# All these new Carbon MTBs....



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

I love carbon fiber and I am looking to getting a SCOTT, Bianchi or a Oreba Carbon road bike this spring. Now with all the nee full carbon MTBs hittign the market, I kinda of want one but here are my concerns. I don't know if others feel this way...

Do you guys riding these bikes ever, ever fall or have mild crashes? I do and I have had all my aluminum and stell bikes get chips and scratches. How is a carbon bike going to look after a few falls? Kinda like my crank bottoms.
carbon fiber looks like crap when it gets scuffed up and we are riding MTB here right? Hell some rides I never slip, fall or clip out and have an amazing ride. Sometimes things just happen and you go down even on a smooth course.
if you decide to race with this bike, there is probaly an even better chance of going down or getting piled up and crapping the bike.

Sure scuffs give character, but I like to keep my "show room like" as long and as best as I can. But this won't happen with carbon. Better not get chain suck....

I pe you gys with Carbon MTBs keep them looking good! I just need to decied what to do. I am definintly going carbon on the new roadie, even though my LS Capella has an amazing ride for an aluminum frame. New raod will be a Bling project, but not a 12lb show bike ...


----------



## chris m (May 27, 2005)

No problems with damage on my Scott Strike - of course it has elevated chainstays, so no problem with chain suck damaging the frame. It may not be showroom immaculate, but it looks a lot better than my painted alu cross bike, which has lots of ugly paint wear, and it has been ridden in some pretty grim muddy conditions (ironically living in the UK, the worst mud I've ever ridden it in was in Utah!)


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*no problems...*



DIRT BOY said:


> I love carbon fiber and I am looking to getting a SCOTT, Bianchi or a Oreba Carbon road bike this spring. Now with all the nee full carbon MTBs hittign the market, I kinda of want one but here are my concerns. I don't know if others feel this way...
> 
> Do you guys riding these bikes ever, ever fall or have mild crashes? I do and I have had all my aluminum and stell bikes get chips and scratches. How is a carbon bike going to look after a few falls? Kinda like my crank bottoms.
> carbon fiber looks like crap when it gets scuffed up and we are riding MTB here right? Hell some rides I never slip, fall or clip out and have an amazing ride. Sometimes things just happen and you go down even on a smooth course.
> ...


german magazines did just that:
they tested crabon frames in long term and really punished the frames also in the lab and compared how they did against steel and regular Al as well as scandium frames....the conclusion was there is no better frame material!
sure the laquer on top may get chipped but that has no affect on the structure at all. steel and alloy frames get dings much easier than the carbon frames. those seem to withstand such abuse WAY better. sure, there is a limit but at such forces the other materials are already folded too...

and surprisingly the Scott, although the lightest, was leading the list of most durable frames! it was included in this test alongside a Storck, Simplon and if i remember also a Merida Carbon.

also surprising to see the loss of stiffness with age. the Scott retained most of it's initial stiffness also after the simulated long-term usage (worth several thousand kilometers). all other frames lost a big percentage of the original numbers here.


----------



## chris m (May 27, 2005)

nino said:


> also surprising to see the loss of stiffness with age. the Scott retained most of it's initial stiffness also after the simulated long-term usage (worth several thousand kilometers). all other frames lost a big percentage of the original numbers here.


That sounds surprisingly like the old folklore about frames getting noodly as they get older. Did they work out by what mechanism they had managed to decrease the Young's modulus of the steel and aluminium frames, and if so which of the testers won the Nobel physics prize for disproving such a fundamental concept?


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

*funny*

since carbon doesn't fatigue, it amazes me that the scott fatigues less than the others.
all while being stiffer, lighter, tougher, more compliant etc etc. nino i have said this before,
you are brilliant at regurgitating weight info, but some of the other bs you spout off
about just kills me. if anybody on this board takes your scott preaching with a grain
of salt they are insane. i have had a couple cf mtbs, and they hold up fine. i glue
a metal guard from a trek road frame to the chain stay to protect from chainsuck
and put cleat tape on the chain stays as well. just get a scott, apparently they can
be dropped from a plane with no "issues"


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Sure CF has infinite fatigue life, but what about impact loads? My biggest fear when switching to a CF bar was that it would be damaged in a fall and there would be no visual clue, then it would fail later without warning. Is the layers "delaminating" in an impact a real issue? This is the primary reason I have never considered CF for a mtb, though my roadie is CF (I hope I never fall on that one).


