# Carbon Concerns



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Just out of curiosity:

Do most DH riders who traverse steep hills, feel comfortable riding carbon?

OR- Do they prefer aluminum or steel to carbon?


Thanx!


----------



## ronnyg801 (Oct 4, 2008)

Actually if you havent seen the new trend is going to be converting old MX bikes into the most gnar gnar bomber DH rigs. 35lb race bikes are soo yesterday. Its all about the MX geo and high peg height so you can just cut the course, hit 30ft drops while doing cliff hangers and beat Sam Hill without even pedaling.


----------



## Twisted1 (Aug 24, 2010)

I like to trust my life in the hands of set of burly ass aluminum bars. Carbon is for weight weenies and xc IMO.


----------



## ratmonkey (Feb 10, 2011)

Anything that would destroy a carbon "fr/am" bar would destroy aluminum or steel all the same. If you are using it for its intended niche, Don't worry about it.


----------



## frango (Oct 10, 2004)

What steep hill has to do with carbon?


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

Carbon parts will suddenly fail by detonating with no warning, sending deadly shrapnel in all directions. That's common internet-knowledge, I'm surprised you haven't heard about it.
That's why you constantly see race cars, motorcycles and airplanes explode for no reason.

Just think about commercial aeroplanes. Made mostly from carbon these days, and look at this:


----------



## freeriderB (Jan 9, 2004)

i used monkey light DH carbon and Gravity carbon DH bars for ~ 4 seasons. I never had a single problem. 
lots of drops/stunts...and steep hills.
I just liked how they felt.
But now I jumped on the L O N G bar bandwagon and switched back to an aluminum sunline.
The carbon is now on my AM bike.

unless your crashing every 5 feet or taking massive drops to flat you should be fine.
* watch the clamping though...don't over torque.


----------



## k1creeker (Jul 30, 2005)

I run Easton carbon bars on all my bikes and just picked up the new Havoc carbon bar for my DH bike which has tested to be stronger than any of Easton's aluminum bars. In five years we'll likely be questioning the use of aluminum bars for extreme use.

Carbon is legit. Just make sure to go with an established brand that has the resources to conduct proper R&D.


----------



## danglingmanhood (Sep 16, 2005)

*I'm not to worried about it.*

Just like FreeriderB, I rode Easton Monkeylite DH bars for several years, but retired them because they just weren't wide enough . Bearclaw rocked those bars for Crankworks and Rampage. Might have to give the 2011's a try now that they are 750mm.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

IMO

if you don't have a torque wrench then don't get carbon
if you over torque your bolts then bad things happen with carbon

Personally for the weight savings I would never go with carbon


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

I thought we were riding carbon for stiffness and ride characteristics not weight savings.


----------



## b-kul (Sep 20, 2009)

axolotl said:


> I thought we were riding carbon for stiffness and ride characteristics not weight savings.


same here. i feel like the fear of carbon is highly exgerated. you always hear "use it wrong and you will get hurt". same thing for anything, use a toaster wrong and it could kill you.


----------



## freeriderB (Jan 9, 2004)

*both*



axolotl said:


> I thought we were riding carbon for stiffness and ride characteristics not weight savings.


weight will likely be a little less...but the vibration damping is why I like them. Not sure if it's all in my head...but I get less hand fatigue after all day shuttling with the carbon bars.


----------



## pfox90 (Aug 8, 2010)

ronnyg801 said:


> Actually if you havent seen the new trend is going to be converting old MX bikes into the most gnar gnar bomber DH rigs. 35lb race bikes are soo yesterday. Its all about the MX geo and high peg height so you can just cut the course, hit 30ft drops while doing cliff hangers and beat Sam Hill without even pedaling.


hahaha amazing post; got my laughs


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

freeriderB said:


> weight will likely be a little less...but the vibration damping is why I like them. Not sure if it's all in my head...but I get less hand fatigue after all day shuttling with the carbon bars.


+1 
I love my Enve dh bars. I tried them on my trail bike and like them so much I'm leaving them there and getting another to put back on the dh bike.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

frango said:


> What steep hill has to do with carbon?


 Let's say you're going down a steep hill on carbon and you become slightly airborn in the process. You land on solid rock and you hear a loud crack. The rock is solid granite and did not crack, there's no wood or debris around.

You dismount your bike and look for cracks or any signs of damage. You see no sign of damage.

Do you feel safe on your next airborn trip?


----------



## freeriderB (Jan 9, 2004)

*crash?*



MoabiSlim said:


> Let's say you're going down a steep hill on carbon and you become slightly airborn in the process. You land on solid rock and you hear a loud crack. The rock is solid granite and did not crack, there's no wood or debris around.
> 
> You dismount your bike and look for cracks or any signs of damage. You see no sign of damage.
> 
> Do you feel safe on your next airborn trip?


so you didn't crash...but heard a crack when landing a drop onto a rock?
If the carbon bar cracked chances are it would fail immediately...no bending, no warning signs.

Most likely I would think it was my rear shock bottoming out or the saddle smacking the rear tire.
I have crashed my bars...had some slight surface scratches that were smooth to the touch (not through the clear coat)...I kept riding.


----------



## frango (Oct 10, 2004)

MoabiSlim said:


> Let's say you're going down a steep hill on carbon and you become slightly airborn in the process. You land on solid rock and you hear a loud crack. The rock is solid granite and did not crack, there's no wood or debris around.
> 
> You dismount your bike and look for cracks or any signs of damage. You see no sign of damage.
> 
> Do you feel safe on your next airborn trip?


I get the picture...
So, if the hit was that hard to result inner crack of the carbon-bar (like my old FSA Gravity Light), many things would happen before... like mentioned: bottoming out suspension, saddles hitting tire, tires compressed do much, that they actually hit the ground via tire, etc.
Cracked carbon changes colors (unless it's painted), it becomes matte (mat?). You can easily see the damage.
And again... light aluminum h-bar (I like using light stuff) would probably bend during such hard hit/landing.
I've been using my FSA G-Light Carbon h-bar 2 seasons, already. I crash, from time to time. It's scratched and quite abused. No concerns. Although, Easton Havoc Carbon h-bar is on the, but it's because I wanna try wider and lower bar.


----------



## legendMKI (Aug 6, 2010)

I have snaped a pair of gravity Light Carbonbars, and only ever bend AL bars. I would not ride carbonbars agin.

Christian


----------



## gab26 (Jun 6, 2007)

I too have snapped carbon bars with aluminum only bends. I stay away from it for bars. A carbon frame maybe a different story.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Many of the new AL bars, are butted and age hardened to such a degree, that they will snap just like carbon does. I would even go as far as saying that I am more concerned about scratches on my AL bars, than on carbon. 

Some of the companies that makes carbon frames, has by now figured it's a good idea to add some frame protectors here and there. In that case I'd trust a carbon frame over steel/AL any day. 

For a DH rig, I'd though prefer if they could add a layer of Kevlar, both as protective layer, but just as much to keep the carbon splinters where they belong, in case of a hefty crash.


Magura


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

People often say that when you drop a CF helmet or have a crash, that you should replace it because the structure is compromised. The same applies for a handlebar.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> People often say that when you drop a CF helmet or have a crash, that you should replace it because the structure is compromised. The same applies for a handlebar.


You are comparing apples to oranges.

A carbon helmet, is usually a very light weight construction, thus the need to replace after a crash, as the safety factor is rather small, compared to a polycarbonate shell helmet.

If you crash a super light AL bar, it sure needs to be replaced as well. Especially the 7075T6 versions, as they are even more fragile than any other bar.

Burly carbon bars would stand up to more abuse than burly AL bars, but as the industry does not offer burly carbon bars yet, you have nothing to compare. The same goes for frames so far, but I guess that's about to change.

Magura


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

helmets need to be replaced because of compression in the foam. not because of the shell.


----------



## Fix the Spade (Aug 4, 2008)

SV11 said:


> People often say that when you drop a CF helmet or have a crash, that you should replace it because the structure is compromised. The same applies for a handlebar.


If you read the warranty for your bars or frame, you will find the same applies to Aluminium parts as well.


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

There is a reason why they make a bulletproof vest out of carbon polymer and not aluminum, for the simple reason that the bullet would go right through the aluminum given the same mass. Beside this, you would walk like a robot wearing the inferior aluminum vest!


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

chauzie said:


> There is a reason why they make a bulletproof vest out of carbon polymer and not aluminum, for the simple reason that the bullet would go right through the aluminum given the same mass. Beside this, you would walk like a robot wearing the inferior aluminum vest!


Bulletproof wests are made of ceramic plates and Aramid fiber (Kevlar). I am yet to see one that contains carbon.

Aramid is just about the opposite of carbon fiber seen as a fiber type.

Magura


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

Mr.Magura said:


> Bulletproof wests are made of ceramic plates and Aramid fiber (Kevlar). I am yet to see one that contains carbon.
> 
> Aramid is just about the opposite of carbon fiber seen as a fiber type.
> 
> Magura


You may be right as I"m no expert. But don't they use carbon fiver as a reinforcement for aramid?

edited:

After a little wiki search you could be right. Kevlar vest use aramid, and now could use m5 fiber (which is pretty interesting too!).

But to me aramid itself looks to be like a bunch of carbon rings connected by amide groups, which to me still says "organic" material and are still closely related to carbon fiber. To me it's all organic chemistry, and chemist can certainly manipulate carbon both on the chemical level (by adding/subtracting key atom or aromati groups) and on the higher structual level (weaving). Technically you're totally right about the kevlar vest, but carbon chemistry can be manipulated in so many ways that a small change can yield a big difference, and depending on what level you're talking about, these chemicals can be looked at as totally different or same family. To me, it's all organic chemistry and they all involve carbon manipulation.


----------



## The Beater (Aug 17, 2008)

If you land hard enough to crack a carbon bar your arms should be broken. The old monkey lite DH carbon which is not as strong as the new carbon bars was able to take something like 3000 lbs of force on the outside of the bar before breaking. 

There was an add and yes I know it is an add but it used a north shore drop that is 20 feet and stated that the landing causes 1300 lbs of impact force on the bar, then it stated the bar can take like 3000. I was looking for the add but could not find it so far.

Stole this from Ride monkey but it is the same thing

"So here are some pretty amazing test results from the german Bike magazine:
They've tested 22 bars from Dh to xc, from every type they have broken 3 bars on the torture machine, so it's 3*22=66 bars that they've broken. Then they evaluated the results in the function of the load repetition till breakage. 
The numbers indicates the cycle number that they endure, at 200000 they stopped the machine.

Answer Pro Taper 157.5g 4007 4005 8013 (well this isn't the dh version but that one is friggin weighty)
Easton EA Monkey Bar 247.8g 45820 55890 40077
Easton Monkey Lite DH 228.9g >200000 >200000 >200000*
F.U.N.N. Fatboy Slim 377.5g 171232 164325 112221
FSA FR 275 274.6g >200000 180360 188375
Point Speed Control High 300.5g 39854 44087 47902
Race-Face Low Riser 234.6g 88173 71140 53887
Ritchey Pro Rizer Bar 293.2g 112222 56108 140109
Roox Torque Bar 480g 104205 164325 36070
Syntace Vector Lowrider 248g >200000 192382 >200000*
Tioga DH 286 OS 339.2g 31815 32032 31893
X-Tasy DH Professional 398g 198213 >200000 171338

Well as you can see the Easton Monkey Lite DH beats everything by far, they topped out the test and they have awesomeness weight!"


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Fix the Spade said:


> If you read the warranty for your bars or frame, you will find the same applies to Aluminium parts as well.


I have read the warranty for my bars and frame. No where does it say to replace it if you've had a crash. It all comes down to common sense. I've replaced my bar a few weeks ago, my previous bar was on there for 4 yrs and been in dozens of crashes. If it was a carbon bar, I wouldn't have confidence in it after the first crash.
The same does not apply to aluminium parts.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> I have read the warranty for my bars and frame. No where does it say to replace it if you've had a crash. It all comes down to common sense. I've replaced my bar a few weeks ago, my previous bar was on there for 4 yrs and been in dozens of crashes. If it was a carbon bar, I wouldn't have confidence in it after the first crash.
> The same does not apply to aluminium parts.


The same applies for bars of any material. What you have to decide is if it applies or not, independent of the material used, but depending how severe the crash was. 
The same goes for a frame.

Magura


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> The same applies for bars of any material. What you have to decide is if it applies or not, independent of the material used, but depending how severe the crash was.
> The same goes for a frame.
> 
> Magura


There is a reason why there aren't carbon fibre wheels or rims for DH, there is a reason why we don't see carbon fibre cranks for DH, there is a reason why we don't see platform pedals constructed of carbon fibre for DH. I could go on and on.

The test in post #29, applies for freeriding, not DH. For DH, crash tests are more conclusive. Depending on the severity of a crash, the forces put on parts in a crash can be much greater than putting X amount of load on parts.

IMHO, carbon has no place on a DH bike, maybe in the future, but not at the current time.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> There is a reason why there aren't carbon fibre wheels or rims for DH, there is a reason why we don't see carbon fibre cranks for DH, there is a reason why we don't see pedals constructed of carbon fibre for DH. I could go on and on.
> 
> The test in post #29, applies for freeriding, not DH. For DH, crash tests are more conclusive. Depending on the severity of a crash, the forces put on parts in a crash can be much greater than putting X amount of load on parts.
> 
> IMHO, carbon has no place on a DH bike, maybe in the future, but not at the current time.


Your logic fails, as carbon parts can be made much stronger than aluminium parts.

What makes you think the forces on the parts are higher in a crash, than in a 20' drop? 
If the forces are much higher in a crash, than the drop in the test, broken bones are guaranteed. 
The main reason why few companies has made carbon parts for DH, is closer related to the religion that says carbon parts for DH does not work, than to real world engineering.

Already at this point, some companies has taken the step into AM carbon parts, and in the nearest future the DH scene is going to see the same happen.

Magura


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Your logic fails, as carbon parts can be made much stronger than aluminium parts.
> 
> What makes you think the forces on the parts are higher in a crash, than in a 20' drop?
> If the forces are much higher in a crash, than the drop in the test, broken bones are guaranteed.
> ...


It all comes down to physics, not hearsay.
What you're trying to say is the laws of physics are wrong, but you're right.

EDIT Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the forces aren't great while doing a 20' drop, but it doesn't compare to the forces of crashing at speed while DH'ing. As it stands, if you went off a 20' drop on a rigid bike, your point then would be valid.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> The same applies for bars of any material. What you have to decide is if it applies or not, independent of the material used, but depending how severe the crash was.
> The same goes for a frame.
> 
> Magura


 Dear Mr. Magura,

I think that independently "deciding" the severity of the crash, would be an exercise in statistical gambling. Human beings make mistakes daily. Especially when they assume things.

Carbon has repeatedly proven that visual inspection is inadequate. More rigorous measures should be taken whenever carbon has been subjected to any possible undue stress.

Carbon still has developmental issues. While it may be good for road racing, I remain extremely skeptical about its other applications in MTB cycling.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> It all comes down to physics, not hearsay.
> What you're trying to say is the laws of physics are wrong, but you're right.
> 
> EDIT Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the forces aren't great while doing a 20' drop, but it doesn't compare to the forces of crashing at speed while DH'ing. As it stands, if you went off a 20' drop on a rigid bike, your point then would be valid.


Not quite so. Now that you refer to the laws of physics, will you then claim aluminium to be stronger than carbon?

Plain physics tell that two parts, made to be of equal weight, carbon is much stronger than aluminium. 
That many carbon parts are under engineered to save weight, is a different matter.

I didn't compare crashing at speed with dropping, to say that crashing at speed is not harder, but to say that a crash at speed, is in a magnitude where anything including the rider breaks, if severe enough to break well engineered carbon components.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Dear Mr. Magura,
> 
> I think that independently "deciding" the severity of the crash, would be an exercise in statistical gambling. Human beings make mistakes daily. Especially when they assume things.
> 
> ...


I'm not deciding on how severe a crash may be, but stating that a stronger part, has better chances of surviving a crash.

Any metal has repeatedly proven that visual inspection is inadequate, so no difference there.
If you think you can look at your aluminium bars, and tell if they're ok, you're gonna be surprised. At a mere minimum, you will need a pretty hefty microscope for such an inspection, or even an X-ray image. With a carbon part, a fairly simple load test, will reveal most damage. Such a simple test is not possible with most metals (actually I am no aware of any metal that such a test would work on).

So if more rigorous measures should be taken after parts has been subjected to undue stress, will be a matter of how safe you want to play it, but the measures that should be taken, applies for metals as well.

I guess the biggest difference would be that as well engineered carbon parts are by far stronger, the risk of the part being damaged due to undue stress is lower.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> I'm not deciding on how severe a crash may be, but stating that a stronger part, has better chances of surviving a crash.
> 
> Any metal has repeatedly proven that visual inspection is inadequate, so no difference there.
> If you think you can look at your aluminium bars, and tell if they're ok, you're gonna be surprised. At a mere minimum, you will need a pretty hefty microscope for such an inspection, or even an X-ray image. With a carbon part, a fairly simple load test, will reveal most damage. Such a simple test is not possible with most metals (actually I am no aware of any metal that such a test would work on).
> ...


 Not true Mr. Magura,

Steel, titanium, and aluminum bicycles all have welds or are lugged. These are their weakest points. Rarely does an aluminum or steel bike break somewhere along the length of a tube. Alternatively, carbon is quite capable of doing just that! However, it's most likely to break where there's some type of an attachment.

After an accident, a rider can easily dismount, visually inspect his steel or aluminum bike at the weld seams or junctures. He can then apply weight or pressure, manually. If there's no apparent breakage, he may resume his trek.

This type of casual inspection would be foolhearty for a carbon rider...

Respectfully,
Moabi


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Not true Mr. Magura,
> 
> Steel, titanium, and aluminum bicycles are have welds or are lugged. These are there weakest points. Rarely does an aluminum or steel bike break somewhere along the length of a tube. Alternatively, carbon is quite capable of doing just that! However, it's most likely to break where there's some type of an attachment.
> 
> ...


Hmm a civilized discussion..... nice 

You are right that a metal frame mostly will fail at the lugs or the welds. As you say due to them being the weakest points.
Carbon frames on the other hand can be made with no such weak points, thus making it more random where they fail. 
I can follow your train of thought, but it is not due to metal frames being stronger, but actually the other way around, as carbon frames has eliminated a weak point. So the amount of stress that it takes to break a similar weight carbon frame is higher.

The inspection you describe works for a carbon frame as well, though you won't have to inspect the welds, but the inserts instead. Chances are though (again for a similar weight frame) that a carbon frame survives, where a metal frame fails. A carbon part of similar weight, when made right, is capable of twice the strength of an aluminium part, or even more if willing to pay for the right materials and manufacturing process.

If you take a look at how the Santa Cruz carbon V10 was tested, you'll see what I mean. There is some video of that available. The test it was subjected to, would sure damage a fork beyond repair. This is especially due to multi wall carbon nanotubes making their way to the general market. With those little fellas in the mix, the children deceases of carbon going "bang" has been dealt with quite well.

I develop carbon parts for the medical industry for a living, and in the last couple of years the development has been amazing to say the least. Carbon is no longer that fragile high tech material as most people know it, but rather a serious engineering material that can be adapted to just about anything.

A thing about carbon, that seems to have been forgotten in the discussion, is the infinite load life, opposed to most metals, and in particular aluminium. 
In short you could say that a carbon part may fail, but an aluminium part will fail, it's just a matter of time.

Magura


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

I agree. 
The problem with carbon is that the manufacturing process is more complicated. Mistakes made in design and production lead to a weak part that will fail. A lot of "early" carbon bike parts were not particularly well made, thus creating the bad reputation that carbon bike parts now have.
(Some will remember that aluminium frames had the same problems in the early days).

The industry has come a long way since, and high quality carbon bike parts made these days are stronger and more reliable than aluminium parts.

Unless of course you are comparing a 170g carbon fibre part to a 400g aluminium part. Oh and don't buy cheap carbon parts.

Regarding failure modes:
Steel, Alumium and Carbon Fiber parts or frames can either snap without warning or fail gradually. It's not the material, its the design. Everything wears, and there's a saying "the metal remembers". 
Here's a photo of my old messenger work bike, that's a 5 pound steel frame. There was nothing wrong with it, until it snapped in half while I was passing a bus.


And here's a nice (old) photo of a heavy gauge aluminium handlebar (not mine). Yes, that is blood.


I've got plenty of MTB pictures here as well, I just posted these two because they were already online.



> A thing about carbon, that seems to have been forgotten in the discussion, is the infinite load life, opposed to most metals, and in particular aluminium.


Exactly! Example from the aviation industry: Older helicopters used metal rotorblades, they all came with a life limit (Usually around 2,000-3,000hrs). Quite often they won't even make that because they have to be replaced due to dents.
Most modern designs have carbon-composite rotorblades that aren't life limited, AND a lot more resistant to damage from foreign objects.


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

The Beater said:


> If you land hard enough to crack a carbon bar your arms should be broken. The old monkey lite DH carbon which is not as strong as the new carbon bars was able to take something like 3000 lbs of force on the outside of the bar before breaking.
> 
> There was an add and yes I know it is an add but it used a north shore drop that is 20 feet and stated that the landing causes 1300 lbs of impact force on the bar, then it stated the bar can take like 3000. I was looking for the add but could not find it so far.
> 
> ...


Based on this test, I say the Syntace Vector Lowrider bar at 248g is probably the best bang for the bucks!!! I'm assuming this Syntace Vector Lowrider is the aluminum version?


----------



## eleven-yo (Dec 6, 2005)

*carbon DH applications*

Last years's V10 launch at Whistler had bikes that had edge carbon DH rims, edge carbon DH bars and santa cruz carbon dh frame. i've heard that we'll see some carbon DH cranks soon (not very surprising). It stands to reason that GT and SC won't be the only ones with carbon DH frames this time next year. 
Sometimes things break - no matter what they are made of. That is not a reason to stop using all materials. 
I look forward to the new stuff. The big downside seems to be the expense at this point.


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

Guys,

the future is carbon (and its seemingly infinite associated polymers). Carbon is cheap, much cheaper than aluminum. Industrial & polymer chemists are working hard putting carbon to use in other industries where cost is no object (eg, military, F1 racing, etc).

The reason why the bicycle industry is slowly (but surely) to adopt carbon is not because carbon is "weak", but it's because of economic. Yes carbon raw material is cheap, but carbon manipulation (R&D) cost is still relatively expensive for the bicycle (mountain bike) industry. Developing a carbon frame for the mountain bike industry such that the frame could balance between economic cost and safety will take lots of R&D (ie, lots of money). R&D cost is always a big hurdle for any new product, but once the R&D is done, the cost should come down as mass production ramp up and we get more DH'ers to adopt carbon more and drop the myth "carbon is for XC only".

I'm no expert in carbon, but I have taken a few chemistry classes to know enough that carbon is one of the most abundant, cheapest, and could be made to be one of strongest material on earth! Carbon is really a unique atom, and the more you study it, the more you'd be amazed by it. 

Sadly, my career path took me into a totally different direction, away from chemistry, once I got out of college. But Mr. Magura knows what's he's talking bout.

BTW, did you guys know that the Ducati motorcycle in GP racing uses all carbon for its swingarms??? Think about it the forces that a GP motorcycle puts on the swingarms at while accelerating to 200 mph or banking high speed corners approaching 150, 160 mph... versus a 40 lbs DH bike going 40 mph. So the notion that carbon is weak is quite unfounded.


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

chauzie said:


> Based on this test, I say the Syntace Vector Lowrider bar at 248g is probably the best bang for the bucks!!! I'm assuming this Syntace Vector Lowrider is the aluminum version?


if you are 5' 2" or shorter


----------



## spooney (Jun 1, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Let's say you're going down a steep hill on carbon and you become slightly airborn in the process. You land on solid rock and you hear a loud crack. The rock is solid granite and did not crack, there's no wood or debris around.
> 
> You dismount your bike and look for cracks or any signs of damage. You see no sign of damage.
> 
> Do you feel safe on your next airborn trip?


yea id feel confident in the carbon frame its my broken leg id be nursing.


----------



## The Beater (Aug 17, 2008)

chauzie said:


> Based on this test, I say the Syntace Vector Lowrider bar at 248g is probably the best bang for the bucks!!! I'm assuming this Syntace Vector Lowrider is the aluminum version?


We are not talking bang for the buck though. The new easton haven bar was tested and found to be stronger then that monkeylite, the new Havoc Carbons were so strong that Easton had to make a new test facility so they could break them. Carbon is light and when built right it is super strong. Money wise well it is not cheap but try to find something that is light, strong and cheap, it will never happen


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

The Beater said:


> We are not talking bang for the buck though. The new easton haven bar was tested and found to be stronger then that monkeylite, the new Havoc Carbons were so strong that Easton had to make a new test facility so they could break them. Carbon is light and when built right it is super strong. Money wise well it is not cheap but try to find something that is light, strong and cheap, it will never happen


absolutely right

LIGHT
STRONG
CHEAP
===========
pick 2 out of 3 

I also suspect that the other (major) reason (aside from R&D) why carbon cost so much is because of "marketing". Big makes like Santa Cruz, Giant, Trek, Specialized are gonna want to milk the carbon wagon a bit. And when these guys all have carbon DH rigs slamming the World Cup courses, that'll be the days botique guys like Turner and Pivot are gonna have to go carbon or be left out in the cold. I'd imagine even die hard Turner homers will be a little carbon envy when lots of his mates will be sporting plastic Demo's, Glory's, V10's, etc..


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Here's something I don't understand. Carbon passes tests that steel fails, and C has a better fatigue life than metals. Why than would Enve say that their carbon bits may be passed their normal life expectancy in less than two years? If I'm going to pay a premium price, I want a part that's doesn't need to be retired in less than 2 years. Below is from their warranty info: 

Normal wear to the product: components may have symptoms of wear in less than two years depending on amount of use, type of use and other conditions. This includes products that have reached the end of their normal life expectancy.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Hmm a civilized discussion..... nice
> 
> You are right that a metal frame mostly will fail at the lugs or the welds. As you say due to them being the weakest points.
> Carbon frames on the other hand can be made with no such weak points, thus making it more random where they fail.
> ...


