# Why would you buy a carbon mountain bike?



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

I know for racing you would if money wasn't a problem and you plan on knowing that after a few races you might get cracks in the frame, but is that the only reason to buy a carbon bike? Everyone I talk too says don't get carbon bike....they'll crack and break, especially a mountain bike where they get thrashed and crashed all the time. I may see buying a carbon road bike....that may last, but a carbon mountain bike seems like buying a Dodge Neon to run the baja 1,000.....it just wouldn't hold up for the long run. 

So....spending 8,000 on a carbon bike....seems like a totally pointless investment. 

Buying a great alloy frame that is strong and putting on carbon parts, makes better sense to me. At least the carbon parts bolted on the alloy frame can be replaced when they break, but the carbon frame cannot. 

Yes I know this sounds like a troll thread, but its not...I'm just wondering how carbon bikes are so great.... For the money they just seem so brittle and pointless to even chance with them....unless you are team sponsored and winning is everything at the expense of cracking a 10, ooo dollar frame.


----------



## rangeriderdave (Aug 29, 2008)

Go to the Santa Cruz web site and watch what they do to test carbon frames. I have rode a carbon (Trek) road bike for over 10 years ,it been a great bike ,no reason to replace it. Ihad second thoughts about carbon for mountain for along time .But I've broken frames that were made of steel ,alloy and ti. No frame lasts forever.


----------



## skene (May 26, 2013)

Carbon is not that brittle that it would disintegrate like what you are thinking. They can handle beatings the same way aluminum can. Weight savings is a + as well...
But it's not a bike that just any joe schmoe should be riding. You should relatively know how to handle a bike not a rookie that has just purchased a bike to try out mtb'ing...


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

They said all the same things about aluminum, so I guess you should just go all the way back to steel


----------



## saidrick (Jan 28, 2006)

The same is true suspension, disk brakes, gears, clipless pedals, etc...


Go ride a clunker if you're afraid of things wearing out or breaking. 

But consider a company like Ibis, they only make carbon bikes. They would not be in business if there frames snapped like toothpicks. 

Look at the carbon wheel companies . 
Carbon isn't about being super lightweight and brittle anymore.

Nowadays, it's about stiffness, strength and ride characteristics.


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

I think you would have to give some sufficient evidence that Carbon is weaker than Aluminum to back up the claim that you might get cracks in the frame. As someone who works with carbon fiber, I can tell you that it is insanely strong and for some applications better suited than aluminum, steel, or titanium.

It is much less symptomatic to have stress fractures compared to aluminum. The issue where Carbon is not as strong is when it comes to sharp strong impacts. But then again, if you put an aluminum frame in the same impact it will probably dent and then be compromised as well. For XC-AM purposes I think Carbon is the best material. It has by far the best Strength to weight ratio. DH, I would probably stick with metal, but there are some sweet Carbon DH bikes out now that can withstand lots of punishment. 

Also, I dont think there are any $10k bike frames.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Today's carbon weaving technology is far superior to yesteryear. Your not goig to have a cracking failure problem like years ago. I say if you can afford it go for it. There's a huge weight savings.

Do you really think that all these big companies as well as high dollar boutique brands would be producing 6" all mountain bikes made out of carbon if there was a high probability of frame failure. It wasn't until the last 4 or so years that carbon technology became so good that they became comfortable enough to build these longer travel frames with it.

The companies are in it to make money and to build reputations not to lose. Are they going to make money selling a **** load of carbon mtb bikes only to deal with warranty issues later on. Not!


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

carbon is lighter and stronger than metal. period. It's not that much more expensive (look at comparable bikes in carbon and al (SB-66a/c Tallboy a/c...), prices aren't thousands off). 

When aluminum was a new frame material, I heard the same comments around the bike shops (too weak, will get thrashed off road), only the internet wasn't around to repeat baseless rumors and they disappeared. 

but hey, believe and buy what you want


----------



## inter (Nov 27, 2010)

Carbon material now is stronger than many yrs ago, even stronger than alloy.. 
If carbon easily broken, then bike manufacturer wouldn't make mtb carbon frame due to many law suit.

Most likely you would break other stuff first like handlebar, derailleur, chain, shock, rim, even your bones before you break a carbon frame.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

take two downtubes and smack them super hard against a rock. the aluminum one will dent and fold instantly, the CF one will need you to smack it about 10 times to see close to the same amount of damage...

a few years ago we did just this to a CF swingarm. i had to swing it 8 times, as hard as i could, to break it...


----------



## jcaino (May 26, 2007)

I'd take a carbon bike over an aluminum one. And steel over either.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Eric.Bravery said:


> I know for racing you would if money wasn't a problem and you plan on knowing that after a few races you might get cracks in the frame, but is that the only reason to buy a carbon bike? Everyone I talk too says don't get carbon bike....they'll crack and break, especially a mountain bike where they get thrashed and crashed all the time. I may see buying a carbon road bike....that may last, but a carbon mountain bike seems like buying a Dodge Neon to run the baja 1,000.....it just wouldn't hold up for the long run.
> 
> So....spending 8,000 on a carbon bike....seems like a totally pointless investment.
> 
> ...


You need some smarter friends.

And a carbon bike.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Today's carbon weaving technology is far superior to yesteryear. Your not goig to have a cracking failure problem like years ago. I say if you can afford it go for it. There's a huge weight savings.
> 
> Do you really think that all these big companies as well as high dollar boutique brands would be producing 6" all mountain bikes made out of carbon if there was a high probability of frame failure. It wasn't until the last 4 or so years that carbon technology became so good that they became comfortable enough to build these longer travel frames with it.
> 
> The companies are in it to make money and to build reputations not to lose. Are they going to make money selling a **** load of carbon mtb bikes only to deal with warranty issues later on. Not!


Whoever said this ^^^:thumbsup:


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

I would not buy a carbon fiber bike unless I was so rich I could buy 10 good mountain bikes at a time.


----------



## jearl (Jul 26, 2012)

rangeriderdave said:


> Go to the Santa Cruz web site and watch what they do to test carbon frames. I have rode a carbon (Trek) road bike for over 10 years ,it been a great bike ,no reason to replace it. Ihad second thoughts about carbon for mountain for along time .But I've broken frames that were made of steel ,alloy and ti. No frame lasts forever.


Here is the Santa Cruz video Pinkbike Visits The Santa Cruz Test Lab Video - YouTube

I did not think that Carbon was that good either, mainy because I kept seeing post here about broken carbon frames and the cost. As each year passes the carbon bikes are getting more affardable. I might not be buying another bike for a few more years, but my next mountain bike will be carbon.


----------



## johnb (Feb 8, 2004)

I've had both. I broke the aluminum frame. I haven't broke the carbon frame. For what it's worth.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

johnb said:


> I've had both. I broke the aluminum frame. I haven't broke the carbon frame. For what it's worth.


$2500.00 for the frame probably.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I would not buy a carbon fiber bike unless I was so rich I could buy 10 good mountain bikes at a time.


yet you drink the 29" koolaid...


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> yet you drink the 29" koolaid...


I love 29ers because they work well, from my own experience. 
27" I won't fall for because I would rather have a 26er for a smaller wheel size.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I love 29ers because they work well, from my own experience.
> 27" I won't fall for because I would rather have a 26er for a smaller wheel size.


That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
Was that a serious statement?
Have you had any riding experience on a 27.5? 
Or are you just convinced they're all hype and closed minded to it all together.
*
And what does wheel size have to do with carbon VS aluminum VS steel VS Titanium.*


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
> Was that a serious statement?
> Have you had any riding experience on a 27.5?
> Or are you just convinced they're all hype and closed minded to it all together.


No, I have not ridden a 27" bike, but I have ridden plenty of 26ers and 29ers. 26ers are best at handling and 29ers are best at maintaining speed and rollover. Why would there need to be something that turns worse than a 26er and has worse rollover than a 29er?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

CannondaleF9 said:


> No, I have not ridden a 27" bike, but I have ridden plenty of 26ers and 29ers. 26ers are best at handling and 29ers are best at maintaining speed and rollover. Why would there need to be something that turns worse than a 26er and has worse rollover than a 29er?


Your logic is getting funnier by the minute.
Back to carbon talk.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

CannondaleF9 said:


> No, I have not ridden a 27" bike, but I have ridden plenty of 26ers and 29ers. 26ers are best at handling and 29ers are best at maintaining speed and rollover. Why would there need to be something that turns worse than a 26er and has worse rollover than a 29er?


How many years have you been riding? How many different bikes? How many wheel sizes? How many days a week? Opinions and such are great but they usually carry more weight when backed up with copious amounts of experience.

To address the OP, my carbon mtb frame has proven to be as tough if not more so than my aluminum frames.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

In that video at 3:14 he slams carbon. Makes me wonder if he's correct and kinda put a hold on wanting a Cervelo R3.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Eric.Bravery said:


> In that video at 3:14 he slams carbon. Makes me wonder if he's correct and kinda put a hold on wanting a Cervelo R3.


Is that a road thing a majigy thing? I hear they're perty scarce round these parts.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Yeah, that moron used to post here. Take whatever he has to say with a grain of salt.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> ...And what does wheel size have to do with carbon VS aluminum VS steel VS Titanium.[/B]


in all fairness, it was me who drug 29'ers into this. my point was that he claims not to fall for marketing hype, all while falling for marketing hype...


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

OP is trolling hard.


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Have you had any riding experience on a 27.5?
> Or are you just convinced they're all hype and closed minded to it all together.
> *
> *


*

I have. All bike industry marketing hype. .98" bigger than 26". YAWN. Not even an inch bigger!!!!!! It rides like a 26" and has none of the 29" benefits.

To OP - if you want to save about a pound or more and have the money, go carbon. Otherwise ride what you've got.*


----------



## FullBladdy (Aug 26, 2011)

I have owned steel, aluminum and carbon and currently have three carbon bikes. A carbon road bike, my carbon fs and my Trek 9800 from 1997 which was my first carbon frame. I still ride it when my other bike is getting worked on. 

Weight and cost have been touched on. I would like to bring in the feel of the bike when riding. Carbon for me just feels right, the dampening qualities seem to work better with the trail. I have found that the ride is quieter as well, not sure how but it just is. On the road some claim the carbon feels 'dead' compared to metal frame bikes. One person's damp is another person's dead.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I feel people who think carbon frames aren't any good don't know what
they are talking about. I've been ridding carbon mountain bike frames since
2007. I haven't had a problem with one of them. Also a lot of companies
offer a lifetime warranty on their frames, I know my Treks do.


----------



## BrentP (Jul 6, 2007)

Three reasons...

1) A Carbon frame is much stronger than Aluminum, especially when you're building lightweight frames. The biggest frame Santa Cruz made in the Aluminum Blur XC was a large, and they didn't recommend anything longer than a 100mm fork (anything bigger and there was a risk of breakage). With Carbon they can make XXL size frames and not worry about weight limits.

2) The comfort level of Carbon vs. Aluminum. Until you've ridden a Carbon frame you have no idea how much vibration is absorbed by Carbon fiber, giving you a smoother more comfortable ride. It's like adding a secondary suspension. With a road bike the difference is unbelievable when you're on rough pavement.

3) Weight saving. When you're climbing, you feel every extra pound you're lugging up the mountain. When you can ride a Carbon bike that's stronger, more comfortable, and easier to pedal up a climb, why would you not want one (assuming price is no object)?


----------



## Gerth (Aug 17, 2013)

Except if your a Clyde . Why is it if carbon is so " insanely" strong that if your over 225 pounds they recommend aluminum???


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

GSJ1973 said:


> I have. All bike industry marketing hype. .98" bigger than 26". YAWN. Not even an inch bigger!!!!!! It rides like a 26" and has none of the 29" benefits.
> 
> To OP - if you want to save about a pound or more and have the money, go carbon. Otherwise ride what you've got.


I wasn't arguing if a 27.5 is worth all the hype. I was just merely trying to wrap my head around what cannondale boy was saying. Especially since he freely admitted not having ever ridden one.

Obviously the physics of large wheels speak for itself. I don't need an industry push to make me 
spend money.

26" quicker handling less roll over qualities

27.5 Middle

29" Slower handling better roll over qualities & faster.