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*here's the testresults...*



peabody said:


> since carbon doesn't fatigue, it amazes me that the scott fatigues less than the others.
> all while being stiffer, lighter, tougher, more compliant etc etc. nino i have said this before,
> you are brilliant at regurgitating weight info, but some of the other bs you spout off
> about just kills me. if anybody on this board takes your scott preaching with a grain
> ...


sorry guys, 
i won't translate everything into english. learn some german or have someone translate what you see below but be forwarned that it says what i said above! tesresults of german Mountain Bike (August 2005)

i'm not raving about Scott because i owe them. it's just a fact that they get best results in all tests i have seen so far. this test wasn't about the ride but about the quality of the frame and it once again shows that the Scott is ahead of the competition. if you don't believe please show a different test!

the Storck weakens 1% after the test, the Scott 2% and the Simplon 6% which amazed the testers.
the Red Bull scandium lost 5% of it's initial stiffness, the Rocky Mountain steel frame started to break before the end of the same simulation...it was the frame no one expected ever to fail !!!......

i will only translate the final part of the article:

after this endurance test only little speaks against carbon frames, especially if you look at the results of the Scott Scale. we just hope quality control and finish of the carbon frames remains as good also when produced in higher numbers.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*hmmm...*



Mr. Scary said:


> I had already agreed that in a cycle fatigue test (controlled environment) carbon would perform the best. Go bash the side of the top tube on the Rocky Mountain Blizzard with a rock (denting it) and do the same with the Scott (crushing fibers and causing delamination). Then cycle them. The Scott will fail catastrophically while the Blizzard will bend at failure. That is the difference. As I said, carbon does not perform well under compression loads.


i never said crarbon was indestructible. sure you can damage a frame. as you say hitting a rock hard in a crash may damage a frame..

BUT you are oh so wrong with that catastrophic snapping of carbon:
in another german test they tested all sorts of handlebars and amazingly the Alloy bars would break without a warning, not so the fibre bars which started delaminating but didn't break in half. at least not in the simulated test. you sure can have a massive load that breaks everything in half but that test showed carbon, if manufactured properly, has way better qualities than most believe even in a handlebar.

now i won't say this is true for all carbon parts. that's exactly what the guys said in that last parts: they sure hope quality control and care in the manufacturing will be top. if not we sure have those catastrophic failures you talk about. a friend of mine snapped his Trek OCLV HT in two when he went straight into a hole with his front wheel. the sound of the steerer beeing ripped off was VERY loud


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

Fatigue failures, especially aluminum, are not preceded by plastic deformation. When aluminum fatigues, it snapps like a twig w/o ANY warning. In an unltimate load failure, aluminum will plastically deform before failure. So, in the event of a hard crash, you may have bent parts that you know need replacing. Fatigue failures are the, "I was just riding along and....." I have not participated in any strength tests of cabon fiber so my experince is limited to aluminum.


----------



## Hosehead (May 4, 2005)

Being an engineer who tests both metal and composites on a regular basis I have to make a few comments on this thread.



Mr. Scary said:


> Carbon does not handle compression loads very well (i.e. a rock smashing the tube, or a stem with a sharp edge biting into a handlebar).


Although what you are saying is technically correct you are confusing a compression load with an impact load. Carbon isn't good at either, but by far the worst problem is an impact load for the reasons you list.



Peabody said:


> since carbon doesn't fatigue, it amazes me that the scott fatigues less than the others.
> all while being stiffer, lighter, tougher, more compliant etc etc


Carbon doesn't fatigue in the traditional sense, but it still can weaken over time. Depends on the paramaters of the test and the quality of the part.



nino said:


> BUT you are oh so wrong with that catastrophic snapping of carbon:
> in another german test they tested all sorts of handlebars and amazingly the Alloy bars would break without a warning, not so the fibre bars which started delaminating but didn't break in half. at least not in the simulated test. you sure can have a massive load that breaks everything in half but that test showed carbon, if manufactured properly, has way better qualities than most believe even in a handlebar.


