DANGER - CARBON FIBER FRAMES

[cycl...@gmail.com]

WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH! THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM COLNAGO OF ITALY - a premier maker of world-class racing bikes for over 60 years.

Read on for more details....

Apparently, ALL carbon fiber bike frames, regardless of manufacturer and warranty, are good for only TWO YEARS, after that they can break and cause serious injury or even cost you your life. I know, I have experienced it and even Colnago admits that I was very lucky to have survived.


The background...

In July 2016 my wife Louise and I were on vacation in California. I rode my 14-year old Colnago C-40 (full carbon fiber racing bike) there on July 1, 2, 3, & 4. On July 5th I rode from Castro Valley to Moraga and back with friends. This ride is entirely in the Oakland Hills. On the way back to Castro Valley, my friend Tom Kunich (who was also riding a full carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill. After the crash, he found what he believes to be a crack in his carbon fiber front fork. He contributes the crash to hitting a large bump in the road on the downhill. He also believes (although I do not agree) that I also hit this bump, which contributed to the catastrophic destruction of my bike frame 5 days later on July 10th.

On July 10th, I was starting out with Louise and two friends on a 45-mile ride from San Francisco to Novato, CA and back. Only one mile into the ride I made a left turn (traveling at about 5 mph) and my frame suddenly snapped underneath me WITHOUT ANY WARNING! Both the top tube and down tube simultaneously broke off the head tube. I went down hard in the road. I suffered a badly damaged right hand with a dislocated and broken finger, which required surgery within 2 weeks. I now have a metal plate in my finger to hold it together. Had this happened just 30 minutes later, I would have been on a 40+ mph downhill into Sausalito on a 2-lane road with oncoming traffic. I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED!

I contacted Colnago-America in Chicago, Illinois (the sole wholesaler of Colnago bicycles in the USA) and spoke with Mr. Billy Kanzer, National Sales Manger for Colnago. I also sent him two emails with the story of the frame failure and photos. He said they would need to examine the frame for faults and he would get back to me. To date, I have not heard back from him.

Apparently, Tom also wrote to Colnago-America about his damaged fork and his crash on Redwood Road. Both his letter and my emails were obviously forwarded to Colnago in Italy.

On July 21, 2016 I received the below email from Mr. Gilberto Gentilli, Esq (Colnago's legal council for product liability and related matters). It is a shocking message! In the email he states that my catastrophic frame failure was due to (1) the frame's "useful life had expired", and (2) "severe punishment by frequent use on damaged roads" (my bike spent 12 of it's 14 years in California).

Mr Gentilli also goes on to explain that even the pros DO NOT ride a carbon fiber frame more that a MAXIMUM OF TWO SEASONS. After that, they are (quote) "either destroyed or sold...to private individuals with the understanding that they are purchasing them at their sole risk and responsibility". (That must explain why my bike frame only came with a 2-year warrantee.) He goes on to say (quote) "carbon is not indestructible and...when it breaks it does so catastrophically with hardly any warning. It is a price we all gladly pay for the amazing characteristics of carbon..."

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The proof...

Below is the verbatim text of the email from Mr. Gentilli. I have underlined the important areas of the message. Read it for yourself...
====================================================================
Delivered-To: lync...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 23:54:59 +0200
Subject: C-40
From: Gilberto <in...@contrattiinternazionali.it>
To: <lync...@gmail.com>,
<cycl...@yahoo.com>
CC: Alessandro Colnago <al...@colnago.com>,
Billy Kanzler <bi...@colnago-america.com>
Thread-Topic: C-40

Gentlemen,

By way of introduction, I am Colnago’s legal counsel for product liability and related matters. In such capacity, I have been forwarded your recent correspondence with Billy Kanzler of Colnago America, Inc.. On behalf of the entire Colnago team, and particularly Mr. Ernesto Colnago himself, let me first of all express our sympathy towards you both for your July 5th and 10th incidents. I agree with you, all things considered, one can safely say that you were both quite lucky.
The main purpose of this letter is to respond to the questions you have raised, respectively, in your July 11, 2016 email (Mr. Lynch) and July 11, 2016 letter (Mr. Kunich) for which we thank you.
In your email, Mr. Lynch, you have asked: "when is a carbon frame too old to ride?”
In your letter, Mr. Kunich, you have asked us to comment on your hypothesis that: 1. Carbon frames have or should have unlimited “useful lives or life cycles”; and 2. Your two C-40’s broke as a result of “aging and the number of shocks on broken roads”.
Once again, we truly appreciate having the opportunity of interacting directly with sophisticated customers such as yourselves. It is a rare privilege. I will do my best to satisfy your curiosity to the best of my professional ability and experience. While in Europe, for example, product liability for a manufacturer ends 10 years after purchase, in the US, but for products with clear “expiration dates” (such as milk, for example) or shelf life (such as pharmaceuticals) there is no such thing as a precise "useful life” of a product. Let’s use our C-40 as an example (or any other carbon frame for hat matter). Its useful life depends on many factors such as, but not limited to, how much and under what conditions it is used; whether and to what extent it is submitted to regular maintenance checks and so on. As I see it, the best if not the only way a serious manufacturer such as Colnago - who’s been making frames for over 60 years – can protect the safety of his customers is by designing and manufacturing frames using state of the art technology and materials (yes, Mr. Kunich, I too believe Colnago’s lug system is still the best technology on the market for carbon frames manufacture. Thank you for acknowledging it) but also drafting adequate warnings and instructions whose purpose is to inform the customers on the inherent risks involved in cycling.
Having drafted Colnago’s manuals for over 20 years (since 1995 to be precise), I take particular pride in drawing your attention to the specific wording of these manuals regarding the frames’ useful lives and the need for frequent maintenance checks. An unbiased reading of such warnings must lead to the conclusion that, indeed, Mr. Kunich’s interpretation of the reasons for the failures are to be found in the frames’ ages and their having been subjected to severe punishment by frequent use on damaged roads. In other words, their useful lives had expired. In your specific situation(s), I believe that the speed bump you hit at over 35 miles/hour on July 5, 2016, was indeed the probable cause of cracks, perhaps invisible to the naked eye, but which nonetheless led to the final catastrophic event of July 10.
You are correct, Mr. Kunich, when you observe that our frames are built for racing conditions far more severe that the bumps you hit in your recent rides. Indeed, as you probably know, the C-40 and C-50 (which share the identical technology) still hold the record for most victories in the Paris-Roubaix. However frames used by professionals are used for one, or maximum two seasons after which they are either destroyed or sold (by the teams themselves) to private individuals with the understanding that they are purchasing them at their sole risk and responsibility. This is because, like any other material, carbon is not indestructible and, unlike steel, titanium or aluminum for example, when it breaks it does so catastrophically with hardly any warning. It is a price we all gladly pay for the amazing characteristics of carbon which have made it by far the most popular material in racing bicycle frames manufacture.

Gentlemen, I trust the above answers your questions but should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Regards,

Gilberto Gentilli, Esq.
Attorney at Law


Law Offices Gentilli
Via Cesare Balbo, 36
59100 - Prato (PO) -
Italy
cell.: +39 335 667 9978
Tel.: +39 (0) 574 60 61 41
Skype: g.gentilli
in...@lawofficesgentilli.com
ggenti...@gmail.com
www.lawofficesgentilli.com
======================================================================================


It does not end there...

While in the emergency room (getting 13 stitches in my hand) after my crash, I met a technician who is an avid mountain bike rider. He owns a carbon fiber mountain bike. He told me that he gets rid of his carbon frame and replaces it every 5 years. Why? Because it can break and you can be severely injured or killed!

On July 21st I began physical therapy for my right hand at OrthoArizona Canyon Orthopaedic Surgeons on W. Thunderbird Road in Peoria, AZ. There, I met a physical therapist who is also an avid bike rider. He said he owns 3 bikes. One is carbon fiber. He told me that he not only limits the amount of miles he spends on the carbon fiber bike, he also gets rid of it and replaces it EVERY TWO YEARS! Why? Because it can break and you can be severely injured or killed! He showed us picture after picture after picture of broken carbon bikes and forks, all which he said happened catastrophically and without any warning and none of the riders struck any objects in the road. ALL THE MAJOR MANUFACTURERS WERE INVOLVED - regardless of their frame warrantees! None of the manufacturers were exempt. The photos included Pinarello, Colnago, Trek, Specialized, and many more.

My question is: If this is so prevalent, why is it that we have not heard of it before? It has not been on the news, in the papers, in the bike magazines, or on the Internet. And again, all major bike manufacturers are involved - regardless of their frame warrantees. What good is a "lifetime" warranty if you are severely injured, disabled, - OR KILLED - because your frame broke without warning and tossed you under an oncoming car?

All I can say is if you own a carbon fiber frame or fork that is more than two years old, you had better think twice about keeping it. I now have a badly scarred finger and a metal plate in my hand to prove what I am saying. Louise also owns a full carbon Colnago C-40 bike that is only one year newer than mine. She will now be getting rid of it as, after witnessing my horrific crash and aftermath and personally seeing the above information, she is scared to ride it. I don't blame her. I do not know if we will ever own a carbon fiber bike again.

IF YOU VALUE YOUR CYCLING FRIENDS, PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON.

Food for thought....Be safe out there!

Mike Lynch
Peoria, AZ
lync...@gmail.com

From Tom Kunich - Mike has photos showing just how bad this can be:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TuesThursBicycleRide/attachments/1281104172;_ylc=X3oDMTJyajhlbG82BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzMzNTU1ODI0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2NTc4NgRzZWMDYXR0YWNobWVudARzbGsDdmlld09uV2ViBHN0aW1lAzE0NjkyMDQ1MDY-

Inspecting my Colnago Star Fork I discovered that there is a SEAM along the outside vertical blades. This is an incredible discovery. I really should have looked at these earlier but since I also have a Colnago Force Fork that I had inspected before I assumed that the Star had the same level of workmanship. My very dangerous crash was caused by the fork slitting along this seam and the bike not steering properly forcing me off of the road at 35 mph. I am very lucky to be alive.

Remember this when you buy carbon fiber bicycles.

[SMS]

On 7/22/2016 9:38 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:


> WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH!

Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
useful life.

Experts agree that if you're going to use a carbon fiber frame, or other
carbon fiber components, for more than a couple of seasons, that you
should at least periodically have them x-rayed for hidden damage. Your
frame was 14 YEARS OLD! How many times did you have it x-rayed for
hidden damage? I don't know of course, but I'd guess it's zero. And
"damage" might not be the right word. Even without being damaged by an
impact, the material is going to deteriorate.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCTQRfGUzFA&noredirect=1>

Colnago may have not been very diplomatic, but you can't expect these
small manufacturers to be providing replacement frames when one of their
14 year old carbon fiber frames wears out. 2 years covers manufacturing
defects, not wear and tear. You knew the warranty when you bought it.

Even manufacturers with a "lifetime warranty" on the frame have ways of
weaseling out of it.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/22/2016 2:29 PM, SMS wrote:
>
> Experts agree that if you're going to use a carbon fiber frame, or other
> carbon fiber components, for more than a couple of seasons, that you
> should at least periodically have them x-rayed for hidden damage.

