# Carbon handlebar and seatpost test on german Bike Magazine



## Portti (Jan 12, 2004)

I don't know if this has already been posted in here but I thought that this might be of interest in this sub-forum.

The german Bike magazine has tested some carbon parts on their last two issues. The tests consisted of laboratory tests where they try to simulate the forces which the parts are subjected in real life. So far they've tested carbon handlebars and seatposts. On both tests they tested 3 specimen of each model in the laboratory.

Here are the summary's of the test results.

*Carbon handlebar test (Bike 10/2008):*

On the carbon handlebar test they tested the bars in combination with a stem from the same manufacturer.

FSA K-Force Riser (178 g) = super
Ritchey WCS Carbon Riser (187 g) = super
Specialized S-Works Pro (151 g) = super
Syntace Vector 31.8 (184 g) = super

Easton Monkeylite XC (175 g) = very good

Race Face Next SL Carbon 3/4 Riser (170 g) = good

6th Element Indium X (150 g) = weak
Maxm M1 (112 g) = weak
Progress PG-202 (200 g) = weak
Syncros Bulk CF (204 g) = weak
Titec Pluto Riser Bar (164 g) = weak

6th Element, Maxm and Specialized were straight bars, other riser bars.

Note that Bike has tested aluminium handlebars on laboratory previously and as far as I remember even higher percentage of the aluminium parts broke on that test compared to carbon bar test.

*Carbon seatpost test (Bike 11/2008): *

FSA K-Force Carbon Lite (350*31.6 mm, 260 g) = super
FSA K-Force Carbon Lite (350**27,2 mm, 232 g) = super
Syntace P6 Carbon (400*31.6 mm, 229 g) = super
Truvativ Team Carbon Double Clamp (350*31.6 mm, 259 g) = super
XLC Composite Pro (350*31.6 mm, 264 g) = super

Race Face Next SL (400*31.6 mm, 255 g) = very good
Ritchey WCS Carbon 1 Bolt (400*31.6 mm, 224 g) = very good
Ritchey WCS Carbon 1 Bolt (350*27.2 mm, 177 g) = very good

Pro Vibe Vollcarbon (400*31.6 mm, 194 g) = good

Easton EC90 Zero (400*31.6 mm, 198 g) = weak


----------



## Flystagg (Nov 14, 2006)

Did the test provide any numbers? How mush stress did they put on the bars. Easton sure didn't fair too well, I guess I'll check out fsa for my next handlebar. Do you have any of the results from the aluminum test, did they happen to test a thompson post?


----------



## cdalemaniac (Jun 18, 2007)

Yeah, I'd really like to know too!
I had a Monkey lite XC as well and it was the worst POS handlebar I ever had. 
I'd rather stick with light weight Alloy parts in the future.


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

I thought that in the last german bike mag test all of Easton's parts totally whipped other stuff on the market? 

The CNT technology makes them stronger - so what did the test actually involve?


----------



## slowpoker (Jun 4, 2008)

I didn't realize that "very good" was so frowned upon. Don't think I'll be splurging for an easton seat post though. I am quite happy with my monkey lite xc bar, thomson post combo.


----------



## Portti (Jan 12, 2004)

In both tests they tried to simulate the real life stresses to which the parts are subjected. They had measured the forces subjected to the parts with data recording equipment on a test route in Lake Garda in Italy. Then they tried to create a test pattern on a test bench which would simulate the stresses.

They tightened the bolts on the parts in the test bench with 1.5 times the force compared to the manufacturers recommendation to simulate real life situations where many user tighten the bolts too much.

Then they did a huge number of test cycles on each part. On the handlebar test the part had to last 150,000 test cycles with all three specimen to get a Super-result. On the seatpost test the part had to last over 180,000 test cycles for the best result.

In addition they did some kind of a static test for the seatposts where (I think) they subjected the posts to static forces for a while.

On the seatpost test one Easton post broke on the static test and one on the dynamic test after 29,533 test cycles ie. only one of the posts survived the whole test. Therefore the test result was weak.