You can't hang your hat on a single test you read about in a magazine. Carbon does and will fail catastrophically, that is a fact. The fact that this test showed otherwise has more to do with the test method than the material.

A high strength aluminum bar that fails of fatige in a controlled lab test will likely not bend at all before breaking. On the other hand an aluminum bar that fails of fatigue on a trail ride has a much better chance of bending before breaking.


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

i would think that aluminum is the worst of the materials (carbon, steel, alu, ti) since it has the worst fatigue characteristics and lowest tensile strength.

alu and composites both have relatively "catastrophic" failure modes, but that's really only a concern where applied stress is at the failure point. since carbon fibre composites tend to have extremely high stress capacity, it's kinda moot. as well, the engineering and manufacturing process may achieve more plastic failure in carbon composites or just plain "indestructible" strength.

between alu and carbon, carbon has the better qualities. either way, you're still looking at well engineered products with manufacturer support. assuming proper useage (eg, you dont go car crushing with a ferrari), you should have equal confidence in the product. 

if ultimate strength or fatigue life or whatever is the main concern, cast iron will do the trick. if uber lightweight with serviceable strength is the concern, carbon composites are a viable, commercially available option...


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> When carbon fails, it fails catastrophically (it does not fatigue and bend).


That is incorrect. It depends on the layout and epoxy. Many technologies make it quite resilient.

On the other side - we have all seen plenty of headtubes snapped off etc. on steel and aluminum bikes. Quite catastrophically. Carbon, with its superior strength margin will be less likely to fail like that, if anything.


----------



## MaLóL (Nov 11, 2005)

nino, is that the same mag that said that my new xtc composite weight is 1440gr and not the 1250gr my scale shows???¿?¿

Is that the same mag that says that alu crown sid´s are stiffer than wolrd cup sid´s?

Those "scientific" tests are not that scientific at all...


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

*10 years on a OCLV*

I have been ridding a trek OCLV frame for about 10 years now and have not had any problems. I have ridden trials style over benches and foolishly no hope rocky stuff and have not had a problem. Laid the bike on it's side many times. Leave it out in the rain too. I have scratched it all over the place screwing up the finish. The chain has dug into the frame near the BB although not cutting into carbon as far as I can tell. I have done a handfull of big drops to flat ground (usually street riding). Perhaps it's an over built pos though. My guess/opinion is that my frame has better dent resistance then most other materials - it has no dents - just areas where the clear coat is gone. Just my experience, don't know what this new fancy carbon stuff is like. I'll try to get a piccy.

Other then aesthetics scratched paint vs. scratched clear coat I wouldn't be worried. Carbon is used in F1 which has pretty bonkers forces driving and crashing. I guess it still hasn't proven itself with mtbs  I plan on being pretty cautious with the new build in process. Really cautious for a little while . . . .


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

MaLóL said:


> Is that the same mag that says that alu crown sid´s are stiffer than wolrd cup sid´s?


Did you measure it, or you just feel stiffness oozing out of of the world cup crown?

If anything, stiffness if trivial to measure objectively.

I guess you prefer Mountain Bike Action style reviews: who pays for ads, gets the meaningless and vague praise..


----------



## Smiker (Apr 15, 2004)

*Great performance/durability so far*

Dirt Boy,

I've been on a carbon mtb since February, and it still looks great. It rides well too!

I've taken some small tumbles, just wash outs mostly. I haven't smacked the frame into square edges or anything like that. Soon after I bought the bike I did get a long strip of clear adhesive (made by 3M I believe) and laid it down the down tube from just behind the headtube to the BB shell. This was to protect the frame from stone chips etc. Getting a carbon bike was a concern before buying it, but after owning one, I just haven't had any issues. I have a carbon dually, and the rear end is alloy. Soperhaps that takes the chain suck on carbon problem out of the equation.

By the way, it's a Scott Genius RC. Ebay item 7197212017 if you're interested.... I want to get the new RC 10!