 Ahh___Ok Mr. Magura,

I completely understand what you're stating here. I even feel 60% persuaded. However, we still have the problem of inspecting a potentially dangerous carbon bike frame and not being able to detect any existing weakness. Also, attachments to carbon are still problematic. Are they not?

Would a cyclist be able to visually inspect the inserts of a carbon fiber bike in any practical manner that would heighten his confidence about continuing his trek?

Moabi


----------



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

b-kul said:


> same here. i feel like the fear of carbon is highly exgerated. you always hear "use it wrong and you will get hurt". same thing for anything, use a toaster wrong and it could kill you.


True, but I still fear carbon bars more than toasters.


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

MoabiSlim said:


> Ahh___Ok Mr. Magura,
> 
> I completely understand what you're stating here. I even feel 60% persuaded. However, we still have the problem of inspecting a potentially dangerous carbon bike frame and not being able to detect any existing weakness. Also, attachments to carbon are still problematic. Are they not?
> 
> ...


Yes. Cracks can usually be seen at the surface. If you are worried that there is damage on the inner layers that isnt visible on the outside, you can "tap test" the part with a coin. Areas where the inner layers are cracked or delaminated will sound dull/different when tapped.

Of course there is never a 100% guarantee, but the same is true for metal parts, where hairline cracks can form underneath paint or powerdercoating.


----------



## canuck_tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Race Face SIXC


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> Here's something I don't understand. Carbon passes tests that steel fails, and C has a better fatigue life than metals. Why than would Enve say that their carbon bits may be passed their normal life expectancy in less than two years? If I'm going to pay a premium price, I want a part that's doesn't need to be retired in less than 2 years. Below is from their warranty info:
> 
> Normal wear to the product: components may have symptoms of wear in less than two years depending on amount of use, type of use and other conditions. This includes products that have reached the end of their normal life expectancy.


If this is a real concern, and not just a "cover my a$$" statement, it will be due to (deliberate) under engineering, as the market wants carbon parts to be lighter than metal parts, not stronger.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Ahh___Ok Mr. Magura,
> 
> I completely understand what you're stating here. I even feel 60% persuaded. However, we still have the problem of inspecting a potentially dangerous carbon bike frame and not being able to detect any existing weakness. Also, attachments to carbon are still problematic. Are they not?
> 
> ...


Hmm 60% is good enough, as it will leave you with a year or two for the last 40%, till the reasonably priced and nice carbon parts reaches the market 

I would say attachments to carbon are a non-issue on new bikes, older bikes may be glued with a less than good type of glue. Today the glue is stronger than the parts it holds together. So to inspect the inserts, would simply be to check if they're all in their respective places, as it would be broken inserts you'd be looking for most part of the time.
Regarding the visual inspection: thinking a visual inspection of a metal frame is relatively safe, is a dangerous way of living, but we have survived so far (most of us)  
This is no different for a metal frame, than a carbon frame. It is however possible to test a carbon frame with simple tools, after such test you can guarantee the carbon frame to be ok. A test to guarantee an aluminium frame to be ok, is going to cost more than a new frame. So in that aspect I see only benefits of carbon. 
What we all have, is the problem of inspecting a potentially dangerous frame on the trail, but riding a well engineered carbon frame may get us out of that dilemma, as chances are a lot better that it won't be broken in the first place, rendering the flawed "on the trail" inspection methods moot. 
I kinda like that better, than trusting myself to find hairline cracks with the naked eye on a forrest trail.

Up to 70% yet?

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

lelebebbel said:


> Yes. Cracks can usually be seen at the surface. If you are worried that there is damage on the inner layers that isnt visible on the outside, you can "tap test" the part with a coin. Areas where the inner layers are cracked or delaminated will sound dull/different when tapped.
> 
> Of course there is never a 100% guarantee, but the same is true for metal parts, where hairline cracks can form underneath paint or powerdercoating.


 Hello there Lelebebbel,

I found this response most interesting. Thank you so much for your contribution.

Respectfully,
Moabi :thumbsup:


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

lelebebbel said:


> Yes. Cracks can usually be seen at the surface. If you are worried that there is damage on the inner layers that isnt visible on the outside, you can "tap test" the part with a coin. Areas where the inner layers are cracked or delaminated will sound dull/different when tapped.
> 
> Of course there is never a 100% guarantee, but the same is true for metal parts, where hairline cracks can form underneath paint or powerdercoating.


While the method of tapping is sure an option, we would be looking at an awful lot of tapping to inspect an entire frame. Measuring the rigidity is fairly simple and straight forward, and I dare to expect that such an inspection will be something an average LBS is able to make within a couple of years. For now you're on your own.
Such a test would though offer a 99.9% guarantee.

Regarding aluminium, sure hairline cracks are nasty, but cracks are more often than not a product of material that has been stretched ever so slightly, thus getting microscopic cracks in the surface, and hardening a bit. This then leads to hairline cracks. To inspect an aluminium frame for stretch-marks is going to take x-ray images or a hefty microscope. Neither are possible on the trail, and for most people, also not an option anywhere else.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Hmm 60% is good enough, as it will leave you with a year or two for the last 40%, till the reasonably priced and nice carbon parts reaches the market
> 
> I would say attachments to carbon are a non-issue on new bikes, older bikes may be glued with a less than good type of glue. Today the glue is stronger than the parts it holds together. So to inspect the inserts, would simply be to check if they're all in their respective places, as it would be broken inserts you'd be looking for most part of the time.
> Regarding the visual inspection: thinking a visual inspection of a metal frame is relatively safe, is a dangerous way of living, but we have survived so far (most of us)
> ...


 Hello there Mr. Magura!

You've raised some interesting yet a couple of debatable points here. The point about the more efficient glue is admirable. The improvement in glue chemistry was a very viable point. However, we still need to see how much improvement it has made over the next few years. Its efficiency may drop precipitously with very little passage of time.

However, the statement made that a visual inspection of a metal frame is similar to that of a visual inspection of a carbon fiber frame is a misplaced parallelism. Like stated before, we know where the weak points are on metal frames. We can readily place stress upon those areas (usually welds or lugged joints), manually. We know where to focus our attention.

This is not so with carbon, as you've already admitted that weak points could be at random locations. At this juncture, we could employ the coin test and listen for a dull or flat sound (as suggested by Lelebebbel above). However, that sounds just a bit less convincing than being able to actually see the damage, visually. I don't know of any simple tools one could use in order to safely inspect carbon for damage. You sort of skirted over that fact without too much specificity. I would appreciate either a detailed description of the process or a link to it. Alternatively, you could just list the tools used to verify such weaknesses while on the road. Otherwise, the visual inspection of
a metal bike frame using manual stress applications will always appear to be superior to any type of field test of carbon.

With respect to possessing a well-engineered bike:

Most bikes today, are well-engineered, given the raw material initially presented. That's whether they are either of the metallic or carbonaceous variety. The problem remains in the innate deficiencies within the raw material itself, and how well modern day technology addresses those issues before market.

Carbon has quirks. Yes at some points a frame seems stronger than steel itself. A downhill mountain bike can be ridden like crazy for hundreds of miles. The bike can be used to jump over high obstacles and wide crevaces. It can be landed upon solid rock than sends impulse forces throughout its frame. That same frame can return home to a storm, whereby the wind knocks it down and the top tube snaps in half when it hits a metal pole.

That just sounds quirky to me...

Respectfully,
Moabi 

PS.

Ok, I'll relent! I'll give you 63% instead of 60%....Happy Now?


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Hello there Mr. Magura!
> 
> You've raised some interesting yet a couple of debatable points here. The point about the more efficient glue is admirable. The improvement in glue chemistry was a very viable point. However, we still need to see how much improvement it has made over the next few years. Its efficiency may drop precipitously with very little passage of time.
> 
> ...


The glue side of things is pretty much tried and tested, just not in bikes but cars. The Lotus Elise is glued up using a type of glue like used for inserts. The oldest Lotus Elise is like 14 years old by now, so I guess we can trust that the aging factor has been addressed.

To make a test of a carbon frame, you will need to measure the deflection at a given load. So to have a reference, you measure the new bike. If you had a crash, you can measure once more, and tell if any damage has been done.

I didn't try to say that inspecting a carbon frame and an aluminium frame is the same. What I tried to point out is that the damage to an aluminium frame is also not visible to the naked eye, thus leaving you with the same options as for a carbon frame on the trail. 
This is why people often experience that their frame fell apart under them, in a low stress situation. The damage was there, and could have been identified, just not by the naked eye.

Regarding "quirks" I'd say that is tell tales, or something from a few years back. Today with modern materials in the mix, you will be hard pressed to find an example of such.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> The glue side of things is pretty much tried and tested, just not in bikes but cars. The Lotus Elise is glued up using a type of glue like used for inserts. The oldest Lotus Elise is like 14 years old by now, so I guess we can trust that the aging factor has been addressed.
> 
> To make a test of a carbon frame, you will need to measure the deflection at a given load. So to have a reference, you measure the new bike. If you had a crash, you can measure once more, and tell if any damage has been done.
> 
> ...


 Dear Mr. Magura,

You appear to be a very knowledgeable person and quite possibly a person of note. If not yesterday, then most certainly today!

Carbon indeed is a most impressive material. After reading most of your posts and responses, I've gained a great deal of respect for the fiber of carbon. I attribute this new-found respect much to your unrelenting intellectual advocacy of this amazing material.

I therefore personally recognize you and publicly declare you as a person of note.

Most Sincerely,

Moabi


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

Mr.Magura said:


> While the method of tapping is sure an option, we would be looking at an awful lot of tapping to inspect an entire frame.


Yes, you wouldn't test an entire frame like that. The tap test is used to find local damage, for example if the part has hit a rock during a crash.
Also, high stress areas - when talking about a handlebar for example, you could periodically remove it from the stem and tap test the clamping area.

Overall, carbon fiber composites are an amazing material, but we shouldn't get too enthusiastic here - it takes know-how to get them right, more so than with metal parts. I would not buy any no-name / rebranded "Made in China" carbon fiber parts, no matter how good they look. And, as Mr.Magura said, any ultralight part, no matter what material, might still be strong enough for normal use, but won't tolerate crashes or abuse.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Mr.Magura said:


> If this is a real concern, and not just a "cover my a$$" statement, it will be due to (deliberate) under engineering, as the market wants carbon parts to be lighter than metal parts, not stronger.
> 
> Magura


That's what confuses me because easton offers a no questions asked warranty for their C wheels. What's with Enve's weak warranty? I'm attracted to their rims, and bars, but there's no way I would ever fork over the kind of money they want if I may get less than 2 years of safe use.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Santa Cruz seems to be on the forefront of DH carbon. Magura stated that carbon is often under engineered to save weight, SC didn't under engineer the C V10 because it's not much lighter than some AL DH frames. The v10C frame may be the first Carbon frame built for strength, and rigidity with a slightly lighter weight as a bonus but not the focus. My guess is for C to be truly bomb proof, it won't be drastically lighter than AL. (this is why the C v10 still has a AL swing arm, SC couldn't make C lighter and stronger than AL) 

The SC tallboy passes strength tests burlier AL frames fail, however some people have punched holes in TB down tubes from rocks popping up? Is the TB under engineered because it won't sell unless it's way lighter than AL? Or is this an example of C strength tests not accounting for real world toughness issues. Rocks don't punch holes in AL down tubes. We are seeing failure issues with C that you don't see with AL. We all know how much stronger C is, but it has failure traits AL doesn't.


----------



## The Beater (Aug 17, 2008)

There is rumour of full DH carbon cranks coming out shortly and full DH carbon rims


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

lelebebbel said:


> I agree.
> The problem with carbon is that the manufacturing process is more complicated. Mistakes made in design and production lead to a weak part that will fail. A lot of "early" carbon bike parts were not particularly well made, thus creating the bad reputation that carbon bike parts now have.
> (Some will remember that aluminium frames had the same problems in the early days).
> 
> ...


Yes, metal can fail without warning like C. I had a Mazocchi Z1 steer tube snap riding down an easy trail. Obviously a stress crack gave and my bike collapsed nearly braking my shoulder. Had that steer been C I would never trust the stuff, but it was Steel. Anything can brake and just because you have steel or AL doesn't mean you'll have warning before the failure.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> That's what confuses me because easton offers a no questions asked warranty for their C wheels. What's with Enve's weak warranty? I'm attracted to their rims, and bars, but there's no way I would ever fork over the kind of money they want if I may get less than 2 years of safe use.


My guess would be that they both know their customers at this point are lab rats. Easton has chosen to save face if something fails, Enve on the other hand has chosen to inform the customer that they are in fact lab rats. Pick your poison 

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> The SC tallboy passes strength tests burlier AL frames fail, however some people have punched holes in TB down tubes from rocks popping up? Is the TB under engineered because it won't sell unless it's way lighter than AL? Or is this an example of C strength tests not accounting for real world toughness issues. Rocks don't punch holes in AL down tubes. We are seeing failure issues with C that you don't see with AL. We all know how much stronger C is, but it has failure traits AL doesn't.


I would put my money on that it's under engineered, to have an edge on the competition in the magazines. Also to keep in mind, is that it is not exactly developed yesterday AFAIK., so combine the two reasons above, and I guess you have an explanation.

I would guess that in the future this issue is addressed by using carbon multi wall nanotubes in combination with Aramid. At least that's how I'm gonna get around the issue on the frame I'm working on these days.

Magura


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

slimat99 said:


> Santa Cruz seems to be on the forefront of DH carbon. Magura stated that carbon is often under engineered to save weight, SC didn't under engineer the C V10 because it's not much lighter than some AL DH frames. The v10C frame may be the first Carbon frame built for strength, and rigidity with a slightly lighter weight as a bonus but not the focus. My guess is for C to be truly bomb proof, it won't be drastically lighter than AL. (this is why the C v10 still has a AL swing arm, SC couldn't make C lighter and stronger than AL)
> 
> The SC tallboy passes strength tests burlier AL frames fail, however some people have punched holes in TB down tubes from rocks popping up? Is the TB under engineered because it won't sell unless it's way lighter than AL? Or is this an example of C strength tests not accounting for real world toughness issues. Rocks don't punch holes in AL down tubes. We are seeing failure issues with C that you don't see with AL. We all know how much stronger C is, but it has failure traits AL doesn't.


"under engineered" is a silly term. It would make more sense if they were trying to make it light and then they "under engineered" it and it came out heavy instead. Or if they tried to make quality components and instead made crappy ones.

Things are designed to be light as either a primary consideration, a secondary consideration, or not at all. 
The V10 is not the first Carbon bike to be engineered for strength. 
And the Tall Boy is a trail bike so weight is a primary consideration and strength is secondary. If people breaking the Nomad C, that would be more of a relevant issue for the strength of carbon.


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

slimat99 said:


> Here's something I don't understand. Carbon passes tests that steel fails, and C has a better fatigue life than metals. Why than would Enve say that their carbon bits may be passed their normal life expectancy in less than two years? If I'm going to pay a premium price, I want a part that's doesn't need to be retired in less than 2 years. Below is from their warranty info:
> 
> Normal wear to the product: components may have symptoms of wear in less than two years depending on amount of use, type of use and other conditions. This includes products that have reached the end of their normal life expectancy.


most likely due to UV rays and how they weaken the CF over time... surely, most well design CF components have some sort of UV coating to minimize this, but over a long enough exposure, there's probably a degradation


----------



## SamL3227 (May 30, 2004)

so after giving this a not so quick read. question. and correct me when im wrong.

it seems that "micro"stress fractures (damage) to carbon can happen to the inside of the structure, which means no ability to inspect. does this mean that it would not matter what kind of "Impact-resistant" coating or cover would be used? because with or without it the damage is on the inside.

bottom line. can CF be "armored" to withstand impacts in other applications? ie hockey sticks?


----------



## mykel (Jul 31, 2006)

Wow - is this EmptyBeer or have I been transported to an alternate universe?
An actual polite, well though-out discussion. Mark the calender.

Regarding the Easton vs Enve DH bars. I have some nerve damage to my right hand, so decided to give Carbon a try due to the supposed damping properties. I looked at both bars and decided upon the Easton. Lifetime warranty, and having to make a new test machine to break the new bars, were the reasons. The 750 width and lower price also helped.

As for the damping properties, using the same setup I find my hand discomfort is reduced and has a later onset using the carbon bars. My old bars were Sunline V1's.

as always, your mileage may vary...

michael


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

SamL3227 said:


> so after giving this a not so quick read. question. and correct me when im wrong.
> 
> it seems that "micro"stress fractures (damage) to carbon can happen to the inside of the structure, which means no ability to inspect. does this mean that it would not matter what kind of "Impact-resistant" coating or cover would be used? because with or without it the damage is on the inside.
> 
> bottom line. can CF be "armored" to withstand impacts in other applications? ie hockey sticks?


"micro" stress fracture can happen to any material. If it happens inside a cf tube or aluminum tube, you would not be able to tell. But from a macro structural point of view - that is, cylindrical tubes - the chances of a fracture developing inside the cylinder is VERY rare. Think about this. A tube structure has inner and outter wall. Now if you twist that tube or bend that tube, for each angular degree of movement, the outter wall will undergo more linear movement and so if anything it will be the outter wall that will experience more shear and hence fracture first.

And yes, cf can be made to be tough like hockey stick. Virtually all "plastic" like materials originate from carbon (and btw, this carbon material comes from oil). All these fancy names you hear like aramid, thermoplastic, m5 fiber, carbon fiber, etc,.. all pretty much are made from cabon polymers as the base and then get modified to be made appropriate to the application.

But keep in mind that polymer chemistry is pretty much in its infancy compared to metallurgy chemistry (which is at least 100 years old). To demand that there must exist techniques to check for possible structural failure of cf (on the trail!) like the existing techniques in aluminum is being disingenuous. These sort of techniques can only come with experience of failures (human tend to learn from failures faster than from success, since success can be just from luck).


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

LCW said:


> most likely due to UV rays and how they weaken the CF over time... surely, most well design CF components have some sort of UV coating to minimize this, but over a long enough exposure, there's probably a degradation


I didn't realize UV damages Carbon? I live at 8k in CO and ride as high as 14k. UV rays at these elevations are the highest in the country. My nomad's carbon link doesn't have a finish to protect it.


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> I didn't realize UV damages Carbon? I live at 8k in CO and ride as high as 14k. UV rays at these elevations are the highest in the country. My nomad's carbon link doesn't have a finish to protect it.


I'm no expert, but I wouldn't worry about it unless your Nomad is on top of the Himalayas exposed 24/7 for a few years, or the ozone layer of the earth disappears completely!


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

legendMKI said:


> I have snaped a pair of gravity Light Carbonbars, and only ever bend AL bars. I would not ride carbonbars agin.
> 
> Christian


I've snapped aluminum bars. Broken bars could be due to any number of reasons, material being just one of them.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> I didn't realize UV damages Carbon? I live at 8k in CO and ride as high as 14k. UV rays at these elevations are the highest in the country. My nomad's carbon link doesn't have a finish to protect it.


Neither did I 

Some older epoxy systems were prone to UV damage, but that's ages ago.

Carbon as is, will last longer than the owner.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

asin said:


> I've snapped aluminum bars. Broken bars could be due to any number of reasons, material being just one of them.


Broken bars could be due to a number of reasons, that's right, but the material is not one of them. 
Well counting out that any bars made of metal will wear out at some point, some sooner than others, if we count out titanium 

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

mykel said:


> Wow - is this EmptyBeer or have I been transported to an alternate universe?
> An actual polite, well though-out discussion. Mark the calender.
> 
> Regarding the Easton vs Enve DH bars. I have some nerve damage to my right hand, so decided to give Carbon a try due to the supposed damping properties. I looked at both bars and decided upon the Easton. Lifetime warranty, and having to make a new test machine to break the new bars, were the reasons. The 750 width and lower price also helped.
> ...


Yes, a polite and reasonably scientific discussion, but a little mud slinging here and there should bring it back to normal 

The damping properties you seem to experience, can very well be real. If there was a bigger market for it, such properties could be made quite prominent, though at the cost of some of the rigidity.

Magura


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

legendMKI said:


> I have snaped a pair of gravity Light Carbonbars, and only ever bend AL bars. I would not ride carbonbars agin.
> 
> Christian


Something's up with those Gravity Carbon bars because I know two guys that broke theirs too.


----------



## Ironchefjon (Mar 23, 2007)

My roommates been riding a GT fury for its second season now, and the thing has been nothing but confidence inspiring. I threw a leg over one, and I wouldn't think twice about doing what I do on my aluminum giant Glory. Carbon is good stuff.


----------



## pdxmonkeyboy (Oct 3, 2009)

Carbon is super strong...but brittle. My take on it.. Carbon bars are fine, ran them for years just don't get cheap replacing them after several bad crashes. Carbon frame.. sure for XC or a road bike. FOr a DH rig...no thanks. No much virbation that ultimately will weaken the frame. I've heard this from several riders in addition to very respected companies that make carbon and aluminum frames.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

pdxmonkeyboy said:


> Carbon is super strong...but brittle. My take on it.. Carbon bars are fine, ran them for years just don't get cheap replacing them after several bad crashes. Carbon frame.. sure for XC or a road bike. FOr a DH rig...no thanks. No much virbation that ultimately will weaken the frame. I've heard this from several riders in addition to very respected companies that make carbon and aluminum frames.


Hmm, seems we are back to tell tales 

Have you read the rest of the thread?

Kinda sad now that we for once had a good and reasonably fact based discussion.

Magura


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> I didn't realize UV damages Carbon? I live at 8k in CO and ride as high as 14k. UV rays at these elevations are the highest in the country. My nomad's carbon link doesn't have a finish to protect it.


The clear coat has UV protection on that link.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

dhtahoe said:


> The clear coat has UV protection on that link.


Most automotive clear coats today, has UV protection, originally to protect the color of the vehicle, so finding a good quality clear coat without, would take some effort.
Having said that, UV does not have any influence of importance to a quality modern epoxy system. We are talking years of permanent exposure to get just slight surface damage, which will not affect the integrity of the part in question.

The only application I can come up with, where UV is a real concern, is boats, as they tend to be exposed 24-7-365, thus making counter measures relevant.

When you think about it, say 365 x 12 hrs.= 4.380 hrs. of riding, and still your frame is in perfect condition. That's a whole lot of riding 

The hefty epoxy systems of today, are able to withstand the elements of nature for longer than anyone here cares. I have recently bought a new epoxy system, which is identical to the latest technology used by aerospace and aviation companies in the most demanding applications, it is supposedly more or less offering infinite life. At least long enough for me to have grown tired of the part in question, before expected life span becomes an issue.

Add to that a percentage of carbon multi wall nanotubes, and UV exposure is limited to a fading surface, but will never go any deeper, as it will be blocked by the nanotubes.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SamL3227 said:


> so after giving this a not so quick read. question. and correct me when im wrong.
> 
> it seems that "micro"stress fractures (damage) to carbon can happen to the inside of the structure, which means no ability to inspect. does this mean that it would not matter what kind of "Impact-resistant" coating or cover would be used? because with or without it the damage is on the inside.
> 
> bottom line. can CF be "armored" to withstand impacts in other applications? ie hockey sticks?


The risk of damaging the deeper layers, without damaging the upper layers, is very small if there at all. I have never seen that happen, and can't think of a way for it to happen either.

To make a carbon part very impact resistant, some Aramid is the key I think. I have used Aramid in a number of carbon fiber applications, and it seems to work rather well.
I think I mentioned that I'm currently working on a new FS carbon frame (well 3 actually), and for that project I intend to go all the way, with any technology that I know of. One of the things that I will test, is Aramid fabric intended for ballistic use. I got my hands on a few square meters of that lately. I will also mix the maximum amount of carbon multi wall nanotubes in, and stay clear of weave as much as possible.
The reason for 3 identical frames, is to get some reasonably valid results of the experiments, as 1 could be a manufacturing defect, but hardly possible to make the same mistake 3 times.

Magura


----------



## dirtyknobbies (Apr 19, 2011)

Way I see it is every material has a certain life span, and with every crash that life span greatly deprecates. Now certain things you want to replace no matter what after a big crash. For those times when something is going to fail while riding. Dunno about the rest of you, but I would be way more stoked if my wheels or bars exploded then just taco'ed or bent. :thumbsup:


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

dirtyknobbies said:


> Way I see it is every material has a certain life span, and with every crash that life span greatly deprecates. Now certain things you want to replace no matter what after a big crash. For those times when something is going to fail while riding. Dunno about the rest of you, but I would be way more stoked if my wheels or bars exploded then just taco'ed or bent. :thumbsup:


 If your carbon fiber equipment gave way, you'd be a great deal more than just stoked!

You'd be broked! Yeah, broken up in more places than just one, I'm certain! :yikes:


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

*We Need More Carbon Data*

Ok! So I'm convinced that carbon fiber framed bikes can hold their own under normal riding conditions. However, I'm still not quite convinced that repeated downhill riding, free-styled jumping, and unexpected potholes could be successfully endured by the fibers of carbon. We already know that titanium and steel are the best candidates for this kind of cycling. We also know that aluminum is an applicable frame material as well, in these types of cycling activities. Of course with aluminum, we should expect more frequent frame replacements.

What we need is more data. We need more DH/FS riders to participate in surveys. We need a bicycle consumer complaints board. A board in charge of maintaining statistics on the number and nature of each bicycle complaint alleged against each bicycle manufacturer. That way, we could maintain excellent records on the quality of service rendered by each frame material type, produced by each company.

Then we could more accurately determine for ourselves, just what stories reflect reality and aren't just "tell tale" or tall tales.

Most of us here are not businessmen or entrepreneurs. We have no monetary interests or profits to be gained from the sport. We are just cyclists who deeply desire the greatest bicycle experiences we could possibly enjoy during our lifetimes. We want the best that our dollar can afford. We set our spirits free when we ride and we want our spirits to return to whole and healthy bodies once we've voluntarily dismounted. In other words, given the parameters within which we ride, we want to maintain the maximum amount of safety.

We therefore, need more carbon data in order to give carbon a free pass into the world of MTN biking downhill and free style.

PS.

I think I'm really only 70% convinced about carbon....