So with that said even though the 27.5 isn't in the exact middle between the other two. Physics alone 
tells me it's going to have a mixture of the qualities 
that the other two possess. A happy medium if you 
will. I still ride a 26" and am not that crazy about 
going to a 29" for my next ride. But I do like the 
fact that a larger wheel will roll over better. I don't 
want to give up quick agile handling of the 26". So 
what better than to go with than a 27.5" Physics 
alone tells me this is the happy medium.

Back to carbon this and carbon that talk, sorry.


----------



## BrentP (Jul 6, 2007)

Gerth said:


> Except if your a Clyde . Why is it if carbon is so " insanely" strong that if your over 225 pounds they recommend aluminum???


Who are "they"?

Intended use and weight limits will dictate how a frame is designed and built. A heavy weight or heavy use aluminum frame will usually require heavier gauge tubing and oversized gussets at the tube junctions. They can do the same thing with Carbon, but can do it with less material. You just need to choose the right frame for its intended use.


----------



## beshannon (Oct 14, 2012)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Why would you buy a carbon mountain bike?


Because I do not like the stiffness of aluminum
Because I like the way it feels
Because I can


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I would not buy a carbon fiber bike unless I was so rich I could buy 10 good mountain bikes at a time.


Says the guy with a screen name supporting a company that used to be widely referred to as Crack'n'Fail.


----------



## dickeydoo (May 11, 2007)

James.Hamilton said:


> I have owned steel, aluminum and carbon and currently have three carbon bikes. A carbon road bike, my carbon fs and* my Trek 9800 from 1997 which was my first carbon frame.* I still ride it when my other bike is getting worked on.
> 
> Weight and cost have been touched on. I would like to bring in the feel of the bike when riding. Carbon for me just feels right, the dampening qualities seem to work better with the trail. I have found that the ride is quieter as well, not sure how but it just is. On the road some claim the carbon feels 'dead' compared to metal frame bikes. One person's damp is another person's dead.


Same here, mine is what they called the nude finish. I have no desire to ride anything else. I have demo-ed a 29er and it felt slow and cumbersome to me.

My road bike is Treks OCLV 5200 which I've been riding since 99 it has the Postal Service decals. No problems with either one and I am 6'2 215.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Eric.Bravery said:


> In that video at 3:14 he slams carbon. Makes me wonder if he's correct and kinda put a hold on wanting a Cervelo R3.


RE: the video... another "expert" without any expertise whatsoever. He must like to hear himself talk. I guess most people in his part of the world would call him a wanker.

What's he doing with the 30 bananas a day anyway?


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Beginner to MTB = Avoid Carbon

MTB rider with 5+ years trail experience = Highly consider carbon


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Funny thread, "my carbon will out perform your aluminum". "No my aluminum will out perform your carbon". The reality is there is room in the sport for both materials, *pick one and ride it.*

The manufacturers are in the game to make money and to build a good reputation. Do you really think all these huge companies as well as smaller boutique brands would be churning out mass quantities of carbon frames if there was a high chance of failure. They don't want to lose money by dealing with warranty claims down the road. The carbon technology has made leaps and bounds in strength while still keeping it light. It's only been in the last 4 or so years that they felt comfortable selling 6" travel carbon bikes. That's because of the advancement in the carbon technology.

And in that length of time I don't see them slowing down or stopping production of any of the 6" travel frames. I mention these frames the most because they are subject to the most stress and rider abuse. If you are on the train that believes that today's carbon frames are inferior to aluminum your missing the boat, and really narrowing your field of options.


----------



## johnb (Feb 8, 2004)

Zachariah said:


> Beginner to MTB = Avoid Carbon
> 
> MTB rider with 5+ years trail experience = Highly consider carbon


What's your reasoning behind that?


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

Used to think like the OP regarding carbon frames until rode one, want one.


----------



## kazlx (Jun 13, 2005)

Zachariah said:


> Beginner to MTB = Avoid Carbon
> 
> MTB rider with 5+ years trail experience = Highly consider carbon


That has nothing to do with anything.

So much armchair advice. Funny how the guys that have actually ridden/owned a CF bike like them....then there's the advice from those that haven't...


----------



## wintersolstice (Feb 26, 2012)

Ok, going to put in my 2 cents: I have ridden steel, alum, titanium, and carbon - and all of the above both mtb/road.
In all the years I've beaten up Carbon bikes and parts, the only part to ever break was a Record Carbon brake level when I was hit by a car.

I've got 10s of thousands of miles and dozens of races on a carbon road bike, and put thousands of miles on aluminum and carbon mtbs. Carbon just isn't that fragile.

If you're really worried, get steel. Better ride than alu, cheaper than carbon.

Here's some Carbon frame testing if you care: Pinkbike Visits The Santa Cruz Test Lab Video - YouTube


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

GSJ1973 said:


> I have. All bike industry marketing hype. .98" bigger than 26". YAWN. Not even an inch bigger!!!!!! It rides like a 26" and has none of the 29" benefits.
> 
> To OP - if you want to save about a pound or more and have the money, go carbon. Otherwise ride what you've got.


Have you ridden one? 17.5 inch chain stay vs. 16.9, big deal not even an inch.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Some think I am trolling, apparently.

Just trying to get the straight scoop before I invest thousands in a carbon frame bike...and I am considering it, even though I'll have to save a little more. Winters coming anyways....soooo.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Even though I can still ride a bike, with my condition, lighter and more comfortable is well invited. I'm liking the sounds of carbon....seems they aren't prone to cracking as I was told by others and they seem to have the most comfortable ride characteristics. 

I also agree that a manufacturer wouldn't sell a carbon frame bike for 7,000 knowing it has the potential to crack easily.... it doesn't make sense they would take the chance...sooo... I'm now thinking carbon is not all that bad.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Some think I am trolling, apparently.
> 
> Just trying to get the straight scoop before I invest thousands in a carbon frame bike...and I am considering it, even though I'll have to save a little more. Winters coming anyways....soooo.


It's not an investment. It doesn't make any money for you.

But still, if you can afford it, carbon is a great material for bikes. We're only going to see more bikes made of carbon as the technology progresses.


----------



## johnb (Feb 8, 2004)

Have you taken a carbon bike for a test ride? On the trails?
I rode mtn bikes that weighed around 31 or so pounds for years.
Now I ride a bike that weighs 24 lbs. You need to try it and see the difference.
The price, and budget are important considerations though.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Let's get down to the real issue....


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

^haha!



Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)




----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Even though I can still ride a bike, with my condition, lighter and more comfortable is well invited. I'm liking the sounds of carbon....seems they aren't prone to cracking as I was told by others and they seem to have the most comfortable ride characteristics.
> 
> I also agree that a manufacturer wouldn't sell a carbon frame bike for 7,000 knowing it has the potential to crack easily.... it doesn't make sense they would take the chance...sooo... I'm now thinking carbon is not all that bad.


If you have the money, Carbon is the way to go hands down. I also love steel bikes, aluminum bikes, and titanium bikes. I love all bikes. Bikes are awesome, and that is something we can all agree on! Except Fixies. Screw those guys.


----------



## GRAVELBIKE (Oct 7, 2006)

"Steel is a great material for making bike frames - so is aluminum, carbon fiber, and titanium."

Some answers to just about any bike forum post I've ever read | Blog | Surly Bikes


----------



## wintersolstice (Feb 26, 2012)

GRAVELBIKE said:


> "Steel is a great material for making bike frames - so is aluminum, carbon fiber, and titanium."
> 
> Some answers to just about any bike forum post I've ever read | Blog | Surly Bikes


Just not fish. Bikes made out of fish just don't perform as well.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

jcaino said:


> I'd take a carbon bike over an aluminum one. And steel over either.




There is just something about the feel of the rigidity of steel that makes me fell more comfortable and confident than the lightness of carbon. Than again, this could just be a bias that has held over from the early era of carbon frame prototyping. Personally, with as hard as I am on bikes, I'd rather buy the cheaper frame and break it, than buy the expensive frame, and break it!

Noob question: Are there carbon frames that can handle 130mm to 150mm of fork travel?


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

Yes, on ones 456 carbon

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Lynch (Jun 11, 2010)

The ride quality of carbon is so much nicer than aluminum that I would rather have a carbon frame with Deore level components that an aluminum frame with XTR level parts. 

I have a 150mm travel carbon bike, beat the hell out of it and I've had zero issues. Its been to Whistler and local bike bikes, and I raced enduro on it all season. I'll never go back to a "metal" frame trail bike. 

I did buy a 2nd bike (180mm) for shuttle and lift service that is an aluminum frame, but that was because I wanted a cheaper bike to abuse that was more suited for that type terrain.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

I've been riding carbon for the last 3 yrs. My current bike is a Mojo HD & is over a year old. I've had through 20yrs of riding at least 10 bikes & I've broken 5 of them & guess what material those frames were made of? Yep, aluminum! I ride faster & harder now & I'm not even worried about breaking my Mojo HD!


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

I just broke the chainstay on my aluminum road bike. So there's that. 

And carbon can easily be repaired, for relatively cheap too. Can't repair aluminum when it breaks.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I have been riding my Bontrager Racelite (steel HT) for 15 years. She is magic at climbs and acceleration and twists....but 61 it just beats me up too much. I have ridden a Carbon Roubaix road bike for a while after many years on a a classic steel road bike.

The damping feel of carbon works for me as does the dramatic drop in weight. My next mtb will be carbon.


----------



## Ricko (Jan 14, 2004)

Well ok, I know it sounds weird and I've never actually admitted this to anyone but...carbon makes muh dick hard:thumbsup:.


----------



## BrentP (Jul 6, 2007)

Ricko said:


> Well ok, I know it sounds weird and I've never actually admitted this to anyone but...carbon makes muh dick hard:thumbsup:.


 And more 'damp'?

LOLOL... sorry, but I couldn't let that one pass by.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Many mountain bikers are slow to pick up and/or taking advantage of new materials, many still struck in the 80's. Price and some installation failures due to stupidity has a lot to do with the fear as well. 

If riders say the they don't like the carbon due to lack of feel then I agree, but for all other bs it's just lack of understanding in general. I don't see other sports have the same discussions about carbon than bike frames and components. 

It's like everything else, crappy brands make crappy stuffs regardless of materials. I've been using carbon fiber equipments for a few decades, badminton, ice hockey, golf, tennis etc, I don't see the discussions about self destruct ability of carbon fiber in the same frequency as bike forum. 

I broke just about any materials and the last thing I'd blame is the material. For some bikers carbon material is like a plane crash, it's rare but once it happen everyone knows and cares too much about it. 

End rant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk pro


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

mimi1885 said:


> It's like everything else, crappy brands make crappy stuffs regardless of materials. I've been using carbon fiber equipments for a few decades, badminton, ice hockey, golf, tennis etc, I don't see the discussions about self destruct ability of carbon fiber in the same frequency as bike forum.


I use carbon hockey sticks, on average I go through a stick per season and that's just playing pickup shinny games. The one year I played in a league I snapped 4 sticks in 2 months before I went back to wood, and broke 2 of those before the season ended. Since I'm not a pro, I can only afford so many sticks in a year and all those broken carbon sticks were cutting into my bike fund. There's no question that carbon sticks are lighter, feel better, and shoot better than any other material, I just wish the darn things would stay in one piece.

As for bikes, I think I would these days. I no longer ride like a reckless lunatic so I'm not breaking stuff all the time. If someone made a nice titanium full suspension bike then that would be my first choice, but if I can't have that then carbon is my next choice. I still maintain that aluminum is for pop cans and disposable commuter bikes.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I just realized that I have totally skipped past aluminum bikes! Not exactly true as my Sirrus commuter is alu/carbon combined. But I knew that straight alu would be awful.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BrentP said:


> And more 'damp'?
> 
> LOLOL... sorry, but I couldn't let that one pass by.


You lie! You are not sorry at all.


----------



## Ricko (Jan 14, 2004)

BrentP said:


> And more 'damp'?
> 
> LOLOL... sorry, but I couldn't let that one pass by.


A little more then just damp...I got the whole sploochload slopped on my top tube every time I ride!


