# Is aluminum dead?



## BikeIntelligencer (Jun 5, 2009)

For frames anyway. Ran into 3 huge groups this weekend on the trails and did quick visuals on frame material. 90 percent carb. Makes me wonder why US mfrs can't get together and build/sponsor a carbon frame factory. My bikes all are carbon and I'd love to buy American even at a cost premium....


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I agree American made carbon would be great. 

When I bought my bike, I was convinced I had to go with carbon, and bypassed getting a sweet anodized Turner just because of the frame material. I love my TBLTc however, so that all worked out fine. 

At the time it seemed like aluminum was kind of like buying a 26er, or a bike with V brakes - old tech. 

However, now that the novelty of carbon has worn off for me, I would have no problem if my next bike was aluminum. I definitely spend more time thinking about scrapes and scratches on my carbon frame (more because of asthetics - I have not doubt about the durability).


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

For midlevel or better road bikes and nicer mtb hardtails, sure, carbon is or is becoming the material of choice. Manufacturing processes seem to be improving enough for it that the cost has been coming down for awhile. You can get sub-$2,000 Shimano 105-equipped carbon road bikes from some LBS brands now.

Full suspension already carried a price premium, and so carbon full suspension is even a bit higher than that. My wife has a carbon FS, but we got it used.

I've got steel, aluminum, and carbon in my stable. None of those materials are "dead" or will become "dead" anytime soon. I would rather have a steel hardtail over an aluminum one. And a carbon hardtail over an aluminum one. Alu tends to be harsh and you can only do so much tube shaping and hydroforming to it to try to engineer compliance into it. Steel (and Ti) do compliance much better with far less shaping, and carbon layups are fully customizable so you can make it stiff where you want and compliant where you want rather easily. I think alu works well for full suspension bikes (the only alu bikes I own are FS). It's also cheap enough that I don't see it leaving budget bikes anytime soon, either.

There are custom builders doing their own carbon layups. Trek used to do all its carbon work stateside because they had some proprietary processes. SRAM/Zipp has a carbon layup facility for their wheels in my city. Again, proprietary processes they want to protect. It's far more common right now to find carbon wheels made in the USA than carbon frames. IIRC, HED and ENVE are also US-based, and I think there's a couple more wheel builders here. It's a cost thing. Some manufacturing is beginning to return to the US after being outsourced. Not sure if a bike manufacturer will ever find cost savings with locating a factory stateside. They'd have to find a place where labor was cheap enough.


----------



## 80Pro-Line (Dec 3, 2014)

Harold said:


> Some manufacturing is beginning to return to the US after being outsourced. Not sure if a bike manufacturer will ever find cost savings with locating a factory stateside.


Although the current dockworkers' strike has got to be causing a lot of heartburn for companies who's products are all stuck on container ships. Always something...


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

Aluminum is the number one selling material for mountain bikes....so dead? No...losing market share? Yes. I think carbon will eventually be the way to go, but for now in a FS bike I would rather have a better outfitted aluminum frame than a carbon framed bike with lesser components at the same price point. That and the fact that some manufacturers still underbuild carbon FS frames in the name of saving weight, causing them to flex too much, means for many...aluminum offers better performance in addition to being the better deal. It will be around for a while....definitely not dead yet.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Most of my friends and I are still riding aluminum. I cannot justify the extra cash for carbon. My 155 pound frame isn't going to flex aluminum enough for me to justify carbon.

As for aluminum being harsh, tubeless has solved that issue. A tire with good volume and low pressure leaves me feeling good even after a 50-60 mile day on the hardtail.


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

My take is there are increasingly diminishing returns with carbon frames as the travel of the suspension grows. You can make a supremely stiff aluminum and carbon frame. For a road bike or hardtail, I think Carbon has great advantages over aluminum. When you have a 160mm travel bike, saving that 3/4lb of frame weight isnt going to be noticable and the ride characteristics are determined far more by tires, pressure, and suspension.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

I get the compliance I need from a carbon hardtail. No chance I could find that in an aluminum hardtail.
But some carbon bikes are stiff and don't measure up either. So it depends on the way the frame is engineered.
One complication with this theory is wide rims. 30mm inside rims bump up the volume of the fast rolling tires smaller seen on hardtails. More volume means more comfort among other handling benefits. Maybe you can use these to get by on a light aluminum hardtail frame.


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

Aluminum is not dead. Its just not as cool as it was in the 90s. Everyone wants carbon now because its light, it absorbs trail chatter and it looks cool. It used to be the only way to get carbon was to get a US made frame. The result was that carbon frames were so ridiculously expensive that no regular joe could get one. The only way to get affordable carbon is to have it manufactured overseas. Even if every manufacturer got together and built a massive factory here, you still have to pay at least minimum wage, offer health care and benefits. All that cost gets passed on to the consumer. By going overseas, they pay like pennies to the factory workers so your frames are much cheaper. I am not saying whether this is right or wrong, its just how it is. Trek used to do US made frames (OCLV) and Asian made frames (TCT). The OCLV frames cost way more to buy then the TCT.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

It is not dead, unless you want it w/ 26" wheels, bar ends, toe straps, water bottle mounts or anything else everyone says is dead. Just be sure to get an Awesome Strap. Then you will be OK


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

bankerboy said:


> It is not dead, unless you want it w/ 26" wheels, bar ends, toe straps, water bottle mounts or anything else everyone says is dead. Just be sure to get an Awesome Strap. Then you will be OK


It is funny all the things people say are dead, but you can still get 20 years after it was proclaimed dead. Steel was said to be dead when aluminum frames got cheap, yet if you want a steel frame you can still get one, maybe not in your LBS but they're out there.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Funny...most people I see on the trails run aluminum frames.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

BikeIntelligencer said:


> For frames anyway. Ran into 3 huge groups this weekend on the trails and did quick visuals on frame material. 90 percent carb. Makes me wonder why US mfrs can't get together and build/sponsor a carbon frame factory. My bikes all are carbon and I'd love to buy American even at a cost premium....


Seriously....? Maybe you just ran into a pack of Dentists who had gone out and bought the most expensive thing the bike shop could sell them?


----------



## yakkoTDI (May 4, 2011)

I have 4 aluminum bicycles and one steel. No carbon yet. Next bicycle I am considering building is going to be steel most likely.


----------



## DudeDowne (Jun 18, 2012)

I few weeks ago I went from an Ibis MOJO SL with I9 Torch aluminum wheels to an aluminum Transition Bandit 29 with Nextie 35mm carbon wheels. The Bandit has a better fork with a Pike 130. 

I love the aluminum! The MOJO was a good bike but I wore groves in the chain stays from heel rub. Cosmetic damage only, but I just feel the Bandit is more durable. Of course there are so many variables between the bikes not just frame material.


----------



## Mr5150 (Dec 20, 2011)

One word: Steel.

Reynolds 853 to be precise.

The HT is not dead. 

Oh wait wrong thread, sorry.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

crabon is still too expensive for the masses to "kill" aluminum. but that's part of it's appeal. designing and manufacturing a crabon bike is probably expensive, likely more expensive than aluminum, but if it somehow became as cheap as an aluminum frame, it would no longer be special in the eyes of consumers. just like diamonds, precious metals, or beanie babies. I am riding a steel frame and will continue to ride steel until I land a job that pays me a lot more. most of the people I ride with ride aluminum or steel. the fowl terrain around tends to make people nervous about riding a non-metal frame.

are carbon frames "disposable?" I don't think it's controversial to say that steel and titanium will last longer in a lab and in real-world conditions. for people who make every purchase as if it will be the last frame they ever buy, carbon seems like flushing money down the toilet. do carbon customers have a different mentality?

if all you see a carbon bikes where you ride, you must be riding in an area where everyone has really, really clean teeth. all us poor, blue-collar people spend what little hard-earned cash we can spend on bikes on stuff we have confidence will last. not that I want to start a class war over bike materials, but the golfification of cycling means not everyone can afford exotic composite materials.

(that was a joke. it means the riders are all "dentists" or cyclists who have a lot of disposable income to spend of bikes)


----------



## Slasa E (Dec 9, 2008)

Mr5150 said:


> One word: Steel.
> 
> Reynolds 853 to be precise.
> 
> ...


I'm partial to True Temper OX Platinum myself. 
I just gave up my aluminum HT for good old steel. Aluminum has its place for sure. Kind of interesting that BIKE mag just reviewed 2 steel HT's in the latest edition that hit my mailbox today.


----------



## BikeIntelligencer (Jun 5, 2009)

Admittedly this was Santa Cruz. Eye candy you wdn't believe. But no, not dentists. Lotta techies and trustafarians but out here there are the folks you read about whose bikes are worth more than their cars....


turbodog said:


> Seriously....? Maybe you just ran into a pack of Dentists who had gone out and bought the most expensive thing the bike shop could sell them?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

mack_turtle said:


> are carbon frames "disposable?" I don't think it's controversial to say that steel and titanium will last longer in a lab and in real-world conditions. for people who make every purchase as if it will be the last frame they ever buy, carbon seems like flushing money down the toilet. do carbon customers have a different mentality?


You have some misconceptions about the durability of carbon. 
If the lab is a corrosive environment, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab has machines that bend and twist frames, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests impact resistance by banging tubes against a wall or dropping weights from height against the tubes, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests fatigue failure by flexing small displacements hundreds of thousands of times, carbon lasts the longest.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

smilinsteve said:


> carbon lasts the longest.


My carbon frame lasted 4 rides.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

turbodog said:


> Seriously....? Maybe you just ran into a pack of Dentists who had gone out and bought the most expensive thing the bike shop could sell them?


That right there is funny, I don't care who you are!


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> My carbon frame lasted 4 rides.


I am a big fan of carbon, but I don't consider them as lifetime frames. In a lab carbon may last the longest, but in the real world not really. Ever ride an old Trek OCLV? I have, the thing flexed so bad at the joints that the paint would crack. Also because of the impact sensitivity of carbon you are just one unlucky rockstrike away from losing your frame at any moment. Now aluminum is not a lifetime frame material either. Aluminum gets weaker every time it is ridden. Titanium and steel (if protected from rust) are really the only frames that could last for 100s of years. Now this is of no concern to me, I don't really consider I will keep a bike more than 10 years. In my opinion, once you factor in cost, weight and stiffness, aluminum is the best frame material. Now if cost is not a factor because you have the money, then carbon is better. If a more forgiving ride and longevity are your main concerns then get steel or titanium. The bottom line is that with every frame material there are trade offs. Ride the one that meets your requirements.


----------



## elcaro1101 (Sep 1, 2011)

Love my aluminum full-sus, but no way would I want an aluminum hard tail these days.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> My carbon frame lasted 4 rides.


Well, everyone's got a story about something right? Plenty of stories about broken aluminum and steel as well. 
There are lots of threads about carbon bars, forks, frames etc and whether they are durable, so I won't rehash all that. Anything can break, but the guy who said that it is not controversial to say that steel or titanium last longer than carbon is wrong. It is controversial, at best.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> My carbon frame lasted 4 rides.


You should've been riding in a lab; it would've lasted forever!

I've seen a number of 'nice' new carbon frames break in ways that were really surprising to me. Ways that if I didn't see it happen for myself, I'd be skeptical about. I've seen some friends have to deal with warranty departments that also didn't want to believe that their $7500 bike pretty much just fell apart.

Only time (outside the lab) will tell if CF has longevity. I'll reserve judgment until I start seeing a bunch of well-worn 20 year old carbon frames still being hammered on a regular basis. Til then, I'm still going with steel as my favorite frame material.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> Well, everyone's got a story about something right? Plenty of stories about broken aluminum and steel as well.
> There are lots of threads about carbon bars, forks, frames etc and whether they are durable, so I won't rehash all that. Anything can break, but the guy who said that it is not controversial to say that steel or titanium last longer than carbon is wrong. It is controversial, at best.