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Ok! So I'm convinced that carbon fiber framed bikes can hold their own under normal riding conditions. However, I'm still not quite convinced that repeated downhill riding, free-styled jumping, and unexpected potholes could be successfully endured by the fibers of carbon. We already know that titanium and steel are the best candidates for this kind of cycling. We also know that aluminum is an applicable frame material as well, in these types of cycling activities. Of course with aluminum, we should expect more frequent frame replacements.
> 
> What we need is more data. We need more DH/FS riders to participate in surveys. We need a bicycle consumer complaints board. A board in charge of maintaining statistics on the number and nature of each bicycle complaint alleged against each bicycle manufacturer. That way, we could maintain excellent records on the quality of service rendered by each frame material type, produced by each company.
> 
> ...


Jumping to conclusions based on guessing :nono:

What we know is:

Applied correct, carbon offers several times the strength of metal......Fact!

Impact resistance of carbon can be higher than metal......Fact!

Carbon has infinite fatigue life.....Fact!

Stories of carbon "exploding" for no reason are either due to wrong application, or very old......Fact!

That we "know" metals are the best material for DH frames, can hardly be considered knowledge, but rather lack of the same. To on one hand say that carbon is in need of further testing, and on the other hand claim to know the outcome (by stating that we know metal is better for the application) ...hmm, that doesn't add up 

So what we need to get successful DH carbon frames, is correct application and manufacturing technology. 
I dare you to find a significant number of the Santa Cruz V10 carbon frames, that has exploded for no reason, or suffers from whatever "carbon issue" for that kind of matter. 
Santa Cruz would be flat out broke, if all their V10 frames were returning for warranty replacement like carrier pigeons

So from the V10 we can conclude that carbon for DH use is sure fine, and that other manufacturers just have to learn how to deal with this "new" material. That some manufacturers has been somewhat less successful in this aspect, has little to do with the material, and a lot to do with the engineers behind.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Jumping to conclusions based on guessing :nono:
> 
> What we know is:
> 
> ...


 Hey there Mr. Magura,

Well, what we know and what we allege can sometimes be inadvertently misaligned. All that I desire here, is a factually based reason to totally jump on the carbon fiber side for MTN bikes. Throughout the years, I've heard nothing but conflicting opinions about carbon. I would like to truly know about specific test that have been conducted that support claims of "infinite fatigue life" and such. Depending upon the application, we can truthfully make many claims. For example, one could say that Kevlar is more impact resistant than titanium if we're speaking within the context of high velocity projectiles, but I wouldn't expect Kevlar to protect me against a car. I'd prefer a thick steel boundary for that event.

As a layman and novice to the latest technological advances in metallurgy and organic chemistry, I have only my personal experiences to draw upon. My knowledge is limited insofar as to what is an acceptable bicycle material for MTN biking and that which is questionable. My experience and stored knowledge with regards to bicycle materials assures me that both titanium and steel have higher stress thresholds than aluminum. I've heard only conflicting opinions about carbon and have read dubious accounts of its success rates (often espoused by entrepreneurs) and I've also read quite convincing articles as well (yours included). However, I would still like to see results from scientific investigations performed by neutral parties concerning carbon.

I get the feeling that carbon fiber frames are the frames of the future. I just don't think we're quite there yet.

Respectfully,
Moabi


----------



## The Beater (Aug 17, 2008)

MoabiSlim said:


> Hey there Mr. Magura,
> 
> Well, what we know and what we allege can sometimes be inadvertently misaligned. All that I desire here, is a factually based reason to totally jump on the carbon fiber side for MTN bikes. Throughout the years, I've heard nothing but conflicting opinions about carbon. I would like to truly know about specific test that have been conducted that support claims of "infinite fatigue life" and such. Depending upon the application, we can truthfully make many claims. For example, one could say that Kevlar is more impact resistant than titanium if we're speaking within the context of high velocity projectiles, but I wouldn't expect Kevlar to protect me against a car. I'd prefer a thick steel boundary for that event.
> 
> ...


I think you are missing some of the points here, the modern carbon is strong when made right. Easton has gone so far to give a 2 year no question asked replacement on their haven carbon wheels. I think it would be safe to say that they are not concerned that people are going to wreck the wheels or they would not offer the deal.

I know personally that my easton havoc carbon bars have taken a ton of abuse including an overshoot on a ladder drop where I landed approximately 14 verticly below the ladder in a large pot hole and the bar did not break or do anything other then allow me to ride it out.

A lot of the storys you will read about carbon are based off older accounts. Aggy is running a easton Carbon bar and he puts his bike thru more abuse in a month then you could in 2 years.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Hey there Mr. Magura,
> 
> Well, what we know and what we allege can sometimes be inadvertently misaligned. All that I desire here, is a factually based reason to totally jump on the carbon fiber side for MTN bikes. Throughout the years, I've heard nothing but conflicting opinions about carbon. I would like to truly know about specific test that have been conducted that support claims of "infinite fatigue life" and such. Depending upon the application, we can truthfully make many claims. For example, one could say that Kevlar is more impact resistant than titanium if we're speaking within the context of high velocity projectiles, but I wouldn't expect Kevlar to protect me against a car. I'd prefer a thick steel boundary for that event.
> 
> ...


Something a bit more controlled than bicycles and with a lot more at stake, like blades of a wind tunnel http://www.nlr.nl/?id=10296&l=en

Note that it's been running since 1997.

To take your own example, yes an Aramid construction of the same weight, would offer more protection against a car as well. Just look at how they make the driver well in a formula 1 car. Had it been made of steel of similar weight, the driver would frequently be injured, as we saw in the past.

I too would like to see scientific research about bicycles, but the fact remains that most manufacturers avoid such like the plague, as most of their marketing BS would fall through the minute facts would be involved. 
Just take a look at suspension designs. All claims to have something ground braking and better than the competitor. Fact remains that very little has changed for 15 years, and all you have to see that for yourself, is to plot the rear wheel travel curve and the rear shock travel of a few bikes and compare. Rear shocks on the other hand has evolved at a dramatic pace, thus leading people to think their new frame is better than the old one, forgetting that the shock also was new.
I have a few plots to prove this if you're interested.

So, for reasonable scientific research on carbon composites, you need to look towards the military or aviation.

Titanium and steel is sure stronger than aluminium, but for a bike it makes no real difference, as the tubes are much thinner. The end result when looking at steel VS. aluminium, is that steel is 3 times stronger, and 3 times heavier.

Besides this, I find it a bit funny that you accept an aluminium frame with no proof of anything, but need scientific proof for a carbon frame. Why so ? A bad aluminium design is sure as bad off as a bad carbon design, no? We see so many metal frames crack all over the place, that seems to go down well with people, but a failed carbon frame, uh no, that "new" stuff is dangerous 

Magura


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Darren Barrecloth runs easton monkey lite bars for SS because he likes the flex on harsh landings. Few riders go as big as he so that speaks volumes that he's confident they won't snap and put him in the hospital. I typically don't put a lot of stock into what the pro's ride because they are on a pay role, but a rider like Darren wouldn't trust his life with a bar he didn't believe could handle his abuse. Who knows how many bars he retires, but he and all those SS guys bail mid air all the time. Far more than DH riders that's for sure. They say retire your carbon bars if you crash hard?

Here's a link showing his bike with carbon bars: http://www.sicklines.com/2010/08/23/video-what-the-pros-ride-darren-berrecloths-specialized-sx/


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Something a bit more controlled than bicycles and with a lot more at stake, like blades of a wind tunnel http://www.nlr.nl/?id=10296&l=en
> 
> Note that it's been running since 1997.
> 
> ...


 Mr. Magura,

Excuse me Sir, but you'll have to bear in mind that many of us common cyclists have only been privy to scuttlebutt and that which we've only heard through the grapevine. Besides admittedly you've already stated that carbon has had problems in the past. How are we to know when these problems were overcome or resolved? Was it in 1998? Was it in 2001? Was it in 2007?
How are we to know? How are YOU even to know?
Perhaps these problems still persist in certain pockets of the industry today. Perhaps for every one steel frame that fails, six or seven aluminum frames fail, compared to three or four carbon fiber frames. Possibly, even ten or twelve carbon frames. How are we ever to know, if there are no scientific data to analyze? All anyone of us can do is merely speculate and derive conclusions that are based solely upon conjecture, assumptions, and testimonials. Most of our conclusions will be anecdotal by default. We can cite military uses or aircraft applications, but that's all they are, citations. They're different applications using similar materials. In some case, that would be like "comparing apples to oranges" as someone stated earlier within another context.
Personally, I really do want to believe that carbon is "out of the woods" in terms of safety. 
However, I remain uncertain! 

What really bothers me, is the fact that damaged carbon has a reputation for being undetectable until some final catastrophic event occurs! 

Respectfully,
Moabi


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Mr. Magura,
> 
> Excuse me Sir, but you'll have to bear in mind that many of us common cyclists have only been privy to scuttlebutt and that which we've only heard through the grapevine. Besides admittedly you've already stated that carbon has had problems in the past. How are we to know when these problems were overcome or resolved? Was it in 1998? Was it in 2001? Was it in 2007?
> How are we to know? How are YOU even to know?
> ...


If you take a look at manufacturing methods used today for making carbon bikes, you will see that you can draw parallels from aerospace applications, as they are made the same way, hence the comparison. Thus we can also conclude that past problems has been overcome, and that the process is rather stable. 
The problems sure persists in parts of the industry, that has not followed suit in the development, but the same can be said about any other frame material. I can point out aluminium frames made by pretty low standards as well, and I think we will always be able to find examples of such.

Again, if such a big percentage of the carbon frames exploded for no good reason, most manufacturers would not make them, as it would generate nothing but expenses and bad publicity. 
So no, it is not a matter of speculations, but rather to understand the manufacturing methods involved, and separate the sub standard manufacturers from the rest.

I think we went over the "undetectable" damage thing already. It's the same for any material, and to believe otherwise is exactly that "belief" and nothing more. Once you can actually see damage to metal with the naked eye, it is no longer damaged, but broken. 
To be honest, I think I would trust carbon over metal, as in 99% of the cases of damage to carbon made under modern manufacturing, will have much higher strength, and if damaged, the damage would be obvious. De-lamination is not a concern in most cases, but rather something that hangs on from the past, which was a consequence of low pressure molding.

Magura


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

pdxmonkeyboy said:


> Carbon frame.. sure for XC or a road bike. FOr a DH rig...no thanks. No much virbation that ultimately will weaken the frame. I've heard this from several riders in addition to very respected companies that make carbon and aluminum frames.


i'm always amazed at peoples convictions re: carbon suitability based on secondhand opinions & scattered horror stories.

we've seen the limits of aluminum use in dh frames being pushed lately - ie, thin walls, super susceptible to denting, and questionable strength & longevity; i think carbon is the next step forward, and we'll see a good percentage of top shelf frames move to the material in the next few years.

i'm a bit of an early adopter - this will be my 5th season on my lahar. still bomber after countless north shore & whistler laps. i believe in the carbony goodness!


----------



## canuck_tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Carbon is a Strong, light weight, versatile way of manufacturing. My road bike has no suspension, 120PSI tires, and I'm over 200 pounds. It takes a beating over railway tracks, pot holes, etc. It takes it with out breaking a sweat. It has the ability to absorb the impact's, unlike brittle aluminum. 

If you don't trust carbon, then don't ride it.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

canuck_tacoma said:


> Carbon is a Strong, light weight, versatile way of manufacturing. My road bike has no suspension, 120PSI tires, and I'm over 200 pounds. It takes a beating over railway tracks, pot holes, etc. It takes it with out breaking a sweat. It has the ability to absorb the impact's, unlike brittle aluminum.
> 
> If you don't trust carbon, then don't ride it.


 Daaaammmmnnn!

What kind of carbon fibrous bike is that, dude?

IT LOOKS WICKED! :thumbsup:

PS.

I truly must research the Lahars...


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

canuck_tacoma said:


> Carbon is a Strong, light weight, versatile way of manufacturing. My road bike has no suspension, 120PSI tires, and I'm over 200 pounds. It takes a beating over railway tracks, pot holes, etc. It takes it with out breaking a sweat. It has the ability to absorb the impact's, unlike brittle aluminum.
> 
> If you don't trust carbon, then don't ride it.


You sir are on a different planet. The discussion is around carbon in the DH world, being that the thread is in the DH section. For starters, you ride you're road bike on smoothed paved roads, mountain bikes are usually ridden off road. You probably haven't crashed on you're road bike, pretty hard to do on smooth roads. In DH, the crashes are pretty full on, watching my bike cartwheel down a rock garden or having it stop suddenly by a big tree are the norm. I wouldn't want to watch that happen to my bike if it was made from carbon fibre. The wheels, cranks and handlebar takes the brunt of the force in a crash. I don't have a problem with using carbon fiber at all, it's just that when i have a crash, I would want to replace it because my confidence would be gone in the product. Aluminium just WORKS in the DH world. Calling Aluminium brittle is just stupid, it's worked for hundreds of years, and will be for a long time to come. You're bike on the other hand, yeah I'd certainly call that brittle!


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> Aluminium just WORKS in the DH world. Calling Aluminium brittle is just stupid, it's worked for hundreds of years, and will be for a long time to come. You're bike on the other hand, yeah I'd certainly call that brittle!


Hmm, so aluminium "just works" in the DH world? Why is it then we see all those broken modern aluminium frames? A company like Intense, is as far as I know one of the companies that are pushing the design envelope for aluminium. If you take a look around, finding an old Intense DH bike, is rather rare, and if so, they are really old, as back 15 years ago the aluminium alloys were somewhat less brittle, but a lot tougher.

As is, the new aluminium alloys are hardened to a degree, that actually makes them pretty brittle. So contrary to being stupid, I'd say that calling modern aluminium alloys brittle is quite well informed.

Calling carbon fiber as a whole "brittle", is on the other hand a blanket statement based on nothing but lack of insight and even less understanding of the engineering behind. 
So watch out for using the word "stupid" about other people, as it makes you look like your tree doesn't go all the way to the top branch.

Magura


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Calling carbon fiber as a whole "brittle", is on the other hand a blanket statement based on nothing but lack of insight and even less understanding of the engineering behind.
> So watch out for using the word "stupid" about other people, as it makes you look like your tree doesn't go all the way to the top branch.
> 
> Magura


You need to stop jumping to conclusions, the reason I called canuck_tacoma's bike brittle is because it's a road bike, designed and made to be ridden on smooth surfaces. If that bike were to be sent down a rock garden doing somersaults, or hitting a tree at speed, how do you think it would fair? It doesn't have the reinforcing mtb's have, hence being brittle!!!!
We are talking about carbon in conjunction with DH/FR, get with the program.
I never once said that carbon fibre as a whole is brittle, it's just not made for certain applications.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> You need to stop jumping to conclusions, the reason I called canuck_tacoma's bike brittle is because it's a road bike, designed and made to be ridden on smooth surfaces. If that bike were to be sent down a rock garden doing somersaults, or hitting a tree at speed, how do you think it would fair? It doesn't have the reinforcing mtb's have, hence being brittle!!!!
> We are talking about carbon in conjunction with DH/FR, get with the program.
> I never once said that carbon fibre as a whole is brittle, it's just not made for certain applications.


Even for a road bike, carbon is not brittle, so it does not change much. A correctly engineered and manufactured carbon frame of equal weight of an aluminium frame, is by far stronger in any aspect.
That road bikes on the other hand are not made for DH, is a fact we sure can agree upon 

So what do you base the statement that "carbon is just not made for certain applications" on? 
I'd honestly like to know, as I fail to see how such a versatile material should not be able to cope with something as relatively low tech as a DH frame. 
If you look into military and aviation, you will see carbon and aramid in applications that by far exceeds the demands of a simple DH frame. A good example is armored vehicles, which have been using composites as armor for a long time by now.

That the manufacturers have been a bit slow (to say the least) regarding following suit with manufacturing methods for bicycle frames, has little to do with the material as such.

Magura


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

SV11 said:


> In DH, the crashes are pretty full on, watching my bike cartwheel down a rock garden or having it stop suddenly by a big tree are the norm. I wouldn't want to watch that happen to my bike if it was made from carbon fibre.


i think carbon is actually better at withstanding these kind of circumstances than thin walled aluminum. my bike has certainly withstood it's fair share if impacts (including falling off my bike rack & bouncing down the road @ 80kph). my buddies aluminum bikes seem frail in comparison; amazing how easily some of the new intenses & treks are dented (or cracked for that matter).

nothing inherently unsuitable about carbon fiber for dh application. build in a few additional layers for impact & abrasion resistance, and you'll have a frame that will last a lifetime of abuse at similar, or lower weights than alu. for point of comparison, my frame w/o the gearbox weighs 9.0 lbs w/ shock (ti coil).


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

The last few posts are hitting on the strength vs toughness debate which is one that still confuses me. There's no arguing the fact that all things being equal, carbon pass FAR tougher strength tests than any metal, however, carbon has a trait where one stress point can cause a clean brake. I know this can happen with metals too, but carbon seems to be far more sensitive in this regard. That's why there's stringent torque specks for C bars, posts etc that are lower than metal. Maybe if the parts were heavier this wouldn't be an issue, or is it simply a carbon trait that it can be compromised by simply over tightening a stem for example. Carbon bars pass FAR tougher tests than AL, but you have to be careful with tightening your stem, brakes, shifters and brakes? Just doesn't add up?


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

slimat99 said:


> \ That's why there's stringent torque specks for C bars, posts etc that are lower than metal.


 Part of the reason for the lower torque specs is that it simply takes less torque. The softer surface and higher friction against a metal stem means the bar will be just as tight even with less torque on the stem bolts.



> Maybe if the parts were heavier this wouldn't be an issue, or is it simply a carbon trait that it can be compromised by simply over tightening a stem for example. Carbon bars pass FAR tougher tests than AL, but you have to be careful with tightening your stem, brakes, shifters and brakes? Just doesn't add up?


Partially it's the ultralight parts, yes. A heavier carbon fibre part would be more tolerant to overtightening.

The other reason is that carbon fibre parts often have very directional strength. If desired, a carbon handlebar for example can be made to be extremely strong against bending and all the forces associated with riding, but due to its lightness, might be easily crushable. Similar to a thin walled aluminium top tube.
This is a matter of design. You could probably make a CF bar that can withstand overtightening until the bolts rip out of the stem, but why would you, that would only make it heavier.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

lelebebbel said:


> The other reason is that carbon fibre parts often have very directional strength. If desired, a carbon handlebar for example can be made to be extremely strong against bending and all the forces associated with riding, but due to its lightness, might be easily crushable. Similar to a thin walled aluminium top tube.
> This is a matter of design. You could probably make a CF bar that can withstand overtightening until the bolts rip out of the stem, but why would you, that would only make it heavier.


This would be the main reason. 
The second reason is the actual hardness of a carbon composite. Think of it like plastic, just a very strong version

Magura


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

I think most of us know carbon can be made strong many different ways with different forces favored, but there will be a weak point like easily crushable bars unless you build them heavy. This would account for the crazy strength tests carbon parts pass but then anomaly failures happen in ways metals often don't. This makes me worry about carbon parts because odd things can happen in crashes. All it takes is one anomaly impact, and carbon can be compromised in a way that metal won't because metal can't be laid up to be strong for certain forces with something else compromised like crush resistance for example.


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

so over the weekend i thrashed the hell out of my v10c w/havoc bars at snowshoe for two days. dumped it into trees and rocks and botched a creek gap. totally fine. monday i go to 7 springs and highside a berm at speed. my bar clips the ground and sends me cartwheeling for about 60 feet. i get to the bottom of the hill and look at my bike. the bars are no longer straight. no, wait, the bars are fine. my fork is bent about 10 degrees top to bottom. so i crashed hard enough to ruin my fork but the carbon frame and bars are undamaged. in the words of neil diamond (and the monkees) "i'm a believer"

also, i'm not exactly a light, finesse rider. more like a 220lb (before gear) bull in a china shop.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

cdburch said:


> so over the weekend i thrashed the hell out of my v10c w/havoc bars at snowshoe for two days. dumped it into trees and rocks and botched a creek gap. totally fine. monday i go to 7 springs and highside a berm at speed. my bar clips the ground and sends me cartwheeling for about 60 feet. i get to the bottom of the hill and look at my bike. the bars are no longer straight. no, wait, the bars are fine. my fork is bent about 10 degrees top to bottom. so i crashed hard enough to ruin my fork but the carbon frame and bars are undamaged. in the words of neil diamond (and the monkees) "i'm a believer"
> 
> also, i'm not exactly a light, finesse rider. more like a 220lb (before gear) bull in a china shop.


Ohh, so now we have a member residing at cloud # 9 ?

You must be dead, no? When your weak carbon DH bike exploded in the crash, you could not possibly have survived.....

My deepest condolences to your family. I hope they let you ride up there 

Magura


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

That's impressive! Makes me want to give up on my direct mount stem though. They bend forks all the time. The question is, how confident are you in the integrity of the bars after those crashes and the others that will surely come in the future? The havoc's are a new breed of carbon bars so maybe they've figured out the impact resistance thing?


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

not a single sign of stress on the bars. when i get my new fork in next week i'll be giving everything a thorough inspection but i finished my run through a big rock garden on the way down after the crash.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

cdburch said:


> not a single sign of stress on the bars. when i get my new fork in next week i'll be giving everything a thorough inspection but i finished my run through a big rock garden on the way down after the crash.


 Hey there CdBurch,

I get the strangest sensation that if you had crashed an all steel bike, you wouldn't have posted anything today...

PS.

I'm certainly glad a fellow cyclist survived another crash! :thumbsup:


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> Santa Cruz seems to be on the forefront of DH carbon. Magura stated that carbon is often under engineered to save weight, SC didn't under engineer the C V10 because it's not much lighter than some AL DH frames. The v10C frame may be the first Carbon frame built for strength, and rigidity with a slightly lighter weight as a bonus but not the focus. My guess is for C to be truly bomb proof, it won't be drastically lighter than AL. (this is why the C v10 still has a AL swing arm, SC couldn't make C lighter and stronger than AL)
> 
> The SC tallboy passes strength tests burlier AL frames fail, however some people have punched holes in TB down tubes from rocks popping up? Is the TB under engineered because it won't sell unless it's way lighter than AL? Or is this an example of C strength tests not accounting for real world toughness issues. Rocks don't punch holes in AL down tubes. We are seeing failure issues with C that you don't see with AL. We all know how much stronger C is, but it has failure traits AL doesn't.


More about this I think on the new bikes. We use this for leading edges on aircraft in the event of a bird strike.

http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/C...ethylene-hdpe-resins.aspx?ln=productsservices


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

dhtahoe said:


> More about this I think on the new bikes. We use this for leading edges on aircraft in the event of a bird strike.
> 
> http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/C...ethylene-hdpe-resins.aspx?ln=productsservices


Is this what is nicknamed helicopter tape?

Do you by chance know how thick the film you use on the aircrafts is?

Magura


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

I think a lot of carbon fiber apprehension comes from terminology. Its true that CF is a "brittle" material since it doesn't have a yield point where it starts to deform (as far as I know). Brittle under this definition has nothing to do with strength, but people hear it and think brittle=fragile. I think a frame made from a ductile material like AL would be basically useless after it deforms anyway, and I'm pretty sure the failure point of carbon fiber is much much higher than the yield point of aluminum.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

PerfectZero said:


> I think a lot of carbon fiber apprehension comes from terminology. Its true that CF is a "brittle" material since it doesn't have a yield point where it starts to deform (as far as I know). Brittle under this definition has nothing to do with strength, but people hear it and think brittle=fragile. I think a frame made from a ductile material like AL would be basically useless after it deforms anyway, and I'm pretty sure the failure point of carbon fiber is much much higher than the yield point of aluminum.


 The majority of carbon apprehension comes from the fact that carbon has a terrible history of failure back in its infancy. It has been steadily improving since. However, we do not know for certain its technical degree of advancement due to a serious lack of data concerning its performance in recent years.

Having said that, there are companies currently producing MTN bikes with carbon fiber frames successfully. I say successfully, because they are still in business, and haven't had their butts sued enough, not to be!

Santa Cruz and Ibis, are all still in business and currently make DH MTN bike frames in carbon. Trek and Specialized do NOT make DH MTN bikes in carbon. Of course most bicycle manufacturing companies do make some version of a mountain bike frame in carbon. 
However, they are careful in describing their intended purposes and applications.

Most do NOT have a DH MTN bike or a "Gravity" bike, that comes with a carbon frame. When it comes to carbon going DH or "Gravity", most appear to abort carbon and default back to aluminum.

Hmmmmh...What does that imply? 

Moabi


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> The majority of carbon apprehension comes from the fact that carbon has a terrible history of failure back in its infancy. It has been steadily improving since. However, we do not know for certain its technical degree of advancement due to a serious lack of data concerning its performance in recent years.
> 
> Having said that, there are companies currently producing MTN bikes with carbon fiber frames successfully. I say successfully, because they are still in business, and haven't had their butts sued enough, not to be!
> 
> ...


First, we know perfectly well how advanced the technology is at this point. No data needed, no guessing either. The manufacturing technology is in most cases on par with mill/aerospace, so no worries there.

What the rest implies? 
It implies that a lot of people are not able to tell facts from scuttlebutt. The majority of companies has taken the consequence of that, and thus have not made a carbon DH frame, as it is much easier to give people what they want, than to explain that what they want is weaker and heavier than carbon.

Just take a look at this thread. I dare to claim that I have explained in lay mans terms, the why's and what's of this. Still there is doubt, based on rumors and lesser standard "information".

Magura


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

Mr.Magura said:


> Is this what is nicknamed helicopter tape?
> 
> Do you by chance know how thick the film you use on the aircrafts is?
> 
> Magura


No it's in the resin just like micro balloon's. Not a film, but a type of layup schedule. Leading edge of wings and tail, or areas where a tire can flick a rock up and punch through a wing skin (fuel tank)

The strangest thing I see being done by the bike industry with carbon is the use of aluminium for things such as BB's, swing arm yokes, and other billet pieces. That's a huge nono in aircraft design.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Just take a look at this thread. *I dare to claim that I have explained in lay mans terms, the why's and what's of this. *Still there is doubt, based on rumors and lesser standard "information".

Magura [/QUOTE]

Dear Mr. Magura,

I really didn't understand what you meant by the emboldened statement above. However, we're moving right along anyway.

Carbon fibers have been used in aerospace and the military long before they were used in bicycle frames. So to cite their current usage is futile, given their history of failure as it applies to the evolution of bicycle frames.