----------



## bikebruzz (Apr 24, 2006)

forget the bike magazine. all "super" are paid adverts. cheers


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

Portti said:


> They tightened the bolts on the parts in the test bench with 1.5 times the force compared to the manufacturers recommendation to simulate real life situations where many user tighten the bolts too much.


This is ridiculous! If the manufacturer specifies a maximum torque, why should you measure at 50% beyond this? The parts were probably partially damaged by this. If a customer is too dum to follow the instructions, then that's his problem. I want to have my part as light as possible, rather than having a 50% tolerance for ham-fistedness.

Ole.


----------



## civil (Feb 13, 2008)

Ole said:


> If a customer is too *dum *to follow the instructions, then that's his problem.
> Ole.




Yeah, I agree though. I would have preferred to see standard torques used. A comparison between standard torque and 50% over would be interesting too.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Ole said:


> This is ridiculous! If the manufacturer specifies a maximum torque, why should you measure at 50% beyond this? The parts were probably partially damaged by this. If a customer is too dum to follow the instructions, then that's his problem. I want to have my part as light as possible, rather than having a 50% tolerance for ham-fistedness.
> 
> Ole.


I agree it's a bit much, but you would be surprised about how many people dont see spending $40-50 for a torque wrench. Out of my 3 riding buddies, I'm the only one with a torque wrench. We all have higher end bikes too. In fact, Im the only one with an Al frame. So, I could see someone over tightening it.


----------



## pagey (Sep 26, 2006)

sounds like a FSA sponsored test


----------



## Portti (Jan 12, 2004)

With the overtightening of the components they tried to simulate the fact that most users don't have torque wrenches and they overtighten the bolts very often. 

The magazine had a small follow-up article after the first test where they wrote that they had received critisism towards the overtightening when they had presented their test results on the Eurobike. They did however defend their position by stating that overtightening happens quite often and therefore the test was relevant in their opinion.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

Agree that it'd be more interesting to see how they do with proper tightening.

I don't know why people over tighten anyway... you want them just tight enough to hold them in place when using. The idea is that if you crash, it's better for the ground to just knock the lever out of position than break it. Well, we did that in mx, when a falling bike is heavy enough to break levers, but it's logical for mtb too.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'd agree that the data would have been great if they had proper torque tests and overtightened torque tests, as that would have shown the effects of incorrect torque and shown the durability of properly installed components at the same time.


----------



## ettore (Nov 13, 2004)

Am I reading this correctly, that they tested the handlebars (say, for example, the FSA) with an FSA stem ... and a RaceFace with a RaceFace stem? If so, that seems pretty much completely odd ... maybe I am just reading it improperly.

The Easton seatpost appears to be disappointing. I am no fan of carbon posts for MTB, but i'd definitely be wary.

I am questioning the credibility of the publication as well.


----------



## Flystagg (Nov 14, 2006)

your right that is another factor, they really should have used the same stem for all to eliminate that variable as well. Not very scientific:nono: .


----------



## Portti (Jan 12, 2004)

ettore said:


> Am I reading this correctly, that they tested the handlebars (say, for example, the FSA) with an FSA stem ... and a RaceFace with a RaceFace stem? If so, that seems pretty much completely odd ... maybe I am just reading it improperly....


Yes you are reading it correctly. They tested FSA handlebars with FSA stem etc. I find this very logical however maybe they should have called it a handlebar/stem test instead of just handlebar test.

The magazine has a small article of the handlebar test online. It doesn't contain the test results. The article does however contain explanations on the test methods and a nice video of the test bench and a test cycle. The article can be found here:

http://www.bike-magazin.de/?p=1385


----------



## ettore (Nov 13, 2004)

I just wonder because everyone I know dislikes Easton stems ... too twisty. It would have been nicer to not use a stem at all or, if anything, use a DH stem or something that is insanely strong. Whatever, it's nice that they're attempting to test things in a remotely scientific manner. However, with the handlebar test, it (to me) merely affirms that the Easton stems are poop ... which I agree with.

Still, the seatpost one seems to be a better test.