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Today's carbon weaving technology is far superior to yesteryear. Your not goig to have a cracking failure problem like years ago. I say if you can afford it go for it. There's a huge weight savings.
> 
> Do you really think that all these big companies as well as high dollar boutique brands would be producing 6" all mountain bikes made out of carbon if there was a high probability of frame failure. It wasn't until the last 4 or so years that carbon technology became so good that they became comfortable enough to build these longer travel frames with it.
> 
> The companies are in it to make money and to build reputations not to lose. Are they going to make money selling a **** load of carbon mtb bikes only to deal with warranty issues later on. Not!





DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Whoever said this ^^^:thumbsup:


Absolutely agree!!!



.WestCoastHucker. said:


> take two downtubes and smack them super hard against a rock. the aluminum one will dent and fold instantly, the CF one will need you to smack it about 10 times to see close to the same amount of damage...
> 
> a few years ago we did just this to a CF swingarm. i had to swing it 8 times, as hard as i could, to break it...


Yeah but carbon would crack unlike Alu that just dent and fold giving the appearance to the riders that they can still ride it


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Funny thread, "my carbon will out perform your aluminum". "No my aluminum will out perform your carbon". The reality is there is room in the sport for both materials, *pick one and ride it.*


Oh, come on now DJ?, why would you ever think that these threads are ever about carbon or titanium, it's about money. People who does not have enough of it likes to complain about it. Who cares about how strong carbon is when it's considered by some poor sap a rich boy toy!

I only ride carbon and titanium frames because it's the most expensive bike frame materials, I can find at the bike shops. I want my next bike frame would be made out of Adamantium, from my research it's said to be indestructible.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

I was lucky enough to demo this bike for about 2 hours on some fun terrain in Santa Cruz, CA. I'm not a big Spec fan but this thing was incredible. Since this is a CF thread I wont go into why this bike was so great but I will say how impressed I was with its weight to strength ratio. Total feather weight for a 150mm travel bike and strong like bull! as in no flex, very stiff feeling frame and no noodley rear end. At 230lbs this is something that usually jumps out at you immediately on lightweight bikes.

Carbon Fiber, its for big folks too!

I only rode this because there were no drillenium bikes available...


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I just realized that I have totally skipped past aluminum bikes! Not exactly true as my Sirrus commuter is alu/carbon combined. But I knew that straight alu would be awful.


Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, I would assume so. But FWIW, I've ridden a steel road bike, a carbon road bike, and an aluminum road bike. They all have different ride characteristics, but I wouldn't count the aluminum in the awful/bone-breaker category. Sure, it rides differently than the other materials do, but that's the point. They're not objectively better or worse than one another, just different.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

a carbon mountain bike is much lighter than aluminum hence it translate to faster acceleration, superior manerverability in tight single track. there is a difference in carbon manufacturing between brand names. One needs to test ride different brands before making a decision. For example, Santa Cruz carbon frame is heavier than Pivot for same setup such as wheels size, tires, crankset etc.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Bro said:


> Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, I would assume so. But FWIW, I've ridden a steel road bike, a carbon road bike, and an aluminum road bike. They all have different ride characteristics, but I wouldn't count the aluminum in the awful/bone-breaker category. Sure, it rides differently than the other materials do, but that's the point. They're not objectively better or worse than one another, just different.


I'm dead serious. I've ridden my son's Allez a great deal and any number of alloy frames, Scandium notwithstanding, and they are racks compared to steel, especially my Bontrager Racelite. No comparison whatsoever. Not even close.

The success of alloy was largely a function of new techniques for shaping and forming to create strength where it was needed and removing weight. The term "compliance" had more marketing value as alloys produced could be compared with older alloys. The Vitus comes to mind as an early Alu frame and the alloys were developed from there. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the scandium they used in their MIGS found new utility and a willing market.

Alloys lent themselves well to inexpensive mass production methods and our world was flooded with low cost "compliant" bikes. but they never, ever, touched Cromoly or Ti for true supple ride quality.

The development of dual suspended markets sustained the use of alloy. It's facility as a shaping medium lent itself well to creative placements of shocks and the appendages needed for their usage, and it's rigidity made it a superior material for managing the mechanical demands of suspension systems. The idea of "compliance" was less prevalent in the literature with the move to dual suspension.

My Bontrager often found itself under my young high school racers over 10 seasons, if their rig failed. Even they could feel the difference and they never looked at coaches bike the same way again.


----------



## Luis M. (Jun 9, 2013)

I own an aluminum fs 26er and a CF fs 29er ,love um both but prefer CF for its comfort. I'm 230 lbs and ride harsh. Let me tell you that CF frames can take a beating!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Reading various posts under this this topic got me thinking...

What makes a mature mind is exposure to many different things, given time and opportunity to appreciate each of them. Berkeley Mike seems to have found the ride quality of a smooth feeling bike that doesn't transmit much vibration, which he seems to highly value. I suspect that a large percentage of younger folks don't really value such a ride feel as much, perhaps looking to expose themselves to trail feedback more and more to try and learn more about it. Perhaps older folks don't need to learn about it, having experienced enough of it, and would like to direct more of their conscious effort on other matters, such as their goals on a ride.

I haven't studied much about material science, but I can foresee that far into the future (but still within our lifetimes) that we will be looking back and saying we were silly for using certain stiff and unforgiving metals for things like rims and frames, with little consideration of how much vibration it transmits and how such vibration affects the ride. I can say that since I've been exposed to things such as Enve rims, which changed how I perceived stiffness and responsiveness, unlinking such feelings from the feeling of sensitive trail feedback and vibrations. I like Berkeley Mike's perspective on it, on how such a high feedback materials have been renewed by FS platforms.

I find it amusing how people generalize how certain materials should behave. There's many differences between one cro-moly (or Ti) frame and another frame of the same material. It's something people acknowledge, yet seem to turn a blind eye to. Diameter of the tubing, the thickness, the butting, the hardness, etc. all play a role in defining the product's ride feel. A more expensive cro-moly tubeset that builds up into a lighter frame might not be as comfortable as an economic cro-moly tubeset. The difference between carbon frames is even greater. I can pull up articles accounting of how people rode custom-made frames and ordered certain things, like larger diameter Ti tubing, and got an unpleasant ride, despite the builder warning that would be how it felt for a rider of that weight. On the alloy side, there's a vast difference between certain Yeti designed frame and an economical frame, even if the economical one copied every dimension of the Yeti. The tubeset on the Yeti was much more finely tubed for certain ride characteristics which helped define its feel. Also amusing how people jump to conclusions based on marketing, such as Niner's fork hammering video and Santa Cruz's carbon Nomad crushing video or pictures from busted carbon. Basically, there's far more to it than people bother realizing.

Frames are just one part of the bike. There's plenty of issues with today's parts, like how loose the tolerances are for brake calipers and how loosely the brake pads are fitted in them, how counterfeits are ruining the rep of established brands, and how little consumers know about the products they are buying. I'd go as far as saying it's a capitalistic plot to keep customers (and competition) in the dark so manufacturers do not experience a demand for higher quality parts, as much higher quality and expensive parts are a tough sell next to low cost low quality parts, maybe spending money instead to improve the image of a brand and try and make it appear to consumers that they take quality seriously. I'd say something about people who are still buying up anodized (or powder coated) CNC machined alloy parts thinking that they are cutting edge, when many of them they are prototype level quality stuff with a nice surface finish, but it's not like those parts are being kept longer than their useful lifespans.

It brings up the question, do you want good or good enough? Good as in something that's top of the line performance, uses cutting-edge technology, should last a lifetime, etc. or something that's affordable enough to buy multiple of (compared to the top-of-the-line models), works well enough for its intended purpose and long enough to not fail before the consumer grows bored of it or replaces it with whatever else that catches their attention? People should sort out the level of their demands. If you ride in the company of beginners, you would quickly become out of place in that group if you got a bike far below or far above whatever they're on. If you ride in the company of competition all on carbon HTs, it might make much more sense to at least get something at least as good, especially if you are demanding better race results and your fitness can't make up for an equipment disadvantage.

Regarding the OP's post about his interpretation of carbon being unsuited to the rigors of mtn biking, people just have to trust the manufacturer. If they are willing to stand behind their products with a generous warranty, some people are willing to trust, and verify by using it. At least keep the prejudice to individuals, rather than generalizing broadly, after you study the history of the individual (ie. a company under a certain leader, or a certain product model) and get an idea of their policies and how consistent they are. There's a big difference saying, "[Dodge Neon] running the Baja 1000" as opposed to saying "Dodge" or "American-made economic compact sedan" (watch as someone modifies a frame of one to actually do well in a Baja 1000). Not all carbon is bad, and not all Santa Cruz carbon frames are as strong as that Nomad (Santa Cruz admitted that they greatly overbuilt it to diminish the fear consumers had in the material). Weight and cost should at least be initial telling factors... if you paid very little and the product is light, and the brand is not reputable for such products that work, I would be very suspicious of its durability.


----------



## BunnV (Sep 7, 2005)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Yes I know this sounds like a troll thread


Because it is.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Seriously 4 pages of this sh**.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I have been riding my Bontrager Racelite (steel HT) for 15 years. She is magic at climbs and acceleration and twists....but 61 it just beats me up too much. I have ridden a Carbon Roubaix road bike for a while after many years on a a classic steel road bike.
> 
> The damping feel of carbon works for me as does the dramatic drop in weight. My next mtb will be carbon.


I've never in my life had a frame last more than 2 years. Many steel, many aluminum, 1 carbon, and 0 Ti. All mtb.

Every single one cracked at the drive-side chainstay/bb interface.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Every once in a while I have a guy on my team who just breaks stuff. Everyone knows who they are. So no, juan_speeder, you cannot borrow my bike. 

I'm an old guy at 61. My days of breaking stuff (shocks, seatposts, seat rails, cranks, tacoed rims...) are over. I've figured out what stuff works for me and I have had my share of "trail feedback" in 30 years of mountain biking. I'm a pretty good rider but no more Downieville on rigid for me.

I recently borrowed a carbon 29er Tallboy. Between the carbon and the full-suss I couldn't feel the trail. It was weird; I wasn't even sure that there was enough pressure in the tires. So I rode it on familiar ground. I washed her, tuned her, and got a really good look at how she was put together. Nice machine passes muster. No worries.

On the 4th ride, since I felt comfortable with the machine, I took it out on technical stuff. What I realized is that my skills on two wheels were all that I needed. I pressed her hard; I looked ahead, committed and rode; the bike did what it was supposed to and no foolishness. The icing on the cake was that I didn't feel beat-up.

The only trail feedback I really need is visual or the feel of big bumps that can throw me off the bike. The rest is fatigue inducing noise. That is important for me. Just as not healing as quickly as I used to I also don't recover as well and can feel soreness after riding. You guys in your 20s,30s,40s, even 50s might not have this issue....yet. I know I did not feel that at 50 and I was still racing. Anyhow, it makes me not ride. Bottom line; not good.


Great stuff Varaxis.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Downiville on rigid!!! Now that's crazy

Agree Varaxis rocks!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk pro


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Damaged carbon can be repaired (mostly).


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

Hawg said:


> Damaged carbon can be repaired (mostly).


Aren't these carbon frames made of woven carbon fibers instead of solid carbon?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

mtb_beginner said:


> Aren't these carbon frames made of woven carbon fibers instead of solid carbon?


I've seen/read articles with pics by companies that have top ratings for repairing damaged CF bike frames. The pics showed crushed CF before the work and you couldn't tell the difference after the repair.


----------



## wintersolstice (Feb 26, 2012)

Hawg said:


> I've seen/read articles with pics by companies that have top ratings for repairing damaged CF bike frames. The pics showed crushed CF before the work and you couldn't tell the difference after the repair.


It's basically like a lightweight fiberglass - you just have to rebuild the mesh and re-epoxy. Oversimplifying, obviously, but that's the big difference between repairing carbon fiber and repairing, say, steel.


----------



## Mazukea (Jul 9, 2012)

I have two carbon fiber mountain bikes. A FS and a HT. I have crashed into trees, mud, dirt, gravel, down hilly slopes, asphalt, etc. You name it, my face has eaten it. At the end of the day, only my body is broken and bruised, but my bike is fine. So I wouldn't worry about cracking a frame if you hit a little bump and fall. 