What we need as an entire world bicycle community, is a highly reliable, respected, and objective scientific study to be published, that would determine the actual integrity of carbon fibers as compared to steel and aluminum.

Even bicycle manufacturers themselves, are extremely cautious about the potential failure of carbon frames and parts. There is not just concern about bicycle assembly, but also concern about the "brittleness" of carbon and its inability to bend in preference to breaking. This is the same issue with aluminum. Also, the problem remains that carbon frame damage may remain undetected due to its inherent fibrous nature.

Respectfully,
Moabi 

PS.

Here are some sites that you may want to check for statement accuracy:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/carbon_(fiber)

2) http://chainreaction.com/carblife.htm

3) http://www.feltbicycles.com/resources/documents/felt_carbon_care_guide.pdf


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Dear Mr. Magura,
> 
> I really didn't understand what you meant by the emboldened statement above. However, we're moving right along anyway.
> 
> ...


To cite the current usage of carbon in military applications is on the contrary very relevant, as now the bicycle industry have come to the same level of technology. Thus they will have the same end result.

To insist that for each material, in each application, there must be an extensive study, is on the verge of naive (no offense meant). It would be like saying that you refuse any technology transfer, which is the base of most development in this world. A material manufactured in a certain way, exhibits certain engineering properties, thus applied as such in the respective application. Take a look at the car your driving, it's full of such, and lifespan of the parts is based on such as well. 
Generally spoken, material studies are made, and the results are transferred to any new application it is applied to. Do you think they glue up a Lotus Elise, and drive it for 25 years, to tell if it's durable, or do they look up the datasheet of the glue, and apply that to the application in question?

You keep on bringing up the "undetectable" carbon damage, as if it was something exclusive to carbon. I have explained a couple of times by now, that it is not so, and why. 
At least you can test carbon for damage relatively easily (also explained how earlier), and be 99% sure it's fine. To be 99% sure with metal, would take some hefty measures, and more money than the bike is worth.
That people think they can detect damage in metal with the naked eye, says more about their lack of knowledge, than anything else. 
Let's put it like this: If you are able to tell the integrity of metal with the naked eye reliably, I can point out a few jobs for you that would pay quite well 

You can bring up all the scuttlebutt (great word you taught me there) you want about how carbon is unreliable and so forth, but so far it talks against what have been known for decades in other industries, and is getting to the bicycle industry lately. 
The links you posted are concerns brought up by lack of knowledge mixed with plenty of rumors and gossip, answered by even more rumors and lack of knowledge.
So far I am still to see anybody besides the guys from Santa Cruz say something that makes much sense, or adheres reasonably to facts. The guy from Chainreaction though points out something that makes sense, as he explained why galvanic corrosion is no longer an issue. Fact is though, that it has not been an issue for a decade, but to most people that's still news, as they have no knowledge about the subject, and takes rumors as gospel.
To be honest, I think I was among the last morons whom made that mistake That is soon to be 15 years ago. The carbon cranks I made back then, died last year due to that exact issue, coupled with loads of road salt.

The fact that carbon breaks instead of bending, goes for any high end frame made of metal as well. Look at how Intense frames break. They don't bend either. Difference being that an aluminium frame WILL break at some point, where a carbon frame only breaks if severely overloaded.
That it takes much more to break a carbon frame, is a fact as well.

Magura


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Most do NOT have a DH MTN bike or a "Gravity" bike, that comes with a carbon frame. When it comes to carbon going DH or "Gravity", most appear to abort carbon and default back to aluminum.
> 
> Hmmmmh...What does that imply?


It implies that its hard to make money on them, but I don't know what it says about carbon durability. As you said there are bikes like the V10c around, so it seems some companies have started to figure out the technical hurdles.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

dhtahoe said:


> No it's in the resin just like micro balloon's. Not a film, but a type of layup schedule. Leading edge of wings and tail, or areas where a tire can flick a rock up and punch through a wing skin (fuel tank)
> 
> The strangest thing I see being done by the bike industry with carbon is the use of aluminium for things such as BB's, swing arm yokes, and other billet pieces. That's a huge nono in aircraft design.


Is PEHD process something you're interested in (and free to) telling some more about? It sure has gone under my radar.

I guess that the use of aluminium for carbon bicycles, has a lot to do with the inherited parts from the metal bikes. Partly at least, the other part is that it's cheap to manufacture a carbon frame like that, as precision is a non-issue.

Making carbon parts that does not need metal inserts, requires much higher precision, and puts a demand on the average bike mechanic to smarten up quite a bit. 
I dont see any of that happening in the grand scale quite yet. 
Some has made bearing seats directly in the carbon frame though, so maybe.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr. Magura,

Nobody is discounting the obvious advancments that both the military and aerospace have made within the past decades. What I am calling into question, is the degree to which carbon fibers have advanced with respect to DH mountain biking. You claim that the industry is simply responding to exaggerated public fears of carbon within the DH MTN biking community and the community at large is unsubstantiated. On the other hand, I say that to specify that a particular model of mountain bike is specificly applicable to downhill mountain biking, is opening the doors to a more successful lawsuit where one occurs. Therefore, carbon fiber bicycle frame manufacturing companies are less proned to declare a specific usage or application of a particular MTN bike.

Simply to say "Hey, look at what the military has done or what aerospace has done" , just doesn't cut it with me. There are different sets of stress issues faced in a DH racing event than in aerospace or in the military. DH MTN bikers expect to experience more frame impact than the average MTN biker. Carbons fibers abhore impact and suffer immensely because of it. Steel does NOT suffer from impact in the same manner as carbon fibers. All three of the sites that I referred you to, alluded to this fact. A study is indeed needed to ascertain the actual facts about carbon fibers, aluminum, and steel as they all apply to DH mountain biking. Not just DH MTN biking, but MTN biking as a whole. Otherwise, it will be like buying a pig in a blanket, all the time. 

I don't understand why a certain study has not been performed thus far concerning this very matter. There are many cyclists who would pay top dollar just to have access to this information. It has been the source of controversy in many cycling circles for years. It's now the time to put this puppy to rest, once and for all.

It is no secret that carbon fiber damage can remain virtually undetectable for years. You admitted as much in a previous discussion. You agreed that both steel and aluminum can be more easily detected due to the fact that there weakest points were at the joints where they're welded. Therefore, a cyclist could easily dismount and visually inspect his frames joints for breakage or damage. However, you stated that the carbon frames would have no such place to focus upon a prospective weakness and that the weak spot or damaged area would be located in a more "random" place. This would mean, anywhere along the length of the tube. That Sir, is what you've stated. I simply agreed with you and continue to press that particular point, as it is most important to all cyclists considering carbon as frame material or components.

Conclusively, carbon is brittle and prefers to break when over stressed. Aluminum prefers to break when over stressed, as well.

Steel withstands impact and impulse forces much greater than aluminum. Impact is the very nemesis of carbon! 

Kryptonite is to Superman what Impact is to Carbon...

Respectfully,
Moabi 

PS.

You can't simply dismiss my references as rumors, scuttlebutt, and statements made out of ignorance. I'd hardly accuse Felt or Wikipedia of any such trivial endeavors.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Mr. Magura,
> 
> Nobody is discounting the obvious advancments that both the military and aerospace have made within the past decades. What I am calling into question, is the degree to which carbon fibers have advanced with respect to DH mountain biking. You claim that the industry is simply responding to exaggerated public fears of carbon within the DH MTN biking community and the community at large. On the other hand, I say that to specify that a particular model of mountain bike is specificly applicable to downhill mountain biking, is opening to doors to a more successful lawsuit where one occurs. Therefore, carbon fiber bicycle frame manufacturing companies are less proned to declare a specific usage or application of a particular MTN bike.
> 
> ...


Please keep the insane American "sue anything and anybody" issues out of this, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I can easily dismiss a half baked explanation from Wikipedia, and some marketing + save-my-butt from Felt. If the issues were such a big problem, we would see all kinds of things falling out of the sky on daily basis. As I recall, we don't? 
That Felt are not able to make a carbon construction (based on their disclaimers), would say a lot more about Felt, than about carbon as a material. I don't recall Ibis or Santa Cruz having no confidence in their carbon frames.

It is not a matter of how much carbon has advanced according to DH mountainbikes, but rather how much carbon has advanced. That there are clowns out there whom can't apply new technology, is without question, but thankfully many can. So as the development of carbon fiber composites is expensive, it is left to the military and aerospace companies. Once they have it nailed, the rest of us can do the same by simply copying their methods and technology. If this was applied to a DH frame, a car, or a shaft for a hammer, makes little difference. 
By your logic, we would need to have an approved list of soups that the spoons you buy have been tested to work with. Around here we eat any soup with the same spoon.

That's why a scientific test of carbon DH frames does not exist, as there is no need for it, and nobody besides you will pay for it. Such tests has been made for the material, we take those results, and apply them to the project at hand.

Exactly where do you find all those claims you bring forward? It sounds like you would benefit from getting some real world experience with carbon fiber, and engineering in general. That 3 sites states that carbon is not as strong regarding impact as steel, does not make it a fact, but rather makes it 3 sites that either listened to the same scuttlebutt, or are equally outdated. 
If steel was so much stronger regarding impact, it would be an insane waste to make armored cars of composites. I guess that would be the highest impact application I can come up with, and a lot higher than a bike will ever be exposed to.
A study of composites regarding impacts has been made, and quite a few.....by the military.

I said previously that yes carbon damage can be undetectable visually, but easily detectable with simple equipment. I never said that damage can easier be detected in metals, rather the contrary. Damage detection in metals is expensive and time consuming. 
What I did say is that believing in having the ability to visually detect damage in metal, is going to give some nasty surprises some day.
The "just riding along and then my frame snapped" is quite common with metal frames, so no difference there from metal to carbon, besides the risk of carbon failing is smaller, as it is stronger. It is also a fact that damaged carbon is very likely to be even visible, as it will most likely occur on the outer edge of the construction, as the highest stress will be there.

That you know where to point the x-ray camera on a metal frame, does not help you much, does it? So that we know that metal frames mostly fails in the welds, does nothing much for us till after is has failed, and developed a visible crack, so it doesn't help much you see it then.

Your conclusions are somewhat uninformed. All the metals used in frames today, are hardened to a degree that makes them crack rather than bend. To be honest I can't recall the last time I saw a bent frame. Cracked frames on the other hand, I've seen plenty of.

Trouble today is, that carbon and Kryptonite is just about the same to most people, with maybe a slight tendency towards more knowledge about Kryptonite for most 

For any of the materials you mentioned, carbon is by far the most impact resistant per weight unit.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Magura


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

I think every one in the DH community can agree that composites can stand up to major impacts. Just take a look at your average bash guard. The vast majority are plastic and tough as hell. I guess if you made bars, cranks, rims, frames etc... as tough as composite bash guards they would be as heavy or heavier than AL? If you gave me a frame as tough as my e13 bash I would have zero worries about impact resistance. I'm not totally sold on carbon just yet because we are seeing failures we don't see with metals, but I am totally sold on composite bash guards. That's kind of a contradiction isn't it? Well real world riding has proven composite bashes can handle anything metal can and more. We haven't seen that in carbon DH frames yet. What we've seen is carbon rd and xc parts failing while rhetoric about how strong the stuff is goes viral. Strength tests are great, real world riding is better. Carbon will have to prove its self in the DH world and that's going to take a little time. Personally I'm not bending over and paying crazy prices to be amongst the first to find out just how tough C is for DH. Not that I'm worried about C braking, I'm worried about my check's bouncing.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> I think every one in the DH community can agree that composites can stand up to major impacts. Just take a look at your average bash guard. The vast majority are plastic and tough as hell. I guess if you made bars, cranks, rims, frames etc... as tough as composite bash guards they would be as heavy or heavier than AL? If you gave me a frame as tough as my e13 bash I would have zero worries about impact resistance. I'm not totally sold on carbon just yet because we are seeing failures we don't see with metals, but I am totally sold on composite bash guards. That's kind of a contradiction isn't it? Well real world riding has proven composite bashes can handle anything metal can and more. We haven't seen that in carbon DH frames yet. What we've seen is carbon rd and xc parts failing while rhetoric about how strong the stuff is goes viral. Strength tests are great, real world riding is better. Carbon will have to prove its self in the DH world and that's going to take a little time. Personally I'm not bending over and paying crazy prices to be amongst the first to find out just how tough C is for DH. Not that I'm worried about C braking, I'm worried about my check's bouncing.


A good example, though bash guards are usually a composite based on polycarbonate. Same difference in the end though.
A carbon part as tough as nails, would still be lighter than a comparable metal part, but for that to happen in greater scale, the ultra-light craze has to loose a bit of momentum still.

I sure hear what you're saying in regard to cost. I too wouldn't fork out for a carbon V10 or the like. Just wait a couple of years, and you'll see carbon frames around the same cost as aluminium frames. 
My only excuse for jumping on the carbon DH frame wagon, is that I can make them myself for cheap, it allows me to gain some experience, and I can have exactly what I want, in a size that fits perfectly, and so on.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Well Mr. Magura,

I would have thought that lawsuits would not have impressed you in the least as I think you yourself, once alluded to the success of carbon framed bikes as avoiding any major manufacturing company of carbon fiber bike frames, losing its shirt due to lawsuits. The lawsuits argument actually works in your favor. 

However, moving on....

Felt is a highly respected and highly patronized carbon-producing bicycle company. If we within the cycling community can't trust Felt, then why in the world should we trust Ibis or Santa Cruz? Felt has had some frame issues in the past, but so have the highly respected Trek and Cannondale. It's quite possible that Santa Cruz or Ibis may very well have to recall a few frames before its all said and done. To say or imply that Felt has problems applying current technology to any form of cycling is seemingly, just a tad presumptuous. Trek has indeed published even more strikingly defensive literature, actually denouncing carbon as a material that comes with an inherent risk of fracture.

My real world exposure to any type of frame material failure, is limitted to my bicycle club, friends, my personal research from the public library (which is extensive) and the internet. You can gain much information from the internet. 

We both agreed that damage at the welds of steel or aluminum bikes, would be more obvious and more subjected to focus than any area of focus on carbon. To ID a frame crack with carbon in many cases would be like finding a needle in a haystack. However, having said that, for well over a hundred years, that's exactly how we've been determining damage to steel bikes. They break at some weld juncture and then they are routinely repaired. There's nothing routine about aluminum or carbon frame repair.

Ok so armored vehicles employ the use of carbon fibers. We've traversed this path before.
Just because it's used in armored vehicles does NOT state that it is impact resistant when it comes to cycling. There are different conditions that have to be met within each application. That would be like like comparing apples to oranges.

All bikes have some degree of flex or ductility. Aluminum most probably, has the least of all. Titanium most probably, has the most of all. Carbon doesn't have as much flex as steel or titanium, that's why the experts have referred to it as "brittle". It cracks! Not like 520 or 4130 chromoly steel and most certainly not like 853 chromoly steel. However, it does have that property of brittleness which allows it the preference to crack, as the experts have already stated within my previous references.

Does it crack today in the manner in which it used to crack? Most probably not, as advances continue to be made. However, we still don't know the limits of carbon as scientific studies continue to either be delayed or unpublished, for some reason. Like you've already suggested, there ARE clowns out there who cannot apply the current technology to their products properly.

How are we to know just who the clowns are and who are the truly skilled carbon engineers? How are we to distinguish between the two? 

This is especially significant as we discern that neither Trek nor Specialized will publicize or officially announce a bonnified DH or Gravity bicycle. 

The fact that different bicycle companies stand closer behind their products than others is a definite indicator that different technologies are being employed with quite possibly different results. It might also suggest that some companies are more willing to take a greater chance with their technology as they are trying to make a greater name for themselves.

Whatever the case may be, they are all proving that they all don't use the same soup spoon! 

Respectfully,
Moabi


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Well Mr. Magura,
> 
> I would have thought that lawsuits would not have impressed you in the least as I think you yourself, once alluded to the success of carbon framed bikes as avoiding any major manufacturing company of carbon fiber bike frames, losing its shirt due to lawsuits. The lawsuits argument actually works in your favor.
> 
> ...


The comment about Felt, was tongue in cheek, as it is obviously a cover my but disclaimer they made 
The same can be said about most of them. I think you can find disclaimers like that about anything else they make, including bottle cages.

Much of the easily accessible information about composites on the internet, is in very broad strokes to say the least. Most companies are trying to be secretive about it, as to give their competitors the least advantage of their experience. Hence some hands on experience does wonders in this regard.

We sure do not agree that frame damage to metal would be more obvious, not at all. Not till it has failed terminally. That would be exactly the same for carbon, with the difference that carbon can be easily tested, metal can't. That people have a general misperception of being able to see damage in metal, does not mean it is so. A severely compromised metal frame, can easily look fine to the naked eye, but have lost most of its structural integrity. Hence the frames that crack frequently for no reason. We have both seen that I believe?

So what you're saying here, is that a highly impact resistant material, changes properties when pedals are attached to it?

We now know the ins and outs of carbon pretty well, and have known for quite some time. There are plenty of published scientific studies out there, just do a search, and you'll find plenty.

There are clowns in any business. I have seen plenty of aluminium frames made about as lousy as possible. That goes for everything. To pick something of good quality, will always have to be based on the company history. That be for cars, bikes, clothes and so forth. Nothing specific to carbon there. So far I have seen more general failures from reputable companies making aluminium DH frames, than I care to think of. 
You too can't see from the outside of an aluminium frame, if the welder used the right filler, or if the gas flow was right, or if they deburred the tubes prior to welding, or if the welder fried the alloy, or if the weld was too cold, or if he used the right gas, or, or, or....you see what I'm getting at?

Regarding "flex" of materials, I think you're mixing things up here. The ability to engineer carbon to have anything from almost total rigidity, to being as flexible as you please, is one of the major points in using carbon in many applications. It allows for instance rigidity and comfort, in one and the same material. So the "experts" you referred to, must be a little rusty around composite engineering  
To achieve a certain level of rigidity or flexibility, you change the direction, the length of the fibers, and the resin. That will allow you to make it behave just about any way you please.

As to why companies like Trek still don't have a carbon DH rig? Well, there could be many reasons for that, but reliability is not one of them.
As long as the market believes carbon is too fragile, they can sell their aluminium frames, and spare the development cost. That would be my guess. The minute peoples attitude changes, Trek will offer a carbon DH rig, just like all the other big companies will.

Magura


----------



## eleven-yo (Dec 6, 2005)

Respectfully to this conversation that I have been enjoying:

Earlier today the Fort William World Cup race was won by Greg Minnaar. This was done aboard a carbon Santa Cruz frame, and carbon rims by enve composites. 
I have not ridden at Fort William, but it is reputed to be a very rough race track with lots of rocks and places to impact things. 

Its a race, and it could be all new parts used for it. But this is the pinnacle of the sport - the fastest individuals on the roughest terrain. It seems obvious to me that this is the future - believe it or not.


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

MoabiSlim said:


> All bikes have some degree of flex or ductility. Aluminum most probably, has the least of all. Titanium most probably, has the most of all. Carbon doesn't have as much flex as steel or titanium, that's why the experts have referred to it as "brittle". It cracks! Not like 520 or 4130 chromoly steel and most certainly not like 853 chromoly steel.


And yet, at least 9 out 10 DH frames are currently made out of aluminium, which, as you say, is nowhere near ideal for this application.

Titanium frames would be too expensive to manufacture...

So, steel?

The material itself is very hard and abrasion resistant, well suited to deal with impacts. Otherwise they wouldn't make chisels and excavator buckets out of the stuff. Problem is the weight.

To make a strong but relatively light steel frame*, you have to increase tube diameters and decrease wall thickness. 
There are some fairly light, modern steel roadbike frames out there - wall thickness (top tube) is 0.3-0.4mm!!!! That is less than 1/64 inch. You can put a dent in a tube like that by flicking your finger at it.

A thinner tube with thicker walls might weigh the same but will not nearly be as stiff, as there is a diameter^3 somewhere in the formula. See oldschool roadbike frames.

So there, if you want a bomb proof frame that you can roll down a rockgarden without damage, you need a thick walled steel frame that weighs a ton. You aluminium bike will die just like a light CF bike would if a tube takes a direkt hit.

*same thing with light aluminum frames really, see Trek..


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

eleven-yo said:


> Respectfully to this conversation that I have been enjoying:
> 
> Earlier today the Fort William World Cup race was won by Greg Minnaar. This was done aboard a carbon Santa Cruz frame, and carbon rims by enve composites.
> I have not ridden at Fort William, but it is reputed to be a very rough race track with lots of rocks and places to impact things.
> ...


 Wait a minute!

I've just discovered that the V-10 made by Santa Cruz is only partially made of carbon. All of the V-10's rear is aluminum. It would appear now, that even the foremost leader of carbon fiber frames has relented and added aluminum to its most highly engineered DH racing frame.

Therefore, it would appear that* NOT *even *SANTA CRUZ *has total faith in carbon fibers when going downhill. 

Oh my God! This is just carbon blasphemy at its highest! 

Oh well! No sense in ruining this victorious moment for Greg Minaar and Santa Cruz!

Hip Hip Hooray!!! 

PS.

Well at least Trek expressed its absolute devotion to aluminum in a more steadfast and loyal manner. :thumbsup:


----------



## eleven-yo (Dec 6, 2005)

*and don't forget the spokes!*

also, the spokes are made of steel! which shows that enve has not committed to the material of carbon for wheels, but only for rims, which proves that, uh.... carbon is good for rims but not for spokes? 
i'm not sure the point you're trying to make. progression comes in steps - I think that is also to help you accept it. 
or in conspiracy theory terms, its just to make you want to upgrade your bike.

in a secret bunker, there's a 12 inch travel bike that weighs seven pounds. its made of a nano-particle/anti-matter alloy. But the "man" is doling that technology out in a a prescribed manner over the next 20 years to make us keep upgrading every couple years to stimulate the economy and pay for medicare.

Screw the man, steel is real!


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

MoabiSlim said:


> Wait a minute!
> 
> I've just discovered that the V-10 made by Santa Cruz is only partially made of carbon. All of the V-10's rear is aluminum.


You'll find that all the bolts, the shock spring and the derailleur hanger are probably made out of metal as well. Just because its carbon does not mean its the ideal material for EVERY component. Plus, I'm pretty sure a CF rear end could be made, at a price. Maybe that price was considered too high.



> Well at least Trek expressed its absolute devotion to aluminum in a more steadfast and loyal manner. :thumbsup:


Sure, Treks latest lightweight aluminium DH frames are a great example of how metal is superior to CF when it comes to crash resistance, aren't they?


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Dear Mr Magura,



Mr.Magura said:


> Even for a road bike, carbon is not brittle, so it does not change much. A correctly engineered and manufactured carbon frame of equal weight of an aluminium frame, is by far stronger in any aspect.
> That road bikes on the other hand are not made for DH, is a fact we sure can agree upon
> 
> So what do you base the statement that "carbon is just not made for certain applications" on?
> ...


You can not be for real!
For at least 10 yrs carbon has played a major role in XC, that's because the major factor is lightness, rather than strength. In DH, it's the other way around, but you can't seem to comprehend this. There is a reason we aren't seeing many Carbon components or frames DH related, this is just a fact, not conjecture or an opinion. Even the V10 isn't a full on carbon frame, I guess your theory is out the window.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Wait a minute!
> 
> I've just discovered that the V-10 made by Santa Cruz is only partially made of carbon. All of the V-10's rear is aluminum. It would appear now, that even the foremost leader of carbon fiber frames has relented and added aluminum to its most highly engineered DH racing frame.
> 
> ...




Well, there is a bit more to it. 
The official explanation as to why the V10 has an aluminium rear end, is that they did not find it worth the cost/effort. The real reason if you ask me, is to take one step at the time. I'll bet you a 10 to 1 that they run a carbon rear as soon as other companies are going to give them some competition. For now I can understand they see no need for making a carbon rear, as just a carbon front is plenty ahead of the competition.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> Dear Mr Magura,
> 
> You can not be for real!
> For at least 10 yrs carbon has played a major role in XC, that's because the major factor is lightness, rather than strength. In DH, it's the other way around, but you can't seem to comprehend this. There is a reason we aren't seeing many Carbon components or frames DH related, this is just a fact, not conjecture or an opinion. Even the V10 isn't a full on carbon frame, I guess your theory is out the window.


And the Sixc cranks are what? The V10 is what?

To engineer a part for additional demands, just takes a bit more effort, and that's it. 
So yes, nothing wrong with my comprehension skills 

There sure is a reason as to why we don't see all that many DH related carbon parts yet, and I promise you it's not that carbon is not suitable, but has a lot more to do with the afore mentioned attitude from the market. Why make something the market is not ready for?

As to why the V10 is having an aluminium rear end, see above.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

eleven-yo said:


> i'm not sure the point you're trying to make. progression comes in steps - I think that is also to help you accept it.


This is very well put. :thumbsup:

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

lelebebbel said:


> Sure, Treks latest lightweight aluminium DH frames are a great example of how metal is superior to CF when it comes to crash resistance, aren't they?


At least they give a waring sign prior to snapping, no? Or maybe not....

Magura


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Well, there is a bit more to it.
> The official explanation as to why the V10 has an aluminium rear end, is that they did not find it worth the cost/effort. The real reason if you ask me, is to take one step at the time. I'll bet you a 10 to 1 that they run a carbon rear as soon as other companies are going to give them some competition. For now I can understand they see no need for making a carbon rear, as just a carbon front is plenty ahead of the competition.
> 
> Magura


This is it? This is the reason why Santa Cruz went with a rear aluminium triangle as apposed to carbon? They didn't bother with a rear carbon triangle because of cost/effort, on a V10?
Your clutching at straws, I don't think it has to do with cost or effort. Why would one of the top manufacturers produce a half carbon frame?


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

SV11 said:


> This is it? This is the reason why Santa Cruz went with a rear aluminium triangle as apposed to carbon? They didn't bother with a rear carbon triangle because of cost/effort, on a V10?
> Your clutching at straws, I don't think it has to do with cost or effort. Why would one of the top manufacturers produce a half carbon frame?


Yeah why wouldn't they just make it all aluminium... oh wait.



