Bought £1700 Carbon Bike - Now scared to use it.

[tom73]

Yes look after it and treat it nicely but just ride it and it will soon put a smile on your face. I love my carbon bike been up and down dale's and hill's and boy it's fun. Hit the odd pot hole and it's still all fine. It's made of carbon not glass check out some basic chemistry and see what it can take. Insure it and if the worse happens your covered. A torque wrench is a must other than that go and enjoy

 

[Smokin Joe]

If they're good enough for the Paris - Roubaix (And the pros dish out more punishment to their bikes than all but the most hard core MTBer) then you've no worries.

 

[confusedcyclist]

I find it odd when people say "hey you have a steel bike, that'll last you for years!" - the implication being that aluminium and carbon will not (I'm not sure where those rumours came from, but all those materials will last years).

YOu might be scared of using it due to the expense of the bike, rather than it's frame material?

No frame material is more durable than steel. It can ding, scratch, dent, even bend, and retain structural integrity. When well made and cared for, steel will last a lifetime.

The same isn't true for aluminum. Aluminum is more brittle, so it's more susceptible to failure through fatigue or damage. A single dent in the wrong place could render an aluminum frame unsafe to ride. And when aluminum fails, it fails catastrophically.

Think about it like this: glass will break before it bends. The same is true in many respects of aluminum. Steel on the other hand, will bend before it breaks, resulting in a far more resilient frame.

If OP wants a bike for life, he bought the wrong material, carbon suffers much the same issues as aluminium.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

No frame material is more durable than steel.

This may be an oversimplification.

In our family we have owned Steel, Al, CF and Ti frames.

We've only experienced two frame failures - a steel frame and a Ti frame. Manufacture, design and usage are at least as important as the material itself, probably all three far more so IMO.

 

[confusedcyclist]

No frame material is more durable than steel.

This may be an oversimplification.

In our family we have owned Steel, Al, CF and Ti frames.

We've only experienced two frame failures - a steel frame and a Ti frame. Manufacture, design and usage are at least as important as the material itself, probably all three far more so IMO.

Thats what we call in the biz, an anecdote! I have two bikes, one steel, one carbon, neither have failed yet. It doesn't make them equally durable. Of course, you have to remove user error, design flaws and manufacturer defects from the sample. But the rule of thumb stands as far as material durability goes.

 

[Drago]

Love my carbon bike. Its is stronger than you think, As I am on the large size 100kgs and 6ft, it does what it needs to do without a fuss. I don't leave it out anywhere at any time. Though the chances of it being nicked up here in West Norfolk are slim. There is no one here but the muntjacs deer and the pig farms. Get on it ride and enjoy. I also second the use of a torque allen key. Thats the only worry I had was over tightening.

They are extremely strong in the planes for which they are designed to withstand force. No so strong in directions they're not.

But the same can be said of, say, steel, which can be as thin as 0.4mm in the middle of a crossbar on a well made bike - strong as you like to ride on, relatively vulnerable to forces in other directions.

Careful what you lean them against, don't clamp the frame, but otherwise don't worry.

 

[biggs682]

@itaa i hear your worry
but you have to remember it's the time of the year when a lot of people who bought expensive or cheap bikes earlier in the year or last year have realised that they will never ride them so they are selling them off cheaply .
so grab the bargain and enjoy it yourself

 

[roubaixtuesday]

"Thats what we call in the biz, an anecdote!"

Well I guess I'm one step up the ladder of logical fallacies vs your assertion at least!

Seriously though, an ultra lightweight steel racing bike , a steel BSO and a steel expedition tourer have more difference in durability between them than that between a given style of bike in cf or steel.

And I assert that modern good brand CF frames are highly durable.

 

[confusedcyclist]

Of course, we would have to construct a careful hypothesis to prove or disprove any assertion. Generally one cannot compare three distinctly unique steel frames with wide ranges in construction styles and variances in tubing quality and make any meaningful claim about the superiority of steel. Because of the properties of the materials, steel and carbon bikes will have very different geometry and construction methods so making comparisons between one frame and another in varied materials is largely futile. The difference in construction and geometry largely offset the weaknesses and leverage the advantaged of each material to our best ability.