As long as I can afford it, my next bike will be carbon fiber.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

BunnV said:


> Because it is.


Wow.

Nope, sorry.

I never rode a carbon frame and wanted to know if it is truly strong and doesn't crack with a tap of a hammer like some idiots have told me. I've been told to stay away from carbon. Like others on here have stated "Why would a large company risk a carbon frame that breaks easily when their reputation relies on a great product?" I believe in that and from what I have read, Carbon is pretty damn nice.

I wish I could afford one though.... but as of now....even though I thought steel frames were of the past and would be heavy and clunky.....I haven't ruled them out.
Seems companies like Surly believe in steel....looking at a cross-check right now.


----------



## wintersolstice (Feb 26, 2012)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Wow.
> I wish I could afford one though.... but as of now....even though I thought steel frames were of the past and would be heavy and clunky.....I haven't ruled them out.
> Seems companies like Surly believe in steel....looking at a cross-check right now.


Steel is quite nice, actually - higher end steel is fairly light and extremely durable.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

wintersolstice said:


> Steel is quite nice, actually - higher end steel is fairly light and extremely durable.


 A trail friend told me about Surly and a cross-check, from what I told him I want to do. It's a steel framed road bike with drop bars, sort of a cyclocross/commuter bike in that bigger tires can be fitted for off road conditions and clearance, rack mounts, totally customization by Surly the way you want it and all steel set-up.

Looks nice, but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around a steel frame....they remind me of an old Shwinn from Walmart or something like "blah, steel...cheap, heavy kid's bikes" Guess I have the aluminum or carbon high tec attitude still....must have kind of thing.

Am suppose to go with him to look at Surly in a Syracuse shop where he got his. Riding one would sure be nice, because I do like the looks of a cross check and it has more capibility off road than a pure road racer type bike, but not heavy as a pure MT bike or excess rubber. And plus, steel would be for life...


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Also to add, someone in here mentioned they would ride steel over aluminum and carbon...so....there has to be something great about steel....I keep hearing how nice it soaks up vibrations and bumps. 

Having a medical condition like I have....that would be well welcomed!


----------



## wintersolstice (Feb 26, 2012)

Steel is usually described as being "livelier" than carbon (which rides a bit like wood), and is less bone-jarring than alu. I prefer titanium myself, but it's really all down to the individual bike and setup. My carbon road bike rides like crap on some wheelsets, and like a dream on others, so there's a lot more going on then just the frame material.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

wintersolstice said:


> Steel is usually described as being "livelier" than carbon (which rides a bit like wood), and is less bone-jarring than alu. I prefer titanium myself, but it's really all down to the individual bike and setup. My carbon road bike rides like crap on some wheelsets, and like a dream on others, so there's a lot more going on then just the frame material.


 Yepp, sounds like steel would be better for me, affordable and apparently a lot shock resilient than aluminum. Funny because I thought aluminum would soak and be more flexible over bumps than anything, being a softer material.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Yepp, sounds like steel would be better for me, affordable and apparently a lot shock resilient than aluminum. Funny because I thought aluminum would soak and be more flexible over bumps than anything, being a softer material.


Yep, best decision.

Give it a few decades and check back when you are ready for carbon then. Clearly you don't have the capacity to understand how things work. I'm talking about all bike frame material, not just carbon. We can all try to provide you facts and experiences but at the end of the day it's worthless when the information can't get thru to you.

Don't act surprise when people called you on the troll-move you did.


----------



## BrentP (Jul 6, 2007)

Eric.Bravery said:


> there has to be something great about steel....I keep hearing how nice it soaks up vibrations and bumps.


Steel's better than aluminum for absorbing vibration, but it's not in the same league as carbon fiber... once you've ridden CF, you're spoiled forever.


----------



## Dajerseyrat (Oct 23, 2013)

They do make the cockpits of Ferrari and indy cars out of carbon fiber so it's pretty safe to assume that it will withstand any abuse you can put it through on a trail. I would love carbon but at 275lbs I can not justify the cost to save some weight, Ill just go on a diet for now...


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

Carbon fiber is good as long as you haven't crashed it. Once it is subjected to a crash, you have to be very careful with it. On the other hand, strength also depends on the thickness of the CF material used (not just the fiber orientations).

I used to own RC helicopters with CF frames. If CF survives a first crash, it won't survive a second one. It's not easy to see a weakened point even when the material is unpainted.

Let's just hope these bike manufacturers are not skimping on their CF frames.

NOTE: The above post neg rep'd by rebel1916


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Knock knock anybody home, almost 5 pages and the OP is still questioning carbon.I say ignorant people shouldn't be let out of the house much less allowed to ride such a quality product as carbon.


----------



## BunnV (Sep 7, 2005)

wintersolstice said:


> Steel is usually described as being "livelier" than carbon (which rides a bit like wood), and is less bone-jarring than alu.


How many wooden bikes have you ridden? I've tried one (made by Renovo) and I thought it rode like a steel bike.


----------



## johnb (Feb 8, 2004)

mtb_beginner said:


> Carbon fiber is good as long as you haven't crashed it. Once it is subjected to a crash, you have to be very careful with it. On the other hand, strength also depends on the thickness of the CF material used (not just the fiber orientations).
> 
> I used to own RC helicopters with CF frames. If CF survives a first crash, it won't survive a second one. It's not easy to see a weakened point even when the material is unpainted.
> 
> Let's just hope these bike manufacturers are not skimping on their CF frames.


Watch the youtube video from Santa Cruz, there is a link to it in this thread. It will totally change how you view carbon fiber frames in mtn bikes. It's an amazing video, IMO.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

mimi1885 said:


> Yep, best decision.
> 
> Give it a few decades and check back when you are ready for carbon then. Clearly you don't have the capacity to understand how things work. I'm talking about all bike frame material, not just carbon. We can all try to provide you facts and experiences but at the end of the day it's worthless when the information can't get thru to you.
> 
> Don't act surprise when people called you on the troll-move you did.


What is your problem? I made a thread to get the facts about Carbon Frames and if they truly are something for an ordinary biker to stay away from, because they are subject to easy crash damage. I WAS TOLD THAT BUT DIDNT BELIEVE IT, SO I MADE THIS THREAD to get a better understanding of carbon. Seems they are the complete opposite, as in tough, unlike what I have been told. I got my answer I'm also sorry I am not a bike frame guru like you, sir. I understand carbon may flex more, soak up fine vibrations better than anything, making a plusher ride....awesome, wish I could afford it, but I cant. Having big medical expenses takes my budget for a bicycle way down, so I'm looking at Aluminum and now steel framed bikes and trying to figure out wich way to go, as this will most likely be my last bicycle, ever and if I check back in a decade, as you say to do, most likely I'll be riding a carbon fiber, framed wheelchair due to my disease progression.

Obviously yo uhave a corn cobb up the ass and taking out the irritation on me...don't do that...go away.


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

Dude, relax. Its just the internet. Carbon is sweet,and for the everyday rider, but only if your budget allows it. Its just a bike, all materials are nice if its made well. Buy in your budget, and go ride. 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Knock knock anybody home, almost 5 pages and the OP is still questioning carbon.I say ignorant people shouldn't be let out of the house much less allowed to ride such a quality product as carbon.


 Still questioning carbon? nope.... Seems it's the way to go if you have the money and they don't break as easily as I was lead to believe before. Now I am questioning steel frames.... Seems they are better for absorbing vibration than aluminum

Like I said before...sorry I am not an uber frame guru like you and have a mere basic understanding of bike frame material, fashions and qualities.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Eric.Bravery said:


> What is your problem? I made a thread to get the facts about Carbon Frames and if they truly are something for an ordinary biker to stay away from, because they are subject to easy crash damage. I WAS TOLD THAT BUT DIDNT BELIEVE IT, SO I MADE THIS THREAD to get a better understanding of carbon. Seems they are the complete opposite, as in tough, unlike what I have been told. I got my answer I'm also sorry I am not a bike frame guru like you, sir. I understand carbon may flex more, soak up fine vibrations better than anything, making a plusher ride....awesome, wish I could afford it, but I cant. Having big medical expenses takes my budget for a bicycle way down, so I'm looking at Aluminum and now steel framed bikes and trying to figure out wich way to go, as this will most likely be my last bicycle, ever and if I check back in a decade, as you say to do, most likely I'll be riding a carbon fiber, framed wheelchair due to my disease progression.
> 
> Obviously yo uhave a corn cobb up the ass and taking out the irritation on me...don't do that...go away.


Because no matter what is said you fight it. And this thread goes on and on with good carbon advice but with no brain absorption on your part.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Because no matter what is said you fight it. And this thread goes on and on with good carbon advice but with no brain absorption on your part.


Fight it? lol....I keep saying it seems carbon is the opposite of what I was told about it...as in it is really good and doesn't break as easily, according to the good post in here... My mind was changed and I agree with the strength of carbon now. I got my answer. I'm not still questioning carbon. I am now talking about steel....I thought it seemed aluminum being a softer material, would absorb more than steel...I was wrong about that too, but I am learning and taking advice given...isn't what this place is for?

I do believe you're the one trying to troll and I will gladly report you now.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

FastBanana said:


> Dude, relax. Its just the internet. Carbon is sweet,and for the everyday rider, but only if your budget allows it. Its just a bike, all materials are nice if its made well. Buy in your budget, and go ride.
> 
> Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk


People like him are the ones who drive away good posters from forums.

You're right...just go ride... thanks.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Eric.Bravery said:


> People like him are the ones who drive away good posters from forums.
> 
> You're right...just go ride... thanks.


I don't think I was the only one questioning your trolling. And you neg repped me I cetainly didn't do that to you.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Eric.Bravery said:


> People like him are the ones who drive away good posters from forums.
> 
> You're right...just go ride... thanks.


Like your good post? Do us a favor stop posting what you think is a good post if you have thin skin. Even your op you think it's a troll thread. That's why DJ called you out. It got dragged to 6-7 page because you kept repeating the same rhetoric that carbon sucks, still promoting mix message, it will get call every time til you stop trolling.

This thread is like I heard 1+1= 3 is that true?, we said no it's 2. 
Then you said oh I see, yeah but I heard it's 3 why? Patently stupid. Go ride.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk pro


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Eric.Bravery - shoot me PM after I unban you.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

mimi1885 said:


> ... 6-7 pages ...


noob...


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> noob...


Ha ha I've been using tapatalk too long


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Steel and alu? Consider this:

There is a reason we make springs out of steel and not aluminum.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Eric.Bravery said:


> What is your problem? I made a thread to get the facts about Carbon Frames and if they truly are something for an ordinary biker to stay away from, because they are subject to easy crash damage. I WAS TOLD THAT BUT DIDNT BELIEVE IT, SO I MADE THIS THREAD to get a better understanding of carbon. Seems they are the complete opposite, as in tough, unlike what I have been told. I got my answer I'm also sorry I am not a bike frame guru like you, sir. I understand carbon may flex more, soak up fine vibrations better than anything, making a plusher ride....awesome, wish I could afford it, but I cant. Having big medical expenses takes my budget for a bicycle way down, so I'm looking at Aluminum and now steel framed bikes and trying to figure out wich way to go, as this will most likely be my last bicycle, ever and if I check back in a decade, as you say to do, most likely I'll be riding a carbon fiber, framed wheelchair due to my disease progression.
> 
> Obviously yo uhave a corn cobb up the ass and taking out the irritation on me...don't do that...go away.


Simple question, you claim this isn't a troll thread yet just admitted you can't afford carbon, so why bother with this post to begin with?

Why not instead start a thread describing your budget and condition and ask for input on what frame material would best meet your needs based on the parameters?


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

Eric.Bravery said:


> What is your problem? I made a thread to get the facts about Carbon Frames and if they truly are something for an ordinary biker to stay away from, because they are subject to easy crash damage. I WAS TOLD THAT BUT DIDNT BELIEVE IT, SO I MADE THIS THREAD to get a better understanding of carbon.