> For at least 10 yrs carbon has played a major role in XC, that's because the major factor is lightness, rather than strength. In DH, it's the other way around,


Is that so? How come the first question that comes up in EVERY thread about a new DH frame is "how much does it weigh?"
How come DH frames and components have been getting lighter for the last ten years?
How come DH racers build their bikes as light as reasonably possible?

Of course a XC bike will always weigh way less than a DH rig, but in both disciplines they are trying to get the bikes as light as possible while still keeping them strong enough.

You see aluminium frames nowadays labeled "for racing only", that will catch dents when you look at them too hard, and with limited short term warranty - where were those 10 years ago?
There comes a point when trying to shave off weight, were using aluminium does no longer make sense, because it gets too weak. And I think we've just about reached it.

Carbon Fibre is not just about being light. Otherwise they would use styrofoam, that's much lighter AND cheaper.
Weight and Strength are related. 
The strongest material will allow you to build the lightest parts (by using less of it), and the lightest material will allow the strongest parts (by using more of it).

In other words, it's all about the strength to weight ratio of the material, and CF happens to be vastly superior to all known metals. Fact.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> This is it? This is the reason why Santa Cruz went with a rear aluminium triangle as apposed to carbon? They didn't bother with a rear carbon triangle because of cost/effort, on a V10?
> Your clutching at straws, I don't think it has to do with cost or effort. Why would one of the top manufacturers produce a half carbon frame?


Their own exact wording was something along the lines of "the weight saving was limited, so we opted for aluminium"

There is a youtube vid where they explain the ins and outs of the V10.

It would have a lot to do with economy, as they have an aluminium rear end off the shelf, and a carbon rear end would be more expensive to make than the front end due to tooling cost.

Magura


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Their own exact wording was something along the lines of "the weight saving was limited, so we opted for aluminium"
> 
> There is a youtube vid where they explain the ins and outs of the V10.
> 
> ...


And let me guess, you believe them when they say the weight saving is negligible between the two? Come on, you seem like a smart chap. The only reason why the rear is aluminium is because it didn't pass their tests they performed. They can't exactly say that they went with aluminium because it was stronger than carbon, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Why else would you only produce a half carbon frame as apposed to full carbon frame... and let me tell you that it has nothing to do with cost, especially when your talking V10 category of bike.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> And let me guess, you believe them when they say the weight saving is negligible between the two? Come on, you seem like a smart chap. The only reason why the rear is aluminium is because it didn't pass their tests they performed. They can't exactly say that they went with aluminium because it was stronger than carbon, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Why else would you only produce a half carbon frame as apposed to full carbon frame... and let me tell you that it has nothing to do with cost, especially when your talking V10 category of bike.


It has exactly to do with cost, as considering the low volume product in question, tooling is a major expense.

Do you have any idea how much tooling costs for a rear would amount to? 
Just to give you an idea of the cost, a rough estimate for the rear end would be 6 figures. That's a whole lot of bikes they have to sell to make up for that.
Just the tooling for the prototypes would be more than what it cost them to make the front end in total. 
The cost of the V10 is already high, and I doubt they would sell many, if the cost was doubled. So their options were limited to either cutting profit dramatically, or pretty much double the price. Neither seems too appealing.

Magura 

EDIT: yes the weight saving could be relatively minimal on a rear end, considering the design constraints they face. The increase in stiffness and durability on the other hand would be massive. Anyhow, they had to come up with an excuse, and cost cutting just does not sound good to most people.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

lelebebbel said:


> You'll find that all the bolts, the shock spring and the derailleur hanger are probably made out of metal as well. Just because its carbon does not mean its the ideal material for EVERY component. Plus, I'm pretty sure a CF rear end could be made, at a price. Maybe that price was considered too high.
> ***************************************************************************************************
> * We shouldn't be talking price on a high end, highly designed, and Iconic racing bike. :nono:* - Moabi statement
> 
> ...


 ****************************************************************************************

* Well you know, the same could be said of the Santa Cruz V-10. :thumbsup:* - Moabi statement


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> It has exactly to do with cost, as considering the low volume product in question, tooling is a major expense.
> 
> Do you have any idea how much tooling costs for a rear would amount to?
> Just to give you an idea of the cost, a rough estimate for the rear end would be 6 figures. That's a whole lot of bikes they have to sell to make up for that.
> ...


 *C'mon Mr. Magura,

The fact of the matter, is that they already make 100% carbon bike frames. There had to be a reason why they omited carbon from the rear of their V-10, other than what you're stating here.

Whatever the reason, it's the same reason that Trek and Specialized are already aware. I think that we all are aware subconsciously...

We've just got to admit, that we're NOT quite where we should be with carbon fibers! It's coming though...We'll be there very soon...Just NOT right Now!!! :thumbsup:*

Moabi


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

*


lelebebbel said:



Yeah why wouldn't they just make it all aluminium... oh wait.

In other words, it's all about the strength to weight ratio of the material, and CF happens to be vastly superior to all known metals. Fact.

Click to expand...

* It should be difficult to make such a blanket statement about carbon. Remember your own words about metal parts. Some materials should have their own application where they are best suited.

Mr. Magura says that we can make carbon as pliable as we want or as stiff as we want depending upon its application. If that's the case, we should be able to use carbon in just about any application.

I don't know. I think that carbon is still in its developmental stage of infancy. I think that perhaps we are making statements that are only true to an extent, but we can't be certain as to how much truth they contain because we lack adequate scientific data.

One thing for certain. There's a reason for Santa Cruz, Trek, and Specialized NOT using all carbon bikes for DH MTN biking!

Respectfully,
Moabi


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Well, there is a bit more to it.
> The official explanation as to why the V10 has an aluminium rear end, is that they did not find it worth the cost/effort. The real reason if you ask me, is to take one step at the time. I'll bet you a 10 to 1 that they run a carbon rear as soon as other companies are going to give them some competition. For now I can understand they see no need for making a carbon rear, as just a carbon front is plenty ahead of the competition.
> 
> Magura


 You know Mr. Magura,

I might have been able to buy this, except for the fact, that they already produce 100% carbon fiber frames.

Obviously, these companies (Trek, Specialized, and Santa Cruz) have done their research and have concluded in their final analyses that carbon and DH don't mix. Otherwise, we'd see carbon DH bikes all over the place and especially in racing where their weight savings could be readily demonstrated and highlighted!

Moabi


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

*Let's All Just Face The Facts*

Hey Guys,

Let's all just face the facts. Carbon is the material of the future in cycling and many other venues. However, it's not the miracle material right now that it will most inevitably be in the future. Carbon still has its quirks. Material engineers, organic chemists, and physicists all over the modern world are working at furthering the technology of carbon fibers. This will take time!

Mr. Magura and company would like for us all to believe that the time is now. However, the time is NOT now. The time for carbon to really expand its usage and applications, is in the future!

No matter what you believe.... After all is said and done.... At the end of the day, carbon remains the material to bet on! :thumbsup:

Moabi


----------



## Fix the Spade (Aug 4, 2008)

MoabiSlim said:


> There had to be a reason why they omited carbon from the rear of their V-10, other than what you're stating here.


Money. The V10c uses the same back end as the Driver 8. Making a carbon back end would have meant a whole new tooling, which would have cost a bomb and taken time. There is also the considerable issue of making the buying public un-learn all the false science they 'know' about carbon parts.

I still don't get the questioning of carbon when we're all happy to spend many thousands on bendy short lived aluminium frame.

Easton gives their alu bars a five year warranty.
Carbon? Lifetime, including the Haven and Havoc bars, no prizes for guessing what Easton thinks is the more durable.


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

> There had to be a reason why they omited carbon from the rear of their V-10, other than what you're stating here





> And let me guess, you believe them when they say the weight saving is negligible between the two?


I think this thread has reached a point were opinions, speculation and interpretation have strongly gotten in the way of what used to be a sensible discussion... Which brings us back to the number one rule of internet arguments: "my opinion stands, don't confuse me with facts..."

Maybe we will all think back about the great "Santa Cruz Rear End Conspiracy" in a few years as you say. Or maybe you are wrong, and there will suddenly be quite a few CF DH frames from the big manufacturers in 2012 and 2013 now that SC has made a start and tested the waters. 
For the records, my bets are on Specialized, Giant and maybe Intense.

Fun Fact: Replace the word "Carbon" with "Aluminium" and "Aluminium" with "Steel", and this thread could be straight outta 1995.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

lelebebbel said:


> I think this thread has reached a point were opinions, speculation and interpretation have strongly gotten in the way of what used to be a sensible discussion... Which brings us back to the number one rule of internet arguments: "my opinion stands, don't confuse me with facts..."
> 
> Maybe we will all think back about the great "Santa Cruz Rear End Conspiracy" in a few years as you say. Or maybe you are wrong, and there will suddenly be quite a few CF DH frames from the big manufacturers in 2012 and 2013 now that SC has made a start and tested the waters.
> For the records, my bets are on Specialized, Giant and maybe Intense.
> ...


Exactly! Couldn't have put it better myself.

This thread will be a good laugh to look up in 1 or 2 years.

For now, I'm perfectly happy with having given people a chance to see a bit of the facts that are usually hidden in rather hard to digest reports. If people decide to insist on holding on to their opinions, so be it, at least there is one place to find a bit of fact based information about carbon here on MTBR now, for those whom wants to learn something about the material. 
As for me, well in a few weeks I will be on a full carbon DH ride, as I am pretty fed up with fragile aluminium DH frames.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> It should be difficult to make such a blanket statement about carbon. Remember your own words about metal parts. Some materials should have their own application where they are best suited.
> 
> Mr. Magura says that we can make carbon as pliable as we want or as stiff as we want depending upon its application. If that's the case, we should be able to use carbon in just about any application.
> 
> ...


The above mentioned blanket statement, is 100% correct, so it's not really a blanket statement, but rather a fact of engineering that has been commonly known for some time by now.
The only reason we don't see carbon used in just about anything, is cost. Lately some rather hefty carbon based composite thermoplastics has seen the light of day, is is gaining terrain day by day, as injection moulding is getting the cost down. PEEK with 40% carbon is one of those, and it's used extensively in the medical industry, as well in many other applications, where it replaces aluminium with benefit.

You keep on asking for scientific date, but still refuse to look them up. There are plenty of such to be found, using a simple Google search. Try "datasheet PEEK carbon" for instance, which will give you some relatively easily digestible info. If you feel like taking it further, which will require a lot more effort, try searching "near net moulding", which currently has been available to the general public for at least 6 years.
Taking it even further, try look up "thermoplastic toughening of carbon fiber".

Once you understand these reports, I'd like to hear if your still afraid of carbon as such. 
If so, you gotta quit flying, as many structural parts of planes are based on this, with a much higher safety factor need than what would be of interest for a DH frame.

There are like 100.000 reasons why Santa Cruz uses an aluminium rear end for the V10.
Those reasons are called dollars 

Magura


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Mr.Magura said:


> The above mentioned blanket statement, is 100% correct, so it's not really a blanket statement, but rather a fact of engineering that has been commonly known for some time by now.
> The only reason we don't see carbon used in just about anything, is cost. Lately some rather hefty carbon based composite thermoplastics has seen the light of day, is is gaining terrain day by day, as injection moulding is getting the cost down. PEEK with 40% carbon is one of those, and it's used extensively in the medical industry, as well in many other applications, where it replaces aluminium with benefit.
> 
> You keep on asking for scientific date, but still refuse to look them up. There are plenty of such to be found, using a simple Google search. Try "datasheet PEEK carbon" for instance, which will give you some relatively easily digestible info. If you feel like taking it further, which will require a lot more effort, try searching "near net moulding", which currently has been available to the general public for at least 6 years.
> ...


I'm confused over Santa Cruz's use of AL not on the cV10, but on the nomad. The nomad uses an AL lower link, C upper link, Ti hardware all around. THe lower AL link is not to save money. If they were worried about the bottom line, they would use steel hardware. The lower AL link is because it's exposed and takes hits. My lower link looks like someone took a hammer and chisel to it. I have to assume, AL was used there because of impact resistance. To back up this assumption, SC uses a Carbon lower links on the tall boy and blur xc. That tells me it's not a money thing, but a durability thing.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> I'm confused over Santa Cruz's use of AL not on the cV10, but on the nomad. The nomad uses an AL lower link, C upper link, Ti hardware all around. THe lower AL link is not to save money. If they were worried about the bottom line, they would use steel hardware. The lower AL link is because it's exposed and takes hits. My lower link looks like someone took a hammer and chisel to it. I have to assume, AL was used there because of impact resistance. To back up this assumption, SC uses a Carbon lower links on the tall boy and blur xc. That tells me it's not a money thing, but a durability thing.


It could be a case of lack of space for the bigger carbon link. You have to keep in mind, that things need different shape to work out in carbon, and more volume.

I had to make a few relatively big design changes for my carbon DH project, in order to make room for the material.

Let's see if that is not on their todo list.

Magura


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

lelebebbel said:


> Maybe we will all think back about the great "Santa Cruz Rear End Conspiracy" in a few years as you say. Or maybe you are wrong, and there will suddenly be quite a few CF DH frames from the big manufacturers in 2012 and 2013 now that SC has made a start and tested the waters.


It's actually called common sense, not a conspiracy. If other manufacturers can make an entire frame from carbon fibre (including the rear end) and sell it competitively, then so should SC. The V10 carbon will be a flop imho, because what SC are saying is that carbon fibre is strong enough to use as the front triangle, but when it comes to the rear we (SC) prefer aluminium, do you see how stupid that sounds? If SC aren't using a carbon fibre rear, it has nothing to do with tool costs, or whatever absurd reasons you guys come up with. 
GT have the Fury, made out of carbon, I don't think GT went broke in the tooling costs required to make the frame either. 
I'm sorry, but who are SC trying to kid, you either want a carbon frame or aluminium, not a mix of both for crying out loud!!


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

SV11 said:


> It's actually called common sense, not a conspiracy. If other manufacturers can make an entire frame from carbon fibre (including the rear end) and sell it competitively, then so should SC. The V10 carbon will be a flop imho, because what SC are saying is that carbon fibre is strong enough to use as the front triangle, but when it comes to the rear we (SC) prefer aluminium, do you see how stupid that sounds? If SC aren't using a carbon fibre rear, it has nothing to do with tool costs, or whatever absurd reasons you guys come up with.
> GT have the Fury, made out of carbon, I don't think GT went broke in the tooling costs required to make the frame either.
> I'm sorry, but who are SC trying to kid, you either want a carbon frame or aluminium, not a mix of both for crying out loud!!


It is curious that the Nomad C uses a C swing arm, but the v10 doesn't? I don't believe it's a money thing at all. If they can afford to make a nomad C swing arm, they sure as hell can afford the make one for eh v10. Roskopp puts SO much money into world cup DH racing, you know he'd pony up the cash for full carbon if it met his requirements. He holds nothing back when it comes to winning DH races, it's laughable to believe he would cheap out on a C swing arm. The AL lower link on the Nomad C says something too. It's not money, and it's not a fitment thing because carbon lower links are used on other SC models, just not the big hit bikes.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Well, the question here is really not why SC has chosen not to use carbon, but rather if carbon could be used with benefit......and that's really not a question. 

Some wild guessing as to why, is not going to change the fact that it can be done with benefit. 

It is however obvious that the marketing departments are worth their pay 

Look up some facts, and then post an informed opinion. That is how this thread started out, and worked quite well for a while. It could be nice to get back to that point.




Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> It is curious that the Nomad C uses a C swing arm, but the v10 doesn't? I don't believe it's a money thing at all. If they can afford to make a nomad C swing arm, they sure as hell can afford the make one for eh v10. Roskopp puts SO much money into world cup DH racing, you know he'd pony up the cash for full carbon if it met his requirements. He holds nothing back when it comes to winning DH races, it's laughable to believe he would cheap out on a C swing arm. The AL lower link on the Nomad C says something too. It's not money, and it's not a fitment thing because carbon lower links are used on other SC models, just not the big hit bikes.


I would honestly like to see you design an impact resistant lower link of composites that would fit on that bike. Now spill the beans, as you seem to be in the know.

To make it impact resistant, there would have to be room for either aramid layers or vectran layers, and I sure don't see where you would find the room.

Magura


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

haha, what a gong show. alu rear on the v10c is great idea to keep costs down; it's a complex shape to build in carbon compared to a front tri, and it's cool they were able to keep the c pricetag the same as the old alu. 

needless to say, we'll be seeing more carbon dh chassis in the not too distant future. naysayers gonna naysay. feel free not to buy carbon, there's plenty of great alu bikes out there to choose from, just quit the necrotic equine flagellation. carbon is the next step forward. 

magura - details on what you're building? love to see a construction thread.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Mr.Magura said:


> I would honestly like to see you design an impact resistant lower link of composites that would fit on that bike. Now spill the beans, as you seem to be in the know.
> 
> To make it impact resistant, there would have to be room for either aramid layers or vectran layers, and I sure don't see where you would find the room.
> 
> Magura


So that means the carbon lower link on other SC models isn't impact resistant? That's what you're saying. If C is so impact resistant, why would it be on SC's light xc bikes, but not on the longer travel bikes? It's certainly not a money issue because the lower c link bikes are priced cheaper then the nomad c with AL link. If you say fitment then cool, but carbon links fit on the light bikes, by your reasoning this means the lower carbon links in use right now are not impact resistant, there for, give me AL.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

xy9ine said:


> haha, what a gong show. alu rear on the v10c is great idea to keep costs down; it's a complex shape to build in carbon compared to a front tri, and it's cool they were able to keep the c pricetag the same as the old alu.
> 
> needless to say, we'll be seeing more carbon dh chassis in the not too distant future. naysayers gonna naysay. feel free not to buy carbon, there's plenty of great alu bikes out there to choose from, just quit the necrotic equine flagellation. carbon is the next step forward.
> 
> magura - details on what you're building? love to see a construction thread.


This has to be quote of the week "necrotic equine flagellation" :lol:

So, details....

Well, the grand plan is to go "all the bells and whistles", sporting the most modern materials and so forth. I have decided to used aramid for impact reinforcement, multi wall nanotubes and unidirectional carbon for the rest. Net moulding is a must for something like this. Bearing seats achieved by this technology directly in the carbon, instead of aluminium sleeves. Foam core and vacuum infusion would be the basic technology, coupled with PTFE mould inserts.

The design will be rather flexible, as I have made the front triangle to accept FSR, VP, and single pivot point. I plan to make a few different rear ends for them. I am making 3 main frames, in order to see how repetitively I can achieve the same results for that big items.

Once I get some more to show, I'll probably make a construction thread.
For now most of the tooling is done, and the foam cores too. I am waiting for some of the fabric to arrive, and a bigger vacuum pump as well.

Magura


----------



## k1creeker (Jul 30, 2005)

I have an informed opinion...

I rode my V10 C for the first time this weekend. I did not experience 50% less enjoyment due to the aluminum rear end, and the front end did not explode into billion bits of plastic shrapnel, nor did the Easton carbon handlebar.


----------



## starship303 (May 16, 2006)

Ahh the old "Carbon v Alloy for DH" debate. I agree with the majority of the informative & subjective views expressed in this thread, and am a firm believer that carbon isn't the future, it's the present. The latest Easton & Enve goodies are perfect examples of that.

Frames? Well the Lahar turned up what, 5 years ago? Absolutely amazing machine. Unfortunately it was probably 5 years ahead of its time which is why many never seemed to have known if its existence. Crying shame really.

The GT Fury has been around for 3 or so years now, and has proven to be a very strong, stiff, world cup & domestic DH racing machine. Why then has it not help to alleviate the fears so many have of carbon use for DH frames? This in itself shows that the DH market probably wasn't ready for a full carbon frame back in 2008. IMO GT should get more credit than they do for pushing this great product onto the market, but its not like they haven't tried similar ideas in the past (1997, anyone?). [no, i'm not a GT-fanboy, although i did own a GT MTB in 1995  ]

Present day, the V10c has been quite a marketing success for Santa Cruz (they can't make them fast enough). Ok ok, so the V10c is not 'full' carbon like the Fury, but I think we will see it with a carbon swing arm in the future. Antidote's great looking _Lifeline NanoDH carbon_ frame is built on a similar theory as the V10c.

IMO the Evil Undead full carbon DH bike definitely shows where the DH market is going, albeit somewhat slowly (IMO). At the end of the day in the DH scene, market acceptance is just as, if not more, important than the actual added performance of the product. What's the point spending all that money making something to win races if you can't sell it?

The 'All Mountain' market gets more brilliant carbon bikes each year (Ibis, Santa Cruz, Scott, Specialized, GT, Trek, Yeti, yadda yadda) and the lessons learnt there will stand those and other manufacturers in good stead for developing high performance carbon DH frames. Those that think Trek and Spec won't go carbon in the future for DH are kidding themselves - not only do they already have experience in tough carbon frames (Enduro, Remedy), they will have to follow this 'trend' in order to no miss out on the slice of the high end carbon DH pie.

Carbon just makes so much sense for MTB frames, not just from its noise/vibration absorption, stiffness or strength qualities but the fact you can (within limits obviously) manipulate it into any conceivable shape - this opens up a world of new options for frame designers.

Anyway thats my $0.02.

*


----------



## starship303 (May 16, 2006)

By the way, this is possibly on topic? 

http://www.nsmb.com/4279-revolutionary-dh-bike-from-specialized
^^^ was an April Fools joke for those that didn't see it!

*


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Another DH "death trap" 

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Exclusive-Evil-Undead-First-Look-2011.html

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

starship303 said:


> Ahh the old "Carbon v Alloy for DH" debate. I agree with the majority of the informative & subjective views expressed in this thread, and am a firm believer that carbon isn't the future, it's the present. The latest Easton & Enve goodies are perfect examples of that.
> 
> Frames? Well the Lahar turned up what, 5 years ago? Absolutely amazing machine. Unfortunately it was probably 5 years ahead of its time which is why many never seemed to have known if its existence. Crying shame really.
> 
> ...


 Hey there Starship 303,

It's time you've landed and touched down with the rest of us earthlings with our feet planted firmly on the ground.

So Trek, Specialized, and Santa Cruz, all make 100% MTB frames for All Mountain. However, when it comes to DH, they whimp out. They whimp out for good reason. They're aware that carbon fibers are brittle and if impacted upon too many times in the same region, they will give way to possibly some catastrophic event for which, they will be held liable.

There's a reason for these major bicycle manufacturers to feature 100% carbon frames for all other mountain biking events except for DH. It has nothing to do with money. It does have something to do with engineering, in-house data analysis, product performance, and company image.

Carbon is not quite the material its cracked up to be.

Respectfully, 
Moabi


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

From an academic point of view, I'm a litlte amused by some of the anti-carbon arguments. I will make some points but I won't make them in any order nor do I intend to pick on any specific person (as I don't care on a personal level), but I will just point out examples that stood out in my mind.

Example 1, someone say "well 9 out of 10 current bikes is aluminum"... then concludes that because of this ration, aluminum must be the superior material. I don't know where to begin to dissect this argument so the OP can understand the natural progression of new process. But see it works like this. First you have a "status quo" process (aluminum) that everyone knows about. Then new process (carbon fiber) is introduced. Then it is refined. The R&D cost is amortized as acceptance gains ground. Then it becomes cheap. How long did it take aluminum to be where it is today? How long has metal chemistry been with the human race? oh say since the bronze age 5000 years ago? How long has polymer and organic chemistry been with the human race? If you don't know this answer, then stop arguing out of context! Aluminum manipulation has reached its zenith, while carbon manipulation is just beginning to pick up. This argument of "9 out of 10 bikes" is simply a backward argument.

Example 2, it's argued by anti-carbon crowds that the rear triangle is aluminum, so therefore carbon must be weak. Ok Magura has repeatedly explained that cost is a huge factor, but yet somehow his point is totally and conveniently dismissed. Huh? I ask the anti-carbon crowd, do you guys know how much Ducati spent to develop a carbon swingarm for their MotoGP race bike?? It is in the tens of million of $$$! Ducati gets this money from sponsors! It's basically free money for Ducati. Santa Cruz is a large bicycle company, but it is still a freakin bicycle company and I highly doubt that even a large bicycle company has tens of million of free $$$ to fund the development of a rear triangle. Carbon usage for bicycle companies will come in baby steps! It will not come in overnight like you see in MotoGP or Formula1 or the USA military. You anti-carbon folks are really being disingenuous if you expect bicycle companies to have the R&D budget of premier organizations and institutions. Bicycle companies will simply follow, not lead. Followers will always be slow, but they will eventually get there.

Example 3. Someone said that some upper link is not carbon, it made out of aluminum. So he draws the conclusion that carbon is weak. Magura then explains that because of space, carbon is not applicable. But then you brushed him off. Huh? What if the link could be made of carbon but then the R&D required to make such link would be lis $1 million. Think about this. For a bicycle company, $1 million is no chump change. But yet the anti-carbon folks like to make it sound like money is chump change for any bicycle compnay, and if the company does not use carbon to make something, then the issue is not because of money but because of the weakness of carbon. Seriously, I'm utterly amused at folks who scoff at the economics of material contruction. Do you guys think that every company get their R&D from some Saudi prince who enjoys burning his money?

I thought Mr Magura did a fantastic job of dishing out patience and technical explanations with the anti-carbon folks. Listen if you wanna learn something in life, do not sit there keep asking questions and expect people to prove you wrong because you're too lazy to do the research. There are plenty of text books and trade magazines out there that you can start learning about carbon chemistry and it'll help you understand why Mr Magura is so excited about carbon. Let your mind abstract and extrapolate. Don't get corned up by old methodologies. That's how you innovate.

Did you know that back in the days when boats were all made of wood, people would question whether a metal boat would float. After all, the reason at the time was that metal sinks in water, so it makes no sense to make boat out of metal. think..


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

chauzie said:


> From an academic point of view, I'm a litlte amused by some of the anti-carbon arguments. I will make some points but I won't make them in any order nor do I intend to pick on any specific person (as I don't care on a personal level), but I will just point out examples that stood out in my mind.
> 
> Example 1, someone say "well 9 out of 10 current bikes is aluminum"... then concludes that because of this ration, aluminum must be the superior material. I don't know where to begin to dissect this argument so the OP can understand the natural progression of new process. But see it works like this. First you have a "status quo" process (aluminum) that everyone knows about. Then new process (carbon fiber) is introduced. Then it is refined. The R&D cost is amortized as acceptance gains ground. Then it becomes cheap. How long did it take aluminum to be where it is today? How long has metal chemistry been with the human race? oh say since the bronze age 5000 years ago? How long has polymer and organic chemistry been with the human race? If you don't know this answer, then stop arguing out of context! Aluminum manipulation has reached its zenith, while carbon manipulation is just beginning to pick up. This argument of "9 out of 10 bikes" is simply a backward argument.
> 
> ...


