Gone and bought a carbon bike!

[NeilM]

So if carbon is so unreliable, how come the pro's manage the classics without leaving shattered frames throughout Europe?

 

[Grease Monkey]

Thats kind of simple - they get a new frame halfway through each season.

And if you sit down and think about it - do you really think manufacturers are going to report even the smallest frame failure on a major stage race.

Like I said catastrophic failures (where the frame becomes unsafe to ride, I don't mean it #explodes) are due to bonding materials failing at regular intervals between 3-10 years.

Just remember if you're buying a carbon frame you're buying a disposable item with a relatively short, useful lifespan. And warranties are extremely variable. Trek for instance, will warranty a bottom bracket failure in the US but not in the UK unless under some very particular circumstances.

Buyers beware.

 

[Deleted member 24574]

Carbon Failures so far:

Trek Madone - bottom bracket (catastrophic), seat stay (warped but rideable, not warrantied)

Giant Defy - paint (woeful) headset debonding, top tube (catastrophic)

Look 386 - paint (now a white bobbled carbon mess) seatpin bolt (warrantied)

Colnago C1 - chain stay (both cracked, near catastrophic, still awaiting warranty decision)

I know lots of people who do lots of miles on carbon bikes and I don't know anyone who has so many problems. You are either very unlucky or a very heavy handed user.

 

[Donny Dee]

Tosh! Carbon is a well regarded as a consumable, throw away frame and rim material and everybody acknowledges that. Everyone apart from you....

If I got 5 years out of a carbon frame I'd be jumping for joy.

 

[wookiee]

Just my 2 penneth....

...I went for a carbon Marin 29er MTB not road bike I know, and within 2 months of ownership the frame completely failed on the down tube, seat tube and chainstays...I would say carbon is the material of the disposable new frame a season type of rider...I think of carbon frames like I do an F1 race car. It is in my opinion, the best material for racing, given its lightweight properties and the shock absorbing features are also noticable. But it is a fragile material very strong in taking forces from certain direction but deviate from the designed strength directions and it is pretty weak. I loved the ride of my carbon bike but I can't afford to replace it every year or two. I by a bike for the long term not to one day discard...I have now gone back to an Alu frame and accepted the 1.5lbs increase in the bikes overall weight.

Doug
Doug

 

[torqueless]

Carbon is a well regarded as a consumable, throw away frame and rim material and everybody acknowledges that.

I would love for you to be quoted in all carbon bike adverts from now on.. along with a picture of where it gets thrown...

 

[Donny Dee]

There is not a skip deep enough to fill with all that lovely broken carbon :roll:

I'll wait till next year for the sub 1000gr stainless steel frame, and watch everyone turn their backs on 'knitted' framesets in relentless droves...

 

[matthew71]

Great post Greasemonkey. The only positive side from all this high priced equipment is that 'decent' bicycle shops have a greater chance of making a proper living. Many are/were just barely existing. The renaissance of cycling in recent years has been a good thing overall IMO.

I shall be going to drool over the £££s Colnagos at Harrods next week when I take a family trip in

nice point about the LBS making a living,i try and use mine ,and they always seem very helpful when I go in.so I don't mind spending a bit more

 

[daccordimark]

Its manufacturers who have monetised cycling to this point of absurdity. Many of the carbon Giant frames - when weighed accurately (as my pal has done) have actual frame weights of 1150-1250gr. A top end 853 silver soldered is only going to be 100-150gr heavier. The difference in weight of a nice SLR saddle. The latesr American stainless steel tubesets are allowing frame builds of 1050gr, and they're really only scratching the surface of stainless (pardon the awful pun)

Carbon Failures so far:

Trek Madone - bottom bracket (catastrophic), seat stay (warped but rideable, not warrantied)

Giant Defy - paint (woeful) headset debonding, top tube (catastrophic)

Look 386 - paint (now a white bobbled carbon mess) seatpin bolt (warrantied)

Colnago C1 - chain stay (both cracked, near catastrophic, still awaiting warranty decision)

Thanks, quite a list of failures there. 1400g for a steel frame sounds good but what about the forks? My 653 ones are 650g so ~300g more than full carbon.
I have to say I'm coming back full circle and thinking 853 F&F but the cost puts me off - I imagine that top end silver soldered frame is going to more than the £1100 Genesis want for their 1900g Volare 853 but that comes with carbon forks (another 400g).

When it comes down to it I guess it's a question of how much/little I'd be handicapped by racing on a steel framed bike as opposed to carbon or even aluminium. And then how long do I think I'll keep it anyway?

Mark.

 

[oldave]

Everyone has much lighter steel framed bikes than I have ever had - but then my xyz is always heavier than any other identical xyz. Perhaps MY air in the tyres is particularly heavy?

I've no idea how long carbon lasts, but it rides a whole lot better than any steel I've ever tried - only 1980s Columbus SLX comes close. 531C is OK but heavy (altho' I realise that most folk can build it into 12lb bicycles). 853 rides like a brick.

And yes I've recently bought my first carbon framed cycle for some years - a Planet X SL - oh the bliss. Can't imagine why I drifted off into rose coloured nostalgia for so long! With cheapish spec still just 20lbs I reckon. Not as nice as my TCR some years back which came in at 16lbs dead - but cost me a whole lot more!