Smiker


----------



## MaLóL (Nov 11, 2005)

Axe said:


> Did you measure it, or you just feel stiffness oozing out of of the world cup crown?
> 
> If anything, stiffness if trivial to measure objectively.
> 
> I guess you prefer Mountain Bike Action style reviews: who pays for ads, gets the meaningless and vague praise..


if you think you have to measure that a world cup is stiffer than the alu crown one, you have a problem there.

Yankies magazines are even worse.


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

*any need*



MaLóL said:


> if you think you have to measure that a world cup is stiffer than the alu crown one, you have a problem there.
> 
> Yankies magazines are even worse.


for the name calling ****?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

MaLóL said:


> if you think you have to measure that a world cup is stiffer than the alu crown one, you have a problem there.


No I do not have a problem there. Stiffness is trivial to measure correctly and hard and stupid to argue with results. It is not an expert opinion, it is a number. 
If your feelings disagree - you would need to find out what it is that you are actually feeling, it may be not the stiffness: impact absorption for example. Try running a blind test.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

peabody said:


> for the name calling ****?


 just FYI that's a pretty derogatory term, which is short for HISPANIC (i.e latin americans)

Not people from Spain. Way to go with the insults


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Alos used for Caribbean Hispanics as well...*

or any person of Hispanic origin, including Spain.
Now he should *never* have used this and the moderator (Trevor!) should remove it, please! I do not consider the term "Yankee" derogatory in any way. <o =""></o>


----------



## MaLóL (Nov 11, 2005)

that´s the problem, the results.

You can have a cube or a bar of 2x2x15cm of x material and another bar of the same dimensions of another material and make a test. But when you test a fork crown made of carbon and an alu crown made of alu, the test can show confused results, hiding reality. Here you are not testing or measuring a material, you are measuring two different parts... And if the carbon crown is not as light as it should be compared to the alu one... Futhermore, alu crowns are all the same, but carbon crowns are all different, alu is homogenic, carbon is heterogenic. It´s just not possible to place fiber layers exactly the same, with the same amount of epoxy between each layer, etc... etc...

Scientific tests are good only if they are scientific. If you say a giant xtc composite weights 1440gr and that an alu sid is stiffer than the carbon one, that test is not scientific... Call it german test or whatever you prefer, but not scientific. IMHO.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

MaLóL said:


> But when you test a fork crown made of carbon and an alu crown made of alu, the test can show confused results, hiding reality. Here you are not testing or measuring a material, you are measuring two different parts...
> ...Scientific tests are good only if they are scientific. If you say a giant xtc composite weights 1440gr and that an alu sid is stiffer than the carbon one, that test is not scientific... Call it german test or whatever you prefer, but not scientific. IMHO.


Good that it is your humble opinion, as it is rather wrong. I would have failed you in my physics class. 

Result of the stiffness measurement is the definition of scientific. It is a verifiable number. It has a measurement error associated with it, dependent on the sample size and variations between samples and accuracy of their setup. But from all I have seen what and how they measure, they are pretty darn accurate and clear in what they do.

You may claim that the measurement was incorrect, and you may make a more accurate one, but you have not done so. You just make an off the wall claim without any hard data to back it up.

How this scientific number translates to the overall product usability properties is a different story altogether.


----------



## MaLóL (Nov 11, 2005)

ok, i´m wrong, you are wright. Alu sids are stiffer than carbon sids, and giant xtc frames weight 1440gr cause everybody scales are 190gr inacurate. And not + - 190gr, always -190gr. Are you just joking axe???


----------



## Roger G (Feb 10, 2005)

*Scale is tough*

Concerning the toughness of the Scale frame:
A friend of mine (175+ lbs very fast racer) crashed his bike _really badly_
and actually managed to chip off a piece of carbon from the top tube
with the shifters or brake leavers. Scott told him that the safety of the frame
was not compromised and that he could continue racing it. The fact alone
that this frame has survived one year of intense racing with this guy is proof
enough for me that it is tough enough for anything.

Greg


----------



## MaLóL (Nov 11, 2005)

i completely agree with hosehead. Carbon is very strong, I think most of them are overbuilt. In the future we will see lighter carbon frames. But it´s also true that in crashes carbon is more catastrophic, no need to make tests for this, you can see it in real life riding and in experiences of people who own these frames. It´s difficult to make a good test of this kind, cause if the test doesn´t break the frame, the test is not good for this conclusions... If seen a oclv carbon frame in a crash against a car, the frame broke into pieces...


