for carpet fibre
doesn't mean that the 'other' 3 materials have disappeared. Slammed,
denegrated, called old fashioned and heavy(Ti, steel) by any bike shop
selling trekspecializedgiant, but bike shop clones are trained to say
that stuff(not you Mike, I don't view as a clone, I respect most of
what you say), like the big shops here in the republic. "Legacy" frame
materials have had problems, just like some 'legacy' carbon
frames(early OCLV, Kestrel) but to imply that the only frame material
worth designing into a bicycle is carbon fiber is..well, clone-ish.

Thing is, for 99% of cyclists it makes not one whit of difference in
terms of perceptible ride quality or performance if the frame weighs 3.5
pounds or 2.5 pounds. The difference it makes is in talking points and
self-aggrandizement.

About 10-12 years ago, on a club training ride, one of the masters
racers showed up with a then top-of-the-line and state of the art Look
CF frame, a KG-whatever. The racer in question worked for the MN
Department of Agriculture as an inspector and was (in)famous for doing
lunch hour intervals and 100 mile training rides daily, pretty much
dominating his category. My friend Mark was curious and chatted with
the guy about his bike, commenting that it was the first Look frame he'd
seen being ridden by a non-professional. The guy turns and thunders at
Mark "whaddya mean a non-professional!?!?!?!?" Mark was a bit taken
aback and later- on his lugged steel Rodriguez- dropped the offensive
masters racer good and proper up the biggest hill on the ride.

It cracks me up that some people get all twisted up about folks wearing
pro team jerseys when they haven't "earned them" by being good enough to
be pros, but not about people riding "pro level" bike when they are 55
years old and 30 pounds overweight and can't even average 18 mph on
rolling terrain...