Which experts agree on that?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't own any carbon fiber bikes or
parts, and don't plan on getting any.

But SMS has a long record of citing imaginary experts.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:38:28 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My question is: If this is so prevalent, why is it that we have not
> heard of it before? It has not been on the news, in the papers, in
> the bike magazines, or on the Internet.

You maybe haven't heard of it although I have no idea how. This has
been written about thousands of times- hundreds of them in this very
newsgroup (which you, Tom, have participated in for a couple of decades
now). Try searching in your favorite search engine for "carbon fiber
bicycle failure" and you'll find reports, photos, etc. Search for
"carbon fiber failure mode" if you want to know why CFRP products fail
as they do.

In its current form, IMHO, carbon fiber is not an appropriate material
for bicycle load bearing elements (frames, forks, handlebars, stems,
seatposts, etc.) and (at 6'3" and 220 lbs) because of its failure mode
and as such I don't use it. Most of the cycling world disagrees with me
and that's up to them. Most users of CFRP bikes ride them for years
without any problems. Many probably have not looked into failure modes.
But the Consumer Product Safety Comission certainly does; indeed, there
have been a number of recalls of CFRP bike products because of an
identified specific risk of failure causing injury.

[jbeattie]

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:02:19 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:38:28 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > My question is: If this is so prevalent, why is it that we have not
> > heard of it before? It has not been on the news, in the papers, in
> > the bike magazines, or on the Internet.
>
> You maybe haven't heard of it although I have no idea how. This has
> been written about thousands of times- hundreds of them in this very
> newsgroup (which you, Tom, have participated in for a couple of decades
> now). Try searching in your favorite search engine for "carbon fiber
> bicycle failure" and you'll find reports, photos, etc. Search for
> "carbon fiber failure mode" if you want to know why CFRP products fail
> as they do.

There are entirely too few Trek and Specialized CF frame failures. I'm sitting here in my office, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the next lawsuit. It's like being the Maytag repairman. The last CF fork failure I had was more than a decade ago -- and it resulted from a handmade, multi-piece fork being assembled without bonding agent. That's the problem with hand-made products. Humans can make mistakes. No CF frame failures in 20+ years of representing Trek and Specialized in Oregon.

Oh I forgot. I had a broken fork maybe five years ago, but that doesn't count because the guy got a dog leash wrapped up in his front wheel. I'm telling you, we should outlaw dogs -- and squirrels.

I really want CF frames to fail because I could use the defense work. I've got to cover my son's tuition bill next semester. Maybe I should call Colnago and see if I can defend against TK's claim -- pro hac into California. The truth will out! It was a squirrel -- either here or in Italy!

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

I might add that the first commercial composite boat built in the U.S.
seems to be a Snipe dinghy built in 1942. I myself owned a 40 ft.
sailing yacht built of composites in 1951 which I sold in 2000 and is
still sailing.I read an article in Practical Boat Owner, a British
sailing magazine regarding one of their employees who bought one of
the first "fiberglass" sailing yachts built in England. As part of the
pre-purchase survey they cut several cores from the hull and had them
tested for strength. They tested something like 95 - 98% of the
original strength of the hull.

The Coast Guard started building fiberglass boats 1950, the earliest
ones were FRP with aluminum frames. In 1962, when the boats were 10
years old the Coast Guard made hull strength tests and again in 1972.
See "Boat Longevity.pdf" available on the Web.
The results of the test are shown below.

Tensile Strength
10 years - 5990psi (1 Sample)
20 years - 6140 (10 samples)

Compressive Strength
10 years - 12,200 psi (2 samples)
20 years = 12,210 (10 samples)

Flexural Strength
10 years - 9410 psi (1 sample)
20 years - 10,850 (10 samples)

Sheer Strength
10 years - 6560 psi (3 samples)
20 years - 6146 (10 samples)

Note: tests are reported as average strengths of all samples tested.

I also note a U.S. Government study and standards for testing dated
October 1991 entitles "Life Prediction Methodologies for Composite
Materials".

I also find that a study titled "Determining the Fatigue Life of
Composite Aircraft Structures Using Life and Load-Enhancement
Factors" and dated June 2011, by the FAA, that is available.

I find it strange that the afore mentioned bicycle maker appears to be
ignorant of these studies. Or at least failed to mention them.

So yet again the indubitable Smurf has proven, for all to see, his
unique mendacity. (One can only assume that he works in "sales")
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Perhaps if you advertise on late night TV as Earl Schreiber used to do
:-)

I know a shop in Singapore that specializes in refurbishing bicycles,
and as a sideline they repair carbon fiber frames. I asked them about
how frequently they had a repair and they told me "about one a week"
and added that most of them seemed to be Chinese "no-names".
(note: Singapore has population of about 5.5 million and an estimated
1% of commuters are cyclists)

--
cheers,

John B.

[sms]

You hear a lot about fork, seatpost, and handlebar failures, but not so
much about frame failures.

Since even lifetime warranties cover only manufacturing defects, a lot
of CF frames get replaced long before they would deteriorate and fail.
Just the handlebars swinging around and hitting the top tube will damage
a CF frame and lead to its likely replacement. Pro racers, who don't pay
for their bikes anyway, replace them often.

I suspect that Trek and Specialized greatly over-engineer their
mass-market CF frames to avoid early failures, and perhaps Colnago does
do now too. Just like Cannondale over-engineered their early aluminum
frames with such large dimension tubing to compensate for aluminum's
inherent properties.

[Dennis Davis]

In article <27de754a-ada3-4566...@googlegroups.com>,

jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:02:19 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:38:28 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > My question is: If this is so prevalent, why is it that we have
>> > not heard of it before? It has not been on the news, in the
>> > papers, in the bike magazines, or on the Internet.
>>
>> You maybe haven't heard of it although I have no idea how. This
>> has been written about thousands of times- hundreds of them
>> in this very newsgroup (which you, Tom, have participated in
>> for a couple of decades now). Try searching in your favorite
>> search engine for "carbon fiber bicycle failure" and you'll find
>> reports, photos, etc. Search for "carbon fiber failure mode" if
>> you want to know why CFRP products fail as they do.
>
>There are entirely too few Trek and Specialized CF frame failures.
>I'm sitting here in my office, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the
>next lawsuit. It's like being the Maytag repairman.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I had to look this up, as I'm from an alien culture.

However shouldn't this be the Maytag salesman[1] :-)

[1] See the commentator comment:

Unfortunately things change, and, after some major quality
hiccups, now it's the Maytag salesman who is bemoaning his
loneliness.

in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag#Ol.27_Lonely
--
Dennis Davis <denni...@fastmail.fm>

[sms]

On 7/24/2016 12:01 AM, Dennis Davis wrote:
> In article <27de754a-ada3-4566...@googlegroups.com>,
> jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:02:19 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:38:28 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My question is: If this is so prevalent, why is it that we have
>>>> not heard of it before? It has not been on the news, in the
>>>> papers, in the bike magazines, or on the Internet.
>>>
>>> You maybe haven't heard of it although I have no idea how. This
>>> has been written about thousands of times- hundreds of them
>>> in this very newsgroup (which you, Tom, have participated in
>>> for a couple of decades now). Try searching in your favorite
>>> search engine for "carbon fiber bicycle failure" and you'll find
>>> reports, photos, etc. Search for "carbon fiber failure mode" if
>>> you want to know why CFRP products fail as they do.
>>
>> There are entirely too few Trek and Specialized CF frame failures.
>> I'm sitting here in my office, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the
>> next lawsuit. It's like being the Maytag repairman.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I had to look this up, as I'm from an alien culture.

It all changed when Maytag entered the front-loader market and when they
were purchased by Whirlpool. The Maytag repairman is no longer lonely.
There are now more common parts between different branded appliances
from Whirlpool (Maytag, KitchenAid, Jenn-Air, Amana, Estate, and
Hotpoint, among others).

Personally, for laundry appliances I now buy commercial grade Speed
Queen appliances. Not sold in stores, you have to get them from a
distributor that sells to commercial customers, but they'll sell to
anyone. No labor warranty, just a three year parts warranty. But they
are easy to fix if they ever break, and they rarely break when used in a
home, since they're designed for continuous use in laundromats, military
bases, hospitals, etc.. I had a set in townhouse I rent out as well and
my tenants asked me to buy them LG appliances. I just laughed. I told
them that if they wanted to buy their own washer/dryer they could and I
would sell the commercial machines, which I did. The next tenant gets to
buy their own machines.

[Frank Miles]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0700, SMS wrote:

> On 7/22/2016 9:38 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH!
>
> Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
> of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
> useful life.

This must be why my local airplane manufacturer (Boeing) is using this
material all over its latest commercial jet designs.

{Sure, planes are not jets. Is one model Colnago representative of all
bikes?}

[James]

Yes, there is a lot more to reliability than just material choice. I'm
sure an ultra reliable bicycle frame can be manufactured from any of the
common frame building materials. What's most important is how the
materials is applied to the job. Wafer thin, close to stress limits,
and prone to damage and collapse, are recipes for early disaster.

--
JS

[sms]

On 7/25/2016 2:55 PM, Frank Miles wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0700, SMS wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2016 9:38 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH!
>>
>> Pretty common knowledge that carbon fiber ("carbon fiber" is a nice way
>> of saying "plastic") frames, forks, seatposts, etc. have a limited
>> useful life.
>
> This must be why my local airplane manufacturer (Boeing) is using this
> material all over its latest commercial jet designs.

<http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-readies-patch-for-fire-damaged-787/>

They are also using aluminum
<https://vibrationdata.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/aloha.png>.

They are using CF because it's light and the fuel savings are worth the
fragility.

[Frank Krygowski]

:-) According to SMS, they should make all aircraft out of steel. Or
perhaps cast iron.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Spruce is real.

--

[Dennis Davis]

In article <87fuqxw...@mothra.home>,
Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:

...

>> :-) According to SMS, they should make all aircraft out of steel.
>> Or perhaps cast iron.
>
>Spruce is real.

Yes, but the Spruce Goose[1] only flew once. Hardly economical on
multiple, long-haul flights. Perhaps it *should* have been made of
spruce, rather than birch ?-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
--
Dennis Davis <denni...@fastmail.fm>

[John B.]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:38:12 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

The facts are that Boeing states that, by weight, the 787 is built
using steel - 10%, Titanium - 15%, aluminum 20%, and composites 50%,
and "other - 5%.

So you are arguing that as the airplane is 50% composite it is
fragile?

Of course these silly people at Boeing just went ahead and built the
damned thing out of crappy plastic in spite of everything.

And of course their experience with the 777 is meaningless although
they did discover that: "Reduced scheduled maintenance. Experience
with the Boeing 777 proves that composite structures require less
scheduled maintenance than noncomposite structures. For example, the
777 composite tail is 25 percent larger than the 767's aluminum tail,
yet requires 35 percent fewer scheduled maintenance labor hours."

And of course the experiences of Airbus with composites is
meaningless.