I've managed to bend more than one metal frame, as well as a rigid fork, never broken one yet. Sounds to me like _breaking_ a frame or fork would suck big time--and I think that's the mentality of many who aren't much interested in paying a premium for CF.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Zowie said:


> I've managed to bend more than one metal frame, as well as a rigid fork, never broken one yet. Sounds to me like _breaking_ a frame or fork would suck big time--and I think that's the mentality of many who aren't much interested in paying a premium for CF.


I think that's just one of the many misconceptions about carbon. Can it fail catastrophically? Yes, but so can steel or aluminum. I don't know which is best in that regard, but my guess would be that aluminum is worst. Snapping aluminum handlebars happens a lot. It happens with carbon too, but I'll gladly pick the bar with 10 times the tensile strength. I rode a carbon seatpost all day once, not knowing it had a 6 inch wide open vertical crack in it.

The fact is, there is plenty of data to show the favorable material properties of carbon compared to other frame materials, and no data to show that it fails more often, or more catastrophically, or is more susceptible to impact damage, or any of the other stuff spewed around here. Anyone who says that is talking without facts.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

smilinsteve said:


> I think that's just one of the many misconceptions about carbon. Can it fail catastrophically? Yes, but so can steel or aluminum. I don't know which is best in that regard, but my guess would be that aluminum is worst. Snapping aluminum handlebars happens a lot. It happens with carbon too, but I'll gladly pick the bar with 10 times the tensile strength. I rode a carbon seatpost all day once, not knowing it had a 6 inch wide open vertical crack in it.
> 
> The fact is, there is plenty of data to show the favorable material properties of carbon compared to other frame materials, and no data to show that it fails more often, or more catastrophically, or is more susceptible to impact damage, or any of the other stuff spewed around here. Anyone who says that is talking without facts.


Hows that without facts. If carbon is better and stronger then means all us Clydes should be riding carbon frames, wheels, posts, stems. Oh wait we dont cause IT DOESNT HOLD UP. Just gotta search here and see that, no better facts than real world experiences from riders.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> I think that's just one of the many misconceptions about carbon. Can it fail catastrophically? Yes, but so can steel or aluminum. I don't know which is best in that regard, but my guess would be that aluminum is worst. Snapping aluminum handlebars happens a lot. It happens with carbon too, but I'll gladly pick the bar with 10 times the tensile strength. I rode a carbon seatpost all day once, not knowing it had a 6 inch wide open vertical crack in it.
> 
> The fact is, there is plenty of data to show the favorable material properties of carbon compared to other frame materials, and no data to show that it fails more often, or more catastrophically, or is more susceptible to impact damage, or any of the other stuff spewed around here. Anyone who says that is talking without facts.


'Stuff spewed around here'? 'Talking without facts'? 
Little sensitive?

I only questioned possibilities based on my experiences with other materials, and the rather high number of broken or 'unsafe' CF bikes and components I've seen in shops, even though they are nearly the rarest material commonly used.

Called an opinion, common to discussion forums, you know. 
I knew you disagreed, feel free to spell that out again if you feel you need to.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

tigris99 said:


> Hows that without facts. If carbon is better and stronger then means all us Clydes should be riding carbon frames, wheels, posts, stems. Oh wait we dont cause IT DOESNT HOLD UP. Just gotta search here and see that, no better facts than real world experiences from riders.


Here's a good example of talking without facts. 
There are plenty of big guys riding carbon. Facts are not what you choose to perceive and absorb from this forum.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Zowie said:


> 'Stuff spewed around here'? 'Talking without facts'?
> Little sensitive?
> 
> I only questioned possibilities based on my experiences with other materials, and the rather high number of broken or 'unsafe' CF bikes and components I've seen in shops, even though they are nearly the rarest material commonly used.
> ...


I think you're the sensitive one. If there are facts that show increased failure rates with carbon, I'd like to see them. I have searched for this type of data and have been unable to find it. But if you just have an opinion, based on anecdotal evidence from what you read on this forum or saw in some bike shops, that is an opinion that is not based on facts. Nothing personal, that's just the truth.

I love facts. I can find facts on tensile strength, fatigue failure cycles, strength to weight ratios etc. for different frame materials that tells me that carbon is a suitable frame material. I do not have facts about failure rates, and I have not found anyone who talks about the fragility of carbon to have those facts either.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

elcaro1101 said:


> Love my aluminum full-sus, but no way would I want an aluminum hard tail these days.


Trust me, it's not so bad. I've ridden 70 miles on mine without any soreness the next day. That's on rough terrain and ungroomed trails. It's all about how you have your bike setup and that's true of any frame material.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> I think your the sensitive one. If there are facts that show increased failure rates with carbon, I'd like to see them. I have searched for this type of data and have been unable to find it. But if you just have an opinion, based on anecdotal evidence from what you read on this forum or saw in some bike shops, that is an opinion that is not based on facts. Nothing personal, that's just the truth.
> 
> I love facts. I can find facts on tensile strength, fatigue failure cycles, strength to weight ratios etc. for different frame materials that tells me that carbon is a suitable frame material. I do not have facts about failure rates, and I have not found anyone who talks about the fragility of carbon to have those facts either.


I always figure it that way too.
If you don't have facts, and I don't have facts, then I'm right. :lol:


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> Here's a good example of talking without facts.
> Plenty of big guys riding carbon. Facts are not what you choose to perceive and absorb from this forum.


From what I've seen, it doesn't hold up as good as other frame materials. My sample size is small, but I've seen rocks knock holes in the bb shell of a carbon frame. On another frame, a bb shell became loose so you couldn't tighten the BB. Both of these frames were repaired. The above issues wouldn't happen on a steel frame. Steel frames also fail too, but in different ways. With that said, I own a carbon, steel, and alum. bikes.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I've just bought a Commencal bike and I was aware that Commencal don't use carbon. I had a search to see if I could find out why and the result was interesting. Here is a except from an interview with Max Commencal, founder of Commencal bikes:



> "It's... It's complicated. We have produced Metas and hardtail frames in carbon in 2007-2008. I went to China to visit these factories. It was a shock for me, because the conditions were a disaster. The workers were working on frames with only paper masks. Kids, I say kids, but they are not kids because they are 18 or 20, are working there weaving the carbon fibre. It's dangerous. When you speak with their boss, he says, "in my factory you don't stay too long because your life might only be five years." So they work six months and they change. All the suppliers are asking for cheaper and cheaper carbon frames. When I came back, believe me, I was not comfortable. I said, I will lose sales, but I do not want to produce carbon. We produce aluminium frames, strong frames, it's a game and we are not there to... kill... only because we want to save 300g weight. So I said, "No, I don't want to produce carbon." I have produced carbon in Toulouse for Nico Vouilloz and Cedric Gracia, 15 or 20 years ago. But it was made in a room with no air in it, with people wearing protective equipment, and it's very expensive. In China, for me... I do not want to communicate on this, I only talk about this because you asked about it. I don't say that all factories are the same, maybe some are cleaner, but, for the moment... And we are working on some other technologies, you will see next year or the year after... With carbon you cannot repair it, you cannot recycle it. Too many bad things.


The whole interview is interesting and you can read it here: LINK


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

to throw a wrench in the debate-

1. everyone has seen broken carbon stuff and there is a conception that carbon breaks more easily than metal. is it possible that people who don't pony up for a carbon purchase don't, on average, ride as much or as hard on their cheaper bikes? do racers who buy carbon stuff abuse their bikes more, so they would break whatever they buy in the same amount of time?

2. if carbon products were the same price as their metal counterparts, how many people would chose carbon over metal?

3. why do frame manufacturers often have different warranties for their carbon frames than on metal frames?

just like the "debate" over wheel sizes, there is no one answer to this question. carbon fiber is not going to replace everything else, not any time soon at least. when every 12 year old has a 3D printer in the garage and can make their own, maybe.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Mr Pig said:


> I've just bought a Commencal bike and I was aware that Commencal don't use carbon. I had a search to see if I could find out why and the result was interesting. Here is a except from an interview with Max Commencal, founder of Commencal bikes:
> 
> The whole interview is interesting and you can read it here: LINK


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Got ten years of abuse on my Kona Dawg Supreme, aluminum full sus. Who here has a 10 year old carbon anything? Still like my steel hardtail for trail and road. YRMV. CA does not represent most of the mountain bike spectrum.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

leeboh said:


> Got ten years of abuse on my Kona Dawg Supreme, aluminum full sus. Who here has a 10 year old carbon anything? Still like my steel hardtail for trail and road. YRMV. CA does not represent most of the mountain bike spectrum.


I have an LP Composites downhill carbon handlebar that I bought in 2001, used! 
It was my primary bar for about 10 years. Not in use right now, but I wouldn't hesitate to throw it on any bike. It will not break. Ever.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

> "It's... It's complicated. We have produced Metas and hardtail frames in carbon in 2007-2008. I went to China to visit these factories. It was a shock for me, because the conditions were a disaster. The workers were working on frames with only paper masks. Kids, I say kids, but they are not kids because they are 18 or 20, are working there weaving the carbon fibre. It's dangerous. When you speak with their boss, he says, "in my factory you don't stay too long because your life might only be five years." So they work six months and they change. All the suppliers are asking for cheaper and cheaper carbon frames. When I came back, believe me, I was not comfortable. I said, I will lose sales, but I do not want to produce carbon. We produce aluminium frames, strong frames, it's a game and we are not there to... kill... only because we want to save 300g weight. So I said, "No, I don't want to produce carbon." I have produced carbon in Toulouse for Nico Vouilloz and Cedric Gracia, 15 or 20 years ago. But it was made in a room with no air in it, with people wearing protective equipment, and it's very expensive. In China, for me... I do not want to communicate on this, I only talk about this because you asked about it. I don't say that all factories are the same, maybe some are cleaner, but, for the moment... And we are working on some other technologies, you will see next year or the year after... With carbon you cannot repair it, you cannot recycle it. Too many bad things.


The working conditions in China are a sad story, and one that is certainly not limited to the carbon bike frame industry.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> The working conditions in China are a sad story, and one that is certainly not limited to the carbon bike frame industry.


No. I'm sure many of our cheap products come at a heavy human price. I think it's great of Max Commencal to highlight it in this way though. We should be thinking more about where our stuff comes from and who made it.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

mack_turtle said:


> to throw a wrench in the debate-
> 
> 1. everyone has seen broken carbon stuff and there is a conception that carbon breaks more easily than metal.


There is a _perception_ by some people, but certainly not all. I think that people see broken carbon stuff because there is more tendency to post about broken carbon.



> is it possible that people who don't pony up for a carbon purchase don't, on average, ride as much or as hard on their cheaper bikes?


No, I don't think so. If you don't think you see as much broken aluminum or steel, that doesn't mean there is less broken aluminum or steel. The most common failure I think I see around this forum is aluminum cracking at a weld. But again, that is not data, that's my impression.



> do racers who buy carbon stuff abuse their bikes more, so they would break whatever they buy in the same amount of time?


Do they abuse stuff more? Yes. Would they break whatever they buy in the same amount of time? That is what I would like to know.



> 2. if carbon products were the same price as their metal counterparts, how many people would chose carbon over metal?


Considering how much carbon has been accepted for high end parts and frames, I would imagine it would be just as accepted at lower price points. Especially since low weight is emphasized in the bike biz. It is not preferred by everyone, and it will remain just one of the good options, I imagine.



> 3. why do frame manufacturers often have different warranties for their carbon frames than on metal frames?


Cost of replacement is higher.



> just like the "debate" over wheel sizes, there is no one answer to this question. carbon fiber is not going to replace everything else, not any time soon at least.