What you Carbon proponents don't understand is that many of you are construing objective observations as being anti carbon which is very wrong. There have been many anomalies with carbon. Strength tests are straight forward, but we still see odd failures we don't see with metals. Engineering speak is great at making a lay person seem like an idiot for not accepting carbon. I have to call it like I see it. I'm an objective observer as we should all be. Unbiased, and excited about future materials.Carbon still has much to prove. Just because I or anyone else questions, doesn't mean we are in one camp and you in another.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

chauzie said:


> From an academic point of view, I'm a litlte amused by some of the anti-carbon arguments. I will make some points but I won't make them in any order nor do I intend to pick on any specific person (as I don't care on a personal level), but I will just point out examples that stood out in my mind..


How about reading the entire thread to get an idea of what's going on. It has nothing to do with anti-carbon haters. Your in a dream land buddy. I have nothing against carbon, what I've been saying all along if you bothered to read posts, is that carbon isn't ready for DH at the present time, in the future who knows, but at the present it's a no go. Maybe you should read a few posts before putting out bs that has nothing to do with this thread!!

But, people like you and Mr Magura says carbon is ready for DH, but the truth of the matter is that it isn't, there aren't many if any DH related components. You guys including MM can argue until your black and blue in the face, but you're still wrong...end of story!


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> There's a reason for these major bicycle manufacturers to feature 100% carbon frames for all other mountain biking events except for DH. It has nothing to do with money. It does have something to do with engineering, in-house data analysis, product performance, and company image.
> 
> Carbon is not quite the material its cracked up to be.
> 
> ...


Nothing to do with money? You said it's about engineering and data analysis. Well do those engineers work for free? The equipment used to collect the data is free too? The software and experts to analyse the data are free too? You know how much all this R&D will cost?

You speak as if 1) these bicycle companies have mega millions in their R&D budget, and 2) the engineering itself cost little. The opposite is more like it. So unless you know the budget and cost, you're pulling stuff out. I admit I don't know the budget of say Santa Cruz or the R&D cost. But going by Formula 1 standard, a simple rear wing costs $1 million to develop (yearly budget can be 300-600 million depending on teams). You think Santa Cruz has about $10 million/yr for R&D? Don't think so. SC would be lucky to have $1 mil/yr to burn.


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

SV11 said:


> How about reading the entire thread to get an idea of what's going on. It has nothing to do with anti-carbon haters. Your in a dream land buddy. I have nothing against carbon, what I've been saying all along if you bothered to read posts, is that carbon isn't ready for DH at the present time, in the future who knows, but at the present it's a no go. Maybe you should read a few posts before putting out bs that has nothing to do with this thread!!
> 
> But, people like you and Mr Magura says carbon is ready for DH, but the truth of the matter is that it isn't, there aren't many if any DH related components. You guys including MM can argue until your black and blue in the face, but you're still wrong...end of story!


In other words, you're saying carbon is not ready for DH while in reality carbon is encroaching into DH, slowly but surely. You sir are the confused one. And I have been in this thread before you. I think you lack knowledge about what has already been discovered about carbon. If you want to challenge your mind and apply yourself in this arena, I'm afraid you'll need to hit up on the textbooks and technical trade magazines at some point. You know, read books that discuss about what is carbon and why is it so unique, how it can turn into expensive diamond or into cheap lead pencil. Are you not fascinated by such diverse form of carbon? and how such diversity could apply to making a suitable application to biking? Where is your innovative mind sir?

But don't be frustrated. Apply your mind. Knowledge is out there. If I struck a nerve, then I apologize!


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

chauzie said:


> In other words, you're saying carbon is not ready for DH.


This is exactly what I'm saying, and have been saying all along...unless you can prove me otherwise.


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

MoabiSlim said:


> So Trek, Specialized, and Santa Cruz, all make 100% MTB frames for All Mountain. However, when it comes to DH, they whimp out. They whimp out for good reason. They're aware that carbon fibers are brittle and if impacted upon too many times in the same region, they will give way to possibly some catastrophic event for which, they will be held liable.


You can repeat that as many times as you want, its still wrong, in fact the opposite is true. Carbon Fiber Composites UNLIKE METALS do not have a fatigue limit, as stated many times before on this thread. In other words, if the part is strong enough to completely withstand the impact or force once, it will withstand it as many times as you want.

I'll never understand why people ask a question on a forum, receive a answer from an expert, and then go on and state the exact opposite. If your beliefs are so firm, why even ask in the first place?

Seriously, this is becoming like one of those "what should I buy" threads:

Q: "Should I buy this bike from walmart?"
20 people: "NO, because" 
Q: "OK, I just bought the bike."
20 people:


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

SV11 said:


> This is exactly what I'm saying, and have been saying all along...unless you can prove me otherwise.


He did, in the second half of that very sentence you are quoting? Are you saying the GT Fury, V10c, Lahar, Evil Undead, Easton Havoc bars, Dorado forks etc are not suitable for Downhill?

Seriously, I'm out of here. This is ridiculous.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

With so much talk about the Cv10. Here's some frame weight comparison's that I find interesting: http://www.sicklines.com/weights/fullsuspensionframes/

The carbon v10 frame is actually heavier than the AL Trek Session frame. The listed weights are without shock I believe? Of course the session is known for being super light, and prone to denting. Comparison is size L vs xl, so if all was even weights would probably be almost identical? I wonder if SC is over building, or does carbon need to be nearly as heavy or heavier than AL to be impact resistant? I'm sure with C swing arm it would be the same weight or lighter?


----------



## While At Rome (Apr 25, 2011)

WORLD CUP RIDING IS MUCH LESS STRESSFUL THAN US POSTERS ON FRAMES.

Idiots.

Carbon is the future of biking. It is the current of aerospace and automotive. 200mph into a wall is nothing compared to the 30-35 mph we get to in the woods.

No one should be allowed to post in this unless they have an FS carbon bike at the minimum.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Thus far, we have all maintained our civility. However now, we have been intruded upon by someone less civil than the rest of us. 

DH racing allows for bicycle manufacturers to showcase their technological skills and advancements. When MTB DH enthusiasts witness the fact that yet another 100% carbon bike has won another DH racing event, us as MTB cyclists immediately acknowledge that fact and we recognize the new technology as being legit.

We've all got to admit that there's something very suspicious about MTB manufacturers making bikes in practically every area of MTB interests, with the obvious exception of DH mountain biking. Suddenly, when we get to DH, they all default back to some form of aluminum again.

Each MTB manufacturer wants to demonstrate their technological superiority. This places them in an advantageous position for future sales and being recognized as an iconic leader in the industry. These companies have material engineers and designers on contract, working for them and advising them as to what will represent them best at these DH racing events.

Apparently, there is something going on with carbon, that has not been openly revealed to the public. Otherwise, we would definitely see 100% carbon bikes made by all MTB manufacturers, regardless as to what John Q. Public believes. The companies control what we think by producing consistently reliable bikes that have excellent performance ratings.

Catastrophic failure was NOT some term that some Salem witch conjured up. It is a scientific term that has often been assoociated with the history of carbon bike frames. Even the MTB companies that produce 100% carbon fiber frames have used this term in conjunction with their products. 

All I ask, is that someone verify the fact that we are completely out of the woods with the reliability of carbon. If we are "out-of-the-woods", then why don't we see DH MTN bikes dressed in 100% carbon.

It does NOT matter how many people are in the pro-carbon court. I will not waiver until I see absolute proof. Thus far, carbon appears to be quickly advancing towards the goal of 100% reliability. However, if I don't either see a scientific study corroborating its durability, or if I don't see 100% carbon bikes successfully competing in DH events, I'll always feel this way.

Respectfully,
Moabi 

PS.

People with opposing views should always refrain from personal insults. Otherwise, we revert back to barbarism and we begin to stack stones for revenge. Next, we look for larger stones to hurl. Eventually, it becomes a slug fest that has nothing to do with facts, discovery, intellect, and enjoyment.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

chauzie said:


> From an academic point of view, I'm a litlte amused by some of the anti-carbon arguments. I will make some points but I won't make them in any order nor do I intend to pick on any specific person (as I don't care on a personal level), but I will just point out examples that stood out in my mind.
> 
> Example 1, someone say "well 9 out of 10 current bikes is aluminum"... then concludes that because of this ration, aluminum must be the superior material. I don't know where to begin to dissect this argument so the OP can understand the natural progression of new process. But see it works like this. First you have a "status quo" process (aluminum) that everyone knows about. Then new process (carbon fiber) is introduced. Then it is refined. The R&D cost is amortized as acceptance gains ground. Then it becomes cheap. How long did it take aluminum to be where it is today? How long has metal chemistry been with the human race? oh say since the bronze age 5000 years ago? How long has polymer and organic chemistry been with the human race? If you don't know this answer, then stop arguing out of context! Aluminum manipulation has reached its zenith, while carbon manipulation is just beginning to pick up. This argument of "9 out of 10 bikes" is simply a backward argument.
> 
> ...


 Hey there Chauzie,

Nobody here is saying that carbon is weak. What I'm saying is that these MTB companies already make bikes that are 100% carbon. How much technological transition is needed to convert these bikes to 100% carbon, DH racing bikes?

I would venture to say, NOT much.

Therefore, why do we note their blatant absence in DH racing events?

Why don't MTB companies make 100% DH mountain bikes?

Moabi


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

lelebebbel said:


> He did, in the second half of that very sentence you are quoting? Are you saying the GT Fury, V10c, Lahar, Evil Undead, Easton Havoc bars, Dorado forks etc are not suitable for Downhill?
> 
> Seriously, I'm out of here. This is ridiculous.


 Stick Around Lelebebbel!

Your presence is indeed valued. :thumbsup:

However, the question remains:

Where are 100% carbon bikes being featured in DH races? 

Why are MTB companies NOT producing 100% carbon DH MTN bikes? 

Respectfully,
Moabi


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

starship303 said:


> By the way, this is possibly on topic?
> 
> http://www.nsmb.com/4279-revolutionary-dh-bike-from-specialized
> ^^^ was an April Fools joke for those that didn't see it!
> ...


 Funny how they selected "carbon", as a "disposable" DH racing bike material. It may appear that Specialized is on to something here with carbon and DH racing...hmmm...


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

Santa Cruz is going to bury this alum swingarm thing in the near future (2012). I have to sit here and laugh as well. We have had more than one composites experts chime in on how carbon is the present and future for DH. The same 3-4 people keep presenting weak arguments on bulls**t and opinion.

I was once involved with Steve Fossett the aviator and current holder of over 128 world and absolute records. One of the last projects I was involved with was his land speed record car. If he had lived we would have been the first group of people to go over 1000mph in a car. One of the issues faced at those speeds is tires. No rubber is going to stay intact at those speeds. So we made the tires out of filament wound carbon fiber. Now I'm pretty sure if we can design a tire that will do 1000mph across a dry lake bed hitting millions of little rocks and pebbles along the way. I'm pretty sure a DH bike will do just fine. The other one that come quick to mind is the new prop on the aerobatic plane I work on. It's 100% composite, and is not only spinning, but going through 9-13 g's during a performance. With 350hp behind it! Pretty sure that we figured out a bunch of stuff in aerospace the last few years. Now a ton of us are out of work in that industry...get it!


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

MoabiSlim said:


> Why don't MTB companies make 100% DH mountain bikes?


que?










granted, my lahar isn't a production frame by any means, it's full carbon everywhere, and has been absolutely bomber. again, this is my 5th year on this.










aaron franklin had been building his carbon dh rigs for about a decade, and they'd developed a reputation for being unkillable under the most abusive riders. when cam cole was riding for lahar as a junior he rode the same frame for the complete season, went on to win worlds ('06), and the same frame was passed onto another basher pro with whom it lives to this day.

i believe in the potential of the material based on personal experience & the experience of informed & knowledgeable souls, rather than conjecture & spurious logic. but yeah, this argument is getting recursively tedious.

back to cool stuff - magura, re: your frame, the lahar uses direct set standard bearings rather than a headset & bb - brilliantly simple. similarly, there are no metal inserts anywhere on the frame for suspension connections. and speaking of engineered flex, instead of using a pivot at the rear axle, the chainstay is designed to flex vertically (yet the rear end remains very stiff laterally). aaron, despite his eccentricities was a wizard of carbon manipulation.


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

xy9ine said:


> back to cool stuff - magura, re: your frame, the lahar uses direct set standard bearings rather than a headset & bb - brilliantly simple. similarly, there are no metal inserts anywhere on the frame for suspension connections. and speaking of engineered flex, instead of using a pivot at the rear axle, the chainstay is designed to flex vertically (yet the rear end remains very stiff laterally). aaron, despite his eccentricities was a wizard of carbon manipulation.


Interestingly, the Ducati GP bike carbon swingarm was designed to flex laterally as the bike is leaned over. The flex was help with irregular small bump absorption.


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

Moabislim,

Do you consider the GT Fury 100% carbon enough?

However, your line of questioning of "where is the 100% carbon bike"... is a little disingenuous. We have the carbon front triangle, so you can't attack that area. Carbon rear triangle is also now becoming on the scene, you can't attack that now. Now you're playing to the tune of "show me a 100% carbon bike". So are you demanding a 100% carbon bike to have carbon disc brake, carbon calipers, carbon spokes, carbon cable housing...?? To this, I ask, "how much money you have??". See engineering is always about compromise between cost and performance. You want a carbon link? Well that's gonna cost some R&D dough to develop. It's not the material of carbon that is expensive, but the cost of packaging such material in a way applicable to the task.

There are situations, like a small solid link block or pivot eyelet, that is simply most COST EFFICIENT to just cnc that piece in question out of a solid block of aluminum and call it a day. At the end of the day, every company has a limited amount of time AND money to play, and it would be incredibly shorted sighted to dump tremendous resources into (let's say) a link so that the company can claim "my bike is 100%".

You are asking for pie in the sky, or else you then question the validity of carbon application. Why?? Is there no middle ground? Is there no baby steps? Nothing needs to be an all-or-nothing event. What is wrong with a bike that is 95% carbon by mass? If you're not absolutely happy with the missing 5%, then isn't this considered a little combative and disingenuous on your part?

At some point, if you really want educate yourself, then you're gonna have to take the initiative and do some technical reading, because I think this is the best way to understand the method you so much doubt on. Asking people to prove you wrong or right (or else you don't believe them).. i'm afraid is not the most reliable way to acquiring accurate information, and often times lead to a more opinionated debate than a factual presentation.


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

On a related note about carbon, now I wonder if Turner will go carbon. There's a debate in the Turner forum posing such question. Because if Turner goes carbon, its production is mostly likely will be outsourced to overseas, and apparently this does not seem to sit well with the homers. I have a hard time seeing how a Turner DHR would compete with the likes of Fury, Demo, V10,.. if all the big guns in the industry all go carbon. 

I'm sure there will always be Turner loyal homers, but..... we'll see I guess.


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

slimat99 said:


> With so much talk about the Cv10. Here's some frame weight comparison's that I find interesting: http://www.sicklines.com/weights/fullsuspensionframes/
> 
> The carbon v10 frame is actually heavier than the AL Trek Session frame. The listed weights are without shock I believe? Of course the session is known for being super light, and prone to denting. Comparison is size L vs xl, so if all was even weights would probably be almost identical? I wonder if SC is over building, or does carbon need to be nearly as heavy or heavier than AL to be impact resistant? I'm sure with C swing arm it would be the same weight or lighter?


sc has said repeatedly that they overbuilt it. the claimed weight savings over a v10.3 is only half a pound. they have said over and over that they are engineering for strength and stiffness and weight savings were an incidental benefit. after riding mine for the last month or so they weren't kidding about the stiffness. the bike is almost frighteningly stiff. you forget how much trail the suspension is actually soaking up because of the vibration dampening and the lateral stiffness. eyes closed and you would swear is was a super stiff xc bike on super smooth trails.

also this thread has rapidly descended into stubborn troll territory. sad, as it had been one of the better discussions of the subject for a while.


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

more interestingly (to me) is who of the major players will go carbon first - ie, trek / specialized / giant. all are certainly capable. 

neat stuff ahead i'm sure. looking forward to affordable carbon rims - light & less disposable compared to the current alu offerings. also - stiff & burly 29'er carbon rims improving the viability of 29'er dh bikes... lots of new opportunities w/ the exciting world of carbon composites!


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

xy9ine said:


> more interestingly (to me) is who of the major players will go carbon first - ie, trek / specialized / giant. all are certainly capable.
> 
> neat stuff ahead i'm sure. looking forward to affordable carbon rims - light & less disposable compared to the current alu offerings. also - stiff & burly 29'er carbon rims improving the viability of 29'er dh bikes... lots of new opportunities w/ the exciting world of carbon composites!


yep lots of opportunities to be creative. I think the immediate advantage of a carbon frame is the headtube. The HT junction, due to the welds, has always been one of the major potentially catastrophic failure point of an aluminum frame. It appears carbon greatly solves this issue (you don't see lots of carbon frame with detached HT!).

The other possibilities is frames can now be designed to be organic, ie, with curves, and curve is one of those geometric shape that can potentially have a damping effect if the designer so chooses it so. And it's much easier to manipulate curves in carbon fiber than in aluminum.

And then there's the "sexy" and eye pleasing features of curves that almost all males seem to just go ga-ga over when they see!! (I wonder if it's related to the male's subliminal innate attraction to boobs, bellies, and buttocks).


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

chauzie said:


> Moabislim,
> 
> Do you consider the GT Fury 100% carbon enough?
> 
> ...


 Hey there Chauzie,

I've done much technical reading in my life. I've also done much scientific investigation. I am also quite aware of marketing techniques.

When I speak of the need to see 100% carbon bikes involved in DH MTB racing, that doesn't necessarily mean that every bolt has to made of carbon. I simply mean that it should at the very least possess a frame that is made of 100% carbon fiber material. Thus far, I've only seen one example of a DH MTB frame that's completely made of carbon and that one example thus far, hasn't produced any wins.

What do we know about its durability?

Was it simply introduced into the DH circuit but hasn't performed up to expectations?

How does it perform?

What has the GT Fury's history been thus far?

When it comes to money and financing, trust me when I tell you that the announcement of a new 100% carbon DH MTN bike consistently winning downhill races, would be worth every penny of the investment, due to new sales. New interests will develop around the new DH carbon bike and the cycle world will not only become invigorated, it will also grow.

What the industry doesn't want, is for their new highly featured 100% carbon race bike to structurally fail during any type of competition. That would set the company back and it would instill greater distrust in carbon fibers. That would hurt all types of carbon bike sales.

If you want to feature 100% carbon framed bikes, then you want to feature them at their best. Participating in an event where their innate properties can be fully demonstrated and exemplified. You do not want to showcase them where they may fail and become an embarassment to both your company and the industry as well.

That's why we are waiting!

We're waiting for the technology to meet our expectations. One day soon, it will!


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

chauzie said:


> Nothing to do with money? You said it's about engineering and data analysis. Well do those engineers work for free? The equipment used to collect the data is free too? The software and experts to analyse the data are free too? You know how much all this R&D will cost?
> 
> You speak as if 1) these bicycle companies have mega millions in their R&D budget, and 2) the engineering itself cost little. The opposite is more like it. So unless you know the budget and cost, you're pulling stuff out. I admit I don't know the budget of say Santa Cruz or the R&D cost. But going by Formula 1 standard, a simple rear wing costs $1 million to develop (yearly budget can be 300-600 million depending on teams). You think Santa Cruz has about $10 million/yr for R&D? Don't think so. SC would be lucky to have $1 mil/yr to burn.


 Chauzie,

You're talking peanuts here. Santa Cruz can quite easily find investors for future innovations because they are well-known. They are thus far a very successful company with an excellent track record.

There's no doubt that they well produce a 100% all carbon fiber frame real soon!

Moabi


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

lelebebbel said:


> You can repeat that as many times as you want, its still wrong, in fact the opposite is true. Carbon Fiber Composites UNLIKE METALS do not have a fatigue limit, as stated many times before on this thread. In other words, if the part is strong enough to completely withstand the impact or force once, it will withstand it as many times as you want.
> 
> I'll never understand why people ask a question on a forum, receive a answer from an expert, and then go on and state the exact opposite. If your beliefs are so firm, why even ask in the first place?
> 
> ...


 I didn't actually get the full sensation of how funny this ^^^^^ really was until now!!! 

PS.

 Though this depiction is actually inaccurate as we focus upon the current topic...


----------



## k1creeker (Jul 30, 2005)

starship303 said:


> By the way, this is possibly on topic?
> 
> http://www.nsmb.com/4279-revolutionary-dh-bike-from-specialized
> ^^^ was an April Fools joke for those that didn't see it!
> ...


I'm interested to see what the big S can do in a non-disposable DH bike. For now they seem hell bent on reinforcing the carbon is weak and breaks myth. But hey..."It's Apple".

I don't get the whole "we want to sell fewer bikes to 1% of the population" move. When they do eventually release a Demo Carbon for the common man, riders are going to associate the brand with breakable, disposable frames, or they're going to need to carry out a massive marketing effort explaining that "no, these frames are good and strong...not like that Egg Muffin container we built last year".

However, carbon would allow them to add a few more organic chain stays to the design.


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

MoabiSlim said:


> that one example thus far, hasn't produced any wins.
> 
> What do we know about its durability?
> 
> ...


here's marc beaumont winning the val di sol wc dh last year:










though they're not out there in great numbers, i've not heard of a single fury failure, and those who have them seem to like them alot. can't really ask for more.

k1 - you're not taking that april 1 article seriously, i hope?


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

more carbon content - cam zinks evil undead (yes, full carbon). 33.6lbs. production units rumored to be available this summer:


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

*Disposable Specialized DH MTB Alternative*

Perhaps we could use an alternative DH MTB for Specialized's disposable carbon DH MTN racing bike. Check out the new DH full suspension MTN racing bike by the great KAWASAKI!


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

this thread:

1> seemingly honest question
2> thoughtful, informed reply from an expert in the field
3> "nuh uh!!!!"
4> repeat step 2

oh wait, that's pretty much every thread. lets just make with the bike porn!


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

cdburch said:


> this thread:
> 
> 1> seemingly honest question
> 2> thoughtful, informed reply from an expert in the field
> ...


 Oh__What the heck!

It's just a spoof and a splash of fun for the carbon weary


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

cdburch said:


> this thread:
> 
> 1> seemingly honest question
> 2> thoughtful, informed reply from an expert in the field
> ...


OK. My "accident waiting to happen".


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

and mine!


----------



## k1creeker (Jul 30, 2005)

xy9ine said:


> here's marc beaumont winning the val di sol wc dh last year:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CRAPPP!!!
They got me...and it's fricken June.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

dhtahoe said:


> OK. My "accident waiting to happen".


 Nice Bike, Dude!

PS.

I do believe I can hear the timer in your head tube...TICK...TICK...TICK!


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

cdburch said:


> and mine!


 You guys have no carbon shame at all do ya?

This bike is freakin' awesome!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

carbon bars too...


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

cdburch said:


> carbon bars too...


 Well one thing for certain, carbon bikes get an A+ for aesthetics!

They're some of the most beautifully styled bikes in the world :thumbsup:


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

tough as hell too. very glad i didn't get a 951 instead as i'm pretty sure i would have demolished it already.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

cdburch said:


> tough as hell too. very glad i didn't get a 951 instead as i'm pretty sure i would have demolished it already.


 Yeah, I know....that's what some folks are saying....

Apparently the jury is still out on that one.

Carbon is the future for certain! :thumbsup:


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Yeah, I know....that's what some folks are saying....
> 
> Apparently the jury is still out on that one.
> 
> Carbon is the future for certain! :thumbsup:


Hey! That's rather cool. 
So in a month or so, I'll be going back to the future

I've never tried that before.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Hey! That's rather cool.
> So in a month or so, I'll be going back to the future
> 
> I've never tried that before.
> ...


 No___ Mr. Magura!

In your case, you'll be just catching up with the past!   

And - For you___, that's just the coolest! 

Moabi


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

cdburch said:


> tough as hell too. very glad i didn't get a 951 instead as i'm pretty sure i would have demolished it already.


very nice bike there. what's the weight?


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

Moabislim,

at some point, you gonna have to stop lying to yourself and admit that you want some of that carbon porn you know you've craving as this thread grows longer. I see the lust in you man stop denying it.


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

34.5 lbs on the nose. if i had used lighter wheels i could have shaved more weight but i'm a big boy (230 with gear) so i needed strong wheels.

maybe next year i will switch to haven carbon wheels and sixc cranks...


----------



## chauzie (Mar 8, 2010)

^ cdburch, 
is that a vivid air on the back? how does it ride? are you getting all the plush you want? or are you wanting to throw a coil on?


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

slimat99 said:


> What you Carbon proponents don't understand is that many of you are construing objective observations as being anti carbon which is very wrong. There have been many anomalies with carbon. Strength tests are straight forward, but we still see odd failures we don't see with metals. Engineering speak is great at making a lay person seem like an idiot for not accepting carbon. I have to call it like I see it. I'm an objective observer as we should all be. Unbiased, and excited about future materials.Carbon still has much to prove. Just because I or anyone else questions, doesn't mean we are in one camp and you in another.


I like the way you say this. I am a believer in cf bikes. I also believe the idea that 7075 is pretty much the same wherever you get it (maybe 10-15%) variation. But carbon can vary in quality by huge amounts depending on who makes it and how they go about their work. I think it is good to be leery concerning carbon. I accept that carbon for most people has much to prove. Not many years ago I never would have considered carbon on any bike. Caution is wise. Wait and see is a very good strategy.

That said, those of us who are ready to ride carbon, dh or otherwise, get to ride the quietest, smoothest mountain bikes on the trail. If you don't trust it, don't ride it. I can't imagine riding an aluminum dh bike. For me, that time is passed. But it was (and is still) a gamble to ride.

What I don't understand is why we find it necessary to convince people that carbon is good or bad for dh bikes. Ride what you love.
I really love the V10 I get to ride this season. Mmmmmmmm Smooooooooth!