One can only imagine, I suppose, your astonishing knowledge of
aircraft design and the use of composites in aircraft design. I am
amazed that you choose to hide this vast knowledge.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

The goose was *enormous*. That much aircraft quality spruce would
be worth a fortune today.

--

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/26/2016 12:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

> Dennis Davis <denni...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> Yes, but the Spruce Goose[1] only flew once. Hardly economical on
>> multiple, long-haul flights. Perhaps it *should* have been made of
>> spruce, rather than birch ?-)
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
>
> The goose was *enormous*. That much aircraft quality spruce would
> be worth a fortune today.

The Spruce Goose _is_ *enormous* still. It's in a very nice aircraft
museum in Oregon.
http://www.evergreenmuseum.org/the-spruce-goose
It's well worth a visit.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Yes, the Spruce Goose avoided liquidation in bankruptcy, but I'm told that significant portions of the incredible plane collection did not. I haven't been down there since Evergreen went down the toilet.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

I didn't know there was a problem. Sad.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Which is the major reason that they didn't use spruce to build the
thing :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

I guess they couldn't think of a rhyme for "birch".

--

[AMuzi]

Ogden Nash would have.

(rhymed 'purple' with 'maple syrple')

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Bertrand]

>> I guess they couldn't think of a rhyme for "birch".

> Ogden Nash would have.

> (rhymed 'purple' with 'maple syrple')

Or Frank Zappa, who rhymed "poncho" with "unconcho"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nllWDc8_9lw

[Radey Shouman]

And "rhinoceros" with "prepoceros".


--

[John B.]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:32:00 -0400, Radey Shouman

Actually, from what I've read you are correct :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Jay - I personally have had three CF fork failures. So how can you claim that they never occur? The first one I was inspecting and cleaning my bike and the CF fork was cracked from the brake attachment hole up to the fork crown. I put that off as a mistake on my part of over-tightening though my usual mode is to undertighten.

The second case was that IRD fork exploding and dropping me on my face and from which I nearly died.

This third case was Colnago's fork cracking and forcing me to lose control and crash hard.

Now if I've had three broken forks MYSELF how can you say that they never break? I've seen Specialized frames broken in half. Now I assume that is from being struck by cars but perhaps not.

I've read the articles from the manufacturers about how safe CF is but they also say that large loads over small areas (such as a collision) can trigger a failure mode.

My experience and that of friends is that these loads can occur from normal riding loads - hitting a sharp bumps at 35-40 mph can put extreme loads on the junction points and cause a degradation over time that is undetectable (Has anyone wondered where SMS gets his frames x-rayed?) and can lead to a catastrophic failure.

But it certainly doesn't matter to me. Since everyone is in love with CF I can buy top of the line steel frames for a song on Ebay while people here are telling me that steel has a finite lifespan as well.

[jbeattie]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:02:43 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:02:19 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:38:28 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com
> > > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My question is: If this is so prevalent, why is it that we have not
> > > > heard of it before? It has not been on the news, in the papers, in
> > > > the bike magazines, or on the Internet.
> > >
> > > You maybe haven't heard of it although I have no idea how. This has
> > > been written about thousands of times- hundreds of them in this very
> > > newsgroup (which you, Tom, have participated in for a couple of decades
> > > now). Try searching in your favorite search engine for "carbon fiber
> > > bicycle failure" and you'll find reports, photos, etc. Search for
> > > "carbon fiber failure mode" if you want to know why CFRP products fail
> > > as they do.
> >
> > There are entirely too few Trek and Specialized CF frame failures. I'm sitting here in my office, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the next lawsuit. It's like being the Maytag repairman. The last CF fork failure I had was more than a decade ago -- and it resulted from a handmade, multi-piece fork being assembled without bonding agent. That's the problem with hand-made products. Humans can make mistakes. No CF frame failures in 20+ years of representing Trek and Specialized in Oregon.
> >
> > Oh I forgot. I had a broken fork maybe five years ago, but that doesn't count because the guy got a dog leash wrapped up in his front wheel. I'm telling you, we should outlaw dogs -- and squirrels.
> >
> > I really want CF frames to fail because I could use the defense work. I've got to cover my son's tuition bill next semester. Maybe I should call Colnago and see if I can defend against TK's claim -- pro hac into California. The truth will out! It was a squirrel -- either here or in Italy!
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Jay - I personally have had three CF fork failures. So how can you claim that they never occur? The first one I was inspecting and cleaning my bike and the CF fork was cracked from the brake attachment hole up to the fork crown. I put that off as a mistake on my part of over-tightening though my usual mode is to undertighten.
>
> The second case was that IRD fork exploding and dropping me on my face and from which I nearly died.
>
> This third case was Colnago's fork cracking and forcing me to lose control and crash hard.
>
> Now if I've had three broken forks MYSELF how can you say that they never break? I've seen Specialized frames broken in half. Now I assume that is from being struck by cars but perhaps not.
>

I didn't say they never break. I said I am not seeing an epidemic of lawsuits over broken CF forks or frames. I'm not watching the warranty claims, but I have watched the lawsuits in Oregon and elsewhere -- and the recalls.

Every thing breaks. I've broken four steel frames and four or more aluminum frames. Even steel forks can break, as Frank will attest. I've broken six or more aluminum cranks, steel pedal spindles, aluminum handle bars, seat posts, chains, hub axles, Phil BBs -- spokes of course. I haven't broken a stem yet. I haven't broken anything carbon yet, but I might, and I do have some concern about carbon steerers and the potential for user error, so I keep an eye on mine.

If you are not comfortable riding CF, don't -- although its hard buying any high-end light weight steel bike these days without a CF fork. You have to spec that separately.

-- Jay Beattie.

[JLS]

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:38:35 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH! THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM COLNAGO OF ITALY - a premier maker of world-class racing bikes for over 60 years.
>
> Read on for more details....
>
> Apparently, ALL carbon fiber bike frames, regardless of manufacturer and warranty, are good for only TWO YEARS, after that they can break and cause serious injury or even cost you your life. I know, I have experienced it and even Colnago admits that I was very lucky to have survived.
>
>
> The background...
>
> In July 2016 my wife Louise and I were on vacation in California. I rode my 14-year old Colnago C-40 (full carbon fiber racing bike) there on July 1, 2, 3, & 4. On July 5th I rode from Castro Valley to Moraga and back with friends. This ride is entirely in the Oakland Hills. On the way back to Castro Valley, my friend Tom Kunich (who was also riding a full carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill. After the crash, he found what he believes to be a crack in his carbon fiber front fork. He contributes the crash to hitting a large bump in the road on the downhill. He also believes (although I do not agree) that I also hit this bump, which contributed to the catastrophic destruction of my bike frame 5 days later on July 10th.
>
> On July 10th, I was starting out with Louise and two friends on a 45-mile ride from San Francisco to Novato, CA and back. Only one mile into the ride I made a left turn (traveling at about 5 mph) and my frame suddenly snapped underneath me WITHOUT ANY WARNING! Both the top tube and down tube simultaneously broke off the head tube. I went down hard in the road. I suffered a badly damaged right hand with a dislocated and broken finger, which required surgery within 2 weeks. I now have a metal plate in my finger to hold it together. Had this happened just 30 minutes later, I would have been on a 40+ mph downhill into Sausalito on a 2-lane road with oncoming traffic. I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED!
>
> I contacted Colnago-America in Chicago, Illinois (the sole wholesaler of Colnago bicycles in the USA) and spoke with Mr. Billy Kanzer, National Sales Manger for Colnago. I also sent him two emails with the story of the frame failure and photos. He said they would need to examine the frame for faults and he would get back to me. To date, I have not heard back from him.
>
> Apparently, Tom also wrote to Colnago-America about his damaged fork and his crash on Redwood Road. Both his letter and my emails were obviously forwarded to Colnago in Italy.
>
> On July 21, 2016 I received the below email from Mr. Gilberto Gentilli, Esq (Colnago's legal council for product liability and related matters). It is a shocking message! In the email he states that my catastrophic frame failure was due to (1) the frame's "useful life had expired", and (2) "severe punishment by frequent use on damaged roads" (my bike spent 12 of it's 14 years in California).
>
> Mr Gentilli also goes on to explain that even the pros DO NOT ride a carbon fiber frame more that a MAXIMUM OF TWO SEASONS. After that, they are (quote) "either destroyed or sold...to private individuals with the understanding that they are purchasing them at their sole risk and responsibility". (That must explain why my bike frame only came with a 2-year warrantee.) He goes on to say (quote) "carbon is not indestructible and...when it breaks it does so catastrophically with hardly any warning. It is a price we all gladly pay for the amazing characteristics of carbon..."
>
> WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> The proof...
>
> Below is the verbatim text of the email from Mr. Gentilli. I have underlined the important areas of the message. Read it for yourself...
> ====================================================================
> Delivered-To: lync...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 23:54:59 +0200
> Subject: C-40
> From: Gilberto <in...@contrattiinternazionali.it>
> To: <lync...@gmail.com>,
> <cycl...@yahoo.com>
> CC: Alessandro Colnago <al...@colnago.com>,
> Billy Kanzler <bi...@colnago-america.com>
> Thread-Topic: C-40
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> By way of introduction, I am Colnago’s legal counsel for product liability and related matters. In such capacity, I have been forwarded your recent correspondence with Billy Kanzler of Colnago America, Inc.. On behalf of the entire Colnago team, and particularly Mr. Ernesto Colnago himself, let me first of all express our sympathy towards you both for your July 5th and 10th incidents. I agree with you, all things considered, one can safely say that you were both quite lucky.
> The main purpose of this letter is to respond to the questions you have raised, respectively, in your July 11, 2016 email (Mr. Lynch) and July 11, 2016 letter (Mr. Kunich) for which we thank you.
> In your email, Mr. Lynch, you have asked: "when is a carbon frame too old to ride?”
> In your letter, Mr. Kunich, you have asked us to comment on your hypothesis that: 1. Carbon frames have or should have unlimited “useful lives or life cycles”; and 2. Your two C-40’s broke as a result of “aging and the number of shocks on broken roads”.
> Once again, we truly appreciate having the opportunity of interacting directly with sophisticated customers such as yourselves. It is a rare privilege. I will do my best to satisfy your curiosity to the best of my professional ability and experience. While in Europe, for example, product liability for a manufacturer ends 10 years after purchase, in the US, but for products with clear “expiration dates” (such as milk, for example) or shelf life (such as pharmaceuticals) there is no such thing as a precise "useful life” of a product. Let’s use our C-40 as an example (or any other carbon frame for hat matter). Its useful life depends on many factors such as, but not limited to, how much and under what conditions it is used; whether and to what extent it is submitted to regular maintenance checks and so on. As I see it, the best if not the only way a serious manufacturer such as Colnago - who’s been making frames for over 60 years – can protect the safety of his customers is by designing and manufacturing frames using state of the art technology and materials (yes, Mr. Kunich, I too believe Colnago’s lug system is still the best technology on the market for carbon frames manufacture. Thank you for acknowledging it) but also drafting adequate warnings and instructions whose purpose is to inform the customers on the inherent risks involved in cycling.
> Having drafted Colnago’s manuals for over 20 years (since 1995 to be precise), I take particular pride in drawing your attention to the specific wording of these manuals regarding the frames’ useful lives and the need for frequent maintenance checks. An unbiased reading of such warnings must lead to the conclusion that, indeed, Mr. Kunich’s interpretation of the reasons for the failures are to be found in the frames’ ages and their having been subjected to severe punishment by frequent use on damaged roads. In other words, their useful lives had expired. In your specific situation(s), I believe that the speed bump you hit at over 35 miles/hour on July 5, 2016, was indeed the probable cause of cracks, perhaps invisible to the naked eye, but which nonetheless led to the final catastrophic event of July 10.
> You are correct, Mr. Kunich, when you observe that our frames are built for racing conditions far more severe that the bumps you hit in your recent rides. Indeed, as you probably know, the C-40 and C-50 (which share the identical technology) still hold the record for most victories in the Paris-Roubaix. However frames used by professionals are used for one, or maximum two seasons after which they are either destroyed or sold (by the teams themselves) to private individuals with the understanding that they are purchasing them at their sole risk and responsibility. This is because, like any other material, carbon is not indestructible and, unlike steel, titanium or aluminum for example, when it breaks it does so catastrophically with hardly any warning. It is a price we all gladly pay for the amazing characteristics of carbon which have made it by far the most popular material in racing bicycle frames manufacture.
>
> Gentlemen, I trust the above answers your questions but should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gilberto Gentilli, Esq.
> Attorney at Law
>
>
> Law Offices Gentilli
> Via Cesare Balbo, 36
> 59100 - Prato (PO) -
> Italy
> cell.: +39 335 667 9978
> Tel.: +39 (0) 574 60 61 41
> Skype: g.gentilli
> in...@lawofficesgentilli.com
> ggenti...@gmail.com
> www.lawofficesgentilli.com
> ======================================================================================
>
>
> It does not end there...
>
> While in the emergency room (getting 13 stitches in my hand) after my crash, I met a technician who is an avid mountain bike rider. He owns a carbon fiber mountain bike. He told me that he gets rid of his carbon frame and replaces it every 5 years. Why? Because it can break and you can be severely injured or killed!
>
> On July 21st I began physical therapy for my right hand at OrthoArizona Canyon Orthopaedic Surgeons on W. Thunderbird Road in Peoria, AZ. There, I met a physical therapist who is also an avid bike rider. He said he owns 3 bikes. One is carbon fiber. He told me that he not only limits the amount of miles he spends on the carbon fiber bike, he also gets rid of it and replaces it EVERY TWO YEARS! Why? Because it can break and you can be severely injured or killed! He showed us picture after picture after picture of broken carbon bikes and forks, all which he said happened catastrophically and without any warning and none of the riders struck any objects in the road. ALL THE MAJOR MANUFACTURERS WERE INVOLVED - regardless of their frame warrantees! None of the manufacturers were exempt. The photos included Pinarello, Colnago, Trek, Specialized, and many more.
>
> My question is: If this is so prevalent, why is it that we have not heard of it before? It has not been on the news, in the papers, in the bike magazines, or on the Internet. And again, all major bike manufacturers are involved - regardless of their frame warrantees. What good is a "lifetime" warranty if you are severely injured, disabled, - OR KILLED - because your frame broke without warning and tossed you under an oncoming car?
>
> All I can say is if you own a carbon fiber frame or fork that is more than two years old, you had better think twice about keeping it. I now have a badly scarred finger and a metal plate in my hand to prove what I am saying. Louise also owns a full carbon Colnago C-40 bike that is only one year newer than mine. She will now be getting rid of it as, after witnessing my horrific crash and aftermath and personally seeing the above information, she is scared to ride it. I don't blame her. I do not know if we will ever own a carbon fiber bike again.
>
> IF YOU VALUE YOUR CYCLING FRIENDS, PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON.
>
> Food for thought....Be safe out there!
>
> Mike Lynch
> Peoria, AZ
> lync...@gmail.com
>
> From Tom Kunich - Mike has photos showing just how bad this can be:
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TuesThursBicycleRide/attachments/1281104172;_ylc=X3oDMTJyajhlbG82BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzMzNTU1ODI0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2NTc4NgRzZWMDYXR0YWNobWVudARzbGsDdmlld09uV2ViBHN0aW1lAzE0NjkyMDQ1MDY-
>
> Inspecting my Colnago Star Fork I discovered that there is a SEAM along the outside vertical blades. This is an incredible discovery. I really should have looked at these earlier but since I also have a Colnago Force Fork that I had inspected before I assumed that the Star had the same level of workmanship. My very dangerous crash was caused by the fork slitting along this seam and the bike not steering properly forcing me off of the road at 35 mph. I am very lucky to be alive.
>
> Remember this when you buy carbon fiber bicycles.