I agree.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Rod said:


> From what I've seen, it doesn't hold up as good as other frame materials. My sample size is small, but I've seen rocks knock holes in the bb shell of a carbon frame. On another frame, a bb shell became loose so you couldn't tighten the BB. Both of these frames were repaired. The above issues wouldn't happen on a steel frame. Steel frames also fail too, but in different ways. With that said, I own a carbon, steel, and alum. bikes.


Steve sounds like an industry shill, doesn't he?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Steve sounds like an industry shill, doesn't he?


You sound like a broken record, trollboy. Now go back to ignoring me, or take me off your phony ignore list.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I found another interview. Cool guy: LINK


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

If you really want to not worry at all about breaking a frame, then ride steel









er, I mean ride aluminum!









You have to remember, no bicycle part is made to be as strong as possible, they are made to be reasonably strong at a reasonable weight.

It is funny that everyone knows that steel and aluminum fail, and it is accepted, but if carbon fails, it is an indictment of the material in general.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm not judging the durability of all carbon fiber frames based on my experience, this was my first one. I've never broken a frame before and was baffled when I saw the crack, oddly, this old commercial from my youth started running through my head.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> ...if you just have an opinion, based on anecdotal evidence from what you read on this forum... that is an opinion that is not based on facts. Nothing personal, that's just the truth.





smilinsteve said:


> If you really want to not worry at all about breaking a frame, then ride steel
> View attachment 967219
> 
> er, I mean ride aluminum!
> ...


Were these bikes you found pictures of on this forum to support your opinion-based argument?

Tell the truth.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Mr5150 said:


> One word: Steel.
> 
> Reynolds 853 to be precise.
> 
> ...


Tales of your awesome v-brakes should be next in the queue.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> My carbon frame lasted 4 rides.


That's clearly the norm :/

That's why they cost 3 grand; because they last 4 rides.


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> No. I'm sure many of our cheap products come at a heavy human price. I think it's great of Max Commencal to highlight it in this way though. We should be thinking more about where our stuff comes from and who made it.


Heavy human price? What would those workers be doing if there were no factories, and thus no work? People don't think when they speak....we are better off with low priced goods, and they are better off with jobs that every single one of those workers prefers to the alternative.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

All my mtb have been aluminum since the mid-90s. 

Prior, my bike was 4130 Cromoly. I recently got a rigid ss street bike that's also cromo.

Doubt I'll ever get a carbon bike due to cost and fear of damaging it. Titanium is nice but $$$$$!!!

If ever I were to get a non-alloy mtb it would likely be cromo. But again, I don't see the necessity. Aluminum is good enough and whatever "supple" advantage steel has over it is negated by advancements in construction and tubing.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

I've never broken a carbon frame, but I've never owned one either. I have broken 5 steel and 5 aluminum frames over my two decades of mountain biking. I suspect that I'd break carbon too; probably right there at the driveside chainstay/bb junction, just like always...


----------



## apache (Jan 2, 2006)

elcaro1101 said:


> Love my aluminum full-sus, but no way would I want an aluminum hard tail these days.


Love my aluminum Niner hard tail!!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

juan_speeder said:


> That's clearly the norm :/
> 
> That's why they cost 3 grand; because they last 4 rides.





J.B. Weld said:


> I'm not judging the durability of all carbon fiber frames based on my experience, this was my first one.


just saying.......


----------



## apache (Jan 2, 2006)

Owned one steel De Rosa road bike.
One steel Schwinn.
One aluminum Iron Horse.
Two carbon P2s.
One aluminum Niner.
One Carbon Synapse.

The only one that has failed me was the Cannondale Synapse (seat stay cracks)


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> just saying.......


...and some dude bought a new Tesla and promptly crashed into the Tesla sign.










I don't think that I'd post that of evidence of anything.

Likewise...


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm not judging the durability of all carbon fiber frames based on my experience, this was my first one. I've never broken a frame before and was baffled when I saw the crack]


Couldnt you put sum JB Weld on it, keep ridin?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Haymarket said:


> Heavy human price? What would those workers be doing if there were no factories, and thus no work? People don't think when they speak....we are better off with low priced goods, and they are better off with jobs that every single one of those workers prefers to the alternative.


This response deserves a novel-length rebuttal. Suffice it to say that much of the human race that now makes toys for you and me were capable of sustaining themselves before industrial society put them in such a situation.

However, i doubt that most of the companies that manufacture bicycles in such a way as to minimize the use of unsavory labor practices and environmental damage do so out of altruistic motives. Some of them do, but that's the thing about capitalism- it does not work unless it is profitable.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

juan_speeder said:


> ...and some dude bought a new Tesla and promptly crashed into the Tesla sign.
> 
> I don't think that I'd post that of evidence of anything.
> 
> Likewise...


Really? for the third time- I posted nothing as evidence of anything.

Am not anti-carbon fiber, yet.


----------



## BikeIntelligencer (Jun 5, 2009)

Right on... let's see. Of the first 15 mountain bikes I owned, 2 steel broke, 4 aluminum broke, and 2 carbon broke. Failure is an equal opportunist!


smilinsteve said:


> You have to remember, no bicycle part is made to be as strong as possible, they are made to be reasonably strong at a reasonable weight.
> 
> It is funny that everyone knows that steel and aluminum fail, and it is accepted, but if carbon fails, it is an indictment of the material in general.


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> It is funny that everyone knows that steel and aluminum fail, and it is accepted, but if carbon fails, it is an indictment of the material in general.


Most peoples beef with carbon is its failure mode. It will suddenly snap in half with no warning. Metals usually bend of crack way before they break. If you regularly inspect your bike you will be able to tell that a metal frame is wearing out. Carbon usually shows no tell tale signs. I had a carbon cross fork that had 20 miles on it snap right in half when I applied the brakes hard. Prior to that, there was nothing to indicate that this might happen. So my point is that all frame materials break but carbon is most likely to leave you badly injured due to a sudden catastrophic failure. I still ride carbon, but I do have some concerns about it.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ljsmith said:


> Most peoples beef with carbon is its failure mode. It will suddenly snap in half with no warning. Metals usually bend *or crack* way before they break. If you regularly inspect your bike you will be able to tell that a metal frame is wearing out. Carbon usually shows no tell tale signs. I had a carbon cross fork that had 20 miles on it snap right in half when I applied the brakes hard. Prior to that, there was nothing to indicate that this might happen. So my point is that all frame materials break but carbon is most likely to leave you badly injured due to a sudden catastrophic failure. I still ride carbon, but I do have some concerns about it.


Which is also "snapping".


----------



## BikeIntelligencer (Jun 5, 2009)

All my carbon failures have been non-catastrophic, no snapping. Hairlines that chirp or squawk, or give noticeably under load. In the case of my Mojo the non drive chain stay went squishy to the touch in a nickel size pocket on the exterior side. In contrast I had an aluminum handlebar snap in two while riding(!), fortunately I was able to brake with my other hand. And an alu chainstay broke all the way thru on my Pro-Flex 854 admittedly back in the day but still....



ljsmith said:


> Most peoples beef with carbon is its failure mode. It will suddenly snap in half with no warning. Metals usually bend of crack way before they break. If you regularly inspect your bike you will be able to tell that a metal frame is wearing out. Carbon usually shows no tell tale signs. I had a carbon cross fork that had 20 miles on it snap right in half when I applied the brakes hard. Prior to that, there was nothing to indicate that this might happen. So my point is that all frame materials break but carbon is most likely to leave you badly injured due to a sudden catastrophic failure. I still ride carbon, but I do have some concerns about it.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Haymarket said:


> Heavy human price? What would those workers be doing if there were no factories, and thus no work? People don't think when they speak....we are better off with low priced goods, and they are better off with jobs that every single one of those workers prefers to the alternative.


That's a fairly cynical and cold justification for the exploitation of other human beings. I don't agree with you. The same argument could be used to justify prostitution but the end result is the same. Someone's life gets trodden into the dirt so that someone else can get something that should be costly, cheap.


----------



## MudSnow (Jun 30, 2013)

But how much do all those bikes weigh? They spend thousands of dollars for bikes that are heavier than my 16 year old Specialized FSR. A lot of the new hard tails even weigh more than my FSR.

On most bikes, 70% to 80% of the weight is in the components, so it just seems silly to spend $3000 to save a pound on the frame.


----------



## Bird (Mar 26, 2004)

Yep, aluminum is dead.....Carbon is where it's at. lol

Seriously though, Aluminum will always be available but Carbon is no doubt becoming the material of choice.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

MudSnow said:


> On most bikes, 70% to 80% of the weight is in the components, so it just seems silly to spend $3000 to save a pound on the frame.


Is more like 700 bucks isn't it?
and you get a stiffness benefit for your money as well.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Zowie said:


> Were these bikes you found pictures of on this forum to support your opinion-based argument?
> 
> Tell the truth.


Of course!
but my point wasn't to claim any material as superior.
I forgot what my point was. 
Maybe you can re-read my post and figure it out. If you do, let me know what it was.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

ljsmith said:


> Most peoples beef with carbon is its failure mode. It will suddenly snap in half with no warning. Metals usually bend of crack way before they break. If you regularly inspect your bike you will be able to tell that a metal frame is wearing out. Carbon usually shows no tell tale signs. I had a carbon cross fork that had 20 miles on it snap right in half when I applied the brakes hard. Prior to that, there was nothing to indicate that this might happen. So my point is that all frame materials break but carbon is most likely to leave you badly injured due to a sudden catastrophic failure. I still ride carbon, but I do have some concerns about it.


I addressed this point earlier. Some People think this but where is the data? People have posted cataatrophic aluminum failures and non -catatrophic carbon failures.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

smilinsteve said:


> I addressed this point earlier. Some People think this but where is the data? People have posted cataatrophic aluminum failures and non -catatrophic carbon failures.


Good point.

I recall reading a similar concern for the "brittleness" of aluminum when Hiten and cromo were the materials of choice.

I think all materials have a failure point but better construction technology and quality make them better, stronger.

Carbon is the newcomer so its durability is in question. But I guess these days they're quite solid already and they're rightfully getting more recognition.

I guess it's just hard to shake old perceptions.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

I'm not sure why a bike made in America would be preferable to a bike made in another country. I agree that we should fight for proper working conditions, but it also needs to be recognized that those Chinese manufacturers currently do a damn good job of producing a quality carbon product. Its being made in China does not make it inferior to a bike made in America.

I, however, ride an aluminum hardtail and love it.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> I'm not sure why a bike made in America would be preferable to a bike made in another country. I agree that we should fight for proper working conditions, but it also needs to be recognized that those Chinese manufacturers currently do a damn good job of producing a quality carbon product. Its being made in China does not make it inferior to a bike made in America.
> 
> I, however, ride an aluminum hardtail and love it.


The only real issue of China is quality control. But as long as 1st world companies manage their suppliers and manufacturers quality, I don't see a problem.

All my bikes since the late 90s has been made in China or Taiwan.

However, if we're talking no-name Chinese brands, I'd be more skeptical.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

smilinsteve said:


> You have some misconceptions about the durability of carbon.
> If the lab is a corrosive environment, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab has machines that bend and twist frames, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests impact resistance by banging tubes against a wall or dropping weights from height against the tubes, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests fatigue failure by flexing small displacements hundreds of thousands of times, carbon lasts the longest.


And then you ride out the front door of the lab, can't get out of your pedals and the bike falls over and hits the pointy rock in the flower bed and.........


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> Of course!
> but my point wasn't to claim any material as superior.
> I forgot what my point was.
> Maybe you can re-read my post and figure it out. If you do, let me know what it was.


I'd go with all bikes eventually become unsafe to ride, if you keep riding them hard.
Pretty sure everyone can agree on that.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

To be honest, I think it's a daft question. It's a bit like saying, do you like food!

