New York Times Article ("Sport Grows, and Grows More Perilous")

[Jim Cloud]

I thought you might find this article (http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/09/25/sports/in-cycling-the-fast-lane-brings-increasing-
danger.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y), from today's NYT an interesting
read.

I thought this segment of the article was especially topical in the
discussions that occur regarding the qualities of carbon fiber vs. the
traditional steel frames that are still much in use:
"After crashing with steel-frame bikes 20 years ago, uninjured riders
could often straighten their handlebars and ride off. But bike frames
today are made of extremely light carbon-fiber composites that
frequently shatter in even minor spills."

Obviously, the CF bikes used in today's international racing are
probably lighter (and less durable) than many consumer models. I
suspect, however, that the manufacturers of CF bikes aren't especially
attuned to the durability of their products for long term use. Of
course, many well-heeled riders don't plan to keep their bikes for
more than a couple of seasons of riding!

Jim Cloud
Tucson, AZ

[Leslie]

I found that interesting.  An article I caught Friday afternoon was on CF itself:  http://gizmodo.com/5843276/why-is-carbon-fiber-so-expensive?tag=giz-explains

However, I have to stop and think about that article you posted.   It mentioned that a weight of 14.9 lb is set;   if one were to try to go a size under on a Roadeo frame, used a lighter wheel with fewer spokes, seatpost, bars, etc.,  (not that I'm advocating such, but, if one were to do such...), you could still have a competitive bike that's much more durable, without having to have to resort to using added weight to get an underweight bike up to the minimum... 

(Yet who was it that came out with a new frame back during the TdF, that is even more light than previous bike frames?  Cervelo? Cannondale? Trek?  I can't remember, I found it novel that the frame was supposedly less than 2lb, but not overly interesting to my interests...)

Anywho...

[Patrick in VT]

On Sep 25, 2:44 pm, Leslie <leslie.bri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  if one were to try to go a size under on a Roadeo frame, used a lighter wheel with fewer spokes, seatpost,
> bars, etc.,  (not that I'm advocating such, but, if one were to do such...),
> you could still have a competitive bike that's much more durable, without
> having to have to resort to using added weight to get an underweight bike up
> to the minimum...  

one could still have a competitive *frame* that's much more durable.
But, hanging a bunch of carbon parts off a steel frame (which you'd
need to in order to get the bike into the "competitive" 15-17 pound
range) still renders the complete bike less durable.

For reference, my lugged steel cyclocross bike weighs in at about
17lbs with a carbon fork and carbon wheels.

[Leslie]

On Monday, September 26, 2011 12:07:18 PM UTC-4, Patrick in VT wrote:

one could still have a competitive *frame* that's much more durable.
But, hanging a bunch of carbon parts off a steel frame (which you'd
need to in order to get the bike into the "competitive" 15-17 pound
range) still renders the complete bike less durable.

For reference, my lugged steel cyclocross bike weighs in at about
17lbs with a carbon fork and carbon wheels.

True, you might give up longevity/durability for weight reduction; but if the frame and fork are steel, then the 'core' of the bike would survive, and only whatever bits there are that break would need to be replaced.   It's less expensive to replace a cracked handlebar than it is to replace the frame;  and, although it would take you out of that particular race, you can be ready to go shortly later w/ a bar swap.  Or, if a wheel died, swap wheels and carry on.  

(And, I think carbon can be strong enough / durable enough; but, it would begin to lose its weight advantage if it was made to be as safe as steel (I'm not saying just strong, but strong and durable both; carbon is plenty strong, but is shorter on the durability for weight savings;  make it durable too, and, it'll no longer be as light... and the question becomes, what's the cost/benefit ratio when that margin is reduced?))
 

[Patrick in VT]

On Sep 26, 1:07 pm, Leslie <leslie.bri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>True, you might give up longevity/durability for weight reduction; but if
> the frame and fork are steel, then the 'core' of the bike would survive, and
> only whatever bits there are that break would need to be replaced.   It's
> less expensive to replace a cracked handlebar than it is to replace the
> frame;  and, although it would take you out of that particular race, you can
> be ready to go shortly later w/ a bar swap.  Or, if a wheel died, swap
> wheels and carry on.  

but if we keep it in context (i.e., ProTour bikes), the frame is just
another component. There are spare bikes ready to go - just like
spare wheels (which can cost as much as some frames) and spare
everything else - for the ProTour riders. Building up a heaver, yet
more durable frame, just doesn't make sense at that level.

For amateur racers, however, I agree with you - eating the cost of a
damaged frame would be hard to stomach for most folks who don't get
paid to race, and having a solid frame. Although, the frequency that
amateurs "upgrade" to new race bikes is kind of shocking.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

The article seemed to suggest that increased speed and peloton size were the main drivers of any uptick in injuries in pro cycling. CF failure mode was mentioned, but only in terms of crash damage, not as an obvious cause of increased injury rates. Why not blame "risk compensation" of helmeted riders? There are many axes that we could grind here.

All bicycle frames can break. In my shop, I've seen MANY broken steel bikes, but can't recall seeing a broken CF bike. It's probably not a fair comparison, since we sell only steel bikes, and relatively few of our customers are CF riders. But still, steel frames (even good ones) break, and more frequently than you might imagine.

I don't believe we in the Riv universe need to bash CF to justify our existence. Rivendell bicycles are wonderful, as are Surly, Waterford, and many other steel bicycles. They'll never win weight comparisons, but we don't care about that. I personally don't own any carbon bikes, forks, seatposts, stems, or bars, not because I think CF is too unsafe, but because steel bicycles just fit my personality and cycling priorities (cheap and tough and good-looking). I suspect that few (if any) Riv riders would be riding carbon, but for the safety issues. There are many ways to get hurt or dead whilst riding a bicycle, most of which have nothing to do with frame material. To be concerned about the safety of CF is kinda like a chain-smoking, hypertensive alcoholic being concerned about cell phone radiation.