I looked at the photos. Looks like a glue bond failed.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:09:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Every thing breaks. I've broken four steel frames and four or more aluminum frames. Even steel forks can break, as Frank will attest. I've broken six or more aluminum cranks, steel pedal spindles, aluminum handle bars, seat posts, chains, hub axles, Phil BBs -- spokes of course. I haven't broken a stem yet. I haven't broken anything carbon yet, but I might, and I do have some concern about carbon steerers and the potential for user error, so I keep an eye on mine.
>
> If you are not comfortable riding CF, don't -- although its hard buying any high-end light weight steel bike these days without a CF fork. You have to spec that separately.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Exactly what sort of steel frames have you broken? I will give you dollars to donuts that I'm both taller and heavier than you and that I've ridden longer and harder and I've NEVER broken a steel frame.

What's more - when steel frames DO break they are not catastrophic failures as carbon failures are prone to do. I have seen steel frame failures from both manufacturing errors and from cheap steel frames being overloaded. But these were single tube failures and not the head tube falling off of a bike.

No CERTAINLY one of these failures can cause you to crash under the wrong conditions. But if the head tube falls off of your bike you have no option. My concussion was caused by a carbon fork simply calling apart at 5 mph or so, and my friend's head tube fell off at 5 mph as he turned onto a bike path. What if either of these occurred at speed on a downhill?

My latest carbon fork failure was not a catastrophic failure but it was in the wrong conditions and caused me to crash. Certainly a steel or aluminum frame or fork could have such a failure. And I could not fault Colnago for the failure EXCEPT for their reaction to it. What they did was deny ALL responsibility for any second hand frame and to deny any legal responsibility to any frame or fork in the USA that was more than 3 years old and ONLY if you had registered the warranty.

But all that aside - I took my second hand Basso Loto out for a 50 mile jaunt yesterday and it RODE so much better than the carbon bikes that it was amazing. There is a major road that I could not ride on with carbon frames and not only did the Basso ride it fine but it almost felt smooth.

Going around corners on the C40 you had to enter at a moderate speed and stop pedaling and coast around because the bike would hop all about from the bumps. Not only could you enter the turns faster on the Basso but you could accelerate through and out of the turns.

After a 50 mile ride on the C40 my butt would be killing me, my back, neck and shoulders would all be sore. The same ride on the Basso left me with a slightly sore butt period. I was fully recovered 1 hour after the ride vs. a day for the C40 of the Dream HP. I have heavy wheels, heavy Look pedals and a heavy seat post on the Basso and it weighs 3/4ths of a lb more than the Colnago Dream HP.

And for the cost of a new group I could have a complete steel racer with a groupset only one level down.

Now I'm 6'4" tall and used to be 210 lbs and put in 10,000 miles a year with well over half of that on hard climbing courses with up to 18% grades. This means that the carbon bikes are all a compromise. The x-large frames are 58 cm with a long seat tube and seat post. So not only are the steel bikes a hell of a lot cheaper (you can get a custom built steel Tommaso for half of what a C60 costs) but they are also available in the correct sizes for smaller and larger people so that the balance of the bike is better.

Jim, you of all people should know better than to accept all of the negative points of a carbon bike for it's one positive - a weight advantage that is only worthwhile in racing.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-7, JLS wrote:
>
> I looked at the photos. Looks like a glue bond failed.

JL - Colnago appears to have made three 1" forks. Their first was marked "Colnago Carbon" and had a light steel steerer tube I believe. The next was " Colnago Force Carbon" and had an aluminum steerer and finally the carbon steerer version marked "Colnago Star Carbon".

The first one appears to be much more strongly built than the others. The Force is also stout. I don't believe either of these would have failed in the same manner as the Star because they have no visible seams.

I believe there were two causes of the failure - a much lighter build of the fork through experience showing that you could get away with the lighter fork. And also the aluminum dropout is probably shorter and hence more prone to leverage failures over the shorter attachment distance.

I don't think that either of the earlier versions would have had this trouble. And the newer forks are 1 1/8th" and so a bit heftier to begin with.

But the real problem is that after analysis I have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no way of telling if there was damage to a carbon frame or fork that could lead to catastrophic failure without warning.

While Jim Beattie is correct that ALL materials fail, the manner of these failures are generally predictable.

I would bet that if the UCI set the minimum weight of bikes in professional racing to 10 kg instead of 6.8 that all of the builders would immediately return to steel with a sigh of relief. Instead they are thinking of dropping the weight limits altogether. The lightest bikes available presently weigh less than 12 lbs.

I would suggest that if the UCI wants to drop the weight limit they set another - that ALL Tour riders are limited to ONE bike for the tour. This would mean that reliability of the bike would take a leading edge over weight.

And who does lighter weight bikes help? ONLY the small climbers. The larger climbers aren't in the least hampered by a lb or two more.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

By the way, Jay, I in no way mean to imply that I'm a BETTER rider than you - only that it's likely that I've probably put more strain on bike frames than you.

[jbeattie]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> By the way, Jay, I in no way mean to imply that I'm a BETTER rider than you - only that it's likely that I've probably put more strain on bike frames than you.

Probably not. I've weighed as much as 225lbs. All of my steel frames were custom built by Dale Saso. I bought his second or third frame in '75 -- which lasted until it was stolen. He was an excellent builder (and taught Bontrager how to braze). My touring frame went across the US north-south (Pacific coast) and east-west and many other loaded tours without a problem, but it too was stolen. That frame probably would have lasted forever.

I broke two steel frames at the headtube/top tube. I fixed one twice (counting it as two) and then cracked it at the brake bridge when re-spacing the rear stays (not to self, use a toe strap at the brake bridge). That frame is now yard art. I broke one frame at the BB/seat tube junction, but to be fair, it had been in a car accident and was my abused commuter.

I've been riding between 5-10,000 miles per year for 40 years -- with some years higher, but not many. I was too big and lacked any genetic gift, so I never ascended beyond Cat 3 and then masters, but I rode with many of the guys you know from SJ and SCV back in the '70s and '80s.

I rode to work today over 18% hills (somewhere in there, maybe if you squint) and over nasty baby-heads on an inner-city trail, flying down a twisting descent -- all very dramatic for a <10 mile commute. I barely lived. It was epic. I did that on a CF Roubaix with fenders. This is a piece of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRnwgPa6rM (super nasty baby-heads at at 8:00 -- it's gotten worse over time). The climb at 14:00 is maybe 15% -- maybe steeper. Who knows. With no one to chase, I just put it in a low gear and day dream.