Do I trust carbon. Well, what carbon? F1 teams can make carbon parts that are pretty dialled, is your made in China bike frame the same quality? Is your frame the same quality as the identical looking frame next to it? You could say that there are variations in all frame manufacturing processes but the nature of carbon frame manufacture means there is more chance of more variation relative to either steel or aluminium. 

Plus the nature of the beast itself is very different. Yes, all frames can fail and might fail suddenly but the nature of carbon does make it more likely. With carbon, all the action is on the inside. Two carbon frames could look identical but it's impossible to know what they are like on the inside. Metal frames tend to crack before they fail completely and the cracks are usually visible, if you look, so there is more chance you will pick up on the damage before you get bitten. It's more likely that the first thing you'll know about an issue with your carbon frame is when it snaps. 

So is carbon better to ride? I don't really care. I want bikes I can trust, not just today but for many years and that's not a carbon bike. Certainly not a relatively cheap one.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> Yes, all frames can fail and might fail suddenly but the nature of carbon does make it more likely.


Where's the data?



> It's more likely that the first thing you'll know about an issue with your carbon frame is when it snaps.


Where's the data?

Believing it doesn't make it so.


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

Fred Smedley said:


> And then you ride out the front door of the lab, can't get out of your pedals and the bike falls over and hits the pointy rock in the flower bed and.........


I was at a Specialized demo last year and witnessed a carbon Epic leaned against an EZ up get blown over in a wind gust and hit smack square on a large river rock. The impact did crack the top tube. Would have slightly dented an alloy bike likely, or at least cause a flat spot at the least. I think carbon is very strong in some instances, but note (some note in this thread) rocks do bite back when/if you crash a lot based on my experience. Beware all the testing lab only machine test marketing basically.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

For the price of a name brand carbon frame, you can get a custom ox platinum steel frame. I vote fit over weight savings. 

Everything is relative to cost. Aluminum is cheap. That's why it'll never die. Sure you can pay to have your butt injected with horse muscles, but wtf save that $ for top of the heap medical treatment down the road, cuz the american insurance/medical system is stuffed full of money grubbing.

Ride rigid, and a poorly maintained fireroad is as challenging as a $5k full sus and a trip to"The Ultimate Destination"

Form over function.


----------



## igno-mtb (Jul 18, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> Where's the data?
> 
> Where's the data?
> 
> Believing it doesn't make it so.


Im sorry man, but the same way he may have no data, neither do you. And I actually believe he made a very good point. To each his own, one more vote for the durability of a ferrous material over a carbon one.

...aaaand my bike is a mix of both BTW, and it once failed at a metallic part


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Here we go again. Just some more General Discussion disagreement. Funny thing about disagreements on bike forums. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is right.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

After reading all of the pluses and minuses of the various materials, to answer the OP's original question in a purely scientific and accurate way....

*Aluminum is not a living substance. It has always been "dead".*

Now stop this "my dad can beat up your dad" bull$hit and ride what you like. Your fabricated internet opinion may not be mine and you will never win.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> Is more like 700 bucks isn't it?
> and you get a stiffness benefit for your money as well.


Oh yeah, that's what I need. My 155 pound self flexes aluminum and steel frames so much, I feel like I'm riding a noodle.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> Where's the data?
> 
> Where's the data?
> 
> Believing it doesn't make it so.


Steve,

Simply put, rocks thrown up from riding do not damage metal frames. They do damage carbon frames. A scientific analysis is not needed to determine carbon is not as durable as a metal frame. This is even ignoring the bonding failures that you have with carbon.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Rod said:


> Steve,
> 
> Simply put, rocks thrown up from riding do not damage metal frames. They do damage carbon frames. A scientific analysis is not needed to determine carbon is not as durable as a metal frame. This is even ignoring the bonding failures that you have with carbon. I rest my case.


One thing that is equal to both materials is if a rock misses either said material and hits your chin it hurts like hell.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> One thing that is equal to both materials is if a rock misses either said material and hits your chin it hurts like hell.


Wise words. I need to get back to the bike thread. We just enjoy seeing people out riding and we don't bicker about frame materials. I feel like bubble boy when I venture outside of our normal hangout.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I sure wouldn't go saying aluminum is any sort of super tough frame material - I've cracked/broken 7 or 8 of them along with a good few chain and seat stays on FS bikes. I've dented a few steel frames, never broke one myself, though I have seen a couple steel MTBs and the occasional BMX break. Had a ti frame for awhile, that thing was pretty damn tough. 

I think what kind of makes me a little leery of carbon frames is that level of predictability of when a frame has taken a hit that I need to be concerned about. I've got a pretty good idea of what I need to look out for with a metal frame. A couple of the carbon breaks I've seen I was thinking 'seriously?'. The frame broke how?


----------



## BikeIntelligencer (Jun 5, 2009)

I like data as much as anyone, but in an argument about preferences it's always a bit pointless.

What makes more sense to me is "in my experience." I try to avoid saying this will happen or that is a fact when I haven't verified it through personal experience. I'm not from Missouri but my parents were, so it's, show me.

In the above exchange, I'd say, how do you know that? And the only response that will really hit home with me is, well, I saw it happen.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

A lot of the reputations surrounding various metals and their properties as bike frames are more wives' tale-ish than scientific. Here's Sheldon's take: Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist

Bottom line: If you notice a difference between the ride of a steel frame and an aluminum frame, it has more to do with the frame design than material. Ditto for strength.


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

When I was looking for my Trance SX I had to really sit down and think about carbon vs aluminum. Money wasn't the issue, I wanted to get something that I would still like potentially 10yrs down the road. In the case of Giant I think it was only something like .4 or .5 lbs difference so that made going with aluminum easier. I figured I'm going to crash, drop the bike, sometimes stack a bike on it or it on another bike while traveling and I don't trust carbon to take stresses like that. I'm sure especially with practically the same weight the carbon model is extremely strong in the ways it was meant to be stressed but if it falls over on a rock that hits the top tube there's the chance of a junk frame where aluminum would hardly leave a mark. 

Besides that, I could tell zero difference in any sort of flexing or harsher or smoother ride between the two. Between the high volume tires and the suspension, why would the ride even be a factor? A fraction of an inch of deflection in the carbon frame is going to get lost to the suspension and tires. 

I chose aluminum over carbon even though I had the cash in hand for the carbon...... Then I found my brand new SX size large in aluminum for $3,200 OTD in March of '14 and never looked back. 

Maybe it's just a feeling but I truly believe the aluminum is going to last longer, given that I will stress it in ways it's not meant to be stressed including wrecks. I also believe the carbon is stronger as long as you don't wreck it or drop it. If I were racing and keeping the bike for only a year or two, my choice would be carbon. But I'm slow and I might end up single if I spend $5,500 (the bike plus immediate upgrades) ever again on a bike so it has to last.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

igno-mtb said:


> Im sorry man, but the same way he may have no data, neither do you. And I actually believe he made a very good point. To each his own, one more vote for the durability of a ferrous material over a carbon one.
> 
> ...aaaand my bike is a mix of both BTW, and it once failed at a metallic part


I stated clearly I have no failure rate data and I never made any claims of which material fails more or fails less. He, on the other hand, claims that carbon "by its nature" is more susceptible to failure. He says it as a known fact, yet has no evidence to substantiate it. If you think that's a good point, you need to take a class in critical thinking.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Rod said:


> Steve,
> 
> Simply put, rocks thrown up from riding do not damage metal frames. They do damage carbon frames. A scientific analysis is not needed to determine carbon is not as durable as a metal frame. This is even ignoring the bonding failures that you have with carbon.


Not true. A dented metal tube might not look too serious compared to a crushed section of carbon, but a dented metal tube can crumple, and a crushed carbon tube may hold up. 
Bonding failures? What about weld heat embrittlement? Which is more common? If you don't know, don't pretend you do.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

delete


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> I stated clearly I have no failure rate data and I never made any claims of which material fails more or fails less. He, on the other hand, claims that carbon "by its nature" is more susceptible to failure. He says it as a known fact, yet has no evidence to substantiate it. If you think that's a good point, you need to take a class in critical thinking.


Why the personal insults? Why not just disagree with the guy and make your points without including that last bit?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Obviously, one of the big _unsubstantiated_ perceptions of carbon is that no matter how strong it is, if it takes a direct impact from rock, it is ruined.

I saw a Trek rep, a long time ago, take a section of carbon tube and a section of aluminum tube and hit them against each other until he collapsed the aluminum. The carbon was fine.

I'm not here to be a carbon advocate. I'm here (and in lots of other threads), to try and keep things factual. And when I see claims that can't be backed up, I have no problem calling it out.

I know that carbon fiber can have a higher tensile strength, and better fatigue life than steel or aluminum. I also know that there can be real life situations where carbon may not survive as well as a metal in the same situation (and visa versa).

Overall, if you take 1000 bikes each of carbon, steel, and aluminum, and give them to serious mountain bikers, how many of each type will fail after 10 years? Will those ruined carbon tubes from sharp rocks out number the weld failures on steel head tubes or the fatigue cracking of aluminum chainstays, etc? I don't know, and if you don't know, then don't pretend you do.

Of course, its ok to have an opinion and a personal preference based on previous experience or just a gut feeling, but that's different than speaking as if you have the facts, when you don't.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> I'm here (and in lots of other threads), to try and keep things factual. And when I see claims that can't be backed up, I have no problem calling it out. .


Ah, yes, good facts such as "If you think that's a good point, you need to take a critical thinking class."

You can factually disagree with someone without insulting him or her.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> Why the personal insults? Why not just disagree with the guy and make your points without including that last bit?


He said the guy made a good point by saying that carbon by its very nature, is more likely to fail. That is just a ridiculous statement. Sometimes, tough love is what is needed.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> Ah, yes, good facts such as "If you think that's a good point, you need to take a critical thinking class."
> 
> You can factually disagree with someone without insulting him or her.


Ok pal, you made your point. You're starting to hurt my feelings.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> He said the guy made a good point by saying that carbon by its very nature, is more likely to fail. That is just a ridiculous statement. Sometimes, tough love is what is needed.


No, sometimes a counterpoint that corrects a misunderstanding is what's needed. No one has ever been persuaded by the argument "You need to take a critical thinking class." If you find the statement ridiculous, explain why it's ridiculous. Don't insult the guy just because you think he's making an error.

This is an example of how people say things on the internet that they would never say in real life. I don't understand what it is about anonymity that makes people so rude.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> No, sometimes a counterpoint that corrects a misunderstanding is what's needed. No one has ever been persuaded by the argument "You need to take a critical thinking class." If you find the statement ridiculous, explain why it's ridiculous. Don't insult the guy just because you think he's making an error.
> 
> This is an example of how people say things on the internet that they would never say in real life. I don't understand what it is about anonymity that makes people so rude.


Jeeeezzzzusss fricking c^&%$# I didn't say anything about his G#$d [email protected]#$% mother or anything!


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> He said the guy made a good point by saying that carbon by its very nature, is more likely to fail.


No he didn't say that carbon was more likely to fail. What the pig said was that should carbon fail it was more likely to fail _suddenly_. Or rather, unexpectedly, as the structural damage that led to the failure is less likely to be seen beforehand. Perhaps you need to take a critical reading class? ;0)


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> Not true. A dented metal tube might not look too serious compared to a crushed section of carbon, but a dented metal tube can crumple, and a crushed carbon tube may hold up.
> Bonding failures? What about weld heat embrittlement? Which is more common? If you don't know, don't pretend you do.


I know metal frames do dent, but I've never seen one in my area. I have seen damaged carbon frames.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> delete


Yes, please delete this train wreck.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Rod said:


> I know metal frames do dent, but I've never seen one in my area. I have seen damaged carbon frames.