----------



## SamL3227 (May 30, 2004)

so. all that moabislim shiz in the first few dozen pages was just a bunch of jonzin?



seems to me carbon is here to stay.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

SamL3227 said:


> so. all that moabislim shiz in the first few dozen pages was just a bunch of jonzin?
> 
> seems to me carbon is here to stay.


 Hey Bud,

If you keep sayin' things like that about me, I'm just gonna have to meet you outside!


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

chauzie said:


> Moabislim,
> 
> at some point, you gonna have to stop lying to yourself and admit that you want some of that carbon porn you know you've craving as this thread grows longer. I see the lust in you man stop denying it.


 Actually, since there's so little actual data being published about these darned things, I've decided to go ahead a get a Santa Cruz Nomad, so I can do my own independent research. I'll most probably ride it over the summer and sell it outright in September before it kills me or something. 

Has nothing to do with lust, just curiosity. 

Moabi 

PS.

Ok, well maybe just a little lust. Now leave me alone!


----------



## The_Rizzle (Mar 8, 2011)

MoabiSlim said:


> Funny how they selected "carbon", as a "disposable" DH racing bike material. It may appear that Specialized is on to something here with carbon and DH racing...hmmm...


I'm really surprised by your attitude towards this article. Its a shame that there wasn't more attention paid towards the date, or to any of the techy bits inside. It most definitely doesn't help your argument that any aluminum alloy currently used is a good bike material, just that there are some myths about carbon that would have to be dispelled before major investment is taken, since bike companies to have to get profits from bikes sold, even if the bike is better.

I'm with Mr. Magura, xy9ine, and all the other proponents of carbon as the future of all mountain bikes. Aluminum works ok, but it most definitely is not the best choice. Also, the statement that the welds of aluminum are the weak point are incorrect to my knowledge. Its the area affected by the heat of welding. I've loaned out my book for quick reference, but heres a link to something that explains it. Theres pictures too. 
http://www.esabna.com/us/en/educati...fected-Zone-of-Arc-Welded-Aluminum-Alloys.cfm

xy9ine, you have any more pics or a link to more pics of your lahar? I've seen a couple shots on nsmb, and I'd love to see more.

Mr. Magura, you have a thread on your carbon dh bikes your building or are working on building? I'd really like to follow this, and maybe try it someday, as gearbox bikes aren't exactly common, and I'm a huge fan of lowering unsprung weight/lowering rotating weight, and more reliability (no derailer) in one shot. Like the lahar :thumbsup:

Yeroon


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

The_Rizzle said:


> I'm really surprised by your attitude towards this article. Its a shame that there wasn't more attention paid towards the date, or to any of the techy bits inside. It most definitely doesn't help your argument that any aluminum alloy currently used is a good bike material, just that there are some myths about carbon that would have to be dispelled before major investment is taken, since bike companies to have to get profits from bikes sold, even if the bike is better.
> 
> I'm with Mr. Magura, xy9ine, and all the other proponents of carbon as the future of all mountain bikes. Aluminum works ok, but it most definitely is not the best choice. Also, the statement that the welds of aluminum are the weak point are incorrect to my knowledge. Its the area affected by the heat of welding. I've loaned out my book for quick reference, but heres a link to something that explains it. Theres pictures too.
> http://www.esabna.com/us/en/educati...fected-Zone-of-Arc-Welded-Aluminum-Alloys.cfm
> ...


I really wondered how long it would take till somebody pointed out the date of publishing of the "disposable DH frame" article 

You're spot on regarding the weak points of aluminium welds. It's right next to the weld usually.

Somebody mentioned the virtues of super reliable 7075T6 aluminium. That couldn't have been more wrong. The 7075T6 alloy is the most sensitive type there is as far as I recall. Some of the tool aluminium may be even worse though.
You see those very hard alloys like the above mentioned, is extremely prone to the kerf effect. This means that even very small scratches, can make the part snap. We are not talking structural damage, just plain surface scratches. 
My current crank set is made of 7075T6, trust me I keep it under strict and frequent inspection. Fortunately it's only temporary, as I have a new carbon crank set under construction.

I haven't created a thread for the carbon DH project as of yet, but I will try to find the time/motivation to make some photos of it. At least I have a build thread in mind at some point, so photos are under consideration, I'm just not very good with a camera, thus the lacking motivation.
The Lahar solution is not half bad. It was very futuristic for it's time, and is still in my opinion a relatively modern design. I'd say that you ought to be able to build your own DH frame at reasonable cost. There are sure a learning curve, but if you start out with small projects, and expand to bigger stuff slowly, you'll get there.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

The_Rizzle said:


> I'm really surprised by your attitude towards this article. Its a shame that there wasn't more attention paid towards the date, or to any of the techy bits inside. It most definitely doesn't help your argument that any aluminum alloy currently used is a good bike material, just that there are some myths about carbon that would have to be dispelled before major investment is taken, since bike companies to have to get profits from bikes sold, even if the bike is better.
> 
> I'm with Mr. Magura, xy9ine, and all the other proponents of carbon as the future of all mountain bikes. Aluminum works ok, but it most definitely is not the best choice. Also, the statement that the welds of aluminum are the weak point are incorrect to my knowledge. Its the area affected by the heat of welding. I've loaned out my book for quick reference, but heres a link to something that explains it. Theres pictures too.
> http://www.esabna.com/us/en/educati...fected-Zone-of-Arc-Welded-Aluminum-Alloys.cfm
> ...


 Hey there Rizzle,

That statement was primarily made as a "tongue-in-cheek" statement.

I really believe in my heart of hearts, that carbon can be made as weak or as strong as the engineers and designers want to make it. I also suspect that it has its "quirks". That's why the scientific term "catastrophic failure" was devised and used by the industry. Hopefully, we've evolved past that era and can move on.

However, it still seems very suspicious to me that Trek, Specialized, Jamis, Cannondale, and now Santa Cruz, all make 100% carbon bikes, but refuse to make a 100% carbon DH racing bike.

Having said that, what I really believe concerning bike frame materials is the following:

A road racing bike should most definitely be made from carbon. That's my material of choice for road racing. I would like to believe that carbon is as reliable and durable as its proponents have stated within this thread. If that's true, then I feel that carbon should be used in all racing events with regards to cycling and should continue to lead the way in the future of cycling.

Aluminum should never have displaced steel as much as it has in the cycling world. It has served its purpose in racing and a few other utilitarian cycling applications, but that's it! Steel is my personal material of choice when it comes to most other aspects of cycling.

Respectfully,
Moabi 

PS.

Although I do seem to be inadvertently cultivating an uncanny fondness for carbon for some reason.....RATS!


----------



## The_Rizzle (Mar 8, 2011)

I watched the youtube vid of the guy smashing the top-tubes with a hammer, and that led to this vid - I think this does speak for the strength of carbon as a dh frame, even though its a xc racing frame.


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

MoabiSlim said:


> Nice Bike, Dude!
> 
> PS.
> 
> I do believe I can hear the timer in your head tube...TICK...TICK...TICK!


No ticks on this bike. I'm a pilot and aircraft designer. Pre flight and post flight checks always. If you are talking about the whole angleset issue. People really need to start assembling and maintaining their bikes before they go on about how things suck.


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

The_Rizzle said:


> xy9ine, you have any more pics or a link to more pics of your lahar? I've seen a couple shots on nsmb, and I'd love to see more.


did you see my writeup on nsmb?

http://www.nsmb.com/3463-readers-rides-15/


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

chauzie said:


> ^ cdburch,
> is that a vivid air on the back? how does it ride? are you getting all the plush you want? or are you wanting to throw a coil on?


I'm running one as well. All I can say is. WTF is a coil! First ride impression... this is an air shock?!!!


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

Carbon... steel... aluminium... titanium... and much, bla...bla...bla!

RTM, PRSEUS and future process of CF manufacturing will evolve rapidly and in accordance to research and money from I&D and supposedly Marketing/Market demands.
In the future, I think everyone is convince that Carbon will be the future.
Until some level, it can be recycle like other material.
Sorry for being to lazzy, and not wheling to look into a Material Handbook, but Resilience and Fatigue speaking - Carbon takes the holeshot!
Metals away behind!
Hardness speaking metals go ahead of CF (although it doesn't make too much sense to measure harness in carbon...).


At this time, for me CF puts some "problems":

Problem 1:
Everyone wants to use CF! Aerospace&Aerospacial/Motorsports/Boats/Sports... so the question is: Who is going to use Al?
So CF prices go up, other material prices goes down!
If market buys (and continues to buy) non-CF frames, why shouldn't manufactures use AL? Good prices can be had, and even good margins!
So metal parts will and can even be less expensive (I like THIS! I ride a bike, not an airplane! And has far as prices goes, I think everyone is on drugs or something!)

Problem 2: 
Design & Manufacturing.
Composites also has been around us longer than Metal, and we design everything from Composite (yes, wood is a composite!) until some time!
Somehow, some time ago, metal became more and more in use, and today we see what metal had to conquer in the past.
Metal design in the beginning had major flaws, and things got better and better until we reach today!
New metal composition appeared and continues to appear in the present and near future.
Composite (although in a different time) has to go this way!
Design improvements and manufacturing improvements (manufacturing the material itself and manufacturing the part) has to come up to show everyone that composite can take the "metal world".
What's needed? Time. Time to gain experience, time to make significant advances, time to people look at composites "eye in the eye".

Everyone speaks here about aeronautics, but this industry although very advance is a bit conservative. New ideas/materials have a long way to make into production!
It has long tests in-house and afterwards with FAA and EASA organizations!
"Today" we see Boeing release 787 coming out in Everett with most of the aircraft made from CF! This is a great advance and I can only imagine the work behind this!
I think it's a leap forward in Composite! A lot of things had to be learnt! And future aircraft will be much better!
People however is a bit apprehensive with tolerance to damage and remote structural repairs... but that's a different story!

And yes... Boeing and Airbus had use composite in other aircraft, but not to this extend! And even between Airbus/Boeing/Lockheed they have different design approaches to composite - hopefully in the near future with people moving from one to another company technology will be "almost" equal on both sides of the lake.

Do I believe in CF? You beat!
Would I jump on CF today? Nope!
I still enjoy metal frames! They're cheap, and take some beating!
I love titanium hardtails - and yes I also love Carbon frames - last to ride was the Flash. But would I buy one? No!
I see 94 titanium bikes on the trails! They look like new! And when I see a carbon bike from back then... well... (but that happens also for suspension frames - Design evolves a lot!)

From trail experience, I've seen metal and composite parts ripping apart! Everything has to break with the right Drop/Gap/Crash/Rock!


PS - and i would like congrat Magura (manufacturer) to bring to us a almost 100% composite brake!
Magura (user) - if you really work in Magura, were you contracted to be in MTBR?
If so... do you know if they need another one??


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Tkul:
*Do I believe in CF? You beat!
Would I jump on CF today? Nope!
I still enjoy metal frames! They're cheap, and take some beating!
I love titanium hardtails - and yes I also love Carbon frames - last to ride was the Flash. But would I buy one? No!*

I see 94 titanium bikes on the trails! They look like new! And when I see a carbon bike from back then... well... (but that happens also for suspension frames - Design evolves a lot!)

From trail experience, I've seen metal and composite parts ripping apart! Everything has to break with the right Drop/Gap/Crash/Rock!

Moabi:
* So you wouldn't buy a CF bike. Of course not, they're too expensive... You wouldn't ride one either. Though you love them and have ridden them in the past...*


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Tkul said:


> Magura (user) - if you really work in Magura, were you contracted to be in MTBR?
> If so... do you know if they need another one??


Hi Tkul,

I have no affiliation with the brake manufacturer Magura, or any other bicycle manufacturer for that kind of matter. I work in the medico industry, engineering prototypes of implants, external fixation systems, and instruments. I do however work with carbon in connection with my work, though it is a completely different ballgame.

I have been playing with composites since the age of 13 (age 36 now), mostly for bicycle parts, model airplanes, and propellers for UL aircrafts. I too have been engineering carbon brakes for performance cars a couple of years ago, so I'm not all that unfamiliar with composites and brakes. 
Counting out the performance car carbon brake project, all of it has been just for fun, with no commercial interest from my side of any kind.
You could say it is a more or less life long hobby.

So sorry, I am not the one to ask for a position at the Magura brake company, as my username has been my nickname since my teens, and that's about as far my connections with the brake company Magura goes.

Magura


----------



## cdburch (Apr 25, 2007)

dhtahoe said:


> I'm running one as well. All I can say is. WTF is a coil! First ride impression... this is an air shock?!!!


agreed. i'm totally sold on the vivid air.


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

MoabiSlim said:


> Tkul:
> *
> Moabi:
> So you wouldn't buy a CF bike. Of course not, they're too expensive... You wouldn't ride one either. Though you love them and have ridden them in the past...*


*

No!

I wouldn't spend more money to have a carbon frame - That's for sure (like the difference between Nomad AL and Nomad C
I would buy one if it was more 200/300 in 2000, yes (like the V10 - although I never would buy DH specific bike because where I leave I don't have access to chair lift / nor I want to ride Up in vans - yes... I'm one of those weird persons that like to pedal uphill! go figure... but that's a different story!... ups... I'm on DH forum! eheheheh)

EDIT:

As stupid as it can be, I like more (aesthetically speaking) the AL Nomad and I like more the V10 1/2 Carbon.
I think it has to be with frame "bluryness" - I like more slim frames.
If both (al & C) had the same price tag, I would go for the Al Nomad and for the C V10.










Titanium for ME, it has no time - Geometry can change overtime, etc, but a ti frame will always be a ti frame - I LIKE, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S THE BEST!!!!)
An old carbon bike, for ME, it doesn't have the same glamour... or I wouldn't keep one for that matter (like those Giant and Trek Lugged Carbon frames.... yiaak! :madman

I'll give an example!

Although not in the same price tag (at the time...), I loved the Trek Y33 and the Merlin Softtail (yes I know...pricish!)
Today, I wouldn't have the Y33 in my garage, but I would have and never sell (if I had!) the Merlin!
Merlin:










TREK:









But further down, I would stay with a Cannondale Raven 









Do you get it?
Has time pass... designs get more refined... more appealing*


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

Mr.Magura said:


> Hi Tkul,
> 
> So sorry, I am not the one to ask for a position at the Magura brake company, as my username has been my nickname since my teens, and that's about as far my connections with the brake company Magura goes.
> 
> Magura


doohh! Thinking it was my opportunity to be in the forum... :thumbsup:

When you say Carbon Brakes, do you mean making them from *PAN*?

Well when you finish the frame you're working on, can you please put some pictures (in a new topic)


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Tkul said:


> doohh! Thinking it was my opportunity to be in the forum... :thumbsup:
> 
> When you say Carbon Brakes, do you mean making them from *PAN*?
> 
> Well when you finish the frame you're working on, can you please put some pictures (in a new topic)


The final edition of the carbon brakes were made of Carbenix 3000 as I recall.

I will try pulling myself together to make a build thread of the frame project. 
It could at least offer some inspiration to others, as it could more or less be built with relatively simple means. A machine workshop does make it easier though. 
I have a small machine workshop. Just a few manual machines, no CNC, and that is more than enough for something like that.

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Tkul said:


> No!
> 
> I wouldn't spend more money to have a carbon frame - That's for sure (like the difference between Nomad AL and Nomad C
> I would buy one if it was more 200/300 in 2000, yes (like the V10 - although I never would buy DH specific bike because where I leave I don't have access to chair lift / nor I want to ride Up in vans - yes... I'm one of those weird persons that like to pedal uphill! go figure... but that's a different story!... ups... I'm on DH forum! eheheheh)
> ...


 Ok Tkul!

Thanks for the clarification. I think that I actually agree with you. :thumbsup:

Sincerely,
Moabi


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

Mr.Magura said:


> I will try pulling myself together to make a build thread of the frame project.
> 
> Magura


That would be nice! That's why I like forums! Knolladge being transfered in a friendly manner (although I didn't transfer too much......)



MoabiSlim said:


> Ok Tkul!
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I think that I actually agree with you. :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


So everyone in the same frequency! NICE! I LIKE! LOL!
:thumbsup:

Happy rides... with C or Metal!


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

slimat99 said:


> I'm confused over Santa Cruz's use of AL not on the cV10, but on the nomad. The nomad uses an AL lower link, C upper link, Ti hardware all around. THe lower AL link is not to save money. If they were worried about the bottom line, they would use steel hardware. The lower AL link is because it's exposed and takes hits. My lower link looks like someone took a hammer and chisel to it. I have to assume, AL was used there because of impact resistance. To back up this assumption, SC uses a Carbon lower links on the tall boy and blur xc. That tells me it's not a money thing, but a durability thing.


Actually, all of the SC bikes run AL lower links, even on the Tallboy and Blur XC.

I have abused my Tallboy for nearly 2 years......carbon has been strong and reliable.

However, I did just crack the AL lower link last week. Sounds to me like they under-engineered the carbon frame.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Tkul said:


> doohh! Thinking it was my opportunity to be in the forum... :thumbsup:
> 
> When you say Carbon Brakes, do you mean making them from *PAN*?
> 
> Well when you finish the frame you're working on, can you please put some pictures (in a new topic)


Here you go.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=8151714#post8151714

My camera had an "in the workshop" experience today. I expect to post a few photos of the process as I go along.

Magura


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

I can't see CF frames retaining any resale value. Unseen mechanical damage, epoxy degradation the unknowns are to high. What if the last guy's kid poured frame saver inside the frame and damaged the epoxy? Left it in the sun too long? I certainly trust new CF, and I do run CF bars. I'd be more hesitant to buy used CF over aluminum, though admittedly this may be ignorance of the facts of CF on my part.


----------



## eleven-yo (Dec 6, 2005)

i dunno stumbles, I've already sold two of my carbon bikes, and there wasn't any issues that were different than on aluminum bikes. I'd have no problem buying a used carbon frame either, I mean, its no different to me than buying used motorcycles. You can't see what the guy did to the engine before, so you use your best judgement and the senses you were born with. There's bargains to be had if you can stomach it, if you can't you buy new.


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

It's all about luck in 2nd hand parts.
PS - Aluminium suffers fatigue! And you don't know how long/how Hard it was ridden before!

Bike frames are easy and cheap to get an "overhaul" and look like new 

PS - Personally I don't do to others, what we wouldn't want to us, and don't like to sell something that I wouldn't want or it was "semi" damage.


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

here's my light weight carbon dh/freeride...


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

stumblemumble said:


> I can't see CF frames retaining any resale value. Unseen mechanical damage, epoxy degradation the unknowns are to high. What if the last guy's kid poured frame saver inside the frame and damaged the epoxy? Left it in the sun too long? I certainly trust new CF, and I do run CF bars. I'd be more hesitant to buy used CF over aluminum, though admittedly this may be ignorance of the facts of CF on my part.


 Agreed there Mumble!

To purchase a second-hand CF frame is risky business at best. It's nothing like purchasing a steel frame. Steel and aluminum, both will show obvious signs of breakage near the welds. CF frames are historically known for not displaying obvious signs of damage until the eventual catastrophic event occurs.

You'd be better off playing at the roulette tables! :thumbsup:

Moabi


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Agreed there Mumble!
> 
> To purchase a second-hand CF frame is risky business at best. It's nothing like purchasing a steel frame. Steel and aluminum, both will shown obvious signs of breakage near the welds. CF frames are historically known for not displaying obvious signs of damage until the eventual catastrophic event occurs.
> 
> ...


It's time for you to hit the books my friend.

You have just managed to make an entire post, without a single correct statement 

Magura


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> It's time for you to hit the books my friend.
> 
> You have just managed to make an entire post, without a single correct statement
> 
> Magura


 Dear Mr. Magura,

I have already given you links to websites where the bicycle industry itself, warns the public concerning catastrophic failure with regards to CF frames. I have also given you links as to how undetectable damage to carbon frames is one salient feature exhibited by CF material when used as a bicycle frame.

There is a reason as to why most bicycle manufacturing companies refuse to label their CF bikes with the exclusive "DH" label. There is a reason as to why these same companies refuse to produce a 100% CF/ DH racing bike.

What's the reason? 

Moabi


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

And now you have just managed to pretend like the entire thread didn't happened and returned to your initial opinion, which has been proven wrong in here about 15 times over....

There is a german term for this, "Beratungs-resistent". 
It could be translated as "immune to advice"


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

MoabiSlim said:


> Dear Mr. Magura,
> 
> I have already given you links to websites where the bicycle industry itself, warns the public concerning catastrophic failure with regards to CF frames. I have also given you links as to how undetectable damage to carbon frames is one salient feature exhibited by CF material when used as a bicycle frame.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but links to "cover my a$$" disclaimers from bike manufacturers, carries no weight anywhere besides their insurance company. 
So far you have also refused to read up on the subject, to form an informed opinion.
Any reasoning based on old wives tales and info of lesser status, is by now getting real hard to take serious. I have explained on a very understandable and basic level, why and how come thing are as they are.

For getting to why you can't detect damage to metals by the naked eye, all you really had to do, was to read up on very basic metallurgy. We are talking half an hour of reading here.

I must admit I'm running out of patience, as you refuse to either read up on the subject, or insist that old wives tales are facts. 
This thread has changed from being a place to ask questions and have answers, to airing beliefs as facts, and mind you, refusing basic facts as incorrect

Thread subscription cancelled!

Magura


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Mr.Magura said:


> It's time for you to hit the books my friend.
> 
> You have just managed to make an entire post, without a single correct statement
> 
> Magura


Correct or not, there's no arguing that resale price on Carbon parts is much less than Al counterparts. People are worried about buying used carbon, especially if there are any marks at all. Example: on ebay right now there is a carbon nomad listed for 1850, it didn't sell, it was relisted and is up right now at 1650, no bids. Talk about a BIG loss of value as soon as the first scratch made its mark. I've beat up AL frames then sold them for a few hundred less than what I paid. Doesn't matter what the facts are in regards to durability, carbon resale value is crap compared to AL.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Sorry, but links to "cover my a$$" disclaimers from bike manufacturers, carries no weight anywhere besides their insurance company.
> So far you have also refused to read up on the subject, to form an informed opinion.
> Any reasoning based on old wives tales and info of lesser status, is by now getting real hard to take serious. I have explained on a very understandable and basic level, why and how come thing are as they are.
> 
> ...


 Sorry about your cancellation Mr. Magura.:sad:

However, I do believe that Trek and others sticking to aluminum as DH racing frames, speaks volumes about what their engineers, scientists, and marketing experts, think about 100% CF-DH racing bikes.

*Catastrophic Failure * was a term invented by the bicycle industry itself. I simply reused it as it so aptly fits the CF history as it has related to bike frames in the not too distant past.

Moabi


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

MoabiSlim said:


> Sorry about your cancellation Mr. Magura.:sad:
> 
> However, I do believe that Trek and others sticking to aluminum as DH racing frames, speaks volumes about what their engineers, scientists, and marketing experts, think about 100% CF-DH racing bikes.
> 
> ...


Oh geez! Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints, but nom nom nom... here goes. Disclaimers are there for the lawyers.

Just a question. In an aluminum frame what is the most common point of failure, and what would THAT failure be called. Do you know


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

If it brakes within Frame Strength limits (yes...I know bike don't have a gauge or anything or came with a note saying: don't go beyond 7G!!!)

Metal frames (welded), can crack:
Near welds, or in the HAZ (Heat Affected Zone) - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-affected_zone
_
That portion of the base metal that was not melted during brazing, cutting, or welding, but whose micro structure and mechanical properties were altered by the heat. _

Why:
Variation on metal properties (micro structure of the material)
Strenght variation due to HAZ and also our friend - Fatigue
Others hypothesis: weld with bad penetration, porosity, strange particles, etc... but this one I would assume is lack of Quality Control.
Area under Stress (tube position and afterwards position imposed by the weld --> this has to do with stress relieve and also bad jig.

this is my 2 cent €!

Offtopic:
Every frame can break due to bad design - and this has to do with details.
Some details can give stress concentration and lead to catastrophic end (breakage of the part/frame)
Lightweight has less material (BIG conclusion this one! LOL!), and it must be design correctly otherwise... well let´s say that it won't endure has much has others with a few grams more.
Heavy don't mean that it'll pass on endure or be a "forever" frame!
Everything an engineer do has to do with:

Limitation on cost, material and tooling availability (Design to manufacturing)
Limitation on design (suspension/type of bike/size/etc...)
Material knowledge and design with such material
"shitty coefficient" or safety coefficient
Use or data they have for the frame they're about to design/build

I wouldn't put this list from most important, because for me all are important!

For example, someone with deep knowledge on use of the bike (forces that normally the bike endure) and with knowledge on design and stress will make a good bike!
An excellent bike appears after fine tune on the trail - and this take TIM€ and a lot of €ffort!
Information must flow from test riders to designers, and so on.

Big companies has this kind of €FFORT, but problem is that they do manufacture for Dr jekyll and Mr hyde... so some compromises must be done!
Small companies and custom made frames can make a great bike for YOU, but if they did a fine tune, you would have a superbike....

If money would be spent only on bikes, I would go Custom


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

MoabiSlim said:


> Sorry about your cancellation Mr. Magura.:sad:
> 
> However, I do believe that Trek and others sticking to aluminum as DH racing frames, speaks volumes about what their engineers, scientists, and marketing experts, think about 100% CF-DH racing bikes.
> 
> Moabi


No it doesn't and why are you talking to someone who is not there? 
I really love the inclusion of marketing experts into the mix.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

axolotl said:


> No it doesn't and why are you talking to someone who is not there?
> I really love the inclusion of marketing experts into the mix.


Yes it does, it's a fact, you just have to look on the manufacturers websites. These companies have money to spend on research and development, they obviously know something that Mr Magura does not know, hence the reason why we have not seen full carbon DH bikes or components, with the exception of the GT Fury. 
Being a keyboard expert is one thing, but these companies take the time to research and develop, and they also have the funds to do it.


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

SV11 said:


> Yes it does, it's a fact, you just have to look on the manufacturers websites. These companies have money to spend on research and development, they obviously know something that Mr Magura does not know, hence the reason why we have not seen full carbon DH bikes or components, with the exception of the GT Fury.
> Being a keyboard expert is one thing, but these companies take the time to research and develop, and they also have the funds to do it.