----------



## scapin (Oct 22, 2005)

MaLóL said:


> nino, is that the same mag that said that my new xtc composite weight is 1440gr and not the 1250gr my scale shows???¿?¿
> 
> Is that the same mag that says that alu crown sid´s are stiffer than wolrd cup sid´s?
> 
> Those "scientific" tests are not that scientific at all...


Very strange. Mine (19") weighs 1252 gr. too.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*I am not too worried about frame failing*

but more of the clear coat and first layer of cf gettign scratched up or gouged.
Al least with alum there is touch up paint.

I might start looking for a GIANT or SCALE this spring .


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

Wounded carbon piccies . . . (not sure how this will work - first time uploading)

These look like scratches from minor incidents but they were pretty good blows. I would speculate that carbon is harder then Alu. and it tends to not get scratched into as much and is more dent resistant than most materials. Perhaps there is an appropriate polish to smother out these scratches.


----------



## kustomz (Jan 6, 2004)

and not a carbon 29er to be found. Pace is about to release the RC29 fork, so I sure hope there is a decent frame to hit the market soon! I would surely consider an OCLV, Orbea Alma, or Scott in a 29er.


----------



## carlos (Jan 12, 2004)

Axe said:


> Did you measure it, or you just feel stiffness oozing out of of the world cup crown?
> 
> If anything, stiffness if trivial to measure objectively.
> 
> I guess you prefer Mountain Bike Action style reviews: who pays for ads, gets the meaningless and vague praise..


do you really thinks that only mbaction is biased? i really cant believe it....you must be joking.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

I'm with kustomz.
To me it's all so strange. The most performance-enhancing technologies used to perfect bikes of a clearly inferious concept for anything other than sub-5' riders. The rules allow for faster bikes, XC is a performance sport, why use a slower concept and stuff it with technology and marketing hypes?


----------



## The Chaplain (Nov 8, 2005)

My Carbon bike is great. It is a GT STS 1000 XCR with a ti i-drive. It has been ridden for 5 years now and looks as good as new. Granted, I only weigh about 150 lbs and take care of my stuff. But, I have done my share of falling down on various terrain. It was not intended to be hucked off of cliffs or buildings into large trees. It is a XC bike and since I ride it as it was intended to be ridden, I plan on having it forever.
The Chaplain


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

carlos said:


> do you really thinks that only mbaction is biased? i really cant believe it....you must be joking.


No, I do not believe that. But I do believe simple, well measured numbers - for what they are worth.

It is relatively easy to measure stiffness, or weight, or or size. It is slightly trickier to measure things as rolling resistance, but it is still much more objective then reading how some dude just "digs it".

I would not base my purchase decision on it, but that would be a valuable input.


----------



## eurorider (Feb 15, 2004)

Axe said:


> No, I do not believe that. But I do believe simple, well measured numbers - for what they are worth.
> 
> It is relatively easy to measure stiffness, or weight, or or size. It is slightly trickier to measure things as rolling resistance, but it is still much more objective then reading how some dude just "digs it".
> 
> I would not base my purchase decision on it, but that would be a valuable input.


Numbers are objective and better than "digs it" but they are only good if you assume honesty. I can trust scientific literature from peer-reviewed journals but I'll always have some doubts with bike magazines.


----------



## Smiker (Apr 15, 2004)

*MMM Scale's...*

For what it's worth, my housemate picked up a Scale 10 last week, and it is one amazing bike. We both did time on a Scale 20 through this year, as well as the Genius 10's/20's that he and I own respectively. But the Scale 10 with the XO, avid brakes etc... it's a very nice bike. They respond to rider input amazingly well, and are very sharp handlers. One guy I know chooses to do enduro races on his pimped out scale, running Reba's at 115mm on it. As far as I know the headtube hasn't ripped off yet.

Anyway, from what I have seen and experienced of Scott's carbon products, I can whole heartedly recommend them.