I think don't think I've ever owned a steel or alu frame that didn't enf up with a dent or 6 in it. I've never had one crack or break at a ding or gouge though. I would feel that with CF, I would have to baby my bike a lot more, and I'm not a big fan of bikes that need babying.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> I'm not sure why a bike made in America would be preferable to a bike made in another country. I agree that we should fight for proper working conditions, but it also needs to be recognized that those Chinese manufacturers currently do a damn good job of producing a quality carbon product. Its being made in China does not make it inferior to a bike made in America.
> 
> I, however, ride an aluminum hardtail and love it.


One reason is it would give our fellow Americans a few more good jobs which never hurts.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

SS Hack said:


> One reason is it would give our fellow Americans a few more good jobs which never hurts.


Wouldn't that take a job away from a Chinese person?


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> Wouldn't that take a job away from a Chinese person?


But he was a prison slave they later executed for speaking out against the 100 hour work week, so it's all good.


----------



## joey bennett (Dec 24, 2005)

I remember nuke proof handlebars , no thanks!


----------



## bridgestone14 (Mar 22, 2005)

For what it is worth, Ellsworth was recently bought by a carbon fiber manufacturer in California. I think they are in California anyways. So with any luck we will have more American made Carbon fiber here soon.


----------



## Inter71 (Jul 13, 2014)

My aluminum frame cost $2199. American made. Its carbon counterpart costs $3199. Made in China. Difference: one pound.


----------



## SprSonik (Jul 29, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> You have some misconceptions about the durability of carbon.
> If the lab is a corrosive environment, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab has machines that bend and twist frames, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests impact resistance by banging tubes against a wall or dropping weights from height against the tubes, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests fatigue failure by flexing small displacements hundreds of thousands of times, carbon lasts the longest.


Carbon is far better than alu or steel of it is made right. My 17lb carbon everything SS took a dive with me and other than a dime sized hole where it slammed into a sharp rock (went otb on a tech DH section, and the frame/rock impact was the first impact) , all the carbon bits were fine. The only other damage was to my seat rails. A good carbon patch job fixed the hole and the bike still rides as good as new. Not sure an alu frame would have survived that crash nearly as well.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

SS Hack said:


> But he was a prison slave they later executed for speaking out against the 100 hour work week, so it's all good.


I don't really place a higher value on American workers having jobs than on Chinese workers having jobs. Countries don't "compete" economically any more than states do (which is not at all). If they can make something cheaper than we can -- and even with good working conditions, they can -- we're better off letting them do it.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

bridgestone14 said:


> For what it is worth, Ellsworth was recently bought by a carbon fiber manufacturer in California. I think they are in California anyways. So with any luck we will have more American made Carbon fiber here soon.


By a company who earned the nickname Cracksworth. Sounds ideal to me.


----------



## FoafInTX (Jan 3, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> You have some misconceptions about the durability of carbon.
> If the lab is a corrosive environment, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab has machines that bend and twist frames, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests impact resistance by banging tubes against a wall or dropping weights from height against the tubes, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests fatigue failure by flexing small displacements hundreds of thousands of times, carbon lasts the longest.


All carbon fiber materials are not equal, and all carbon frames are not equal, so be cautious. Some types of carbon fiber material have great impact resistance. That said, I have read accounts of people accidently impacting a bike frame on a bolt head or a sharp edge and cracking it. Carbon fiber can fail catastrophically once cracked. There are repair methods, but I am wary. The biggest drawback with carbon fiber is undetected flaws. And it is hard to detect them. Fatigue life can go way down with a flaw, such as layers are separated. Also, layers can be oriented incorrectly, strength is directional, a layup error means less strength.

Hard to generalize on performance and flexure, because the actual material properties can be varied in the structure. Not the case with other materials. One thing I do NOT like about carbon fiber - it is nasty stuff to lay up. It is safe after layup and curing, but any dust from the stuff is bad. Carbon fibers can enter the skin and don't come out. You don't want it in your lungs (also true of aluminum dust, also very hazardous).

After all that, yes, a good carbon fiber frame can be much stronger lighter and more fatigue resistant than steel. Many of the flaws noted may not be noticed because of the greater strength.


----------



## MadTony (Jun 17, 2006)

This sold me on the idea that carbon can be done properly...




The last time I had a Coors light, that flimsy aluminum can dented from finger pressure. If a rock hit it at 15 mph, there would be a hole for sure! Doesn't mean you can't make a good bike out of aluminum, you just need to design it right.

Saying aluminum is better than carbon is silly, without taking the design into account. Featherweight carbon will break, just like featherweight aluminum. Strength isn't determined solely based on material selection, but on distribution, design, and manufacturing methods. Carbon is newer, and anisotropic to boot. There are more ways to mess up a design, but the potential for a better design is here based on the material properties. Clearly, it is expensive to design and manufacture it right.

I broke an aluminum frame (seat stay bent on a rock, just enough to kill the brake caliper alignment) on my fsr stump jumper. I'm confident my carbon Santa Cruz would have survived the incident unscathed. A 2 lb carbon noodle generic brand imported hard tail would be in pieces. Survivability is based on design, not just material choice. Early carbon bikes were less likely to take crash loads into account, but newer carbon frames are commonly built with extra material where it is needed.

If carbon broke when you looked at it wrong, they wouldn't use it for aircraft, spacecraft, high performance autos, and damn near anything else where strength to weight is highly desirable.


----------



## mit78 (May 29, 2010)

aluminium is more realiable in time, carbon is good for competition, not for family , weekend use. For a road bikes, its verry good, absorb all shocks, for mtb, not all the time good, appears scratches, maybe damage at coupling tubes in angles, in time the frame make some moves and noises. In this moment all si comercial, the bike is for maximum 3-5 years and go changes .
In past a bike stay in the garage for 10-20 years, and nothing happens with him and frame.


----------



## zgroove (Feb 10, 2009)

I ride an aluminum Turner on the dirt and I ride a steel Ritchey on road with slicks. The looks I get from people on carbon bikes when I mash past them is priceless! Both 26ers and the Turner is 5 years old and the Ritchey is 19 years old. Both bikes keep getting faster and faster the more weight I lose! LOL!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Ride by the rainy areas by the ocean coast you won't see everyone on steel bikes (ex. Washington state), ride by some image-centric area with a strong economy and you'll see a lot of bling bling bikes (ex. Orange County, CA), ride in areas where civilization isn't so developed to a modern level and you'll see quite a few older bikes.

I live in the next county over from Orange County, CA and see a mix of stuff. Last time I rode aluminum for a week is 2 years ago and my only complaint was weight and the looks. Higher end carbon bikes get the nicer looking color schemes and sometimes even nicer frame shaping.

Only way I see aluminum dying is if better materials, like Ti or carbon fiber, get cheaper. Brands like Niner and Santa Cruz offering a more affordable carbon version is one step in that direction. The methods being used to form intricate shapes with aluminum, economically, is going to keep it in the game. Forged aluminum is really hard to beat for strength, weight, and cost (ex. suspension linkages, stems). With car mfgs like Ford looking to utilize aluminum, the capital they bring will likely help develop the material even more, perhaps to be attractive enough that there may be a time where there's high end aluminum that rivals current gen carbon.

There's other materials coming up that look to revolutionize as well, such as steel alloyed with aluminum, but using a new process that solves issues with brittleness. Blended structure makes steel light yet sturdy : Nature News & Comment


----------



## walangkatapat (Jun 2, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm not judging the durability of all carbon fiber frames based on my experience, this was my first one. I've never broken a frame before and was baffled when I saw the crack, oddly, this old commercial from my youth started running through my head.


Classic


----------



## teuscher (Sep 13, 2005)

I live in Steamboat just down the road from Moots and Eriksen. Needless to say, there are a lot of Ti bikes in town. I have never, ever heard of one failing. Also, there are several manufacturers that are all US based (Mosaic, Seven, Moots, Eriksen, etc.) Sure they are expensive, but they will last forever.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

mit78 said:


> aluminium is more realiable in time...


 This is inaccurate. Aluminum most certainly has a finite fatique life. That is, it can only be cycled (flexed) a limited number of times before it breaks. Steel, titanium, and carbon don't possess this material characteristic. The number of cycles that an aluminum structure can withstand may well be in the millions, but it is finite.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

juan_speeder said:


> Aluminium most certainly has a finite fatigue life. That is, it can only be cycled (flexed) a limited number of times before it breaks.


This is true. I remember back in the day when they sometimes recommended an aluminium frame should be replaced after five years. Of course there are lots of much older frames out there now, and they make the wings on aeroplanes out of aluminium...


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Mr Pig said:


> This is true. I remember back in the day when they sometimes recommended an aluminium frame should be replaced after five years. Of course there are lots of much older frames out there now, and they make the wings on aeroplanes out of aluminium...


The inspections airplanes have to go through as part of their life span are rigorous, fatigue is a real thing. That said, you are unlikely to exceed the amount of cycles on your aluminum bike in any reasonable lifetime, but that's usually when defects show up, like the weld not being quite as strong as the rest of the bike, or a particular tubing bend, etc. All failures are either due to overstress (obvious) or understress (flaw/design issue). This is why titanium is no "magic" material and why plenty of people have cracked those as well. You are not going to see any real difference between the longevity of Ti and Aluminum alloys due to the above, but it will be just as susceptible to the overstress/understress issues that all materials have to deal with.


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

I've owned a Blur LTc, and it was a fantastic bike. I didn't notice too much difference between that frame and my previous one, the aluminum version. It was about 1# lighter, and the geometry was slightly changed, but overall it was a similar bike. Now I'm on a Remedy 8 27.5 aluminum, and I actually prefer it to the BLTc. Just to be clear, that has nothing to do with the frame material, and more to do with geometry, wheel size, and fit. 

Now that I've had a carbon bike, it no longer appeals to me as much as it used to. It wasn't a magic pill, it wasn't vastly different than aluminum, and it came at a premium price. I'd much rather spend the difference in cost on upgraded equipment, accessories, or just grab the next highest kit configuration.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I don't want to jump in this cess pool of a debate. I've been trying to stay out of it. I'm on the fence between aluminum and carbon fiber. Both great materials and you all have had such a great time in here without me. I came across a video of some interest to this thread. Check out the vid at 1:01 and then start this debate a new.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I don't want to jump in this cess pool of a debate. I've been trying to stay out of it. I'm on the fence between aluminum and carbon fiber. Both great materials and you all have had such a great time in here without me. I came across a video of some interest to this thread. Check out the vid at 1:01 and then start this debate a new.


They are all in the "there can only be one" camp.

Both are fine. Ride them both and buy the one you like for the ride. Do not worry about the durability. I have had my Stumpy FSR since 2006 and beat the crap out of it for 4+ years. Upgraded to a Santa Cruz Blur LTc in 2010. I have ridden that bike for the last 5+ years 1-5 times a week. It has covered Mammoth Bike Park top to bottom, Big Bear Bike Park, Sedona, St George UT, all of San Diego and everything in between. It has more scratches and nicks on it that the FSR yet it is still going strong. It is no show pony. It is a kick ass work horse. My biggest problem is I keep wrecking wheel sets. It that doesn't speak to the strength and durability of the frame, don't know what will. Not saying it is better than aluminum just what I like and, contrary to the naysayers, quite durable.

As I sit here and read the "I have a friend who heard from a guy who knew a dog walker who's owner read that....." crap and just shake my head. They are mostly standing on a soapbox made of guesstimates and fabrications. I see a OC or Recycle Bin in the near future.


----------



## Deerhill (Dec 21, 2009)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I don't want to jump in this cess pool of a debate. I've been trying to stay out of it. I'm on the fence between aluminum and carbon fiber. Both great materials and you all have had such a great time in here without me. I came across a video of some interest to this thread. Check out the vid at 1:01 and then start this debate a new.


I was trying to sneak a peak at how many bearings used in the main pivot


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

FWIW DJ, it's being presented as 'You're either with us or against us', and that's pretty BS, as there are plenty of us who 'prefer' neither.