----------



## pastajet (May 26, 2006)

At Interbike I did a test and played around with a $300 torque wrench. It is amazing sometimes during my test torque (used various torque and normal wrenches) using this special machine that recorded the actual torque being given to a bolt how bad my over tightening was and how bad most torque wrenches are. It's the micro acceleration just before the torque wrench tells you it reached it's setting that's the culprit. 

From my Interbike daily coverage:

I did see a very high tech torque wrench later in the day that is incredibly precise and expensive ($280-350). It was not a click type of wrench but used a sensitive strain gauge and would warn you if you applied to much torque. You can search the internet for the ‘1/4 In Dr Computorq3 Electronic Torque Wrench’. It is made by CDI Torque Products.

Per their blurb “The COMPUTORQ3 Electronic Torque Wrench is a simple to use digital readout wrench that displays real time torque values in any of fourtorque units, ft.lbs., in.lbs., Nm, kg.cm. Simply set the desired torque value and apply force until the green LED illuminates. Great for light industrial, automotive, motorcycle, watercraft and aircraft applications.”


----------



## ettore (Nov 13, 2004)

Atlas-Copco makes those wrenches ... cost a ton more tho.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

My choice is the Snap On Techwrench. I use it extensively for building automatic race transmissons and it has a Metric conversion also which makes it very handy for the bike. Pricey at nearly $350 but IMO it's a good investment as are most tools:


----------



## pastajet (May 26, 2006)

CDI Torque Products makes the wrenches, CDI joined the Snap-on family of companies in 1995. So it is a rebadged CDI product, so you can either buy the CDI version or get a Sanp-On version. The Snap-On ones come in a whole slew of options, most wouldn't be needed for bike building.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

Interesting! I've been very pleased with it thus far. Only downside is battery life isn't great IMO. But I can live with that. Here's the 'other' use I have for it:










This one I built was an aftermarket JW Performance Powerglide case and JW Ultra-Bell to adapt it to a big block Mopar engine, along with their aftermarket tailhousing.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

pastajet said:


> At Interbike I did a test and played around with a $300 torque wrench. It is amazing sometimes during my test torque (used various torque and normal wrenches) using this special machine that recorded the actual torque being given to a bolt how bad my over tightening was and how bad most torque wrenches are.


How bad were they? Were you ever off by 50% on your over tightening?


----------



## beatnik_ (Jul 3, 2008)

*Easton EC90 Zero (400*31.6 mm, 198 g) = weak*

Come on mates !


----------



## petercarm (Nov 5, 2007)

I can't believe that someone is suggesting that the appropriate tool for the job is a torque wrench that is suitable for heavy duty automotive work.


----------



## Mtc (Jun 9, 2004)

You use more than one size torque wrench on a car. Big boy for suspension, and brake/wheels. A small more sensitive wrench for trans, engine or a bike.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

I have a Ritchey WCS Carbon flat 580mm bar(135g) and I LOVE IT. It's stiff, yet it really dampens trail shock very well. It has survived two bad crashes(one w/ car!) and it still shows no signs of fatigue. I think the real key here, is correct torque:


----------



## petercarm (Nov 5, 2007)

Mtc said:


> You use more than one size torque wrench on a car. Big boy for suspension, and brake/wheels. A small more sensitive wrench for trans, engine or a bike.


Those aren't pictures of small torque wrenches. Wrong tool for the job being described in this thread.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

petercarm said:


> I can't believe that someone is suggesting that the appropriate tool for the job is a torque wrench that is suitable for heavy duty automotive work.





petercarm said:


> Those aren't pictures of small torque wrenches. Wrong tool for the job being described in this thread.




Do your research first before posting a comment like that. It's a 3/8" drive torque wrench with a 6.7-135 Nm range. The smallest bolts I torque go to 8 Nm. It also gives enough range to torque the left side crank arm bolt on a new XTR crankset. The wrench works in a 60-1200 in/lb (5-100 ft/lb) range which is ideal for automatic transmission component torque specs.

I also have a 1/2" drive version for higher torque requirements. That one isn't used for bicycle wrenching though.

Both have a vibrating feature and also a beep when the selected torque reading is reached. Or you just watch the LCD readout as it climbs.