My fast bike is a CF SuperSix, which I love -- but I also loved my CAAD 9. But that went to college with my son: http://tinypic.com/r/6qcx90/9 My death-camp survivor 6'5 1/5" son riding my old CAAD 9 up Guardsman Pass yesterday. He and his cohorts did 11,000 of climbing yesterday -- all of it in the first 70 miles of a 95 mile ride. I did 50-60 with some old dude racers, but not a lot of elevation. But we did have a ferry! http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/61337142.jpg

Anyway, CF can fail catastrophically, and for you, it clearly has not worked out for some reason. All my cohorts ride CF, and nobody has had a failure, but that's not to say they won't. I worry about CF steerers, but not a lot.

I would not trade my SuperSix for any steel frame, although I would buy a pretty steel frame because it is pretty -- but not because it is faster, more comfortable, better tracking, etc.

One final note about tracking. I was riding with my son last week in Utah, descending off to top of Bald Mountain Pass, and when the slope decreased -- but still going 40-50mph -- my son sits up, throws his arms in the air and starts doing the "I can fly like a bird" thing. What the f***? No wobble. Great frame -- and wheels, which I built (thank you).

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 8/22/2016 8:39 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> No CERTAINLY one of these failures can cause you to crash under the wrong conditions. But if the head tube falls off of your bike you have no option. My concussion was caused by a carbon fork simply calling apart at 5 mph or so, and my friend's head tube fell off at 5 mph as he turned onto a bike path. What if either of these occurred at speed on a downhill?
>
> My latest carbon fork failure was not a catastrophic failure but it was in the wrong conditions and caused me to crash. Certainly a steel or aluminum frame or fork could have such a failure. And I could not fault Colnago for the failure EXCEPT for their reaction to it. What they did was deny ALL responsibility for any second hand frame and to deny any legal responsibility to any frame or fork in the USA that was more than 3 years old and ONLY if you had registered the warranty.

For a while, Rivendell was offering an exchange program where you could
get a discount on a safe steel fork by turning in your dangerous carbon
fork. They did this as a public service to get the dangerous forks off
the road. Very similar to gun buy-back programs.

<http://web.archive.org/web/20100531033826/http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/carbonoms-fork/50-718>

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I completely retract my estimates.

But I saw you looking in every driveway after about half way - I could see you wondering if you could get away with stopping for a rest. And utter relief as the grade lessened. The road I have around here with that sort of grade is 4 lanes wide and SOB's are coming by you at 55 to 60 with motorcyclists getting as close as they can come for the fun of it.

The problem I have is getting so tired that I have to get into low gear and then the sweat pouring into my eyes so that I have to stop to wide it off. Then I can start again in the lower gears because the front wheel lifts. So I have to go up two gears to start.

My friend was stationed in Italy and he said that there are a couple of bikes that were used by Coppi and Bartolli that are still used upon occasion today. And the steel in those things was pretty bad.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Well, since I've gone through three carbon forks our of five (the first C40 I had before my concussion and my Time VX fork didn't fail) I would jump at that save I will never ride another carbon fiber bike again.

What do you suppose is going to happen if the UCI drops their weight limit which rumor has it?

The lightest bike you can presently buy is 12 lbs all up and without the weight limits you'll see $25,000 graphine frames with super record groups on them with all up weights of less than 10 lbs.

I tried to discuss this on the Magazine sites but they are in business to advertise the most expensive bikes possible and so they closed these discussions down almost instantly. The magazines have ceased being a place to learn about bicycles and bicycling and become nothing more than advertising fodder.

My brother is a 165 lb small guy that rides well but he's no racer. On his 16 lb Giant TCR0 he was using carbon fiber saddles and they were good for about two months before breaking. He finally bought a saddle for reliability but grit his teeth to do it.

I can see the liability lawyers licking their teeth at the very thought. I'm still waiting for another couple of years when we start seeing wholesale frame breakage and discover that China doesn't recognize liability.

[AMuzi]

ahem.

Classic era Team Bianchi frames are 'bad' in what way exactly?

You could say that modern steel is cleaner, more highly
alloyed etc but those bikes (albeit heavier) are hardly junk.

p.s. I very briefly rode an actual Fausto Coppi Bianchi
once, but not far enough to have any technical opinion of it.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I didn't say "junk", I said pretty bad. It was soft so that the heavy tubing wouldn't be too stiff to ride on the horrible Italian roads which were mostly donkey tracks in the valleys and goat tracks in the mountains.

The Italian engineers of the time knew their materials well and were very competent in using them. But as you say, they were heavy. Or more accurately HEAVY. A 30 lb bike with a 48-15 gear over the mountain passes makes that ride of yours look like sissy stuff.

[sms]

On 8/22/2016 2:28 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:38:38 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>> On 8/22/2016 8:39 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> No CERTAINLY one of these failures can cause you to crash under the wrong conditions. But if the head tube falls off of your bike you have no option. My concussion was caused by a carbon fork simply calling apart at 5 mph or so, and my friend's head tube fell off at 5 mph as he turned onto a bike path. What if either of these occurred at speed on a downhill?
>>>
>>> My latest carbon fork failure was not a catastrophic failure but it was in the wrong conditions and caused me to crash. Certainly a steel or aluminum frame or fork could have such a failure. And I could not fault Colnago for the failure EXCEPT for their reaction to it. What they did was deny ALL responsibility for any second hand frame and to deny any legal responsibility to any frame or fork in the USA that was more than 3 years old and ONLY if you had registered the warranty.
>>
>> For a while, Rivendell was offering an exchange program where you could
>> get a discount on a safe steel fork by turning in your dangerous carbon
>> fork. They did this as a public service to get the dangerous forks off
>> the road. Very similar to gun buy-back programs.
>>
>> <http://web.archive.org/web/20100531033826/http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/carbonoms-fork/50-718>
>
> Well, since I've gone through three carbon forks our of five (the first C40 I had before my concussion and my Time VX fork didn't fail) I would jump at that save I will never ride another carbon fiber bike again.
>
> What do you suppose is going to happen if the UCI drops their weight limit which rumor has it?

The racers aren't riding their bikes for decades. Or even years. As long
as they aren't endangering other riders then the lightest possible bike
should be fine.

This whole problem started when non-professional racers just had to have
the lightest machines possible, for no real reason other than the
manufacturers telling them that they should be using the same thing as
racers. But a regular rider expects their bike to last for a decade or
more and isn't going to pay for periodic X-ray inspections.

Soon we'll see stories about how airplanes now have CF fuselage so that
proves that CF is fine for bicycles. But these airplanes haven't been
around for decades yet, and we've already seen how difficult they are to
repair when damaged. And aluminum fuselage airplanes are inspected and
the number of compressions/decompressions are tracked, especially after
the Aloha Airlines tragedy.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 3:13:36 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>
> The racers aren't riding their bikes for decades. Or even years. As long
> as they aren't endangering other riders then the lightest possible bike
> should be fine.
>
> This whole problem started when non-professional racers just had to have
> the lightest machines possible, for no real reason other than the
> manufacturers telling them that they should be using the same thing as
> racers. But a regular rider expects their bike to last for a decade or
> more and isn't going to pay for periodic X-ray inspections.
>
> Soon we'll see stories about how airplanes now have CF fuselage so that
> proves that CF is fine for bicycles. But these airplanes haven't been
> around for decades yet, and we've already seen how difficult they are to
> repair when damaged. And aluminum fuselage airplanes are inspected and
> the number of compressions/decompressions are tracked, especially after
> the Aloha Airlines tragedy.

Well, I agree with you. Colnago essentially said that a racer is thrown out after one season because they are no longer reliable.

What worries me is that magazines are no longer magazines. Like most of the media these days they have no opinions of their own - their opinions are those their sponsors wish them to have.

If the UCI drops their weight limit we WILL see 10 lb bikes and these bikes will begin wholesale self destruction in racing. And the lop-eared play racers will tell us it's because they don't know how to handle bikes. That they can deal with it.

These are the same guys that no longer carry flat repair kits on their bikes - they carry it in their pockets so that they can brag about how light their bikes are.

I've dropped all of the magazines because every bike was "the best bike I've ever ridden" and in the touring magazines you weren't a real tourist unless you crossed Siberia unaided without food or water.

A damn good ride is no longer a good ride. It's either a "training ride" with so much instrumentation you even know how thick the calluses have grown on your left small toe or you might as well stay home.

I don't ride to be a target for someone else. If I see someone ahead and try to catch them it's to ride with them and not to pass them. If there's a painful headwind I don't fight it, I slow down and put out a comfortable amount of energy.

If bikes start costing a large fortune (a graphene frame and super record group would probably run $25,000+) and killing people often enough to get in the papers we're liable to see cycling disappearing as it did in the 1940's.

And then we'll have to weight for people to not be able to afford cars anymore and need bikes for transportation and cargo.

[John B.]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:13:17 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Is this true? One can only speculate.

I worked on an aluminum fuselage aircraft, flown by the U.S.A.F., that
was within months of being my own age. No record of any
compression/decompression testing ever having been accomplished.

Earlier in my career I had been the NCO in charge of aircraft records
keeping for an entire Air Force Base. Probably 100 airplanes. Again,
no known record of any compression/decompression tests

During much of my career I was assigned to organizations equipped with
B-52's. An airplane that is still in service some 60 years after the
first "A" model was flown. No compression/decompression tests
conducted and a B-52 not only is a pressurized airplane but its wings
flap up and down.

But, I guess, more to the point, is "fiberglass" a suitable material
for use in airplane construction (danger, danger) CF bicycles fail.

Well, the first fiberglass boat for which a specific construction date
can be found is probably a sailboat, "It probably was a fellow named
Ray Greene in Toledo, Ohio. He built a fiberglass and polyester
sailboat in 1942."

The first Coast Guard fiberglass boats were built in the 1950's and
the hulls were rigorously tested at 10 year intervals. No
deterioration was noted after 20 years (the last test I read).
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Why should the racing authorities be interested in reliability? Are
Marathon runners restricted to one pair of shoes a year?

>And who does lighter weight bikes help? ONLY the small climbers. The larger climbers aren't in the least hampered by a lb or two more.

No it helps all climbers. It is a matter of physics. No matter what, a
climber has to carry the weight of his bicycle up the mountain.

In fact, it may even mean more to Old Lard Butt then to Slim Jim as
strength is not proportional to body weight. Old Lardy who weighs 50%
more than Slim Jim doesn't produce 50% more power. It is likely to be
only 30% more power.
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Not to feed the frenzy, but CF forks are on bikes of every stripe and in practically every price range. Old Lardy is probably getting CF forks on his mid-fi urban bike. http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/city-bikes/fitness-bikes/fx/7-4-fx/p/1330000-2016 You kind of have to hunt around for steel forks on a >$700-800 bike. Even the custom steel builders are using CF forks, although you can spec' steel forks for an additional cost -- or you can get them on the Soma, Surly, etc. offerings.