Can't slight it though, it's always fun to hear people go on rants concerning the exceedingly plausible nature of their reality, as opposed to the idiot living in a fantasy world they happen to be speaking with. :thumbsup:

Always A-plus material guys.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Jayem said:


> The inspections airplanes have to go through as part of their life span are rigorous, fatigue is a real thing. That said, you are unlikely to exceed the amount of cycles on your aluminum bike in any reasonable lifetime, but that's usually when defects show up, like the weld not being quite as strong as the rest of the bike, or a particular tubing bend, etc. All failures are either due to overstress (obvious) or understress (flaw/design issue). This is why titanium is no "magic" material and why plenty of people have cracked those as well. You are not going to see any real difference between the longevity of Ti and Aluminum alloys due to the above, but it will be just as susceptible to the overstress/understress issues that all materials have to deal with.


I wear out lots of bike parts, but pretty much the only thing I ever break is the frame, and I do that plenty. i feel lucky to get more than 2 seasons out of one. I am a one bike (+commuter) kinda guy so they tend to see lots of miles, but I'm also a lightweight, wheels on the ground XC rider too.

I've broken plenty of steel and aluminum frames, many from US based "boutique" builders, and I doubt they all had "flaws" at the right chainstay/bb junction.

Another lightweight XC framebreaker, here on the forums, is IHEARTBICYCLES. While I've broken about ten frames, I think he has double that amount, if I'm not mistaken.

Just my 2 Ameros...


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

teuscher said:


> I live in Steamboat just down the road from Moots and Eriksen. Needless to say, there are a lot of Ti bikes in town. I have never, ever heard of one failing. Also, there are several manufacturers that are all US based (Mosaic, Seven, Moots, Eriksen, etc.) Sure they are expensive, but they will last forever.


https://www.google.com/search?q=bro...a=X&ei=_wbyVIPvFYurogTO1oCACw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg


----------



## FoafInTX (Jan 3, 2014)

As several people have noted, the overall frame design is more important than the material. There are great bikes made of steel, titanium, aluminum and carbon fiber. Any of them can have flaws, develop cracks and break. Quality control is probably the biggest factor. 

You often read aluminum is stiffer than steel. People know what feels better and what they like. Comparing materials, 4130 steel is almost 3 times stiffer than 6061 T6. That does not mean thst an aluminum frame can not be designed to be stiffer than a steel frame. Hydroforning significantly changes the mateial properties, heat treating should get it back to the original state. I am a mechanical engineer and have designed parts with both 4130 steel and 6061 T6. Aluminum does not have a stress level where it has an infinite life, steel does. However, vendors seem aluminum with an advertised fatigue life. 500 million cycles seems to be standard at a certain stress level. 500 million cycles is lot of years of pedaling, far more than most people will own the bike. That is pedaling continuosly at 90 rpm for 10.5 years. Again, that doesn't mean either material cannot develop cracks and eventually break. I have no involvement with bike design, only aerospace and petroleum industry.

I have never ridden a carbon fiber bike, no comment on how they ride, and again it is the really the overall frame. There are some 25 year old Treks out there with glued frames. I have a little bias against carbon fiber as I have worked aound it and done structural tests on it. Definitely nasty stuff during manufacture. I have seen numerous flaws found. I have had to replace industrial pressure vessels with flaws in them. That doesn't mean I think it is inherent bad, amazing things can be done, as it is light, strong and the properties can be varied as desired.

The biggest factor in how a bike rides is really the tires. Just varying air pressure on a mountain bike can make it seem like a totally different bike. This is something I myself seemed to forget when trying to ride trails with 65 psi instead of 40. All the difference in the world.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

FoafInTX said:


> The biggest factor in how a bike rides is really the tires. Just varying air pressure on a mountain bike can make it seem like a totally different bike. This is something I myself seemed to forget when trying to ride trails with 65 psi instead of 40. All the difference in the world.


Unless you weigh 300+ pounds, you're doing it wrong, ME.


----------



## teuscher (Sep 13, 2005)

I am not saying Titanium never breaks. You will find problems with every material if you dig. Lets just say I know a lot of folks that have cracked a Trek, but I have never heard of a single person that has cracked a Moots. I am sure it happens on rare occasion, but that is what the LIFETIME warranty is for.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

teuscher said:


> I am not saying Titanium never breaks. You will find problems with every material if you dig. Lets just say I know a lot of folks that have cracked a Trek, but I have never heard of a single person that has cracked a Moots. I am sure it happens on rare occasion, but that is what the LIFETIME warranty is for.


You do realize that literally hundreds of thousands more Treks are sold, relative to Moots, and Trek offers a lifeline warranty too?


----------



## teuscher (Sep 13, 2005)

I am not going to get sucked into a debate here. Ti has proven itself to be super durable time and time again. Its only drawback for most folks is the price tag.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I don't want to jump in this cess pool of a debate. I've been trying to stay out of it. I'm on the fence between aluminum and carbon fiber. Both great materials and you all have had such a great time in here without me. I came across a video of some interest to this thread. Check out the vid at 1:01 and then start this debate a new.





Zowie said:


> FWIW DJ, it's being presented as 'You're either with us or against us', and that's pretty BS, as there are plenty of us who 'prefer' neither.
> 
> Can't slight it though, it's always fun to hear people go on rants concerning the exceedingly plausible nature of their reality, as opposed to the idiot living in a fantasy world they happen to be speaking with. :thumbsup:
> 
> Always A-plus material guys.


As I said I'm neither for one over the other. They both are amazing materials as well as other materials out there. And they both have their place in this sport. There's enough room and use for both. So debate until your balls turn blue boys I'll sleep well tonight knowing there's a place on the fence for me.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

teuscher said:


> I am not going to get sucked into a debate here. Ti has proven itself to be super durable time and time again. Its only drawback for most folks is the price tag.


No, go look at some of the titanium frame failures. There's nothing special about it. It ends up a little heavier and flexier than a similar aluminum frame, but as far as longevity it's limited by the same factors as aluminum frames. It will still fail from an overstress event and it will still fail from an understress event along welds or tubing bends that aren't sufficient.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Al is from from dead. Its a great frame material and keeps the cost of the bike down. My Stumpjumper HT is aluminum and rides wonderfully. The only carbon bike in my stable is my road bike where this material is great. Aluminum is light and strong and if made correctly, won't beat you up like the cliche' would have you think.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> No he didn't say that carbon was more likely to fail. What the pig said was that should carbon fail it was more likely to fail _suddenly_. Or rather, unexpectedly, as the structural damage that led to the failure is less likely to be seen beforehand. Perhaps you need to take a critical reading class? ;0)


Hmm, lets see,



> Plus the nature of the beast itself is very different. Yes, all frames can fail and might fail suddenly but the nature of carbon does make it more likely.


My critical reading skills are telling me, after re-reading, that the statement is ambiguous, and can be taken as carbon is more likely to fail, more likely to fail suddenly, or both. 
But it doesn't matter, because I challenge you to provide evidence that any of the above is true.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

FoafInTX said:


> You often read aluminum is stiffer than steel. People know what feels better and what they like. Comparing materials, 4130 steel is almost 3 times stiffer than 6061 T6. That does not mean thst an aluminum frame can not be designed to be stiffer than a steel frame. Hydroforning significantly changes the mateial properties, heat treating should get it back to the original state.


Good point. Aluminum is less stiff than steel, but frames are more stiff. This is because of aluminum's poor fatigue properties. Tubes are bigger diameter and thicker to limit the amount of deformation of the frame under stress. Aluminum's low density allows you to do this and still have frame that is lighter than steel. 
You could easily make an aluminum frame as complaint as steel, but fatigue cracking would limit the life of it. 


> Aluminum does not have a stress level where it has an infinite life, steel does.


Right. And so does titanium.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Jayem said:


> No, go look at some of the titanium frame failures. There's nothing special about it. It ends up a little heavier and flexier than a similar aluminum frame, but as far as longevity it's limited by the same factors as aluminum frames. It will still fail from an overstress event and it will still fail from an understress event along welds or tubing bends that aren't sufficient.


You are disregarding material properties, which must be considered when discussing the longevity of a frame. All the materials in question have different inherent characteristics. Titanium has the strength of steel at half the weight. It is much flexier though, so tubing dimensions are increased to give practical frame characteristics. 
Titanium doesn't have the fatigue problem of aluminum and has excellent strength and elongation properties as well. Titanium welding can be tricky, and a contaminated weld causes failure in titanium more so than in steel or aluminum. 
So when you say all frames will fail from an overstress event that is true, but the amount and type of stress it can take will be different for different materials, and different designs. And, I've never heard of an "under stress" failure.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

The odd thing about this thread is that it accidentally became a discission about hardtails. Full suspension ti? C'mon...


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Last post in this train wreck of I'm right and you're wrong thread. More important than frame material, is the design process. Like I said earlier, I've seen rocks damage carbon frames near the bb shell. I've also seen pics on this site of an aluminum bike from a huge manufacturer dent the top tube from falling against something in the house. You then have videos of people smashing their carbon frames into hammers, pavement, etc. to show the strength of the material. There are good frame designs and bad frame designs in any material. With that said, my next frame will probably be aluminum. I cannot justify the extra cost of carbon for my weekly group rides. That extra stiffness and possible weight savings (some carbon frames weigh more than alum) won't get me to the top of the climb before the other locals. Riding more will and all of us need to keep a more common sense approach in our perspectives.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Carbon = disposable

There I said it and you all know it.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> And, I've never heard of an "under stress" failure.


That is when a material/structure fails when being exposed to stresses that are below the designed limit. This is due to a flaw, damage, insufficient design, etc.

Titanium frames are not stronger than aluminum by any realistic measure. If we were really getting fatigue (cycles) failures, that would be one thing, but due to how many cycles an aluminum frame can actually withstand, it's a non-argument.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

FoafInTX said:


> The biggest factor in how a bike rides is really the tires. Just varying air pressure on a mountain bike can make it seem like a totally different bike. This is something I myself seemed to forget when trying to ride trails with 65 psi instead of 40. All the difference in the world.


Ditto. I run much lower than 40 PSI myself, but between large volume tires with only 28 PSI (my preference) and a 100 mm travel fork, I simply do not believe that the frame material makes a noticeable difference, all else being equal. The incredibly small "compliance" provided by the frame is virtually non-existent compared to the compared to the compliance that can easily be seen with the naked eye from the tires and front fork.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> My critical reading skills are telling me, after re-reading, that the statement is ambiguous...


You are being a dilbert. Unambiguous enough for you? ;0)

Taken in context the meaning of that sentence is quite clear. If you want to pull stuff out of context to try and make a lame point please go ahead. I'm sure all the other dilberts will be impressed.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I guess the point of the thread was not 'is steel, aluminium, carbon or dry white bread the better frame material'. It was 'is aluminium dead'. Is it now a redundant material. If there is no clear answer on which is the best I think at least it can be agreed that aluminium is still of value as a frame material? It may be facing some health challenges but it is not dead.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> You have some misconceptions about the durability of carbon.
> If the lab is a corrosive environment, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab has machines that bend and twist frames, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests impact resistance by banging tubes against a wall or dropping weights from height against the tubes, carbon lasts the longest. If the lab tests fatigue failure by flexing small displacements hundreds of thousands of times, carbon lasts the longest.


Many, many of my friends carbon santa cruz's have puncture wounds and impact cracks from hitting rocks. None of my freinds with aluminum bikes have this problem.

I don't care what lab tests and marketing and advertisements say. In the real world carbon still lacks when it come to taking sharp edge hits.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

car bone said:


> Carbon = disposable
> 
> There I said it and you all know it.


 Yup. Most of my friends are replacing their carbon frames within one season of use. if not less.

why wouldnt the industry want to support this?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> You are being a dilbert. Unambiguous enough for you? ;0)
> 
> Taken in context the meaning of that sentence is quite clear. If you want to pull stuff out of context to try and make a lame point please go ahead. I'm sure all the other dilberts will be impressed.