----------



## petercarm (Nov 5, 2007)

Ah, I see. It has 12 megapixels and a 1333Mhz front side bus. Quad core. Twin turbos.

For those of us not addicted to gadgets for the sake of gadgets, a little understanding of the ways fastenings work goes a long way. Issue number one is for the fastening to nip up to the point where all slack is removed. After that, the clamping load is developed by very small further tightening of the fastening.

If you, as a matter of habit, use a lever proportional to the size of the fastening, you can feel when the fastening nips up. You then know you are within a gnat's nadger of the required clamping load. At this point you may choose to use a torque wrench or not.

If you use a torque wrench of that size and accidentally mis-set the torque you will not feel the point where the fastening nips up and you will over tension the fastening purely because the lever is too large. Wrong tool for the job. If you use a click type torque wrench at the bottom end of its sensitivity scale it will be woefully inaccurate. Wrong tool for the job. If you have a four bolt front plate for a stem you need all four bolts to be nipped up very lightly before approaching final tightening. Wrong tool for the job.

Just my opinion. If I saw a mechanic approaching my bike with one of those in hand I would be horrified.

Probably these are just the reflections of an old fart who's got set in his ways. Sophisticated tools that are used appropriately can achieve wonderfully consistent results, but the technique is more important than the tool. That is my opinion and I am sticking with it.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

Old fart? I may be older than you, lol. I don't use a click style torque wrench on ANYTHING. They're not the way to go. The ones I use are both digital and accuracy is better than a click type. I can set torque values to increments unattainalble with a click style torque wrench. I'd rather see someone approach a high-zoot carbon, ti, or aluminum part with a wrench that lets you see tenths of Newton/Meters as you're creeping up on the torque value instead of whole numbers. So again I urge you to do your homework before wrongly condemning something. Oh, I was an ASE Master Auto Tech dating back to 1979 if that tells you anything about my age and 'gadget addiction'. They're not gadgets when you earn your living with them and don't want any comebacks. I busted flat rate times in shops from 1979-1995 when I moved to management. And have worked on my own bikes for longer than that. 

Oh, my camera is only 10.2 megapixels...










And I preferred superchargers to turbochargers (yes, that's me in there)...


----------



## longcat (Apr 24, 2008)

Seriously who spends money on a torque wrench when you can spend it on COCAINE?

No just kidding but I can guarantee you all that I will never ever but a torque wrench so the test is valid to me. To tighten things tight then some more thats the way you do it, til its tight. And seriously its carbon fiber it should be able to handle several 1000% more torque because its carbon fiber and its a magic material. I'm considering buying everything in unobtanium coated super heavy duty cromoly, at least 2lb/part otherwise it wont stand up to nuclear explosions while out riding.. we all know it.


----------



## petercarm (Nov 5, 2007)

I am guilty of having missed out smileys on my previous post.

Only bit I'll recycle from the garbage of my own post is this bit: "technique is more important than the tool" 

The three engines I've built in the last year have all been over 140bhp/litre naturally aspirated. My last forced induction road car had a twin screw supercharger on its 4.6 V8. You are older than me.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

I agree. I've seen techs come and go that had the largest, most expensive tool box filled with all they could buy. It's the skill of the person wielding the tools. Could I get by without a torque wrench? Sure. But if I'm going to commit to spending more than I should on decent parts I want to take every advantage I can to ensure they're properly installed. That always applied to my race engines/transmissions as well. Here's the new little 331" engine for my dragster (not the one shown, I drove that car for 3 years but own a 232" wheelbase dragster yet). The aluminum welding done for the fabricated intake manifold and valve covers is awesome. Ditto on the oil pan.










As a sidenote, a customer of the place I am service manager at stopped in today with his 'toy'. A 2005 Ford GT40. He races Formula Mazda and is naturally thus a Ford man. Pretty neat deal. Supercharged 550 hp 200 mph car. He said the only thing he misses is there is no cruise control, lol. Told me he went to North Carolina to visit kids/grandkids and on the way while daydreaming took a peek at the speedo and it was on 110 mph. He said he's only been up to around 175 with it thus far on a deserted stretch of highway. As to my age... the first number is a '4'.


----------