If you made the thread to ask a question, you should have asked more questions. Your first post was filled with false facts. You didnt question any of these false facts in your initial post. The only question you asked was:



Eric.Bravery said:


> I know for racing you would if money wasn't a problem and you plan on knowing that after a few races you might get cracks in the frame, but is that the only reason to buy a carbon bike? Everyone I talk too says don't get carbon bike....they'll crack and break, especially a mountain bike where they get thrashed and crashed all the time. I may see buying a carbon road bike....that may last, but a carbon mountain bike seems like buying a Dodge Neon to run the baja 1,000.....it just wouldn't hold up for the long run.
> 
> So....spending 8,000 on a carbon bike....seems like a totally pointless investment.
> 
> ...


You took all the falsities, took them as fact, regurgitated them, then asked if the only reason to buy a carbon frame was if youre racing and willing to replace it "after a few races".

Next time, if youre actually wondering about the true facts, actually ask the questions.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

SandSpur said:


> ...You took all the falsities, took them as fact, regurgitated them....


sounds like he is related to SHIVER ME TIMBERS...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I don't think it very productive to demand reasons for a point of view in order to justify a post. The post is based upon a question, and a fair one.

As someone who has posted here a few times I am not always clear on my motivations, even if I think I am. Nor am I clear on what I think I understand or thought I knew.

There was no requirement that the IP really be considering a carbon bike; he was just asking. How many threads have you guys read that start with "help me decide between..." and after few contributions you can tell that this clown only wants people to tell him certain things to support what he already believes. Maybe the thread reveals that to the OP. Yet as the process of the thread unfolds new ideas are revealed and the thinking develops, regardless of the motivation. Huge amounts of info get shared, people learn, maybe even mtb develops along the way; that is the value of mtbr.

The only problem some of us seem to have is when we forget that this is all about sharing information, sharing ideas, and start pointing fingers and trying to undermine each other. People get absolute about "facts" as if that is the only valid way to process information. Huge mistake, folks; people don't work that way. That notion tends to pervert thinking, sharing, and understanding and really just spoils the process.

So cut the crap. I learned a lot. I'm betting the OP did, too.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

CHUM said:


> Eric.Bravery - shoot me PM after I unban you.


Noooooooooooooo, don't ban him. This thread can be salvaged, I promise.

Edit: Berkeley has a clue, gets it.


----------



## ghettocop (Jul 26, 2011)

Not to play devils advocate or anything cause I really like carbon. Bars and seatpost are carbon.....next frame will likely be carbon. I myself have cracked two Aluminum frames....BUT! The last three crash assessments that I have done at my work have all had damage. These were all three road bikes.....One Fuji, buldging at the BB seat tube interface, One Kestral, with bi-laterally cracked and splintered seat stays, and a Cannondale with a cracked left seatstay. The Cannondale and Kestral were the result of road crashes....(rider to pavement) no other vehicles or objects involved. The Fuji was apparently JRA defective. Bike felt sluggish and flexy to customer. Everytime I think carbon is absolutely the way to go, (and I still believe it probably is), something shows up to make me think just a little harder.

As a side note, we have run cables and liners in a few of those popular Chinese Carbon 29ers, and there is a visable difference in the quality of those things as compared to the branded stuff. Even if made in the same place. One of those 350.00 frames I simply would not buy.


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

Haha I think the take away here is that people with carbon bikes are very defensive. Myself included!


----------



## BrentP (Jul 6, 2007)

Of course, if a carbon fiber frame is beyond your budget you can still get some (not all) of the comfort benefits by using a carbon fiber seat post. It will dampen much of the vibration that would otherwise come through the saddle. Carbon fiber bars (and a stem if you can afford it) will provide similar benefits to the front end (and your hands).


----------



## gbug (Jul 20, 2010)

Sock Monkey said:


> You're not the problem, or the troll.
> 
> You asked a sincere question, and one that was commonly asked here 3 years ago.
> 
> Most of the persons giving you crap are trolling you. Just blow it off. They're not worth it. We all have different levels of bike knowledge and welcome to the sport.


Well said.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Berkeley Mike, well said sir. I think these kind of threads we all learn something. And I guess if it wasn't for the OP continually questioning the strength we wouldn't have had so many interesting takes and opinions on carbon fiber. As you said as the thread unfolds it becomes apparent that no matter what is said his mind is made up prior to even starting the thread. And all he's looking for is confirmation of his beliefs.

I'm as guilty as any for getting fed up with the OP ignoring good advice and calling him out on it. It just gets frustrating reading one after another post giving out great advice and opinions only to be ignored by a preconceived mindset. If the OP was banned because he came across as trolling so be it. But that shouldn't stop anyone from jumping in and voicing their opinions and or experiences on the subject matter from here on out.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

So am I to understand that most of you only have one bike and that's why you agonize over the durability of carbon fiber frames? I have one carbon fiber framed bike. If the frame cracks the manufacturer has a fairly good replacement warranty. I'll have to pay something but not the cost of a brand new retail frame. In the meantime I'll just ride another bike. 

Didn't we have a thread that proved that most people on this forum have three or more bikes? Damaging and breaking parts to include the frames is just part of mountain biking. 

Carbon is pretty cheap now, by the way, as has been demonstrated by that monster Chinese Carbon thread.


----------



## Gundam168 (Dec 19, 2012)

* Why would you buy a carbon mountain bike?*

Because I made the mistake of lifting one for the very first time. Never lost the feeling of how light it was and how heavy and inadequate my current bike is.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Double post


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> That's a pretty extreme statement. Assuming your current bike is a couple pounds more that makes it inadequate.
> 
> All 4 frame materials have a place in the marketplace. The use of one over another doesn't make it inadequate because it's a heavier material. All it does is make it heavier.


im pretty sure his use of "inadequate" was satire, and not meant in a literal sense.


----------



## Gundam168 (Dec 19, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> But that shouldn't stop anyone from jumping in and voicing their opinions and or experiences on the subject matter from here on out.


Right. And like I said...



Gundam168 said:


> * Why would you buy a carbon mountain bike?*
> 
> Because I made the mistake of lifting one for the very first time. Never lost the feeling of how light it was and how heavy and inadequate my current bike is.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Gundam168 said:


> * Why would you buy a carbon mountain bike?*
> 
> Because I made the mistake of lifting one for the very first time. Never lost the feeling of how light it was and how heavy and inadequate my current bike is.


That's a pretty extreme statement. Assuming your current bike is a couple pounds more that makes it inadequate.

All 4 frame materials have a place in the marketplace. The use of one over another doesn't make it inadequate because it's a heavier material. All it does is make it heavier. His other bike that's made out of another material which I'll assume is aluminum [you didn't specify] and that's the most common. Does this bike not do something that the carbon bike does do. No it's just heavier so that makes it inadequate. No it just makes it heavier, the other bike is adequate but you crave the carbon because it's lighter. Make sense?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Double post


----------



## Gundam168 (Dec 19, 2012)

^
No. I feel my bike is less adequate than the lighter carbon bike. A bike 14 pounds lighter than mine brings me farther than my heavier aluminum bike.

There is a purpose why carbon bikes are created not just to be light for lightweightness' sake.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

Gundam168 said:


> ^
> No. I feel my bike is less adequate than the lighter carbon bike. A bike 14 pounds lighter than mine brings me farther than my heavier aluminum bike.
> 
> There is a purpose why carbon bikes are created not just to be light for lightweightness' sake.


14lbs? yea, that probably does fall into the inadequate category. What type of bike is your alum frame thats 14 lbs heavier?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Double post


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

First off let me say I'm all for carbon.

Your aluminum bike was adequate until you lifted a carbon bike. Then in your head you thought the aluminum bike wasn't adequate. When actually it was and still is. Your mind craved the lighter carbon and you tricked yourself into thinking the aluminum bike wasn't adequate.

Back to the term adequate or inadequate in defining something.

The example here is carbon but the same could be said for any advancement in technology.

But we are talking carbon so that is the example I will use.

Hypothetically speaking:

Lets say for some insane reason there was a recall on all carbon frames. And the manufacturers were forced never to market carbon frames again. You were riding an aluminum bike for 10 years and it was adequate. Then you switched to a carbon frame two months prior to the recall. You had two months of loving your carbon bike. But now it was taken away. Would you go back to riding your aluminum bike that was adequate for 10 years of service. Or would you quit mountain biking all together because now that you rode a lighter carbon bike the aluminum bike is now inadequate. I'm thinking you'd go back to your aluminum bike and it would be adequate.


----------



## Lovespicyfood (Aug 4, 2012)

I have a 1998 K2 carbon frame mountain bike. It has TONS of use. Not one issue with it.

Interestingly enough, and apropo to this discussion, back then I had it in one of those two bike ceiling mounted stands. The stand fell over in the middle of the day and my buddies aluminum framed Bianchi road bike was destroyed: the top tube completed dented bad. I had to buy him a new frame (~$1,200 back then). My mtn bike was completely fine.

I am in the midst of finally replacing that K2 but I cannot fathom spending the prices a carbon bike costs these days...though I would like carbon given my experience!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Lovespicyfood said:


> I have a 1998 K2 carbon frame mountain bike. It has TONS of use. Not one issue with it.
> 
> Interestingly enough, and apropo to this discussion, back then I had it in one of those two bike ceiling mounted stands. The stand fell over in the middle of the day and my buddies aluminum framed Bianchi road bike was destroyed: the top tube completed dented bad. I had to buy him a new frame (~$1,200 back then). My mtn bike was completely fine.
> 
> I am in the midst of finally replacing that K2 but I cannot fathom spending the prices a carbon bike costs these days...though I would like carbon given my experience!


And how was it your fault that the stand fell over. Enough so that you bought him a new frame.


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

^ I agree. That falls under the **** happens category, If my friends rack destroyed my frame, I would tell him to not worry about it. Oh course, assuming there wasn't gross negligence on his part. 

Friends>stuff


----------



## Love Commander (Nov 15, 2012)

What to you guys with years of experience on CF have to say about deep scratches and gouges? For example, if it's past the clear coat and into the carbon itself? Do you just send it in to be repaired?

Curious because I'm a clutz who also made the mistake of demoing an Anthem Advanced this weekend and fell in love. I'm bike shopping and was initially aiming a bit more budget friendly, but after that ride my top price tentatively just jumped. I just don't have much experience with CF, and, as I said, I'm also a clumsy oaf.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Love Commander said:


> What to you guys with years of experience on CF have to say about deep scratches and gouges? For example, if it's past the clear coat and into the carbon itself? Do you just send it in to be repaired?
> 
> Curious because I'm a clutz who also made the mistake of demoing an Anthem Advanced this weekend and fell in love. I'm bike shopping and was initially aiming a bit more budget friendly, but after that ride my top price tentatively just jumped. I just don't have much experience with CF, and, as I said, I'm also a clumsy oaf.


If you are as clumsy as you profess to be you would probably be better off with an alternative frame material.


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

It takes a significant gouge to mess up the integrity of the frame. I would say, obvious structual damage is the basis for repair. Scratches, ride that shiz


----------



## Love Commander (Nov 15, 2012)

Dirty $anchez said:


> If you are as clumsy as you profess to be you would probably be better off with an alternative frame material.


Maybe inexperienced, more than clumsy.

To put things in perspective, I've been riding off road for just shy of a year, and I still make some dumb calls. Part of me wants to go bananas and get the best I can currently afford, the other part says get something more reasonable, invest a few more years, _then_ go bananas.



FastBanana said:


> It takes a significant gouge to mess up the integrity of the frame. I would say, obvious structual damage is the basis for repair. Scratches, ride that shiz


Is that one of those things you'd go to the dealer to get a final decision?


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Carbon = disposable. 

done.


----------



## Lovespicyfood (Aug 4, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> And how was it your fault that the stand fell over. Enough so that you bought him a new frame.


Actually, there is a pleasant and surprising end to this story... We were renting and I purchased this stand because it did not require bolts into the ceiling. Well, I have to give Performance credit! I contacted them and they reimbursed me for the frame!!!! Apparently it should have been bolted and they had problems with this rack because that was not noted or even suggested.


----------



## SpinDirt (Feb 22, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> First off let me say I'm all for carbon.
> 
> Your aluminum bike was adequate until you lifted a carbon bike. Then in your head you thought the aluminum bike wasn't adequate. When actually it was and still is. Your mind craved the lighter carbon and you tricked yourself into thinking the aluminum bike wasn't adequate.
> 
> ...