[jimD]

Made me laugh. Well done,

JimD

[Kelly Sleeper]

I've ridden cf for the past 10ish years without any failures. Then again I went through 4 of them.
I ride steel for comfort and fun. Much like some like mountain Biking, some like road biking, for me the steel frame bigger tires upright position is just different and fits me, not better.

If I want racing speed it's back to plastic and sore neck (for a bit) and skinny tires.

Kelly

[Joe Bartoe]

Okay, now. The idea that carbon bikes can only take skinny tires and are uncomfortable and are only for racing is SOOOOOO last year!

Take a look here at my Calfee Adventure:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Synaptic-Cycles/124901454233407#!/media/set/?set=a.221224974601054.57299.124901454233407&type=1

The pic shows it fendered up with 28C Conti GP 4 seasons, but 30C tires will fit under the fenders. I could probably get a 32c tire in the bike without fenders, but have not tried yet.

This same bike can be made for disc brakes as well, this increasing your ability to fit larger tires. Calfee has tweaked the geometry and made it a bit longer while adjusting frame angles a tad. The end result is a fast, stable bike that is comfortable and takes full advantage of the carbon material in minimizing road vibration. I can honestly say that this bike rides at least as well as my old Riv Road did (gasp!), and in some ways it does things better.

Anyone in the OC is welcome to give my ride a try if your tall enough to ride the 62cm frame. Just don't blame me if you like it better than your current steel bike.

Best,

Joe

Joe Bartoe
Synaptic Cycles Bicycle Rentals, Inc.
email: j...@synapticcycles.com
website: www.synapticcycles.com
Twitter: @synapticcycles
phone: 949-374-6079

> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:55:06 -0700
> From: tksl...@gmail.com
> To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: New York Times Article ("Sport Grows, and Grows More Perilous")

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/VlV02ZZIodEJ.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>

[PATRICK MOORE]

That is very nice; a custom? If it takes 32s it has as much or almost
as much clearance as my two custom Rivs.

Why did you choose CF for such a bike (fenders, presumable more than
minimal loads)? Ie, what advantage does it have?

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html

[Joe Bartoe]

Patrick Moore asked about my Calfee:

> That is very nice; a custom? If it takes 32s it has as much or almost
> as much clearance as my two custom Rivs.
>
> Why did you choose CF for such a bike (fenders, presumable more than
> minimal loads)? Ie, what advantage does it have?

Calfee has three frame levels (Luna, Tetra, and Dragonfly) and in each one you can get standard geometry or full custom. They are now offering the Adventure version of each frame. The upgrades are $225 extra, but I find that it makes the bike more stable as well as more versatile.

I chose the bike because I am a Calfee dealer and I also use them as my main rental bike, and I wanted to have a nice light bike that can handle larger tires, not beat me up, yet still be fast enough to do double centuries on. I rode one of my rentals for a bit and realized that the carbon was a good thing. I felt that it did a good jhob of not beating me up on rides and I would feel fresher longer. The Advneture version is even better at this with the larger tires and the adjusted geometry. I've never been one to put racks on a bike (Calfee can put rack mounts on the bike for you as well, however) or hang huge saddlebags on it. I make use of the drop bags and will throw on a banana bag if I need some storage space and a place to lash extra clothes to.

I chose the SRAM Force drivetrain for its versatility as well. I have an Apex rear derailleur and an 11/32 cassette that I can put on the bike and have a 34/32 low gear which gets me up most anything. Right now, SRAM is the only major component maker whose newest road groups are compatible with the mountain groups. If I wanted, I could out and one of the SRAM mountain derailleurs and cassettes on the bike and get even lower gearing.

Best,

Joe

Joe Bartoe
Synaptic Cycles Bicycle Rentals, Inc.
email: j...@synapticcycles.com
website: www.synapticcycles.com
Twitter: @synapticcycles
phone: 949-374-6079

> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:39:33 -0600

> Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: New York Times Article ("Sport Grows, and Grows More Perilous")

> From: bert...@gmail.com
> To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com

[PATRICK MOORE]

Thanks, Joe. That bike puts CF in the range of my own particular likes
-- I am assuming that Calfee does not build "stupid light." What is
the weight saving over a decent steel bike of the same design and
built similarly?

[Joe Bartoe]

Patrick,

We weighed it fully built up sans pedals when it arrived and it weighed 17.4 lbs. I haven't weight it with the fenders so can't comment. Remember, this is a 62cm bike so it's a difficult comparison. I imagine a 56cm bike would weigh closer to 17 lbs. I don't know the numbers on a steel bike, but would imagine it would weigh in the 22-24lb range so you'd save 4-7lbs depending on the size of the bike and the build.

Joe

Joe Bartoe
Synaptic Cycles Bicycle Rentals, Inc.
email: j...@synapticcycles.com
website: www.synapticcycles.com
Twitter: @synapticcycles
phone: 949-374-6079

> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:08:34 -0600

[PATRICK MOORE]

So, say 19.4 lb with fenders and pedals; not too bad! My 58 cm Riv so
equiped would weigh about the same, but it's 58 and fixed with small
wheels, tho' it has a heavy fork with a mile-long steerer since it is
made for 26" wheels. (23 lb with fenders -- 1.5 lb, racks -- ditto the
pair, SON Delux + Edeluxe + two blinkies + 2 ss cages + bell.)

Patrick "this is wholly academic" Moore