Smiker

Oh yeah, the Scale 10 in a large is 9.9kg out of the box, no tuning.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

eurorider said:


> Numbers are objective and better than "digs it" but they are only good if you assume honesty. I can trust scientific literature from peer-reviewed journals but I'll always have some doubts with bike magazines.


I do assume honesty for such a measurement. Doubt it can be screwed up intentionally: though people may do tricks as excluding a certain brand or trim altogether etc.

As an (ex) physicist with dozens of publications in peer -reviewed journals - I frequently do trust those peer reviewed journals even slightly less - just as the subject matter is so much harder to write and verify, and that so easier to screw up. I know, I have done that for ApJ and JPhysG


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

kustomz said:


> and not a carbon 29er to be found. Pace is about to release the RC29 fork, so I sure hope there is a decent frame to hit the market soon! I would surely consider an OCLV, Orbea Alma, or Scott in a 29er.


Could always get Calfee to do one for you... or Aegis...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> Trek or Orbea would work, I could care less if Scott EVER offered a 29" hardtail. Nino would be shattered if they did, and then we would all have to read his boring comparisons between his 26" Scale and the 29. He doesn't care which works better, just which is lighter..


well - scaryboy -you are once agaon sooo wrong!

it seems you didn't follow me raving on riding my full rigid "winterbike" which is just a 28-wheeled Hybrid cross-mtb-bike. some call it a 29er... i don't care...it is fun and soooo fast!. i built it with leftover parts from my garage and it is really a weapon. you need some skills to go fast as it has absolutely no suspension and just some 32mm speedmax tires but that thing is pure fun and serves as my everyday ride during the cold season when trails are muddy or frozen. the frame is a 0815 taiwanese trekking frame...i really don't care. all that coubts is the ride and it is great.i also commented here that i beat my all time best time on a certain uphill i do for years now. i was faster the first time riding this bike than i have ever been before on my mtbs!! well, that's just a smooth fireroad uphill but nevertheless it shows that rollingresistance (or better the lack of it) is important. Cloxxki always wants me to try meatier 29"tires but i fear the added RR and really don't need much more grip than the speedmaxes offer.sure sometimes more cushion would be welcomed but as it is it makes you fight and thAT'S WHAT I LOVE ABOUT BIKING

but i sure invest some more in my MTB which is a light and fast bike. just before i left for my carribean vacation i completed it and it sure is a whicked fast bike.i'm still in the carribeans now, sitting in a internet cafe somewhere in Tobago but by monday i'm back home and can provide you guys (especially my other sweetie Malol) with some graphs about the stiffness of the carbon crown as well.

hey-have a nice day! i sure enjoy my last couple of hours on the beach...

seeya'
nino


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

nino said:


> but i sure invest some more in my MTB which is a light and fast bike. just before i left for my carribean vacation i completed it and it sure is a whicked fast bike.i'm still in the carribeans now, sitting in a internet cafe somewhere in Tobago but by monday i'm back home and can provide you guys (especially my other sweetie Malol) with some graphs about the stiffness of the carbon crown as well.
> 
> hey-have a nice day! i sure enjoy my last couple of hours on the beach...
> 
> ...


hey man, thanks for remembering me, even if you are at the caribean islands you don´t forget about me!!!! come back soon nino, as i´m sure you will understand, the double-d boys (didier and dirt boy) were too easy for me. I am completely sure you will offer much more resistance with your great taiwanese parts for sale, and those interesting and scientific german tests, and your world wide famous tefal scale!!!!

With all my love to you, and hot kisses from Spain. Sincerely yours, MaLóL.


----------



## kustomz (Jan 6, 2004)

donkekus said:


> Could always get Calfee to do one for you... or Aegis...


I had looked at the Calfee site, but only saw road stuff, does he deal in MTB's? I did notice that Crumpton has a MTB prototype frame as well.........



Mr. Scary said:


> My Fisher is 3.5 lbs. and I know somebody could get weight out of that size frame (medium) with carbon.


My GF Supercal 29 is plenty light. For me, the carbon would not be for weight reduction, but for the micro suspension and trail vibration absorption qualities.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Real easy...LOL...*

Oh yah you did me in. You lie about your weights and admit it.
Sorry dude!