-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

On 23/08/16 11:17, jbeattie wrote:

> Not to feed the frenzy, but CF forks are on bikes of every stripe and
> in practically every price range. Old Lardy is probably getting CF
> forks on his mid-fi urban bike.
> http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/city-bikes/fitness-bikes/fx/7-4-fx/p/1330000-2016
> You kind of have to hunt around for steel forks on a >$700-800 bike.
> Even the custom steel builders are using CF forks, although you can
> spec' steel forks for an additional cost -- or you can get them on
> the Soma, Surly, etc. offerings.

I ignore the hype. Just about any material that is vaguely suitable can
be built in to a reliable bicycle, provided the bicycle is designed
(engineered) and manufactured adequately.

Wood, steel, aluminium, titanium and CFRP are all fine materials to make
a bicycle frame. Each have their own advantages and disadvantages.
None stand head and shoulders above the rest.

My bicycle is made from a mix of components. The majority of the frame
is some of the thinnest walled steel tubing used to make bicycle frames.
The fork blades are CFRP, and the steerer is aluminium. The cranks
and brake levers are CFRP, while the pedals are plastic. There are
possibly some titanium bits somewhere - I don't know, and I don't care.

Just don't buy an uber light racing machine, designed for, as Chalo
might put it, a lithe school girl, when you weigh in at twice that.

Many racing wheels are designed to a rider weight budget, for example.
It doesn't mean the materials used to build those wheels is bad or
unreliable for general populace use, but typically that more of the
material is needed in the design to make it "average Joe" suitable.

--
JS

[John B.]

Just the other day one of the local bike shops that I patronize had a
bright red TREK bike in a stand, assembling it. It was the usual ugly
TREK aluminum frame with the giant, great, down tube and sort of
smooth straight forks. I asked the shop guy about it and he proudly
told me that the forks were "Kabon". I asked the price and he told me
that it was TB 35,000 (about US $1,000) but that he could get me a 20%
discount. Note that mention of a %20 discount in the initial
discussion is closer to 25 - 30 percent when the money actually
changes hands.

I even saw a folder at one of the top end shops with "Carbon" forks.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/22/2016 6:11 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I didn't say "junk", I said pretty bad. It was soft so that the heavy tubing wouldn't be too stiff to ride on the horrible Italian roads...

Keep in mind that for the material itself, soft (vs. hard) is an
entirely different property than stiffness.

The stiffness of a metal is measured by its modulus of elasticity (AKA
elastic modulus), and any steel used in a bike frame will have the same
stiffness, within a few percent.

Now the stiffness of a frame is another matter; but it's influenced by a
lot of design decisions. The frame material is only one of those factors.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:20:10 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>

Further to the above.

I've been using Columbus tubes for some time, but Columbus also makes
Carbon fiber forks and every one I've looked at is made to meet with
EU Bicycle standards, specifically EN 14781:2005 ( I believe there is
an update to this standard)

There are various standards, EN 14764 for example covers City and
Trekking bikes, EN 14766 for Mountain Bikes, 14765 for Kids Bikes...
and EN 14781 for racing bikes.

Apparently, at least in the EU carbon forks are made to a standard so
the term "carbon forks" is essentially a meaningless term if the fork
strength or intended use is of interest.
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

I think it's a valid criticism of CF that when it fails, it fails catastrophically and that at least historically, it has not been very resistant to mechanical damage. Modern resins have made CF more resistant to mechanical damage and improvements in design and materials have made failures less frequent. We now have DH and big-hit bikes made of CF, and they seem to be holding up fine. But . . . if a bike has an undetected void, damage or some manufacturing defect, the consequences of a a failure could be greater than with metal.

T.K. has had some very bad experiences, and I entirely understand that he might want to avoid CF anything -- particularly if it was made by Colnago.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 8/22/2016 4:51 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Well, I agree with you. Colnago essentially said that a racer is thrown out after one season because they are no longer reliable.
>
> What worries me is that magazines are no longer magazines. Like most of the media these days they have no opinions of their own - their opinions are those their sponsors wish them to have.
>
> If the UCI drops their weight limit we WILL see 10 lb bikes and these bikes will begin wholesale self destruction in racing. And the lop-eared play racers will tell us it's because they don't know how to handle bikes. That they can deal with it.
>
> These are the same guys that no longer carry flat repair kits on their bikes - they carry it in their pockets so that they can brag about how light their bikes are.

And no pump of course. How many people besides me have lent their pump
to someone who ran out of CO2 cartridges?

> I've dropped all of the magazines because every bike was "the best bike I've ever ridden" and in the touring magazines you weren't a real tourist unless you crossed Siberia unaided without food or water.

For a very long time the magazines have published glowing articles about
the products sold by their advertisers.

> A damn good ride is no longer a good ride. It's either a "training ride" with so much instrumentation you even know how thick the calluses have grown on your left small toe or you might as well stay home.

Sensors and other electronics have gotten a bit out of hand. The need to
charge your bicycle so the shifters work is a bit insane, but the
electronic shifting is widely praised by riders. I recall visiting
Specialized in Morgan Hill and one of the designers telling us that they
did a survey of riders and the majority wanted more recharging and a
slightly lighter battery. I guess once you get used to charging your
phone, your watch, your plug-in hybrid or electric car, your laptop,
your tablet, your wireless headphones, your bike light, etc., that
charging your bicycle's battery is not a big deal.

> If bikes start costing a large fortune (a graphene frame and super record group would probably run $25,000+) and killing people often enough to get in the papers we're liable to see cycling disappearing as it did in the 1940's.

The number of people killed by carbon fiber failure is relatively low.
Once a death occurs, if the failure was caused by a design or
manufacturing flaw then there is a recall, i.e.
<http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/coroner-finds-cyclist-died-after-forks-separated/019632>.

But you used a CF frame far longer than it was ever intended to last.
Using products for longer than they were intended sometimes works out
okay, sometimes not. We presently have a 20 year old Toyota. We're
probably using it beyond what Toyota intended. Even the Onion did an
article about that 3rd generation of Camrys
<http://www.theonion.com/article/toyota-recalls-1993-camry-due-fact-owners-really-s-50480>.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

> John B.

John, the failure modes for Carbon Fiber are such that using standard testing techniques do not pinpoint the sort of failures that CF is most prone to - sharp blows or sudden high frequency shocks at or above the maximum strength ratings.

Instead the testing techniques are text book - pull and push at the strength limits of the materials - this causes failures in metals but not in composites which are extremely forgiving of these sorts of loads.

Composite boats are so drastically overbuilt that there isn't any chance of failure. Boats are not built for the stresses of sailing but for striking an escaped floating concrete pier section at speed.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:39:50 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

> Why should the racing authorities be interested in reliability? Are
> Marathon runners restricted to one pair of shoes a year?
>
> >And who does lighter weight bikes help? ONLY the small climbers. The larger climbers aren't in the least hampered by a lb or two more.
>
> No it helps all climbers. It is a matter of physics. No matter what, a
> climber has to carry the weight of his bicycle up the mountain.
>
> In fact, it may even mean more to Old Lard Butt then to Slim Jim as
> strength is not proportional to body weight. Old Lardy who weighs 50%
> more than Slim Jim doesn't produce 50% more power. It is likely to be
> only 30% more power.

John, of course you're correct but only to a certain point.

The bicycle racing authorities HAVE to realize that they are a popular sport because people and most especially stupid young people can emulate their racing heroes. If this becomes either to expensive or too dangerous this will effect the popularity of the sport. Reducing popularity equals reduced bicycle sales and EVERYONE is hurt.

While we CAN make very light bicycles the question is "should we"?

When you lighten a bicycle what effect does that have? The lighter a rider is the larger percentage of bike and rider weight is reduced.

So when you say that "everyone is helped" you are correct but when I say that "only light climbers are effected" I am speaking of the actual effects and not the mathematical truth of the situation.

ALL pro racers are trained to the limit of their muscle's capacity. So you cannot compare power to weight ratios since those ratios are pretty much even. The difference between these racers is their natural ability and not their trained strength and endurance.

The top 15% racers anyone could win the Tour on their strength and endurance alone. So why do we only have two or three contenders? Because it is the person with the mental fortitude to put up with all of the pain and the misfortunes that he is bound to have race after race after race before he is in a position to win and he still has the self confidence and the courage to do so.

Does ANY of that have anything to do with more expensive and less reliable bicycles?

Graphite will probably be replaced with graphine which is a material with several times the strength of our present carbon fiber. But this will require even more technical expertise which will mean that all of these bikes are going to come from a single company in Taiwan. People like Giant are the only people with enough experience to be able to make this transition since graphine is only one molecule thick and will require building these layers up hundreds of times to achieve something that can be worked with. And this will NOT be cheap and the "Made in China" label will mean a very high level of technical ability as it does now but is not recognized because of the large amount of junk that comes from there.

So if the UCI reduces the weight limit or does away with it completely the ONLY thing that they will accomplish is to bring the death of their own races much closer.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Yes, however a man who claimed to be an industry insider emailed me direct and told me that they already know the problems and that to fix it would require that the carbon fiber bikes be made about the same weight as Aluminum. So they are willing (presently) to trade off weight for reliability.

Most of the people on this group are not in the play racer category but do understand why people want the latest and greatest. But what happens down the road when a lot of people start getting hurt? Is "all materials wear out eventually" going to change their injuries and feelings about them?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Frank, Young's modulus is hardly something that you use to measure the mechanical worth of a substance. After all, concrete has the same Young's modulus as carbon fiber (50-50 material/resin). And steel is four times that. And wrought iron is the same as steel.

But you are correct that design can make almost any material into an acceptable bike. But we fall back to the idea that correct design principles are being pushed aside in order to make it super-light and of acceptable reliability for a single racing season.

I just got back from a 40 mile ride with 3000 feet of climbing in 39% humidity. I did almost the same ride last Thursday on my Colnago Dream HP and today on my Basso Loto. I was beat half to death last Thursday and today I got home a little beat because I did the whole thing without food or water or a rest stop save to wipe my glasses off since I was pouring sweat into them.

The difference in the comfort of the ride is unbelievable to me. And the Basso only weighs a half lb different than the Colnago. And my C40 was only 2 lbs lighter than the Dream.

Give me steel.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I talked to a down-hill racer and he says that he goes through one frame and three rear triangles a year. Granted that these are the lightest bikes made and these guys beat the holy hell out of them but when they fail they too are catastrophic failures. But the designs are such that they all tend to fail around the rear suspension mechanism so these failures don't end up in dead bodies. Just gravel rash.

What scares the hell out of me is that we now have the BMX crowd racing MTBs and doing those stupid tricks they used to do on solid steel Redlines.

[John B.]

There was an article in one of the bike magazines, maybe Bicycle
Quarterly, about some bloke that had two bikes built, a pink one with
super deluxe, wonderful, wonderful, tubes and a blue one with mundane
old, regular, tubes.