Ok, you got me there. I don't think I can argue with the "No it doesn't - Yes it does" line. I wish I could think of something to counter with, but I'm at a loss.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

axolotl said:


> No it doesn't and why are you talking to someone who is not there?
> I really love the inclusion of marketing experts into the mix.


 I included marketing experts because, I personally feel as though carbon is on the line here. If 100% CF-DH racing bikes fail in a highly publicized event such as DH racing, it will cost the industry millions in lost gross revenue. Carbon will take a giant step backwards despite its colossal technological advancements.

Carbon for the most part is great, but I believe there are times when the material fails and the experts are stymied about causal effects. Otherwise, if CF was the miracle material of the future for bike frames, at this very moment, why not showcase this phenomenal material when its being featured at highly publicized DH racing events? The advertisement through repeated successful DH race completions alone, would increase CF sales. This being true, a win or two in the CF column would cause CF frame sales to skyrocket.

So yes, the inclusion of marketing experts into the mix is absolutely crucial!

Respectfully,
Moabi


----------



## illnotsick (Mar 28, 2011)

MoabiSlim said:


> I included marketing experts because, I personally feel as though carbon is on the line here. If 100% CF-DH racing bikes fail in a highly publicized event such as DH racing, it will cost the industry millions in lost gross revenue. Carbon will take a giant step backwards despite its colossal technological advancements.
> 
> Carbon for the most part is great, but I believe there are times when the material fails and the experts are stymied about causal effects. Otherwise, if CF was the miracle material of the future for bike frames, at this very moment, why not showcase this phenomenal material when its being featured at highly publicized DH racing events? The advertisement through repeated successful DH race completions alone, would increase CF sales. This being true, a win or two in the CF column would cause CF frame sales to skyrocket.
> 
> ...


Trek and others refuse to make a carbon race frame because there are thousands of customers (like you) who would still refuse to buy it, because they're afraid of it. That's where the marketing experts get their say.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

illnotsick said:


> Trek and others refuse to make a carbon race frame because there are thousands of customers (like you) who would still refuse to buy it, because they're afraid of it. That's where the marketing experts get their say.


 Oh contraire!

I will soon be the proud owner of a Nomad. That said, I will still be very cautious about potholes, bumps in the road, and rocks.

Marketing experts would have a field day, if the CF frame was as indestructible and as durable as the pundits say.

Moabi


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

illnotsick said:


> Trek and others refuse to make a carbon race frame because there are thousands of customers (like you) who would still refuse to buy it, because they're afraid of it. That's where the marketing experts get their say.


I don't know about that. Carbon parts sell like hot cakes, including carbon handlebars, and have for a while now.


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

i can only think of 2 main things:
1st: price of the frame (but I don't know nor I have time to look) of both frames...
2nd: value thrown way to develop and design THIS aluminum frame (you pick any main stream brand...), and a new model can be develop as we speak.

Aluminum to CF, is not only changing material! 
You have to re-think what you've learn, invest (A LOT!) on development (critical is finding the best layup or plies - yes... you can use Patran or WTF you want, but if companies like TREK are serious (as i think they are!) they have to make test specimens... and test it... test specimens with defects (yes... manufacturing is a "dirty" world where tolerance and mistakes happen - That's life! So until we've got a LOT better design, I don't think we'll see next year a Carbon DH bike... but that's me talking!)
Santacruz is a small company and as small and "frenetic" company that it is, they can move quicker... and have it changed when they want - and it's seen on V10 (semi-carbon frame) that doesn't cost has much as the Al. and it has some advantages!

don't come here with marketing mambo-jambo! I don't recall where the post of some of the "BEST" advertisement phrases are.... but it got me laughing!
Marketing is only BLA...BLA... BLA!


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

XC bikes with carbon built into the frame design have been around for years, as have the seatposts, and bars. Only recently are we seeing CF in mountain wheels though. Is this delay in engineering a fault of CF, the engineers, the marketers, or the target audience? I'd bet on the manufacturing technology.
That said, I think we need a poll of how many would buy used CF handlebars. (frames would leave too much application bias.)


----------



## illnotsick (Mar 28, 2011)

stumblemumble said:


> XC bikes with carbon built into the frame design have been around for years, as have the seatposts, and bars. Only recently are we seeing CF in mountain wheels though. Is this delay in engineering a fault of CF, the engineers, the marketers, or the target audience? I'd bet on the manufacturing technology.
> That said, I think we need a poll of how many would buy used CF handlebars. (frames would leave too much application bias.)


I won't buy used aluminum handlebars


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

illnotsick said:


> I won't buy used aluminum handlebars


Neither would I, though I'd be much more resistive to used CF bars than aluminum if I had to choose and this I admit is probably dumb. Damage would be much more evident on used CF bars than fatigued aluminum would, though as shown this is debatable when dealing with frames. 
Personally I would buy a used aluminum frame, though not a used CF frame. It's too difficult to inspect a CF frame for damage. (until someone convinces me otherwise). :thumbsup:

So rereading your point, the better poll would be which would you buy: An apparently undamaged and used CF handlebar, or an apparently undamaged and used aluminum bar.


----------



## illnotsick (Mar 28, 2011)

stumblemumble said:


> Neither would I, though I'd be much more resistive to used CF bars than aluminum if I had to choose and this I admit is probably dumb. Damage would be much more evident on used CF bars than fatigued aluminum would, though as shown this is debatable when dealing with frames.
> Personally I would buy a used aluminum frame, though not a used CF frame. It's too difficult to inspect a CF frame for damage. (until someone convinces me otherwise). :thumbsup:
> 
> So rereading your point, the better poll would be which would you buy: An apparently undamaged and used CF handlebar, or an apparently undamaged and used aluminum bar.


I still would not buy either. 
Just like with a carbon frame, you can't tell if an aluminum frame is one ride away from failing. What is your inspection process for finding damage on an aluminum frame?


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

illnotsick said:


> What is your inspection process for finding damage on an aluminum frame?


Is this a trick question? You really don't know?
You need some state of the art gear, it's called your eyes. Run your eyes along the welds, if you don't see any cracks you can assume your frame is safe from failing.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Here you got a bit of goodnight read, for those whom believes they can see metal damage with the naked eye :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21294162/TALAT-Lecture-2405-Fatigue-an-Fracture-in-Aluminium-Structures

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/fatigue/fatigue_highcycle.cfm

http://www.slideshare.net/corematerials/talat-lecture-2401-fatigue-behaviour-and-analysis

Enjoy

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

SV11 said:


> Is this a trick question? You really don't know?
> You need some state of the art gear, it's called your eyes. Run your eyes along the welds, if you don't see any cracks you can assume your frame is safe from failing.


Yes, that was a trick question, as it seems he knows the answer, and you obviously don't 

Magura


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

*Not that our point needed any more proof, but....*



MoabiSlim said:


> However, it still seems very suspicious to me that* Trek,* Specialized, Jamis, Cannondale, and now Santa Cruz, all make 100% carbon bikes, but* refuse to make a 100% carbon DH racing bike*.


....Keep a look around in the next week, I think things will happen sooner than you think.....


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

Trek Session 9.9 is listed on treks dealer website. No pictures or availability, but its there. 

Carbon and DH is here to stay. First GT, then SC, now trek.


----------



## Pau11y (Oct 15, 2004)

Hey, there was a thread like this one a while back and someone had posted a vid of their home brew carbon project doing an impact simulation...the guy was wailing on his homemade carbon swingarm w/ a ball peen hammer. It's similar to the Niner video clip of hammer vs fork. Anyone seen that older home brew vid? I looked for it and no luck.


----------



## SamL3227 (May 30, 2004)

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/trek-session-88-carbon-prototype-aaron-gwin.html

carbon DH by Trek


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

SamL3227 said:


> http://www.pinkbike.com/news/trek-session-88-carbon-prototype-aaron-gwin.html
> 
> carbon DH by Trek


Can't wait to see what that frame weighs considering the AL session is already lighter than the v10C!


----------



## illnotsick (Mar 28, 2011)

SV11 said:


> Is this a trick question? You really don't know?
> You need some state of the art gear, it's called your eyes. Run your eyes along the welds, if you don't see any cracks you can assume your frame is safe from failing.


Ok, so you look for cracks. Guess what?! You can see a crack in carbon fiber with your eyes too. Same inspection process. 
That's untrue that you can assume aluminum is safe from failing if you don't see cracks. The cracks could be internal, or not large enough to see with the naked eye. Carbon doesn't always fail catastrophically, and neither does aluminum.


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

SV11 said:


> Yes it does, it's a fact, you just have to look on the manufacturers websites. These companies have money to spend on research and development, they obviously know something that Mr Magura does not know, hence the reason why we have not seen full carbon DH bikes or components, with the exception of the GT Fury.
> Being a keyboard expert is one thing, but these companies take the time to research and develop, and they also have the funds to do it.


I thought it would take longer to prove this point wrong.
http://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/feat...Carbon-Trek-Session-DH-Bike,22816/bturman,109

Ride what you love and love what you ride, but please let's not hear anymore talk that sounds like someone knows why a company does something or doesn't do it.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

illnotsick said:


> Ok, so you look for cracks. Guess what?! You can see a crack in carbon fiber with your eyes too. Same inspection process.
> That's untrue that you can assume aluminum is safe from failing if you don't see cracks. The cracks could be internal, or not large enough to see with the naked eye. Carbon doesn't always fail catastrophically, and neither does aluminum.


 It is widely known and well published, that carbon fibers often don't reveal their weakest or damaged points until the catastrophic event occurs in many cases. Aluminum and steel, traditionally bend or break at points near and around the welds.That's why the bicycle industry coined the term "Castastrophic Event" for carbon. Often times, this event would take place soon after some unfortunate impact that compromised the integrity of the CF frame. No matter what ply was used and in which direction it was oriented, at some point the material would be undetectably damaged. That was then but this is now!

Are we still at that point where carbon can still stymie the experts as to what casual effect impairs carbon at what time and to what degree?

How do we know for certain?

We will only know by the performance of CF under the most extreme conditions and under those conditions for a specific duration of time. DH racing gives us that opportunity. We truly live in an exciting time!

Sincerely,
Moabi


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

MoabiSlim said:


> However, I do believe that Trek and others sticking to aluminum as DH racing frames, speaks volumes about what their engineers, scientists, and marketing experts, think about 100% CF-DH racing bikes.


so now that trek has a carbon DH bike, santa cruz has a carbon DH bike, specialized has one on the way, GT has one, Evil has one on the way, thats 3/4 of the biggest companies going or already to carbon, and since that speaks volumes to you, are you going to revise your opinion?

Edit: I should clarify: giant, trek, specialized, and santa cruz are the top 4 mountain bike companies. Giant is the only one that does have a carbon DH bike or rumors of a carbon DH bike on the way


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

William42 said:


> so now that trek has a carbon DH bike, santa cruz has a carbon DH bike, specialized has one on the way, GT has one, Evil has one on the way, thats 3/4 of the biggest companies going or already to carbon, and since that speaks volumes to you, are you going to revise your opinion?


Of course I think it's great that manufacturers are doing this. I don't argue the strength of CF at all, it has a number of benefits over Al. Personally I may never get a CF frame. The weight savings and cost are not worth the ease of mind and resale confidence; these variables may change 5 years from now. At the moment I think there is a (largely unfounded) wariness to the integrity of a used CF part or frame.
Also I like sleeper bikes, a raw Turner looks industrial and doesn't scream, "Steal Me!". A CF road or mtn bike, even if it's a cheap Sette CF, looks like candy to a thief. It's the sexiness of the CF lines, it can't help it. :thumbsup:
When I load my raw Turner in my truck or I'm driving home from a ride I don't have to worry a lot that some thief has taken notice and would like to know where I park it at night. :madman:


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

William42 said:


> so now that trek has a carbon DH bike, santa cruz has a carbon DH bike, specialized has one on the way, GT has one, Evil has one on the way, thats 3/4 of the biggest companies going or already to carbon, and since that speaks volumes to you, are you going to revise your opinion?
> 
> Edit: I should clarify: giant, trek, specialized, and santa cruz are the top 4 mountain bike companies. Giant is the only one that does have a carbon DH bike or rumors of a carbon DH bike on the way


 Hey there William,

Let's just wait and see what unfolds here...

There had to have been a reason for their reluctance to create a completely 100% DH racing bike. If all goes well with performance, I will gladly withdraw all suspicions concerning the integrity of CF DH racing frames.

Please, don't get me wrong here. I love bikes in all of their material manifestations, and that includes carbon. What I don't love, is the bicycle industry hoisting inferior material (as bicycle frames) upon cyclists, for profit.

Carbon has come along way and I'm glad to see it rise to the ocassion. Hopefully, it will become the strongest frame material ever to support a cyclist's endeavors.

Respectfully,
Moabi


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

William42 said:


> so now that trek has a carbon DH bike, santa cruz has a carbon DH bike, specialized has one on the way, GT has one, Evil has one on the way, thats 3/4 of the biggest companies going or already to carbon, and since that speaks volumes to you, are you going to revise your opinion?


Are you serious? Just because there is 1 full CF DH bike, you seriously think that speaks volumes?
In relation, lets take a look at XC. Over a decade ago, CF was making an appearance on XC bikes, about that same time, you could get just about every component made out of CF on a XC bike. During that time, why weren't there any DH bikes made out of carbon, also why no DH CF components?
Fast forward a decade later, and we finally get 1 full CF DH bike, and 1 half CF bike. Also, there are still no components for DH made out of CF. Facts are facts guys, take it which ever way you want. CF is in it's development stages in DH, give it at least 3-4 years to see CF commonly used in DH. 
I hope engineers are looking at combing materials as well, ie introducing a metal into the cf weave, to make even a stronger end product.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

SV11 said:


> Are you serious? Just because there is 1 full CF DH bike, you seriously think that speaks volumes?
> In relation, lets take a look at XC. Over a decade ago, CF was making an appearance on XC bikes, about that same time, you could get just about every component made out of CF on a XC bike. During that time, why weren't there any DH bikes made out of carbon, also why no DH CF components?
> Fast forward a decade later, and we finally get 1 full CF DH bike, and 1 half CF bike. Also, there are still no components for DH made out of CF. Facts are facts guys, take it which ever way you want. CF is in it's development stages in DH, give it at least 3-4 years to see CF commonly used in DH.
> I hope engineers are looking at combing materials as well, ie introducing a metal into the cf weave, to make even a stronger end product.


Well Sram just introduced XO Carbon DH cranks so now you have DH C bars, Rims, and Bars. Times are changing, well see if these composites are as strong as advertised?


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

MoabiSlim said:


> Hey there William,
> 
> Let's just wait and see what unfolds here...
> 
> ...


Respectfully, that is ass backwards completely flawed reasoning. Wait and see what unfolds? I'm pretty sure we just have. Trek has a full carbon Session 9.9 that will be available in 2012, santa cruz has one, gt and evil are both there, antidote is there, and within 2 years, we'll see 4/5 of the top podium spots going to riders on carbon bikes.

I assume you mean there has been reluctance to make a complete 100% cf racing bike from companies. Santa cruz doesn't seem to be having trouble with performance (carbon frame, carbon wheels, carbon cranks, carbon bars) and a hell of alot of podiums and wins, the performance seems to be there. Are you saying because the bike isn't 100% cf it can't be trusted? because its pretty funny when you combine that with b1tching about the bike industry pushing unwanted products to make money. The reason they DON"T make carbon stays is because they're more prone to rock strikes, the weight savings aren't there, and they cost a hell of alot more money, making the ultimate product more expensive and less durable. That is literally the reason we don't see 100% cf dh race bikes - it is smarter from a durability and economic standpoint to make the main triangle out of cf and the rear triangle out of aluminum.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm arguing so strongly in favor of cf, I really don't care. I have an aluminum bike, and think that bike material doesn't make nearly as big a difference as people make it out to, provided its done correctly, from steel, alu, ti, and cf. I'm really more middle of the road like most people - cool to see it come, can't afford it yet, but maybe one day. But literally every argument you keep throwing up is hearsay, and internally contradictory.

"they fact that all the big companies don't make cf dh race bikes prove that cf can't be trusted"
-the top 2/4 brands have one, and another probably has one on the way.

"Ok well that doesn't matter because it goes against what I was saying. I hate when the bike industry pushes unnecessary things on us even though we don't want them"
- you mean like modern suspension designs, lighter weight frames, higher quality parts?

"Well, the fact that they won't make the bike 100% out of cf means it can't be trusted"
- didn't you literally just say you hate it when companies push unnecessary things? I think the reasoning is pretty clear and well documented - weight savings and stiffness and strength are worth it for the front triangle, the returns on cf rear triangles diminish enough that its not worth it for the rear triangle.

Just think about it. I'm not telling you that you have to get a cf dh bike. I'm not telling you its the best material ever. I'm not telling you that you're a stupid retrogrouch for having an alu, steel, or ti bike. All I'm saying is that every reason you have for avoiding and doubting cf is mistaken. Be more open minded.


----------



## Fantaman (Nov 7, 2009)

I might toss this carbon hotness in since we are on the carbon subject,currently lightest full on production DH frame on the market. 8+ inches of travel and 3kg w/out shock

Lifeline Carbon


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

William42 said:


> Respectfully, that is ass backwards completely flawed reasoning. Wait and see what unfolds? I'm pretty sure we just have. Trek has a full carbon Session 9.9 that will be available in 2012, santa cruz has one, gt and evil are both there, antidote is there, and within 2 years, we'll see 4/5 of the top podium spots going to riders on carbon bikes.
> 
> I assume you mean there has been reluctance to make a complete 100% cf racing bike from companies. Santa cruz doesn't seem to be having trouble with performance (carbon frame, carbon wheels, carbon cranks, carbon bars) and a hell of alot of podiums and wins, the performance seems to be there. Are you saying because the bike isn't 100% cf it can't be trusted? because its pretty funny when you combine that with b1tching about the bike industry pushing unwanted products to make money. The reason they DON"T make carbon stays is because they're more prone to rock strikes, the weight savings aren't there, and they cost a hell of alot more money, making the ultimate product more expensive and less durable. That is literally the reason we don't see 100% cf dh race bikes - it is smarter from a durability and economic standpoint to make the main triangle out of cf and the rear triangle out of aluminum.
> 
> ...


 Speaking of bass ackwards, we must remember that CF frames have been out for well over twenty years now. The CF bicycle frame has historically been wracked with engineering, design, and construction problems. For this reason, the bicycle industry itself, coined the term, "catastrophic failure".

I agree that the carbon stays are proned to rock strikes, but so are aluminum and steel stays.

Shouldn't the carbon stays be able to withstand the rock strikes just like the aluminum stays?

History says, "Not too likely!" Modern day innovation and recent technology says, "Quite possibly!"

This is the reason that I say, "Let's just wait and see".

Just about every bicycle producing company has a 100% CF bike that represents their R&D involvement in the quest for better CF frames. However, most have been very reluctant to openly declare one of their CF frames as an official DH racing frame. They reserved that most prestgious position for aluminum.

Why is that?

My mind is open, but its not open to just anything that appears be kosher...

Only kosher is kosher!

Moabi


----------



## axolotl (Apr 24, 2008)

MoabiSlim said:


> Speaking of bass ackwards, we must remember that CF frames have been out for well over twenty years now. The CF bicycle frame has historically been wracked with engineering, design, and construction problems. For this reason, the bicycle industry itself, coined the term, "catastrophic failure".
> 
> I agree that the carbon stays are proned to rock strikes, but so are aluminum and steel stays.
> 
> ...


I really like how the "it's not common" argument was dropped ever so quietly when trek announced. It would be surprising to see a "Was I wrong" statement, but no matter. This thread resembles some of the threads were people start talking absurdities on purpose to generate response. I think Magura was on to the most intelligent response. I will follow his lead. Enjoy the argument-I'm out.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

axolotl said:


> I really like how the "it's not common" argument was dropped ever so quietly when trek announced. It would be surprising to see a "Was I wrong" statement, but no matter. This thread resembles some of the threads were people start talking absurdities on purpose to generate response. I think Magura was on to the most intelligent response. I will follow his lead. Enjoy the argument-I'm out.


 Hey there Axolotl,

I completely understand your desire to want to follow another's lead on this issue. However, my purpose here is not to proselytize to convert anyone's philosophy, one way or another. I have no desire to lead anyone or stand on a soapbox and grandstand. Therefore, stating that you're going to follow Magura is great! He appears to be a good person with a wealth of experience and he's completely devoted to cabon fiber and its virtues.

Trust me when I say that nobody wants me to be wrong about my lingering suspicions concerning carbon fiber than I do. I want to be wrong! I love the idea about carbon being the new miracle frame material of the future. I only want to make certain that its truly ready for DH racing. It has already proven itself in road bike racing.

However, we really don't have the statistics on anything else and these bicycle companies have thus far been very hesitant about announcing CF-DH frames. They now appear to be getting to the point of bringing CF to the forefront of DH racing. That's good news!

Perhaps now, we'll be able to see the actual virtues of carbon, first hand! :thumbsup:

Moabi


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

Hello there Mr. Magura,

I love your logo here:


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

right, so in order for cf to be trusted, 100% of the bike has to be made of cf?

But at the same time, you hate when the bike industry shoves unnecessary products purely to make a buck? 

Think about it - CF stays cost alot, they don't make weight savings because you have to reinforce the area so heavily, and CF shines when you can make wider tubes and junctions out of it, which you can't with the chainstays because of the pivots and size constraints. It doesn't make sense to make them out of CF, because in order to make them of the correct strength, they end up weighing the same as alu, and costing 3x as much. They're not skipping it because its impossible, they're skipping it because its not economical and people wont buy it. 

But yah, I think they stays on the new session 9.9 are carbon, so trek obviously came up with a way to do stays that they're happy about


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

specialized is now onboard w/ a carbon demo:


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

That's great news! The new Specialized Demo, hopefully will perform well and survive all those crazy downhill events that we so love to witness! :thumbsup:


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

aaand here's the new v10 carbon swingarm:


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

on minnaar's bike. carbon frame, swingarm, link, rims & cranks. pretty sure the stuff is suitable for dh application.:


----------



## spooney (Jun 1, 2010)

wonder if they will make these updated parts available for current owners to buy so they can remove the alloy rear and fit the carbon one, i also like that upper link.


----------



## illnotsick (Mar 28, 2011)

spooney said:


> wonder if they will make these updated parts available for current owners to buy so they can remove the alloy rear and fit the carbon one, i also like that upper link.


That upper link is from the driver 8.


----------



## JMH (Feb 23, 2005)

1) Why didn't they make carbon DH bikes sooner? 

Because XC riders would pay for the weight savings, DH riders wouldn't. Now it seems that they are selling enough DH bikes to make it worth the money. It's called Return on Investment (ROI). Learn it, love it.

2) Why didn't they make full carbon frames instead of using aluminum swingarms? 

Because it initially cost too much and took too long to develop a stronger, lighter DH swingarm out of carbon. If you believe any of the other reasons, then the bike manufacturers are doing a good job marketing. It also gives the manufacturers an improvement to launch the next model year.

3) But how can I trust carbon fiber? It's so Scary!

Everything fails. Sometimes it's fairly difficult to tell when and how this will happen, but your heavy-ass Azonic World Force bars are just as liable to failure as a carbon bar when the component has passed it's usable life. Carbon is not going to just explode on you when you aren't looking. Anyone that can google search a bunch of busted carbon parts can certainly apply that same big brain to turning up pics of busted steel, titanium and aluminum.

And FWIW, If you're scared of carbon, don't get on a plane anytime soon.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

JMH said:


> 1) Why didn't they make carbon DH bikes sooner?
> 
> Because XC riders would pay for the weight savings, DH riders wouldn't. Now it seems that they are selling enough DH bikes to make it worth the money. It's called Return on Investment (ROI). Learn it, love it.
> 
> ...


 This^^^^ +1...is GREAT! :thumbsup:

(1) Since 100% CF DH racing bikes are more subject to greater impact, greater impact would result in more critically damaged riders and bikes. The technology wasn't quite up to par with the circumstances involved with DH racing.

(2) Complete Agreement

(3) Our trust can only increase with time. Carbon is the frame material of the future.


----------



## Hollywood2 (Sep 2, 2011)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Swell Guy (Jan 20, 2005)

lelebebbel said:


> Carbon parts will suddenly fail by detonating with no warning, sending deadly shrapnel in all directions. That's common internet-knowledge, I'm surprised you haven't heard about it.
> That's why you constantly see race cars, motorcycles and airplanes explode for no reason.
> 
> Just think about commercial aeroplanes. Made mostly from carbon these days, and look at this:


All those airplanes are made from aluminum. Carbon fiber for fuselages is just coming online for commercial aircraft.


----------



## MoabiSlim (Apr 22, 2011)

*The Real Reason the V-10 has an Aluminum Rear*

As it turns out, the actual reason for the V-10 having an aluminum rear is more related to structure, durability, and design. Not costs!

Check this video out for confirmation. This is straight from the horse's mouth!:

Test Riding the Santa Cruz V10 Carbon - Mountain Biking Videos - Vital MTB

Moabi 

PS.

Where is Mr. Magura now?


----------



## Marshall Willanholly (Jan 27, 2004)

MoabiSlim said:


> As it turns out, the actual reason for the V-10 having an aluminum rear is more related to structure, durability, and design. Not costs!
> 
> Check this video out for confirmation. This is straight from the horse's mouth!:
> 
> ...


That video is from July 2010. How about some more up to date info "straight from the horse's mouth." This post on ridemonkey is from Joe Graney, Engineering Director at Santa Cruz.

And Devinci Enters the World of Carbon DH - Page 6

A brief quote:


> Our friends at ENVE supported us in a huge way with their advanced composites and manufacturing knowledge, and helped figure out a new way to get a swingarm that is lighter, stiffer and stronger. The impact resistance of their specific process (same as they developed over the past two years for the DH rims) is insane.


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

Did I see that guy opening a bottle with rotating spokes? 

As for what the horse's mouth is saying, it sounds like SC is pushing boundaries with R&D. Even given production cost reduction formulas down the line (production carbon swingarms will NOT be $20K), the cost of a V10 carbon swingarm will still be high.
So the question they will face is not whether it's strong enough, but whether buyers will want the minimal weight loss and stiffness increase for the high price of a carbon swingarm.


----------