I love al the pics of the XTC Carbon bikes cracking.... There is your beloved GIANT for you.
Don't get me wrong, nice bikes and weight for the money but not perfect!


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> Oh yah you did me in. You lie about your weights and admit it.
> Sorry dude!
> 
> I love al the pics of the XTC Carbon bikes cracking.... There is your beloved GIANT for you.
> Don't get me wrong, nice bikes and weight for the money but not perfect!


hey dirt boy, im not gonna get banned, no matter what a stupid thing you say. My bike is not 6kg, i dont need to lie. Go to weight weenies to talk about bikes.

are you just jealous giovanni?? many kisses to you too giovanni: my heart is broken in two pieces, one in zurich, the other in florida...


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Why would you get banned??*

Yaes, you are not as stupid or confrontational on the ww forum
But you admitted to not weighing all your parts, you have some of the ligest of some aprts ever made, you have special "magical" tires that wear at the same rate and weight the same. Your brake cables and shifters are the excat same weight and length.... Should I go on???

If the people on the ww forum belive that crap, then I feel sorry for them. Must be the ww'isim getting to thier brains and not see your lies.

let's see a pic on your hanging scale of the frame weight, here, on ww's froum or your own.

But nothing about your cracking GIANT frames right? I don't see pics of SCOTT frames cracking...

Seriously, you sometimes have something to contribute to this form, but most of the time it's just bull crap that you speak. 
It must be because this is a yankee forum right??

let's hope someday you will come around and be human.....

Going back to my original post here, what have you contributed to my question, nothing as usual.....

How am I jealous of you?


----------



## eurorider (Feb 15, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> Trek or Orbea would work, I could care less if Scott EVER offered a 29" hardtail. Nino would be shattered if they did, and then we would all have to read his boring comparisons between his 26" Scale and the 29. He doesn't care which works better, just which is lighter..


I'm not really a fan of Trek but a carbon 29" hardtail would definitely get my attention.


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

Giovanni: have you considered visiting the doctor?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Great, you are finally done....*

I guess you are out of material. I again like others proved your a liar.
You really love using my name don't you?

Thanks for all the laughs and showing us all you are a liar once and for all.

It's amazing how on one board you seem nraml, but here it's just psychotic behavior.

Like you said, too easy to prove you wrong. And you have added nothing to the original post again, but saying things that are stupid and nothig nto do with bikes.
Go post your stupid cooments somewhere else.

If you have something relevant to a post here, and I feel the need to respond I will in the proper manner. It's getting old just arguing with you. 
I have proved my point as well as others here about you...


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

reading your post, it looks like i should be in prison cause the weight of my tires is not the same as the weight i had when they were new. I repeat it to you dirt boy, the last time. I weighed my bike. I weighed all parts. When i put all weights on the excel, there is a minimal difference, about 80gr less than the weight of the bike. I had to estimate weights or put a wrong total amount. I chose to do the first thing.

You know the weight of my bike is ok. *You should pay more attention to the weights of the bikes listed on your website*, rather than paying so much attention to those bikes you don`t let be on it like mine. You call me psicotic? Hey man, i must be really psicotic to be here answering your stupid posts don´t you think?


----------



## carlos (Jan 12, 2004)

why dont you two (dirtboy and malol) use the private massages option to attack each other? 

i know that this forum dont have a moderator that really works but its just getting out of control... WTF!


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Your right carlos...*

I let him get the best of me and my emotions. I just hate instigators and people who attck others for no reason and being such a liar.

I am done arguing with him. It's bad for *me and this forum*. I will respond to his posts when needed or to add my opinion, but that's it.

I just wish he would fianlly tell me were I can get those magical tires that were the same to say the exact same weight ...Just kidding.....


----------



## psinsyd (Jul 9, 2004)

*Trying to get this thread back on subject...*

Hey Dirt Boy,

Not sure if this helps any, but I was poking around on the Orbea site and noticed that the Scape frame weighs in at the same weight as the Alma. Might save ya some money, unless you're totally set on carbon. I was set on picking up a Scott Scale frameset until I saw the Scape.

BTW, I've always been happy with your light-bikes service, so keep up the good work and don't let a couple of bad apples get to ya!

Later!