They then got a bunch of "experts" out to ride and evaluate the
frames. There was no consistence between decisions over which was the
"best frame" and a substantial number of "experts" though the low end
frame rode better.
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

A half pound? Your Colnago was a pig -- or your Basso is super light. A classic steel frame and fork are in the 5-6 pound range. Any decent CF frame and fork is going to be two pounds lighter. Bleeding edge is going to be 3 pounds lighter. You could build a sub-UCI minimum CF bike without breaking the bank -- assuming you wanted to do that (not saying you should).

You should ride whatever feels good to you. If a bike beats you up, though, it's probably a matter of fit or tire pressure/size. I think frame material is a couple rungs down the ladder in terms of what makes a bike comfortable.

I'll do probably 2,500 feet of climbing today in about 15 miles of commuting. Maybe I'll go home up SW College -- it's just behind work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng9ERBZA47w I'm on my Roubaix again -- which rides like a Barcalounger. A great seated climber, but surprisingly noodly out of the saddle for such a robust CF frame. But it has fender mounts and discs, which makes it a great PNW fun-bike. I think if I had it to do all over again, I would have bought a Norco Search. http://www.norco.com/15search/
When the really bad weather comes, its back to my all-aluminum (including pepperoni fork) Cannondale CX commuter pig with fat tires, mechanical discs, fenders and my drag-brake generator mood-light.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:54:14 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie

Basically carbon fiber composites are a mix of epoxy, or a similar,
adhesive and carbon fibers. From all I read the major efforts are to
decrease the amount of epoxy in order to maximum the amount of carbon
fiber. The SCRIMP system, for example.

Carbon fiber is extremely strong in tension and negligible so in
compression thus presents certain problems in design and although I am
certain that it is possible to design and manufacture a CF fork that
would be considered virtually unbreakable in normal use it is also
likely that the fork wouldn't be acceptable to the bicycling public as
no one would be interested in buying a 700 - 800 gm CF fork.

I remember reading some time ago a comment made by one of the Italian
frame makers that they would never build a carbon fiber frame under 21
Kg. as they didn't consider it safe, which would seem to imply that
other companies were making frames under 1 Kg.

My guess is an advert for "NEW! Super Carbon bike, weight 2 kg." will
attract far more attention than "NEW! Super Strong Carbon bike, weight
15 kg."
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 5:20 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ALL pro racers are trained to the limit of their muscle's capacity. So you cannot compare power to weight ratios since those ratios are pretty much even. The difference between these racers is their natural ability and not their trained strength and endurance.

Well, don't forget the chemicals!



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 5:27 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> to be an industry insider emailed me direct and told me that they already know the problems and that to fix it would require that the carbon fiber bikes be made about the same weight as Aluminum. So they are willing (presently) to trade off weight for reliability.
>
> Most of the people on this group are not in the play racer category but do understand why people want the latest and greatest. But what happens down the road when a lot of people start getting hurt? Is "all materials wear out eventually" going to change their injuries and feelings about them?

I think it's weird that even people who are not "play racers" are
finding it hard to avoid carbon fiber forks! I'm still shopping for a
friend, but she's finding that in bikes she'd consider, most of them
above Sora level have CF forks.

Of course, the salesmen talk about the magic smoothness of the ride. I
talk about the inability to install the fenders she wants.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 6:00 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I just got back from a 40 mile ride with 3000 feet of climbing in 39% humidity.

Those of us in the humid east are insanely jealous about 39% humidity.
I did a ten mile utility ride and lost over a pound via sweat. And it's
not even hot today.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:50:59 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

>> John B.
>
>John, the failure modes for Carbon Fiber are such that using standard testing techniques do not pinpoint the sort of failures that CF is most prone to - sharp blows or sudden high frequency shocks at or above the maximum strength ratings.
>
>Instead the testing techniques are text book - pull and push at the strength limits of the materials - this causes failures in metals but not in composites which are extremely forgiving of these sorts of loads.

You need to read up on the standards. From what I see the various
certifying tests are loads imposed in the same direction as loads
imposed in normal use.

You seem to be saying that a load imposed rapidly somehow is more
forceful than the same load imposed over a period of time?

I'm not sure that is correct. i.e., a force of, say 100 lbs. applied
for 1 hour versus the same load applied for 1 second. I think that you
are incorrect.

>Composite boats are so drastically overbuilt that there isn't any chance of failure. Boats are not built for the stresses of sailing but for striking an escaped floating concrete pier section at speed.

I'm not sure what kind of boats you have been building but the ones I
am familiar are built to withstand the loads imposed on them by (1)
sailing and (2) heavy weather loadings.

And, a serious racing boat is built to loads imposed by sailing and
almost ignores any heavy weather loadings as they simply don't go out
in bad weather.

I can honestly say that I have never seen a reference to strength when
hitting a concrete pier specified as either an advantage or
disadvantage for any boat I have ever seen.

And yes, there were some very heavy composite boats build - I owned
one. Built before the strength of composites were really understood
and over built for that reason.

--
cheers,

John B.

[James]

Great info. If you're worried, don't buy an uber light CFRP frame and
fork. For a road bike, aim for something at least 1.2kg. Go for more if
you like. My steel frame weighs 1.7kg. My mate's Ti frame weighs
1.2kg. I suspect somewhere in between would be suitable.

> Most of the people on this group are not in the play racer category
> but do understand why people want the latest and greatest. But what
> happens down the road when a lot of people start getting hurt? Is
> "all materials wear out eventually" going to change their injuries
> and feelings about them?
>

CFRP frames have been around for a long time already. My brother raced
in Europe on a pro continental team on one of those Alan frames where
the tubes were glued into Al lugs back in the late 80's, IIRC.

These days people usually either destroy the frame or fork in a smash,
or notice a crack in the paint, err on the side of conservative and replace.

It's not like there are hospital wards filled with people who've had a
CFRP bike suddenly disintegrate and drop them on the road. Of course
there are the odd cases, but it's not like any other materials don't fail.

--
JS

[James]

I was looking at some on one of the online bike shops that were
specifically for winter training bikes - to handle wider tyres and have
eyelets for "fenders" (we call mudguards).

--
JS

[John B.]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:29:11 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>

Gad! You can't trust these spelling checkers! "The under 21 Kg."
should have read "under 1 kg." :-(

[John B.]

It takes about 1 lb. off the weight of the bicycle :-)

My experience is that as a general statement (except for the Muzi
Shop, of course) salesman are very interested in selling bicycles and
if a smooth ride sells bicycles then This Bike Has It!

It is probably inexperience, or maybe heresy, but I never have noticed
any difference what so ever between aluminum, Carbon or various grades
of steel, forks. I often ride different bikes over the same stretch of
road and I've never suddenly sat up as the lightening bolt strikes and
thought, "Goodness! These forks are just so much smoother!"

What I do notice is some roads are smother than others :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The average yearly humidity here is in the very high 70's. This month,
being the rainy season, the average humidity for the month to date is
80. I did a 15 km ride this morning. at 06:00, and gained about 200
gm. after drinking some 250 gm. of water :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Duane]

My Tarmac doesn't take fenders. The Roubaix does. There are choices even
on higher end bikes.

--
duane

[Graham]

"Duane" <sp...@flarn.com> wrote in message news:829442188.493726249....@news.eternal-september.org...

+1 My winter trainer has carbon forks designed to take mudguards and has them fitted.

Graham.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[AMuzi]

Sometimes shop owners and managers are not the root of it.
We had a successful woman selling race bikes for a couple of
years before she was overheard touting 'Reynolds Aluminum'
Holdsworths. Another bright young lady discovered that a
skimpy summer dress and heels was much more effective than
studying catalog specifications.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Well, I can compare the same route on a Colnago C40 and on my Basso now. The climbs are pretty hard and you could feel a difference in the 2.5 lbs difference. Every bump you had to get out of the saddle on the Colnago. On one of the fast descents they have patched the road rather than repaved it entirely and on these transitions it was a painful jarring. I couldn't even feel them on the Basso and so went through these turns noticeably faster on the Basso.

Perhaps the young and senseless (which we used to call fearless before we grew sense) could corner at the same speed but only with heart in throat I would think. I can say that I had a great deal less trepidation that I was going to hit a bump that would lift the C40 wheels off of the ground and so could lean into corners much harder on the Basso.

I do have to say that there is more than a trade-off. The steel rides so much better all around that my guess is that the manufacturers are NOT using carbon bikes in the grand tours for the decreases weight - these bikes are so tiring to ride that the riders HAVE to show the signs of the jarring after a very short time in the saddle.

I think that it is nothing more than marketing of a far more expensive bicycle. I fully understand this except I think that sooner of later it's going to bite them in the butt. The reaction of Colnago having their lawyer send us a letter when neither Mike nor I was to hold them to blame for the failures of the frame or fork if they have only given a heads up in the owner's manual.

In my case I had no knowledge of what happened to the bike before I got it. So I could hardly hold Colnago responsible.

But what was plain was that the fork had a seam along the outside edge which Colnago should not have designed in. These seams are caused because the "tubes" are built in two halves and then pasted together. All's well as long as you make this connection strong enough. But in the effort to save weight the seam was not properly reinforced. This is exactly the problem with the manner in which Mike's frame which had NEVER been either crashed or abused simply fell apart by breaking the head tube lugs at the connection points.

And I might add that the earlier "carbon" or "force" forks do not have this seam and are a great deal more strongly built. My Time fork is so much stronger that it isn't even in the same category. But neither is it very light.

The weakness of composites are the resins. Epoxy or polyester.

John - If you rode a modern carbon bike down Redwood Rd. and then repeated on a bike like my Basso you would notice a MASSIVE difference in the forks. Though you may have made your comparison's using the straight Colnago steel fork and the curved standard forks are quite different in feel.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/23/2016 11:32 PM, James wrote:
>
>
> It's not like there are hospital wards filled with people who've had a
> CFRP bike suddenly disintegrate and drop them on the road. Of course
> there are the odd cases, but it's not like any other materials don't fail.

Yep. As I've said, don't buy a Reynolds 531 custom steel tandem from a
builder who's leaving in two weeks for his European honeymoon bike tour.

Or more concisely, don't buy a frame from a builder named Jim Bradford.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I know those choices are out there. The problem we're having is a
common one, I think. The person in question is far from sure how much
she'll love bicycling. She's looking for a decent beginner bike with
drop bars at a fairly low price. We're just surprised at how soon (in
terms of the price scale) the default fork becomes a close clearance
carbon fork that won't accept fenders. Or mudguards.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

I had a set of aluminum forks on a first generation Cannondale 2.8 that were like riding on a pogo stick. I took it out for its first race and wanted to throw it away when I was done. I fixed the pogo-problem with a set of Kestrel CF forks with a steel steerer. Cannondale went too far trying to lighten that bike, and even with stiffer forks, the front end was still soft, IMO.