So true that using the word inadequate to a bike that is heavier but was adequate up until he tried a carbon frame. I think the way he used the word inadequate was so wrong. I like your take on this dirtjunkie and totally agree with you.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

car bone said:


> Carbon = disposable.
> 
> done.


It's more like Aluminum=disposable. It cost more to repair Alu than carbon, yes it can be done but not many people like to fix Alu.



DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Hypothetically speaking:
> 
> Lets say for some insane reason there was a recall on all carbon frames. And the manufacturers were forced never to market carbon frames again. You were riding an aluminum bike for 10 years and it was adequate. Then you switched to a carbon frame two months prior to the recall. You had two months of loving your carbon bike. But now it was taken away. Would you go back to riding your aluminum bike that was adequate for 10 years of service. Or would you quit mountain biking all together because now that you rode a lighter carbon bike the aluminum bike is now inadequate. I'm thinking you'd go back to your aluminum bike and it would be adequate.


 no carbon? I'd stopped riding for a few months then give it up all together

Actually, you can still ride a damage or broken carbon parts on some occasions. I bent the long cage XO on the trail before and I was pretty much done. A few years later I crossed chain and did the same thing on another long cage XO, but this time it's carbon. Clearly it was broken but it snapped back to the original position, I was able to ride it out and even shifted a few times.


----------



## Camaleon (May 10, 2006)

Because if you really "LOVE" mountain biking you owe it to yourself period!
Get a second job, downgrade your car, sell a kidney whatever it takes you deserve it and don't worry about breaking it you will probably brake a bone before the frame and if so get one from a company that has a great reputation handling warranty claims.
One phone call and you will get a new frame in the mail I wish you could to the same with bones.

If you get to read these in the next hour you could get an Intense Carbine 27.5 Carbon frame and shock for $1,500 at PricePoint offer its only good today they also have complete bikes.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

car bone said:


> Carbon = disposable.
> 
> done.


To a certain extent, mtb=disposable, if used on the regular, and carbon no more so than anything else.

Nothing lasts forever.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

mimi1885 said:


> It's more like Aluminum=disposable. It cost more to repair Alu than carbon, yes it can be done but not many people like to fix Alu.
> .


I very much agree, however the failure mode is vastly different. When all common bike frame metals are pushed to the limit they first bend permanently, they elongate, buckle, stretch, and this gives you a warning. Carbon always cracks when pushed, depending on the layup it can be catastrophic or just a small propagating crack, but the limit where you get a permanent bend and where it actually fails is the same with carbon. I have never seen a bent carbon part or one with a dent in it for that matter, well at least not one without massive delamination.

One thing is ride induced failures such as fatigue and here carbon is good, but its not like they tell you "it will last forever, unlimited fatigue" its just not true, the resin is rock hard and it crumbles if you push it too far, but if you are cycling it below a limit it could very well last forever, or almost forever, but so could steel and ti too.

a totally different thing is accidents such as when the bike falls over and the top tube gets hit in the worst possible place by maybe a sharp edge or something. This usually leaves a dent in metals, but if you're unlucky it totally destroys a carbon frame, but the carbon could very well escape unharmed, of course you will never know if its delaminated inside or starting to delaminate.

In the end its all a tradeoff, and as long as everybody knows what they are buying, go ahead. Personally I like steel, high end steel. both for the feel and the durability, and the look. I like thin straight ultra strong tubes, so thats what I got.

Alu is the least fixable of all materials, its also mostly used in massproduced boring cheap crappy riding frames, and why would you wanna keep one of those alive anyway. When alu breaks and you fix it it will just break in another place soon after, not worth doing.

Ti breaks too, usually catastrophic, especially 6al-4v, it can bend a whole lot and spring back to normal. but if you push it a bit more it just snaps, it almost explodes  3al-2,5v is a bit softer and gentler of of course. You still have the problem with purging and cleanliness during fabrication.

And the good old steel. it usually bends, quite flexy (well it flexes back without taking a permanent bend), really strong, really stiff, but the strongest steels seems to fail catastrophically them too, thats the trade off with steel. you want strong you also get brittle (well more brittle than mild steel at least).

Alu starts degrading as soon as you look at the bike, fatigue fatigue fatigue, I just can't find a single possible situation where alu is the better choice. Oh wait I have one, its soft and weak so its cheap to mass produce, and you can blow ballons from it a lower temps than the rest of the metals.

That being said. I prefer steel I feel the only downside to it is weight, and that it eventually rusts, but I can live with those. And when it breaks it will be cheaper to fix than all the other materials.

Carbon is also quite cheap to fix, if you know how. the fix is probably the strongest part of the entire frame if done right


----------



## johnb (Feb 8, 2004)

car bone said:


> a totally different thing is accidents such as when the bike falls over and the top tube gets hit in the worst possible place by maybe a sharp edge or something. This usually leaves a dent in metals, but if you're unlucky it totally destroys a carbon frame, but the carbon could very well escape unharmed, of course you will never know if its delaminated inside or starting to delaminate.


Sounds like you didn't watch the Santa Cruz video that is linked to in this thread. 
A guy takes a carbon frame and slams it against the corner of a large piece of steel machinery, over and over. And the guy wales on it!! And he could NOT break it. That video is freaking amazing. I have a whole different view of the strength of carbon fiber after watching that.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

johnb said:


> Sounds like you didn't watch the Santa Cruz video that is linked to in this thread.
> A guy takes a carbon frame and slams it against the corner of a large piece of steel machinery, over and over. And the guy wales on it!! And he could NOT break it. That video is freaking amazing. I have a whole different view of the strength of carbon fiber after watching that.


I have seen the goddamn video. WHEN IT CAME OUT. it still means jack ****. You have no idea if its better carbon (1k) inside, 3d weaved, twice as thick. 10 times as expensive resin, or just that that test is favorable to that particular shape or part or whatever. Too many unknown unknows there.

One things for sure though. whatever carbon frame you buy, you can add more carbon to it, known highest quality carbon, and highest quality resin. If you now what you're doing that is.


----------



## johnb (Feb 8, 2004)

... but did you see how HARD he hit the god damn thing!
You're taking this stuff way too serious.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Its actually the first time i heard anyone say i take stuff serious.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

car bone said:


> When all common bike frame metals are pushed to the limit they first bend permanently, they elongate, buckle, stretch, and this gives you a warning...
> Carbon is also quite cheap to fix, if you know how. the fix is probably the strongest part of the entire frame if done right


First of all, well said:thumbsup:
Second, I have no doubt that the Santa Cruz vid was genuine vid.

There's no telling what materials would do when push beyond the limit, it's not always bend, elongate, buckle, stretch, sometime it just snaps. I broke several parts and they were not as I expected. Several CNC Alu parts just snapped just like what people believe carbon would do. My aluminum spokes on my i9 don't bend, they snap. My friend's bike (alu) broke by the chain stay without warning while doing manuals.

If you are lucky enough to damage the material of your bike frame and/or components just beyond the limit, then you "may" get some type of warning. If the load is much greater than the fail point from landing, g-out and what not, you probably not going to get the warning sign.

I've never bent a ti or steel shaft before (golf clubs) I broke several clubs during practice snapped the shaft on the down swing. Golfers don't choose different shaft materials because of bling or because it's carbon. They choose the different shaft materials because desire flex and swing weight, btw lighter is not usually better. Best equipments are the ones that offer the feel of connection to user. If that material is steel, Alu, Ti, or carbon then so be it.

The moral of the story is every materials can break the same way carbon breaks but only carbon get the bad reputation for clean break. However when compares premium to premium carbon offer the highest failure point, so at the end of the day I'll take my chances.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Lovespicyfood said:


> Actually, there is a pleasant and surprising end to this story... We were renting and I purchased this stand because it did not require bolts into the ceiling. Well, I have to give Performance credit! I contacted them and they reimbursed me for the frame!!!! Apparently it should have been bolted and they had problems with this rack because that was not noted or even suggested.


Well it makes more sense now. Glad to hear Performance stepped up to the plate.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

mimi1885 said:


> The moral of the story is every materials can break the same way carbon breaks but only carbon get the bad reputation for clean break. However when compares premium to premium carbon offer the highest failure point, so at the end of the day I'll take my chances.


Thats because most of the early carbon frames were pure crap, built by complete amateurs, with absolutely no knowledge about the material at all. And that rep was well deserved imo. I went to school in a fighter jet factory, I know how to manufacture carbon to its highest potential. I know how they made it there and what punishment it can handle if done right, and its only in the last 3-4 years or so this is seeping out, and I think this is due to the bike biz wanna go as cheap as possible (as always). I still have material from there, material that is for all practical purposes indestructable, unless I use a hacksaw that is. Its awesome. cost a fair bit too. A lot actually. If one were to build frames like this it would cost about 4-5 times as much I guess. But then I would be an "early adopter". No ****.

And now there is even better tech out there, 1k thats given but 3d weaving and spread tow weaves (to make it cheaper only), then we're talking

But then again, steel is isotropic, crystalline. So I'm still gonna go with steel given the choice. I just like it. Its uncomplicated and unfinicky. And predictable somehow, and not affected by lots of things regarding knowledge of layup and costs (since you get what you pay for, unhardened 4130 or 853/oxplat/stainless etc).

I'm gonna hold out for at least 5 more years.

But yeah almost all high performance materials today break cleanly and suddenly since they are pushing the materials/designs themselves to the limit, even the fukking alu is brittle now. And its the only way to make it stronger and/or lighter. Me myself I'm not worried about weight. Usually heavy = good. but thats just me.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

You went to school at a jet-fight factory, yet you think that heavier is better?


----------



## Gundam168 (Dec 19, 2012)

johnb said:


> Sounds like you didn't watch the Santa Cruz video that is linked to in this thread.
> A guy takes a carbon frame and slams it against the corner of a large piece of steel machinery, over and over. And the guy wales on it!! And he could NOT break it. That video is freaking amazing. I have a whole different view of the strength of carbon fiber after watching that.


That video is about as much convincing as this video:


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

car bone said:


> Thats because most of the early carbon frames were pure crap, built by complete amateurs, with absolutely no knowledge about the material at all. And that rep was well deserved imo. Its awesome. cost a fair bit too. A lot actually. If one were to build frames like this it would cost about 4-5 times as much I guess. But then I would be an "early adopter". No ****.


Cheapo Chinese Carbon frames are definitely a buyer beware. I'd followed what DJ said earlier, if you buy one from a reputable brand there's no need to worry because if they are crappy those companies would not be in business. Carbon material is cheap but the labor cost is what make it more expensive.

I don't buy carbon bike because it's made out of carbon fiber, I buy one because I like the brand/model. I don't compare the cheapo to what I'm buying because they are not the same. I want to support the brand(s) I like.

Good example is Ibis, I was so happy that they were coming back so I pre-ordered waited months, I want them to make a strong come back and hopefully offer more models in the future, I bought 3 Mojo after the come back and their line up keeps growing, I'm happy about it. They offer high quality products at great price, as well as great customer service.


----------



## jfw432 (Oct 24, 2011)

I have a full suspension Jamis bike with carbon and aluminum. After 6 years of abuse, it was the aluminum that broke and not the carbon. Due to the complex curves at the site and no one local could weld aluminum last minute, I repaired it with carbon fiber about 1000 miles ago and it's held up great.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Bro said:


> You went to school at a jet-fight factory, yet you think that heavier is better?


You missed the context. He's saying that the people behind the scenes making carbon bike parts right now don't have the means to live up to his standards and you really can't tell which carbon frames are good. He's saying that steel is very familiar to him and that he trusts a frame made out of it far more than some carbon frame frame pushed to the limit of being lightweight, all while using cheaper materials and simpler fabrication processes.