However I assume we can agree that as a construction material steel has objective material properties which make it more tolerant of flexing, impact and repair than other similarly equivalently priced materials. That's not to say some carbon frames are not more durable than some steel bikes, or that all steel bikes are simply indestructible, I agree that would be ridiculous. Yet for some, understanding the benefits of steel as a material would be enough to give them the confidence that their expensive bike can be ridden day in and day out without fear of sudden failure. Carbon and Aluminium are both objectively prone to sudden failure, steel generally is not, despite anecdotal evidence that this isn't always the case!

Are carbon frames durable. Objectively, yes, they are good enough.
Yet steel has the potential to outperform carbon and aluminium in terms of durability.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Yet steel has the potential to outperform carbon and aluminium in terms of durability.

Unless they rust.

Looked after of course, they won't. But then looked after equally well both aluminium and carbon frames will last a lifetime too.

 

[confusedcyclist]

OP, there's nothing you can do to strengthen the frame at this point, short of selling the bike and buying something more suitable for your desired use. However its is quite likely you can put on a stronger wheelset. If you want to do some aggressive riding/jumping, ideally I would be looking to fit some 36 spoke wheels and use the biggest tyres you can fit, whilst running them at the lowest pressure you can safely without the risk of pinch flats. This will do a long way to absorb the impact of curb jumps, off roading etc

Typically road bikes are supplied with cheapo 24/28 spoke wheels which will be ruined in short order with the above style or riding. That in itself isn't a huge deal. You could just replace them with a stronger wheelset when the time comes.

Unless they rust.

Looked after of course, they won't. But then looked after equally well both aluminium and carbon frames will last a lifetime too.

Yes, one disadvantage. You can treat steel frames with an internal framesaver, or simple motor oil. Just a one off treatment will go a long way to retard rusting. Ideally storing steel out of the rain to prevent unnecessary rusting. But you could equally say your carbon frame might melt if you left it by the fireplace. Don't ask me how I know.

 

[confusedcyclist]

From SheldonBrown.com
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/frame_fatigue_test.htm

The clear result of the test is surprising, and gratifying, because it shows that a fundamental rethinking of design can work to the advantage of all of the desired positive characteristics: durability, stiffness and minimal weight are not mutually exclusive. There is no question that this result will determine many future customer choices.

Still, the result needs interpretation, to avoid misunderstandings. We do not consider any of the tested frames to be worrisome, or even dangerous. Even with the “worse” frames in this test, most cyclists who ride racing bicycles will become unhappy with the color of a bicycle before it reaches the end of its expected lifetime. Strong and heavy riders should, however, seek out the frames which have been shown to be more durable.

Because only single samples were tested, no statement is possible about quality of a series as a whole, or about the statistical distribution. With welding and brazing, considerable deviations from the results of sample testing are not unusual. For these reasons, it makes little sense to make comparisons between frames for which results were close. The more general ordering, rather than a difference of 10,000 or 20,000 stress cycles, is important. The Time frame, for example (182,000 stress cycles), and the Russian titanium frame (160,000), are in the same league. And, aside from all of the imponderables of the single-sample testing, the test as a whole validates the concept of durable lightweight construction. The results with lightweight and intensively designed frames cluster together at the upper end of the scale of results, those with the inexpensive and heavier frames, at the bottom.

That aluminum and carbon frames lasted longer than steel frames in this test is in our opinion an issue not of materials, but of the design and construction effort. Not the material, but rather, the sophistication of its application, leads to the outcome. Logically, manufacturers concentrate their efforts on frames with good potential for light weight – and these are of aluminum or carbon; only as an exception (because of lower stiffness) of titanium.

 

[Drago]

Does it matter? Within the limits for which the OP's frame was designed it will be absolutely fine. That's all he's fretting over, all he needs to know.

 

[confusedcyclist]

Challenging the misconceptions! @mustang1 brought it up

 

[confusedcyclist]

OP wishes he never asked! Bunch of nutters the CC lot.