You want to dodge your problem and argue about the ambiguity of your sentence, but I already said I don't care. We'll take your stated intention and go with it. You say that carbon by its nature is more likely to fail suddenly. You stated it as a known fact, not as your theory or suspicion.

I don't even know what a "dilbert" is, but what do you call a guy on an internet forum who pretends to know stuff he in fact does not know, Mr Pig?


----------



## 80Pro-Line (Dec 3, 2014)

Great google moogly! This thread is that veritable train wreck that one cannot turn away from. :skep:

Just because there is an increasing number of carbon frames out there does not spell doom for aluminum. Aluminum didn't doom CrMo and CrMo didn't doom high-tensile steel. They all have their place in the market and a diverse audience that weighs their wants/needs with their budget. Increasing popularity of one particular type just rebalances the percentages of each type every year. Simple as that. 

No doubt the future will see another material muscle its way into the mix and all the others will just slide around to make room at the table.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

smilinsteve said:


> I don't even know what a "dilbert" is, but what do you call a guy on an internet forum who pretends to know stuff he in fact does not know, Mr Pig?


I believe the correct term is "industry professional"


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

Sure hope Aluminum isn't dead. I have 3 frames that are made outta that stuff (two of them are 6+ years old). I also have two steel frames and the wifey has steel SS and carbon hard tail. I've stressed welds on one aluminum frame (the manufacturer repaired, re-heat treated and repainted it under warranty) otherwise no issues.

Rocks bash up carbon a lot more than alloys so it is not my choice for MTB frame material. Some of my friends ride stupid expensive all carbon everything (and some lefty) mountain bikes. Others have broken every frame material. Neither contingent has convinced me to go to a bamboo frame


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

edubfromktown said:


> Sure hope Aluminum isn't dead. I have 3 frames that are made outta that stuff (two of them are 6+ years old). I also have two steel frames and the wifey has steel SS and carbon hard tail. I've stressed welds on one aluminum frame (the manufacturer repaired, re-heat treated and repainted it under warranty) otherwise no issues.
> 
> Rocks bash up carbon a lot more than alloys so it is not my choice for MTB frame material. Some of my friends ride stupid expensive all carbon everything (and some lefty) mountain bikes. Others have broken every frame material. Neither contingent has convinced me to go to a bamboo frame


Yeah I've got an aluminum Intense that is and has been my only ride since 2002'. A couple months after it was built a local bike shop dented the down tube while it was in for service. That's a story in itself. But basically it's got a dent the size of a quarter in the down tube since 02'. It's been going non stop all these years through many a rock garden without a hitch. With a 210 LB rider mind you.

*"Is aluminum dead"?*

This is a hand built hand welded frame using Easton tubing built in the U.S.A.

It's hard telling in these photos but trust me there's a dent the size of a quarter there.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

iheartbicycles said:


> Yup. Most of my friends are replacing their carbon frames within one season of use. if not less.
> 
> why wouldnt the industry want to support this?


Are they replacing them because they're broken, or do they just like to buy new bikes? Did they upgrade as often when they were riding other materials?


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

juan_speeder said:


> Are they replacing them because they're broken, or do they just like to buy new bikes? Did they upgrade as often when they were riding other materials?


When I raced, I would replace my bike every season. I did it because I rode a lot, which means a lot of wear, and it helped me keep a newer bike. Does his friends trade in their bikes for the same reason? No idea

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tmargeson (Apr 10, 2005)

turbodog said:


> Seriously....? Maybe you just ran into a pack of Dentists who had gone out and bought the most expensive thing the bike shop could sell them?


My thoughts exactly when I read the original post. 9 out of 10 bikes being carbon is not at ALL the normal scenario on most trails across the country. OP must be an affluent individual riding on a trail frequented by other affluent individuals. Aluminum is going to be around a long time.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think it matters what the frame is made of. If its done right its
all good. All but one of my mountain bikes is carbon. However my new 
bike is aluminum because a Turner Flux only comes in aluminum. That
Flux is the best trail bike I've ever had and I could care less what its 
made out of.


----------



## BikeIntelligencer (Jun 5, 2009)

Perhaps this thread is a train wreck because new high speed trains are using lots of carbon fiber?



Rod said:


> Last post in this train wreck of I'm right and you're wrong thread. More important than frame material, is the design process. Like I said earlier, I've seen rocks damage carbon frames near the bb shell. I've also seen pics on this site of an aluminum bike from a huge manufacturer dent the top tube from falling against something in the house. You then have videos of people smashing their carbon frames into hammers, pavement, etc. to show the strength of the material. There are good frame designs and bad frame designs in any material. With that said, my next frame will probably be aluminum. I cannot justify the extra cost of carbon for my weekly group rides. That extra stiffness and possible weight savings (some carbon frames weigh more than alum) won't get me to the top of the climb before the other locals. Riding more will and all of us need to keep a more common sense approach in our perspectives.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

BikeIntelligencer said:


> Perhaps this thread is a train wreck because new high speed trains are using lots of carbon fiber😝


From what I learned in this thread, carbon fiber is the ONLY material. No wonder it is being used in high speed trains. I'm sure titanium and aluminum were completely overlooked.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Rod said:


> From what I learned in this thread, carbon fiber is the ONLY material. No wonder it is being used in high speed trains. I'm sure titanium and aluminum were completely overlooked.


Yes this is what I learned also. I'm so happy that mtbr has so many engineering marvel types. Where else would one turn for all this vast knowledge.


----------



## 80Pro-Line (Dec 3, 2014)

Whew! What a relief! I'm so glad that I have chosen wisely. :yesnod:


----------



## spazzy (Aug 15, 2004)

I'm poor so I can't afford carbon and even if I could, I crash a lot and always end up landing on pointy rocks. I don't think I could handle shelling out big bucks for a carbon frame and end up replacing it.


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

I want a custom jersey to wear when I'm riding my Yeti ASR-5. On the back, it would say:

You were just passed by someone on a 26" wheeled, 2x10, aluminum bike.
Maybe it's not about the bike.

Too many words for a jersey, unfortunately.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Just checked my 5spot for a pulse and found nothing. Maybe it is dead?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Rod said:


> From what I learned in this thread, carbon fiber is the ONLY material. No wonder it is being used in high speed trains. I'm sure titanium and aluminum were completely overlooked.


That's funny because I can not recall even one post that said that. Maybe we were reading different threads.


----------



## Kronk (Jan 4, 2004)

David R said:


> Just checked my 5spot for a pulse and found nothing. Maybe it is dead?


Maybe you are doing it wrong? Are there any carbon bikes nearby you can test to be sure of your test method?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Kronk said:


> Maybe you are doing it wrong? Are there any carbon bikes nearby you can test to be sure of your test method?


Only a road bike that's on loan from a friend, and I hear they have no soul/heart anyway. The three mountain bikes are all aluminium...


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

I know I'm going to regret saying this. I already regret it but here goes. We have read about people trashing a carbon frame by hitting it on a rock in a minor wreck or even a couple I read about a year ago when the down tube was hit by a rock thrown up by the tire. 

Has anyone heard a single story where an aluminum frame was rendered junk by the same incidents? I I know not all carbon frames are the same, etc, etc. 

As I said, I had cash in hand to buy the Trance SX advanced but bought aluminum for this specific reason figuring I would never see the advantages of carbon being a recreational rider but I might see the down sides (if there are any in Giant's particular carbon frames). 

Also, I read that proper maintenance of a carbon frame includes x-Ray inspection for unseen cracking. Any truth to this? 

I'm not against carbon whatsoever. I *think* aluminum is the better choice for a relative noob like me that's going to crash more than more advanced riders. Maybe that depends on whose carbon bike I would be riding. If someone could answer the x-Ray question that would be great.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> I know I'm going to regret saying this. I already regret it but here goes. We have read about people trashing a carbon frame by hitting it on a rock in a minor wreck or even a couple I read about a year ago when the down tube was hit by a rock thrown up by the tire.
> 
> Has anyone heard a single story where an aluminum frame was rendered junk by the same incidents? I I know not all carbon frames are the same, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


I agree aluminum is the better choice, but not because you're a newb. You wouldn't have noticed the compliance of carbon since the Trance is a full suspension. Aluminum is easier to inspect, lower cost, and with Giant frames I know the anthem's aluminum frame was actually lighter than the carbon a couple of years ago, so you may have even saved some weight. I also doubt you are I have enough power to flex aluminum enough that we would need the stiffness of carbon. We're not riding the TDF.

I have met a gentleman that had his carbon road bike X rayed after a bad crash. He's the only person I have ever met though.


----------



## phattruth (Apr 22, 2012)

This thread cracks me up... consider the following

Carbon is used in US fighter jets- If a pilot is willing to risk there life, I don't have a problem with it.

Aluminum is used to built 737's that people are willing to risk there lives in every day.

Titanium was used to build the SR71 Blackbird and it's the fastest thing to ever fly the friendly skies.

Steel is used to built everything, so no one should have an issue with it.

The problem isn't the material, it's always human error: it's the engineer that didn't test the design; the welder that didn't properly purge the tubes with Argon; the poor chinese kid that didn't properly bond the carbon layers and so on.

Find the company with the most competent crew and you will have a great product for years to come.

BTW, all of the new airplanes and super cars are using carbon (Boeing 787, Lamborghini Aventador) and these guys don't hire idiots.


----------



## FireLikeIYA (Mar 15, 2009)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> I don't really place a higher value on American workers having jobs than on Chinese workers having jobs. Countries don't "compete" economically any more than states do (which is not at all). If they can make something cheaper than we can -- and even with good working conditions, they can -- we're better off letting them do it.


My take on that is taxes. Less Americans with jobs = more benefit recipients and crazy taxes to make up for it. Government is always going to get their money. It affects us all.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

phattruth said:


> This thread cracks me up... consider the following
> 
> Carbon is used in US fighter jets- If a pilot is willing to risk there life, I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> ...


Excellent points.

Check the manufacturer, not the material.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Do airplanes typically tumble through a lot of rocks?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Do airplanes typically tumble through a lot of rocks?


I don't think so, but I wonder what it would be like to ride through a hail storm @ mach 2 on your aluminum mountain bike?


----------



## apache (Jan 2, 2006)

phattruth said:


> This thread cracks me up... consider the following
> 
> Carbon is used in US fighter jets- If a pilot is willing to risk there life, I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> ...


It may interest you that both the A380 and 787 are already having instances of main spar cracks in the carbon (main spar = the spine equivalent for any airplane).

I can't even imagine how expensive it must be to tear down a carbon wing to check for cracks in spars.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

apache said:


> It may interest you that both the A380 and 787 are already having instances of main spar cracks in the carbon (main spar = the spine equivalent for any airplane).
> 
> I can't even imagine how expensive it must be to tear down a carbon wing to check for cracks in spars.


Some of those great engineers also thought up those newfangled batteries.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> Do airplanes typically tumble through a lot of rocks?


They land and take off from rough surfaces, here in Alaska, that means mud, ice and rocks.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

apache said:


> It may interest you that both the A380 and 787 are already having instances of main spar cracks in the carbon (main spar = the spine equivalent for any airplane).
> 
> I can't even imagine how expensive it must be to tear down a carbon wing to check for cracks in spars.


It's not really interesting because most new planes have initial teething issues, it's not uncommon for any new airplane and if you haven't noticed, these things are flying right now.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

lorsban said:


> Excellent points.
> 
> Check the manufacturer, not the material.


In that case, we have found our problem. The bikes are being manufactured in China with little to no oversight without concern for their workers. I'm glad we finally have some closure. I can now resume sleeping at night.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Rod said:


> In that case, we have found our problem. The bikes are being manufactured in China with little to no oversight without concern for their workers. I'm glad we finally have some closure. I can now resume sleeping at night.