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

jajajajajajaja

dirt boy: my tires are the problem? really?

come on!!!! tell everyone the truth.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Sorry, it carbon or back to me beloved....*

KLEIN down th road...

Thanks and don't worry...


----------



## psinsyd (Jul 9, 2004)

*Cool!*



DIRT BOY said:


> KLEIN down th road...
> 
> Thanks and don't worry...


No prob at all!


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> Yeah, OK. It seems you have rewritten the rules on composites. Nobody can argue with you though. You're a physicist (as you so like to remind us).


How did you manage to extract this drivel of yours out of what I wrote, or do you like, as usual, to pull things out of your ass?

Care to elaborate what particular statement I made is incorrect? I am all ears, I like learning new things.

In particular, please explain why thermoplastic composites are not a good example of how to make composites more resilient to mechanical damage, and why do you think that a higher strength margin will not reduce possibility of failure. Also, please refute multiple tests conducted by many professional publications that concluded that steel and aluminum parts often suffer from catastrophic failure well before their carbon fibre equivalents.

I am sure I am not the only one interested to know that.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Another prodcutive and great contributor...*

to this forum .


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> Go back and reread your statement, where you said carbon does not fail catastrophically. Yes it does, that is what I was rebutting, not the fact that aluminum or steel will also fail catastrophically or that carbon does not exhibit better strength characteristics than the former materials.
> 
> BTW, most mountain bike components are thermoset, not thermoplastic. Scott tinkered with thermoplastic in the 90's but abandoned it. You should have known...


OK rereading my statement.. 
You said "When carbon fails, it fails catastrophically (it does not fatigue and bend)." 
I said: "It depends on the layout and epoxy. Many technologies make it quite resilient."

So you claiming that carbon ALWAYS fails catastrophically and does not bend. I stay by my statement that this is incorrect. I have seen plenty of examples of composite parts bending, cracking but not failing.

Indeed, thermoplastic composites have not made it to the biking industry, (did I say they did?) except for some small parts. Only project I have heard about was a Yeti bike. So there are indeed existing technologies to make it far less britle that with a thermoset epoxy. In particular - making it resilient to scratches and hits. Adding aramid fibers is another example.

Also you mentioning fatigue there was quite odd. Fatigue is what causes catastrophic failures in aluminum. Resistance to fatigue decreases that possibility in carbon based parts.

So far manufacturers used carbon to save weight mostly. If they choose to beef up strength instead, it will be far less likely to catastrophically fail then steel or aluminum under the same riding conditions.

I do not, even remotely, claim to be a specialist in composites. But I still do believe that your claim was overly generalized and incorrect.

P.S. Yeah, this discussion is non-polite and stale. Time to stop I guess..


----------



## TrailNut (Apr 6, 2004)

*carbon chat*

intresting stuff.
got any more anedoctal observations about carbon hardtail durability, compared to aluminum?

my mind has been gnawing at the thought of buying a new 2006 Orbea Alma carbon fibre ht frame or ht bike


----------



## kuna (Feb 25, 2005)

*Ha ha...*

Ha, ha, this forum is awesome! Bunch of guys bragging about their knowledge of materials and application on bicycles and none of them work with R&D in the cycling industry. I totally understand, I'm in the same boat, I'm calling (insert major tire company) and telling them they couldn't design a tire if it ran them over, based on my experience in working with material on sneakers. Keep going you guys, this can only get better....


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

*couldn't agree more..*

a bunch of guys on here regurgitating weights and how to grind parts to make
them lighter, none with engineering backgrounds, all think they are engineers.
guys risking their lives by running al bolts on stem faceplates to save 2 grams
over ti bolts! insane


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

eh its not like you need an engineering degree to understand "better safe than sorry." (Most) Parts are designed stronger than they need to be for a reason, if people want to push the envelope that bad to lighten them, like by removie damping from forks, more power to them, but expect no symapthy when they break.


----------



## LAN (Jan 26, 2004)

Hi Dirt Boy

If you like the way your Klein rides, you really should get a Storck Rebel Carbon.

Marcus Storck used to work with Klein, and have the same philosphy regarding frame characteristics.

The test posted by Nino also proves what a good frame it is (all Storck frames are leading in stiffness).


----------