The deal with CF is that you can design a very stiff and light frame using different grades of carbon fiber and resins, and you can tune frames more readily -- a super stiff BB but thinned stays for a little suspension, or you can use active suspension like the Domane. My Roubaix has a sort of swampy ride which is characteristic of bikes with longer chain stays, but it is stiff through the BB and light. It conducts front impacts from broken pavement like any other bike. The fork doesn't swallow up pot holes. My SuperSix is a plain old racing bike -- it's like a lighter version of my old CAAD 9 with a stiffer front end, which I really like. The two bikes are different in geometry (longer head tubes makes a big difference), but the carbon lay-up and other design features also make a difference. It's not like the old days when SP/531 was indistinguishable when built into two frames with the same geometry.


-- Jay Beattie

[Frank Krygowski]

Regarding "indistinguishable" vs. distinguishable: I'm sure a lot
depends on the person doing the distinguishing. And whether they're
being paid to distinguish!

I readily admit to being a non-connoisseur, and I seem to be very
tolerant regarding ride quality. I can feel when my rear tire is
getting a bit soft, but I can't distinguish much difference in ride
harshness from different frames. Perhaps it's because I don't ride a
lot of different frames.

But I have friends who have spent large for Roubaix frames with Zertz
inserts, and told me they were disappointed; that they couldn't feel any
difference compared to their previous bikes. Even those who don't
express disappointment tend to say "those inserts are SUPPOSED to give a
smoother ride." (The emphasis is mine.)

And the folks that are being paid to distinguish differences? If you're
a sponsored rider or a magazine road tester, you'll say whatever's
necessary to produce a paycheck.

Which is not to say that nobody can feel a difference. There really are
people who are especially adept at detecting differences in color, in
musical pitch, in perfume aromas, etc. I don't doubt that there are
people gifted at sensing road harshness.

But I suspect that for most people, the advertising is much more
effective than the actual material and design.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Roubaixs are relatively cheap bikes, assuming you're not buying an S-Works and you're buying during a sale. I bought mine to replace the CAAD 9 I gave to my son and that I used as my fast rain bike.

Anyway, I can't tell you if the Zerts have any effect because the over-all feel of the bike is so much softer than my SuperSix -- in part due to the components, including 25mm nominal tires that are closer to 28mm actual. The Roubaix has longer chain-stays/wheelbase and less lateral stiffness. It has an odd, caster-ish steering feel. I don't know what causes that, but it has taken me a while to adjust. It might have to do with the tall and somewhat limber front-end. It also has the weird cobble gobbler seatpost and a bionic saddle which affect the feel.

OTOH, the Roubaix is a far faster and lighter bike than my Cannondale disc CX bike which rides like a brick with 28mm tires. There can be very significant differences between similar bike frames that you don't need to be a connoisseur to detect. Characterizing the difference or deciding whether it is meaningful can be difficult. I think people who ride a lot of different bikes for a living (reviewers) can probably spot differences pretty quickly -- but they may describe them in ways that are dopey or trite or give them more significance than they deserve. And unless you push a bike to its limits, many of the differences just don't make a difference.


-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 8/22/2016 6:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Not to feed the frenzy, but CF forks are on bikes of every stripe and in practically every price range. Old Lardy is probably getting CF forks on his mid-fi urban bike.

It's a big marketing advantage to be able to use the words "Carbon
Fiber" in the description of a bicycle, and if they have to have only
one CF part, the fork is what makes sense I guess. More sense than a
seat post.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/24/2016 3:31 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Anyway, I can't tell you if the Zerts have any effect because the over-all feel of the bike is so much softer than my SuperSix -- in part due to the components, including 25mm nominal tires that are closer to 28mm actual. The Roubaix has longer chain-stays/wheelbase and less lateral stiffness. It has an odd, caster-ish steering feel. I don't know what causes that, but it has taken me a while to adjust. It might have to do with the tall and somewhat limber front-end. It also has the weird cobble gobbler seatpost and a bionic saddle which affect the feel.

FWIW, I kind of like the "Cobble Gobbler" seat post design. Not that
I've ridden it; but to me, it looks like it might work pretty well.
http://www.cycleu.com/specialized-spotlight-the-cobble-gobbler/

On the rear of our tandem, we have a metal seatpost that attempts the
same principle, using a hinge at the front and an elastomer puck at the
back. My wife prefers it to a solid post. Looks like the Cobble
Gobbler might give similar benefits.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Um... why not the seatpost?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I really wonder. I mentioned the experiment of the pink and blue bikes
where "experts" couldn't tell the difference between top level tubing
and water pipe. I also read a test where "expert racers" were afraid
to shift using down tube shifters, and thought "so much for experts".

In my own case I have a set of steel, straight, forks and a set of
aluminum forks for my "knock around" bike, in Phuket, and curved, top
of the line Columbus tubes, forks on another bike. The Bangkok Bikes
have a middle range tubing fork with a fairly even curve on one bike
and the other bike with high end tubes and the curve largely in the
bottom third.

And as I said, I really can't tell the difference. Oh yes, if I
bothered to haul them all out to a rough stretch of highway and ride
them up and down, keeping score, I might be able to notice a
difference.... maybe.

But I don't do that, I just get on the bike and ride it, and I repeat,
I can't tell the difference between forks.

My guess that in reality the whole "Oooo my forks are just Sooooo much
better" is of about the same level of expertise as "Ooooo, my red bike
is Soooo much faster!"
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Frank, as you describe this as a "beginner bike" there may well be
fenders that can be fitted. See:
https://www.bikyle.com/images/Accessories/SKS_race_blade_full_fenders_black.jpg
and I'm sure that there are other makes.

Certainly they will "leak a little at the seams", so to speak, but my
guess is that a beginning rider won't be out in the rain unless she
get caught out one day.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

When one is desperate one will seize on the first thing to drift by,
whether a life raft or a new word.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, to give more detail: The shop owner (a friend of mine) said "You
can't put fenders on this bike." I later told her "I can put fenders on
that bike. It will take some customizing, but I can do it if you like."

On three different family bikes, I've done unusual stuff to fit full
fenders. Two of them had the rear fender split at the rear brake
bridge, with custom brackets to hold the (now 2 piece) fender in place.
One had a plastic fender heated and re-shaped to squeeze into the
too-tight fork clearance. And the results gave much better coverage
than Race Blades.

It all depends on how much work you're willing to do. But really, that
stuff shouldn't be necessary!



--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:12:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski

On the other hand the fair weather lads can't see any logic in putting
fenders on their brand, new, red, carbon, fiber, bike. After all the
TdeF guys don't have fenders and they ride in all kinds of weather
(although at least one participant did come riding in sporting a
umbrella :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

The weather in the San Francisco bay area is usually cool and dry. So there's really no reason to ride on rainy day unless you're a commuter.

[jbeattie]

The RaceBlade long fenders are a pretty good solution for no-eyelet racing bikes. http://road.cc/content/review/50952-sks-raceblade-long-mudguards I'm using some PDW fenders that use standard struts on my Roubaix, but they are a bit too narrow. I should have gotten the next wider size.

For John B, although staying dry and keeping the bike a little cleaner are good reasons for owning fenders, for training in the rain, they are basically a social requirement around here. People who show up for group rain-rides in PDX without fenders are pariahs, and in fact, I was ostracized for not have a long enough flap. So, I now have a longer fender flap on my Roubaix fenders.

The racers around here, however, don't use fenders for the spring races. I've done a lot of spring races where the pack was kicking up so much water that it was like riding in a fog bank, or even worse, getting hit in the face with a fire hose for a few hours, which sucks when you wear glasses. The good part is that you can pee in your shorts, and nobody notices. Spit, snot . . . all that stuff gets washed off your face with muddy spray.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/26/2016 3:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> > For John B, although staying dry and keeping the bike a little cleaner are good reasons for owning fenders, for training in the rain, they are basically a social requirement around here. People who show up for group rain-rides in PDX without fenders are pariahs, and in fact, I was ostracized for not have a long enough flap. So, I now have a longer fender flap on my Roubaix fenders.

One of our newer club riders was mentioning that yesterday. Apparently
he'd spent some time living in either Portland or Seattle.

We got caught by a thunderstorm on a ride last week. As usual, I was
the only one with fenders. One woman, drafting me, complained good
naturedly that a bit of road spray was bypassing my fenders. I pointed
out that I couldn't ride within 15 feet of her husband because of the
rooster tail spewed by his bike!

--

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

The world resides in San Francisco?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
<jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:

< snipped >

>The RaceBlade long fenders are a pretty good solution for no-eyelet racing bikes. http://road.cc/content/review/50952-sks-raceblade-long-mudguards I'm using some PDW fenders that use standard struts on my Roubaix, but they are a bit too narrow. I should have gotten the next wider size.
>
>For John B, although staying dry and keeping the bike a little cleaner are good reasons for owning fenders, for training in the rain, they are basically a social requirement around here. People who show up for group rain-rides in PDX without fenders are pariahs, and in fact, I was ostracized for not have a long enough flap. So, I now have a longer fender flap on my Roubaix fenders.

As an aside. They make "add on" eyelets to mount fenders on the
"modern" eyeless frames.

>The racers around here, however, don't use fenders for the spring races. I've done a lot of spring races where the pack was kicking up so much water that it was like riding in a fog bank, or even worse, getting hit in the face with a fire hose for a few hours, which sucks when you wear glasses. The good part is that you can pee in your shorts, and nobody notices. Spit, snot . . . all that stuff gets washed off your face with muddy spray.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>

--
cheers,

John B.

[Phil]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 3:55:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:26:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 8/22/2016 6:11 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I didn't say "junk", I said pretty bad. It was soft so that the heavy tubing wouldn't be too stiff to ride on the horrible Italian roads...
> >
> >Keep in mind that for the material itself, soft (vs. hard) is an
> >entirely different property than stiffness.
> >
> >The stiffness of a metal is measured by its modulus of elasticity (AKA
> >elastic modulus), and any steel used in a bike frame will have the same
> >stiffness, within a few percent.
> >
> >Now the stiffness of a frame is another matter; but it's influenced by a
> >lot of design decisions. The frame material is only one of those factors.
>
> There was an article in one of the bike magazines, maybe Bicycle
> Quarterly, about some bloke that had two bikes built, a pink one with
> super deluxe, wonderful, wonderful, tubes and a blue one with mundane
> old, regular, tubes.
>
> They then got a bunch of "experts" out to ride and evaluate the
> frames. There was no consistence between decisions over which was the
> "best frame" and a substantial number of "experts" though the low end
> frame rode better.
> --
> cheers,
>
> John B.

It was Bicycle guide and it was way more involved than that. they had several bikes built with everything from straight 4130 to exotic sets. Identical size and paint and as I remember they blindfolded the rider when he got on.
the bike they liked the best was the 4130.
Phil Brown

[John B.]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:00:26 -0700 (PDT), Phil <philc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Bicycle guide may well have done it also but the article I remember
specifically stated two bike frames were made at the same time, by the
same frame maker, to the same measurements, from two different grades
of tubes and painted two different colors.

I will try to find the article.
--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Right, same builder, same finish, multiple riders.

IIRC the Columbus Thron bike was deemed 'pick of the litter'

[James]

Weight saving.

--
JS

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Frank, in Seattle or Portland you aren't "caught" by thunderstorms or showers or heavy rain - you're "caught" by sunshine.