Regarding the Santa Cruz video, he's implying that it doesn't mean squat to other carbon frames. That's how it is for a Santa Cruz Nomad carbon, and no other carbon frame. If you missed the context from that video, it was said that the Nomad carbon was overbuilt, specifically to address concerns about consumer fears about carbon. They later removed some material from the bottom of the downtube on their V-10 as well, on their refresh on it, to make it lighter. Most of their new models seem to be light enough to indicate that their downtubes aren't built as strong. Most of that energy is being deflected anyways; put some weight behind the frame to keep it from bouncing and might produce some results. Same as that Niner fork video, with him holding the fork mid air and hitting it with a hammer, only for the fork to deflect away--it'd be a different story if he took a hammer to a fork installed on a complete bike with a rider on it, because the fork wouldn't be deflected away. It's akin to asking a karate student to break a board in half with the board only held with 1 hand (holding it with palm behind, fingers in front), or asking that pinkbike editor to break the board in half swinging it at the concrete block with 1 hand with similar grip. I wouldn't expect it to break unless he's got some insane gripping strength.

The basic idea seems to be that the industry honestly doesn't have their knowledge of carbon down quite that well. There's still seems to be more potential for big research heavy brands and plenty more catch-up for the smaller brands. On top of that, the sport's evolving and people are riding harder and going bigger and what was good before might not be good to current standards. They prototype stuff that's even lighter to see how far they can push the limits, until they get something that breaks, and roll-back a bit. That testing is done by athletes and test machines--the carbon products may pass those tests, but who knows if they pass the test of the 250+ lbs guy trying to follow some little guy off a little drop. You just can't generalize with carbon. Who knows if the designers simply design their stuff to do well on the tests, or worse to design to barely pass safety standards (ex. CEN), as opposed to designing intelligently with every riding style, rider weight, terrain, environmental condition, maintenance levels, etc. considered. car bone's opinion seems to be one that resembles the latter (intelligent holistic design), to make it out of something strong and reliable such as steel, with a decent amount of mass in it. Not much worries there except having the frame rust from the inside out, but even then a thick frame won't fail from that.

I wonder about frames built with big carbon looms. I believe Time makes their road frames with such a process, but their frames seem to retail for $5000. Add in higher tech resins and carbon frames may outclass the longevity and reliability of steel frames. As it is now, cheap carbon is as disposable as aluminum, which from a consumer standpoint, isn't a bad thing as spending the same amount 5 years from now most likely would get you a far better carbon frame (than the cheap carbon frame, not necessarily better than the super high tech one) as supply increases and prices drop.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Varaxis said:


> You missed the context. He's saying that the people behind the scenes making carbon bike parts right now don't have the means to live up to his standards and you really can't tell which carbon frames are good. He's saying that steel is very familiar to him and that he trusts a frame made out of it far more than some carbon frame frame pushed to the limit of being lightweight, all while using cheaper materials and simpler fabrication processes.
> 
> Regarding the Santa Cruz video, he's implying that it doesn't mean squat to other carbon frames. That's how it is for a Santa Cruz Nomad carbon, and no other carbon frame. If you missed the context from that video, it was said that the Nomad carbon was overbuilt, specifically to address concerns about consumer fears about carbon. They later removed some material from the bottom of the downtube on their V-10 as well, on their refresh on it, to make it lighter. Most of their new models seem to be light enough to indicate that their downtubes aren't built as strong. Most of that energy is being deflected anyways; put some weight behind the frame to keep it from bouncing and might produce some results. Same as that Niner fork video, with him holding the fork mid air and hitting it with a hammer, only for the fork to deflect away--it'd be a different story if he took a hammer to a fork installed on a complete bike with a rider on it, because the fork wouldn't be deflected away. It's akin to asking a karate student to break a board in half with the board only held with 1 hand (holding it with palm behind, fingers in front), or asking that pinkbike editor to break the board in half swinging it at the concrete block with 1 hand with similar grip. I wouldn't expect it to break unless he's got some insane gripping strength.
> 
> ...


This post is car bone approved!

Excellent enterpretation.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

mimi1885 said:


> no carbon? I'd stopped riding for a few months then give it up all together


Sure you would :skep: You'd be back on that aluminum bike and getting your fix on in a heartbeat.


----------



## LB412 (Nov 28, 2012)

I have well over 1000 miles on my TB LTc riding mostly in the hills/mountains of southern CA but also in the rockier Tahoe area. The bike has taken plenty of high and low spills, the frame has zero damage. I cant say the same for some of the parts. 

Also, Boeing made the 787 out of carbon fiber... If its strong enough to take the force of flight it can get me up and down the hill.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

^ F18 fighter jets are made out of carbon, and they have
been around for a long time.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

John Kuhl said:


> ^ F18 fighter jets are made out of carbon, and they have
> been around for a long time.


thats like says the chevy cavalier has aluminum components and a Lamborghini does too.. therefore the Cavalier must be just as good....


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

SandSpur said:


> thats like says the chevy cavalier has aluminum components and a Lamborghini does too.. therefore the Cavalier must be just as good....


Exactly, just because a few carbon parts broke does not mean all would


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't remember saying a carbon bike had as good of carbon as a F18. However, I bet a Cavalier
breaks less than a Lambo.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

John Kuhl said:


> I don't remember saying a carbon bike had as good of carbon as a F18. However, I bet a Cavalier
> breaks less than a Lambo.


My sister has a Prius, I know, and I drove my friend's Fisker a few times. To me both cars took me from point A to point B just the same. The Prius feel much faster at 70mph on the freeway, I had to go up to at least 100 to feel fast on the Karma to make the matter worse it's not even a real hybrid like Prius, it's an electric car I expect the "engine" to do more driving than act like a charger.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Is this fun with analogies time? Is that "fast" feeling you have the feeling of danger, thrill, suspense, etc. due to the car reaching its limits of comfortable control? That's like saying a BMX bike feels fast a 20 MPH while a long travel 29er feels fast at 30 MPH. So choose to ride the BMX bike if you are slow and want to feel fast?


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

John Kuhl said:


> I don't remember saying a carbon bike had as good of carbon as a F18. However, I bet a Cavalier
> breaks less than a Lambo.


Then you don't know Cavaliers. They are some of the least reliable cars ever.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

CannondaleF9 said:


> Then you don't know Cavaliers. They are some of the least reliable cars ever.


An Experts rating of 4.0 out of 10.0 would suggest otherwise.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Hey what do you guys think about the e90 M3 with the 414hp NA V8 vs. the upcoming f80 M3 with 450hp FI I6?

Exactly.

Both will get you around a track fast and different folks will like the NA engine vs. FI and will debate the heck out of it all for longevity, lap times, weight, efficiency, tunability, blah, blah, blah.

Ride what you're comfortable with and leave it on the trail.

Context: have an Enduro Sworks and a Knolly Chilcotin. One is Carbon and one is Alu, 160mm bikes. They get the snot beaten out of them, they have crashed bad, and they're sill ticking. I'm a big rider, aggressive, 250#s geared, in New England rocky goodness. Both bikes have seen several days lift time including dbl-Blacks. Enduro is a season older.

Make of it what you will.

Just my .02.


----------



## bradkay (Apr 9, 2013)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I would not buy a carbon fiber bike unless I was so rich I could buy 10 good mountain bikes at a time.


This is funny coming from a person who touts the only bike brand that has been required by the CPSC to place stickers on their bikes warning the consumer to regularly examine the bike for cracks...


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

my chromag sakura commuter has not been examined for cracks, i'm gonna start checking it every decade starting around 2043 or something.


----------



## bradkay (Apr 9, 2013)

Basically, it is not the material that is used but rather the way in which it is used. An ultra-thin, ultra-light carbon layup such as is used on high end road bikes will not survive long on the trail. For that matter, an ultra-thin 6000 series or 7000 series aluminium frame will not survive too many years on the trail, nor will an ultra-thin steel frame. For serious fatigue strength, you need to make sure that the frame material is created in a manner that will stand up to the punishment. 

The major bicycle manufacturers have pretty much done their homework in this respect - a big improvement over the late 1980s and early 1990s where lightweight was the sole concern and frames and components were routinely released that would not stand up to the abuse. It was during that time period that the CPSC came down on Cannondale, forcing them to put the warning decal on their bikes. 

If you want anecdotal evidence, I purchased a Kestrel MXZ in 1990. This was an overbuilt carbon fiber hardtail - coming in at 27lbs. I once t-boned a tree stump so hard that the rear derailleur cable popped out of the cable guides - the frame had flexed that much on the impact. If I had been riding a steel or aluminium frame it would have crumpled at the impact. The Kestrel rides on - it didn't even knock the wheel much out of true (I guess that the frame flex absorbed most of the impact force). 

That isn't to say that every carbon frame will act in the same manner - but an intelligently built mountain bike should.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

mimi1885 said:


> ...Yeah but carbon would crack unlike Alu that just dent and fold giving the appearance to the riders that they can still ride it


yeah, you just keep chugging along, living life under that tin foil hat you've got on. if we are going to comparing apples to apples, the force it takes to dent and crack a CF frame is MANY times higher than the force needed to fold aluminum...


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> yeah, you just keep chugging along, living life under that tin foil hat you've got on. if we are going to comparing apples to apples, the force it takes to dent and crack a CF frame is MANY times higher than the force needed to fold aluminum...


That was a sarcastic remark to people who insist that dings and dents on the down tube are ok. I have no reason to questions carbon strength when comparing to other frame materials of the same weight. It's like comparing + to x of course carbon is stronger. 

Sent from my iPad mini using Tapatalk HD


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> yeah, you just keep chugging along, living life under that tin foil hat you've got on. if we are going to comparing apples to apples, the force it takes to dent and crack a CF frame is MANY times higher than the force needed to fold aluminum...


I call BS on that since at least 50% of the composite is epoxy with no comparatively strength at all, then the carbon weave is made up of fibers going in 2 (or more) different directions so another 50% lost, or if its one way directional then you have the delaminating between the layers as weak points, then we have hidden inevitable imperfections that account for about 50% further decrease. Trust me its not much stronger than run off the mill taiwan alu when its all said and done. And i'm 100% sure I forgot something to make it even worse. And obviously its the same with "stiffness"

The strength of carbon is the totally variable thickness and shape, and thats the only thing that makes it better than alu. Alu is also isotropic (crystalline and equally strong in a dimensions) which carbon is not, thats why they invented 3d weave that strengthens it in the z dimension (between layers up and down).

But yeah go ahead think that. I'd say they are about equal, but fail in different ways, at most 10%+- difference there. If compared in an apples to apples comparison, which is hard since almost all carbon frames are not even close in design to alu shaped ones. And why would you? You are not constrained by any of the alu quirks. But yeah apples to apples... then its not much difference. Look at seatposts for example, or handlebars.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

A simple formula I go by is when it comes to carbon and other frame materials, it would yield the same strength at lighter weight or stronger at the same weight.

I'm sure theoretically we can prove and disprove something but my formula works well in the real world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk pro


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*Can't we all just get along..*


----------



## TwoEars (Oct 31, 2013)

I have three XC carbon mountainbikes. One non-suspended, one hardtail and one full-susser. None of them have failed in any way. The non-suspended one is pushing 18 years and still soakes up the abuse!!!

Granted - if was doing more all-mountain / downhill I would probably like aluminium. But since I do XC and only crash 1-3 times a season I've had zero problems with carbon.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

mimi1885 said:


> in the real world.


In the real world i agree since no one has invented a machine yet that produce the variable thickness of metals (well, in a economic massproducable way) such as you can with laying up carbon, thick where you want to. But if someone had invented a method for getting the shapes and thickness exactly where you wanted, it would be the other way around i guess. That is way out in the future i guess, at least 50 years, and I mean homogenous forged metal, not some 3d printed sintered half plastic crapola. that doesn't count.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Carbon lay-up, and it's direction, effect strength in specific directions. Think of a baseball bat: when used label up it has strength, put it at 90 degrees and it will sheer. Carbon fiber is layed-up with this sort of consideration in mind. That is, while thickness is a consideration, the direction of the fiber determines the direction of strength/the direction of pliance.

I don't think we can do that with metals yet in a fashion as articulate as carbon fiber. While ancient smithys took advantage of crystal direction in steel buy repeated folding, reheating, and hammering for strength in swords, there is no omni-directional application in bikes except with carbon fiber.


----------



## arkon11 (Jul 26, 2009)

The reason I'm afraid of carbon is not because of it's structural strength. It's it's resistance to impact damage. For some reason I feel like it's not as strong or as willing to take a direct hit on a rock. I often ditch my bike so...