The quality of materials and craftsmanship in aerospace carbon fiber construction is completely different than that used in bikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't think so, but I wonder what it would be like to ride through a hail storm @ mach 2 on your aluminum mountain bike?


I typically ride one of my steel bikes any time I'm going to be travelling faster than mach 1.5.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

I was looking at Turner site this morning and see ey offer carbon now. Maybe they have done this for a while and I jyst now noticed. Is Turner making their crbon frames in the USA? I know a carbon company bought Ellsworth and may be making those in USA, but curious whether same company makes the frames for Turner? So aluminum isn't dead but has to become more innovative to compete. I would have no problem wiht aluminum or carbon, it is more of a money issue for me. If I got a better job I'd probably buy a carbon bike to celebrate.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

iheartbicycles said:


> The quality of materials and craftsmanship in aerospace carbon fiber construction is completely different than that used in bikes.


I must have been unclear. I was not implying they were similar. I would hope aerospace carbon wasn't being produced with no oversight in Chinese factories.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Rod said:


> I must have been unclear. I was not implying they were similar. I would hope aerospace carbon wasn't being produced with no oversight in Chinese factories.


I wasn't addressing just you. The various people offering up examples of carbon used in aerospace as a defense of its use in bicycles may not understand the huge difference in raw materials, design, certification and craftsmanship.
You're absolutely right, the stuff made in Asia has almost no oversight. Atleast not by comparison.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

iheartbicycles said:


> I wasn't addressing just you. The various people offering up examples of carbon used in aerospace as a defense of its use in bicycles may not understand the huge difference in raw materials, design, certification and craftsmanship.
> You're absolutely right, the stuff made in Asia has almost no oversight. Atleast not by comparison.


Well said. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## apache (Jan 2, 2006)

Jayem said:


> It's not really interesting because most new planes have initial teething issues, it's not uncommon for any new airplane and if you haven't noticed, these things are flying right now.


Main spar cracks are a little beyond "teething" issues...


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't think so, but I wonder what it would be like to ride through a hail storm @ mach 2 on your aluminum mountain bike?


Just so u know if flying through a hail storm most carbon fighter jets have big gaping holes in them. also the carbon is made by non chinese workers in non china, x-rayed, penetraition testged, ultrasonic tested and so forth and theyh definitely don't use the shitty carbon bikes are made of. also they cycle the autoclaves as they should, and the rooms are clean rooms, the glues gets thrown out when out of date, there is multi million dollar testing. I could go on.

And still these return with holes in them. now imagine how shitty the other carbon is...


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

iheartbicycles said:


> The quality of materials and craftsmanship in aerospace carbon fiber construction is completely different than that used in bikes.


no sh1t. and i have actually been placed at one of the highest end factories and know the designers of the tools and all the carbon parts.
If done right its awesome, if done any way except that its not very good. And "right" here, means at least 4 times as expensive as the frames we buy.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

Nice ride. 

I have a small/deep nick on one side of the top tube of my 2009 aluminum full suspension frame. Throwing it away for some other material (exotic or not) didn't even occur to me eheheh.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

yeaqh and btw. If any of you have sort of understandinf of materials and science you will quickly find out thaqt carbon, isn't really any better than alu, and the most high performing material happens to be steel, yeah go figure.

the pretty much ONLY reason to use carbon in airplanes is that you can vary the thickness wherever you want to and its seemless, yeah thats it.
you can now build in flex as opposed to alu sheet that comes in a mill defined thickness, and then you need to either weld it (bad) or rivet it (also bad), or glue it. its a lot cheaper to just vary the amount of layers at a certain point than to hydroform or superplastically form alu. not even mentioning high performance steel. Basically carbon is the cheapest way/least complicated way to achieve something and therefore its used. Massproduced cheap carbon is quite a shitty material imo.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

phattruth said:


> This thread cracks me up... consider the following
> 
> Carbon is used in US fighter jets- If a pilot is willing to risk there life, I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> ...


Concisely put.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

phattruth said:


> This thread cracks me up... consider the following
> 
> Carbon is used in US fighter jets- If a pilot is willing to risk there life, I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> ...


^^^^^^^^^
Best post in this thread and I 100% agree on every point. Pos rep coming your way. :thumbsup:

Edit: Pig I didn't even see your above post prior to mine here.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't think so, but I wonder what it would be like to ride through a hail storm @ mach 2 on your aluminum mountain bike?


Plenty of hail damage occurs on metal airplanes as well.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> Best post in this thread and I 100% agree on every point. Pos rep coming your way. :thumbsup:
> 
> Edit: Pig I didn't even see your above post prior to mine here.


I concur with Piggy and DJ on this!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

car bone said:


> the pretty much ONLY reason to use carbon in airplanes is that you can vary the thickness wherever you want to and its seemless, yeah thats it.


And stealth properties. And strength to weight...


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

car bone said:


> If done right its awesome, if done any way except that its not very good. And "right" here, means at least 4 times as expensive as the frames we buy.


I would say "done right" for any product is the ability to meet or exceed customer expectations for that product. I see no need to jack the price of a carbon frame from $3k to $12k if they are currently doing what we expect them to do, and from what I can tell, they are.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Edit: Pig I didn't even see your above post prior to mine here.


No matter, the rep is due.

I have no doubt that carbon fibre itself is potentially an excelant material. My concern is that, with everyone rushing to get cheap carbon bikes to market, some of the bikes made of the stuff will be less durable than would be ideal. Bicycles are not subject to the very rigorous testing that aeroplanes are.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Re: bike frames vs airplanes:

Bikes are not subject to the same QC as airplanes, because they don't have to be. And the same is true whether for metal or carbon bikes. 

Re: Carbon can be awesome, but bike frames made of carbon are crap because of the crappy factories in China:

Those sh1tty chinese factories that are presumably making crappy frames with no QC are also making metal frames. 

And I know a thing or two about manufacturing and I don't think for a second that a major bike manufacturer buys frames without knowing exactly what kind of QC is in place. A bike company's $$$ and reputation is on the line if carbon starts folding, or aluminum starts cracking or welds start coming apart. I don't doubt that crappy bike parts and frames are being produced by black market and no name outfits (nothing new there), but a company Like Trek, Giant or SC, probably takes regular visits to factories, has contracts in place for welding specs, for raw material supplies, for QC on raw materials, inspection and testing frequencies for all predefined critical parameters, and on and on.


----------



## 80Pro-Line (Dec 3, 2014)

Well, I was just about to start a new thread titled '*Is carbon dead?*' but after reading the last couple pages here, no need. It's quite clear that since most of it is sourced from Asian plants that everyone is so sure have no quality control or oversight, that carbon is most definitely dead. 

Excuse me for a few minutes while I go drop my 29er off at the curb for trash pick-up as it's becoming increasingly clear that I'm going to kill myself on it due to pending, catastrophic failure.

This whole debate has gotten quite ridiculous. :skep: I've not seen condemning statistics on frame breakage of any type/brand/material. As a percentage of annual bicycle sales, how many frames are actually breaking and how does that number even compare to other potentially dangerous component failures like wheels, cranks, handlebars? (_If any of this stuff were a real issue there would, no doubt, be product recalls and/or lawsuits going on that we would all be aware of._)

In other words, what are we arguing about anyway?

Internet... :madman:


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> I typically ride one of my steel bikes any time I'm going to be travelling faster than mach 1.5.


Steel ftw!

My conclusion from reading this thread is that carbon fiber jet fighter planes make the best mountain bike frame material and that it's probably good practice to keep it under 1500 mph when approaching a hailstorm.


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

A fun video for all your steel lovers out there. Maybe not so fun for carbon fanboys, but don't get to worked up its just silly fun.

Learn About Bikes with Rivendell Bicycle Works


----------



## 80Pro-Line (Dec 3, 2014)

How many licks would it take to get to the center of a carbon fiber Tootsie-Pop?


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Mr Pig said:


> No matter, the rep is due.
> 
> I have no doubt that carbon fibre itself is potentially an excelant material. My concern is that, with everyone rushing to get cheap carbon bikes to market, some of the bikes made of the stuff will be less durable than would be ideal. Bicycles are not subject to the very rigorous testing that aeroplanes are.


Agreed


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Anybody care to post up a head badge photo go here. A change of pace and a bit more fun.

http://forums.mtbr.com/passion/head-badge-good-bad-ugly-photo-thread-955507.html


----------



## 80Pro-Line (Dec 3, 2014)

*Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!*


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

80Pro-Line said:


> *Badges? We don't need no stinking badges![/B*


*

Ha,ha did you read the link I provided in the original post of that thread.*


----------



## 80Pro-Line (Dec 3, 2014)

I've not gone there yet but when you said badges, Blazing Saddles immediately came to mind. I'll go to the head badge thread now.

:thumbsup: Okay, I just saw it. You actually posted the original rendition, nice.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

80Pro-Line said:


> I've not gone there yet but when you said badges, Blazing Saddles immediately came to mind. I'll go to the head badge thread now.
> 
> :thumbsup: Okay, I just saw it. You actually posted the original rendition, nice.


Yes I had a choice between Blazing Saddles and the original. The Blazing Saddles one was not quite politically correct in "today's" society. Even though it's the better version in my opinion.


----------



## turbogrover (Dec 4, 2005)

Fred Smedley said:


> And then you ride out the front door of the lab, can't get out of your pedals and the bike falls over and hits the pointy rock in the flower bed and.........


....pokes a hole in your thinwall aluminum downtube. :thumbsup:


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

turbogrover said:


> ....pokes a hole in your thinwall aluminum downtube. :thumbsup:


This after 26 wrecks over numerous years with the bike tumbling through rock gardens.

Right!


----------



## Inter71 (Jul 13, 2014)

Liteville 601 MK 3 - Review - Pinkbike

No carbon frame is warrantied for ten years.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Inter71 said:


> Liteville 601 MK 3 - Review - Pinkbike
> 
> No carbon frame is warrantied for ten years.


Looks like a no holds bar thrill ride of a machine. Hmmmm and it's aluminum, if any of you are too tired to read about it, at least read the last paragraph in the review.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Looks like a no holds bar thrill ride of a machine. Hmmmm and it's aluminum, if any of you are too tired to read about it, at least read the last paragraph in the review.


Copied and pasted for your convenience. "

Highly refined and purposefully designed, the 601 MK 3 is a bicycle that is by nature, mutually exclusive. The perfect customer would be athletic enough to grind up steep climbs for an hour or more on a 30-pound bike shod with aggressive rubber, and talented enough to put on an A-game and ride the big-boy lines on the way down. The 601 is expensive. You can buy a lot of carbon for the same money, but professional tools don't come cheap. If you view riding as your vocation, and if your definition of all-mountain is more like big mountain, its MSRP won't be your first concern. The 601 customer may appreciate that it is made from aluminum after parting company with a carbon bike in the recent past and down-climbing a rock face to retrieve its remains. The 601 can also be defined by what it isn't. It is not showy and it is not speedy enough to bag Strava victories unless the trail points towards the center of the earth. There are more competitive options available for those who want to make a name for themselves racing enduros. Liteville's 601 MK 3 is remarkably simple looking for how well it performs because all of the faddy and useless stuff has been carved away. Over time, the same thing happens to talented riders. If that sounds like you, I'd suggest that you try one on and see if it is a good fit. - RC"


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Thanks Rod I should have done that to begin with.


----------



## Deerhill (Dec 21, 2009)

Carbon fiber head badges? are they spendy?

My aluminum head badges are still going strong, if they ever crack I would go this route http://forums.mtbr.com/frame-building/acid-etching-custom-head-badges-788806.html


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

It looks a lot more bad ass than all carbon I've seen in the recent years.








btw anyone missing a black wheel??


----------