Oh and Knolly doesn't make carbon frames.


----------



## Wherewolf (Jan 17, 2004)

*Because I can*



beshannon said:


> Because I do not like the stiffness of aluminum
> Because I like the way it feels
> Because I can


:thumbsup: I have the same bike in Carbon and Aluminum and there is no comparison. The latter rides and feel like a tank.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Carbon lay-up, and it's direction, effect strength in specific directions. Think of a baseball bat: when used label up it has strength, put it at 90 degrees and it will sheer. Carbon fiber is layed-up with this sort of consideration in mind. That is, while thickness is a consideration, the direction of the fiber determines the direction of strength/the direction of pliance.
> 
> I don't think we can do that with metals yet in a fashion as articulate as carbon fiber. While ancient smithys took advantage of crystal direction in steel buy repeated folding, reheating, and hammering for strength in swords, there is no omni-directional application in bikes except with carbon fiber.


Actually the hammering and folding was to reduce the carbon content (to reduce brittleness), spread the alloying elements evenly and get rid of phosphorus and sulfur. Japan has very low quality ore to begin with so this was necessary. The forging it self was the only method they had of forming steel in those days except for sanding and grinding.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Ok from what I have read....

Carbon is for small-penis, show-boats

Aluminum is too damn stiff

Steel is heavy and for Shwinns only and certain Walmart rides.

Thanks for the help/


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Ok from what I have read....
> 
> Carbon is for small-penis, show-boats
> 
> ...


You are so wrong.

Carbon is for weight weenies (racerboys)
Aluminum is fun and quick 
Steel is for hairy chested lumberjacks (really real men)


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

CannondaleF9 said:


> You are so wrong.
> 
> Carbon is for weight weenies (racerboys)
> Aluminum is fun and quick
> Steel is for hairy chested lumberjacks (really real men)


I have 29 post and you have 1,000, but we are both "jewels in the rough"

I'm getting a bike made of tupperware material.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

Eric.Bravery said:


> I have 29 post and you have 1,000, but we are both "jewels in the rough"
> 
> I'm getting a bike made of tupperware material.


I have over 1000 posts because I post a lot and people don't like giving rep to people who give info and don't joke around. I also have gotten a lot on negative rep from idiots who didn't agree with me. Without the negative rep, I would be at 4 green bars or more.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

No, no, no. You're both wrong.

Carbon is for rich d-bags who like to buy a new bike after their monthly rides.
Aluminum is for masochists and gluttons for punishment.
And steel is for hipsters and retro-grouches.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I have over 1000 posts because I post a lot and people don't like giving rep to people who give info and don't joke around. I also have gotten a lot on negative rep from idiots who didn't agree with me. Without the negative rep, I would be at 4 green bars or more.


You earned every bit of your neg. rep for the dumb assed advice you so freely hand out.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Dirty $anchez said:


> You earned every bit of your neg. rep for the dumb assed advice you so freely hand out.


Stuff it, Dirty_Diaper.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Ahwwwww, still mad?


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Ok from what I have read....
> 
> Carbon is for small-penis, show-boats
> 
> ...


Wow, a Rhodes scholar.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Dirty $anchez said:


> Ahwwwww, still mad?


Durian Rider says carbon sucks....I believe him.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

Dirty $anchez said:


> You earned every bit of your neg. rep for the dumb assed advice you so freely hand out.


And how can you have so much rep by insulting everyone?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

CannondaleF9 said:


> And how can you have so much rep by insulting everyone?


I don't insult everyone, just you and a few others that so richly deserve it.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Hi I'm Buffy the troll slayer.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

CannondaleF9 said:


> And how can you have so much rep by insulting everyone?


he rides carbon.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Hi I'm Buffy the Tranny.





Eric.Bravery said:


> he rides carbon.


Phhhffffffft, I don't even ride.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Dirty $anchez said:


> Phhhffffffft, I don't even ride.


 That is what she told me.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

Eric.Bravery said:


> That is what she told me.


And with a name like Dirty Sanchez, must be has trouble with the woman.... making self sound all into girls, a cover up for what is homosexual fun times. nothing wrong with that(*Bro Hug*)


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

Eric.Bravery said:


> And with a name like Dirty Sanchez, must be has trouble with the woman.... making self sound all into girls, a cover up for what is homosexual fun times. nothing wrong with that(*Bro Hug*)


Dude, this isn't a dating site. Go back to trolling PinkBike for boyfriends.


----------



## Bird (Mar 26, 2004)

Did a group ride last week with 8 other riders....2 alum bikes and 7 Carbon bikes. I live in prime Mtnbiking territory with lots of riders and yet to see or hear of issues with Carbon mtn bikes but we do know how to ride. lol


----------



## raymondy (Jul 16, 2013)

Bird said:


> Did a group ride last week with 8 other riders....2 alum bikes and 7 Carbon bikes. I live in prime Mtnbiking territory with lots of riders and yet to see or hear of issues with Carbon mtn bikes but we do know how to ride. lol


lol I have heard of very few issues with carbon bikes


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Eric.Bravery said:


> Durian Rider says carbon sucks....I believe him.


Then you should believe him and stay away from carbon fiber thereby answering your question of 3 weeks ago so that you may continue on with your life. You and banana boy deserve each other and we all hope you have a happy life together.

As for the fails in that video ... obviously any bike would have failed when subjected to that type of force. Quite a few of those bikes appear to have been garaged. Guess Mr Banana forgot to mention that.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

ShinDiggity said:


> Then you should believe him and stay away from carbon fiber thereby answering your question of 3 weeks ago so that you may continue on with your life. You and banana boy deserve each other and we all hope you have a happy life together.
> 
> As for the fails in that video ... obviously any bike would have failed when subjected to that type of force. Quite a few of those bikes appear to have been garaged. Guess Mr Banana forgot to mention that.


Yep and BTW is Fast Banana is the slammer.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I have learned a lot in this thread, first and foremost how to spot a troll.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I have learned a lot in this thread, first and foremost how to spot a troll.


Too good to be true Yes I just neg repped you OP.

Hey DJ what happen to the cool muscle car avatar


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

mimi1885 said:


> Too good to be true Yes I just neg repped you OP.
> 
> Hey DJ what happen to the cool muscle car avatar


My old ride will soon make it's way back as soon as my hipster banana riding a fixie no handed avatar has run it's course.

And that may not be until Fast Banana has been released from prison.:cornut:


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

Riding a durian would be mighty uncomfortable and stinky.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I have so much rep that I'm afraid to neg rep anyone but I just might.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

pipe down hippie...


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> My old ride will soon make it's way back as soon as my hipster banana riding a fixie no handed avatar has run it's course.
> 
> And that may not be until Fast Banana has been released from prison.:cornut:


For real man? My lawyer is working it. I'm not in jail, I just got tired of banana puns.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't neg rep, but some of these jerks need it.


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

mimi1885 said:


> Too good to be true Yes I just neg repped you OP.
> 
> Hey DJ what happen to the cool muscle car avatar


Nah, just getting back and mocking those who trounced and accused me as being a troll within the first pages.Seems this is a habit, judging from what I read in the guy who is researching MT biker type cookers, thread. No one answered, just mocked and condescended him.

This thread went to ****, so be my guest...have fun in the offtopic here.

Neg reppped back


----------



## Eric.Bravery (Oct 6, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I have learned a lot in this thread, first and foremost how to spot a troll.


Just like I learned to spot condescending azzholes.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

FastBanana said:


> For real man? My lawyer is working it. I'm not in jail, I just got tired of banana puns.


Well get your butt over to that thread and set everyone's mind at ease. We all thought you were doing 10 to 20 years hard time.:incazzato:


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Eric.Bravery said:


> guy who is researching MT biker type cookers, thread. No one answered, just mocked and condescended him.


There's a fine line between good-natured mocking and condescending mocking. You best learn the difference.


----------



## Riley-NZL (Nov 27, 2013)

Slightly off topic, but do any of the big name brands (specialized,trek, yeti etc) make carbon frames, and how much of a weight saving can you expect over an alloy bike?


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

What a crap thread! Let me throw some of my crap in here too...

I've owned and ridden all of 'em hard:

Carbon is good
Aluminium is good
Steel is good

As long as as they make a mountain bike...


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

Riley-NZL said:


> Slightly off topic, but do any of the big name brands (specialized,trek, yeti etc) make carbon frames, and how much of a weight saving can you expect over an alloy bike?


and here we go again....


----------



## Wherewolf (Jan 17, 2004)

*Of course*



Riley-NZL said:


> Slightly off topic, but do any of the big name brands (specialized,trek, yeti etc) make carbon frames, and how much of a weight saving can you expect over an alloy bike?


Of coures all the big name brands make carbon bikes. It's not just about weight. I have the same bike in carbon and aluminum and there is no comparison. The carbon has "flex-appeal", it is a real joy to ride, and I can ride it a lot farther and for longer than the aluminum. And nobody falls more than me. Discussions like this remind me of the 40 year old virgin. People talking about something they know absolutely nothing about.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Riley-NZL said:


> Slightly off topic, but do any of the big name brands (specialized,trek, yeti etc) make carbon frames, and how much of a weight saving can you expect over an alloy bike?


So you managed to not read any part of this thread, and you still didn't find your answer?


----------



## Riley-NZL (Nov 27, 2013)

Wherewolf said:


> Of coures all the big name brands make carbon bikes. It's not just about weight. I have the same bike in carbon and aluminum and there is no comparison. The carbon has "flex-appeal", it is a real joy to ride, and I can ride it a lot farther and for longer than the aluminum. And nobody falls more than me. Discussions like this remind me of the 40 year old virgin. People talking about something they know absolutely nothing about.


It wasn't a discussion it was a question. If I knew anything about carbon bikes I might discuss them, but I don't so instead I asked a question.



Bro said:


> So you managed to not read any part of this thread, and you still didn't find your answer?


From reading all 9 pages of this topic weight saving and the "feel" of carbon bikes is the reason to get one. No where did I see written just how much of a weight saving you get, feel free to link the post if I missed it.


----------



## The Understater (May 6, 2007)

Okay Riley, to give you a useful example, I just sold my Santa Cruz BLT2 alloy and bought the same frame in carbon. The carbon frame is 1 pound lighter, much, much stiffer laterally, damps out a whole bunch of vibration, and is magnitudes stronger. I also have carbon wheels from Easton that are so strong they have an unconditional two year warranty, but weigh only 1,450 grams for the set, which is lighter than many xc race wheel sets.

And FYI people, Eric the OP got himself banned for being a twat.


----------



## Brockwan (Aug 6, 2013)

The Understater said:


> Okay Riley, to give you a useful example, I just sold my Santa Cruz BLT2 alloy and bought the same frame in carbon. The carbon frame is 1 pound lighter, much, much stiffer laterally, damps out a whole bunch of vibration, and is magnitudes stronger. I also have carbon wheels from Easton that are so strong they have an unconditional two year warranty, but weigh only 1,450 grams for the set, which is lighter than many xc race wheel sets.
> 
> And FYI people, Eric the OP got himself banned for being a twat.


Aaaaaaaaannd end of story. Nuff said

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

And the difference is even more magnified when you consider the option of not going full suspension.
If your trails or riding style allow it, you can save not only the weight difference between an aluminum and a carbon frame.
You can save the 3-5lb. difference between a carbon hard tail and a full suspension. And you get some added trail feel. You might even use that carbon compliance to go ridged for another fun bike option and more weight savings. Gotta love this sport.


----------



## Riley-NZL (Nov 27, 2013)

The Understater said:


> Okay Riley, to give you a useful example, I just sold my Santa Cruz BLT2 alloy and bought the same frame in carbon. The carbon frame is 1 pound lighter, much, much stiffer laterally, damps out a whole bunch of vibration, and is magnitudes stronger. I also have carbon wheels from Easton that are so strong they have an unconditional two year warranty, but weigh only 1,450 grams for the set, which is lighter than many xc race wheel sets.
> 
> And FYI people, Eric the OP got himself banned for being a twat.


Thanks for a clear straight answer, assuming I have the money I'll definitely be taking a look at a carbon frame next time I take a look at a new bike.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

This thread has zero ignorant factor without Eric Bravery.


----------

