Concerns about Carbon Fibre

[bozmandb9]

I'm amazed an lbs can refuse to work/sell carbon bikes! seems a bit silly to me given how many are out there.

I think it's quite good marketing. It will appeal to a certain niche, and for those who buy his bs, he'll be the prophet who saved them from carbon. I have a similar LBS near me who insist that steel is the way forward. I think in retail, sometimes it's important just to take a stand, and differentiate yourself, so long as you believe it, and you can convince others, it's valid I guess. Whether or not is has any merit may be another matter.

 

[Drago]

Theoretically, carbon fibre has an unlimited lifespan as it does not suffer fatigue as metals do. Aluminium for example has a limited fatigue life after which it will fail. Plenty of MTB's use carbon frames as well as road bikes.

A good carbon frame is extremely durable, needing a lot more force than aluminium to make it fail.

CF doesn't have a limitless ductile life, and neither does the (usually) epoxy matrix. The mechanism of age related failure differs somewhat due to the amorphous nature of the matrix and its lacking crystalline structure, but ultimately it does have both a fatigue limit and fatigue life.

They are also affected adversely by many nasties from natural stuff like UV and chemicals in salty sea air, through to artificial bits in the environment like the deodourant in your sweat.

It's a greater material, and with good design and thoughtful construction is brilliant. But it not a wonder material and shouldn't be regarded as impervious, indestructible or immortal, but with care and consideration is liable have a useful lifespan measured in decades.

 

[Big Dave laaa]

If you're off on a holiday flight and you walk down the ramp to find an Airbus A350 or a Boeing 787 Dreamliner waiting then turn around if you're worried about composites. Carbon fibre technology is not new and has got progressively better. A carbon bike frame is more than capable of taking years of abuse and will last as long as any other frame material.

 

[smutchin]

If you're off on a holiday flight and you walk down the ramp to find an Airbus A350 or a Boeing 787 Dreamliner waiting then turn around if you're worried about composites.

The cf that's used in bikes is considerably lower grade than the cf that's used in planes, racing cars, spaceships etc.

But it is as good as it needs to be for the application.

 

[Big Dave laaa]

The cf that's used in bikes is considerably lower grade than the cf that's used in planes, racing cars, spaceships etc.

But it is as good as it needs to be for the application.

That's the important sentence at the end. Form Fit and Function that's all that needs to be adhered to.

 

[Drago]

If you're off on a holiday flight and you walk down the ramp to find an Airbus A350 or a Boeing 787 Dreamliner waiting then turn around if you're worried about composites. Carbon fibre technology is not new and has got progressively better. A carbon bike frame is more than capable of taking years of abuse and will last as long as any other frame material.

CF technology isn't new per se, the fundamental techniques already having been utilised in GRP. However, the maturity of the technology doesn't automatically make CF suitable for every application, or invincible in use. The 787 is not the best example you could've picked when trying to demonstrate the integrity of CF partly because larger parts are carbon aramid or carbon kevlar, which are different composites to typical consumer grade CF used in cycle frames, and partly because it has suffered structural concerns and on one occasion dropped out the sky for an as yet undetermined reason.

 

[Big Dave laaa]

CF technology isn't new per se, the fundamental techniques already having been utilised in GRP. However, the maturity of the technology doesn't automatically make CD suitable for every application, or invincible in use. The 787 is not the best excellently could've picked when trying to demonstrate the integrity of CF partly because larger parts are carbon barmaid or carbon kevkar and partly because it has suffered structural concerns and on ; be occasion dropped out the sky for mass yet undetermined cause.

Eh?

 

[Drago]

Eh?

 

[MikeW-71]

CF doesn't have a limitless ductile life, and neither does the (usually) epoxy matrix. The mechanism of age related failure differs somewhat due to the amorphous nature of the matrix and its lacking crystalline structure, but ultimately it does have both a fatigue limit and fatigue life.

They are also affected adversely by many nasties from natural stuff like UV and chemicals in salty sea air, through to artificial bits in the environment like the deodourant in your sweat.

It's a greater material, and with good design and thoughtful construction is brilliant. But it not a wonder material and shouldn't be regarded as impervious, indestructible or immortal, but with care and consideration is liable have a useful lifespan measured in decades.

I stand corrected, thankyou

 

[Big Dave laaa]

Eh?

Nice stealth edit. Makes more sense in English.

 

[Cuchilo]

Qatar airways had their new airbus fleet made from carbon . My mate works for these guys and had a test flight in one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...-Airbus-A350s-delivered-to-Qatar-Airways.html

 

[barachus]

Qatar airways had their new airbus fleet made from carbon . My mate works for these guys and had a test flight in one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...-Airbus-A350s-delivered-to-Qatar-Airways.html

I hope they dont fly that thing in the rain!

 

[MiK1138]

CF technology isn't new per se, the fundamental techniques already having been utilised in GRP. However, the maturity of the technology doesn't automatically make CF suitable for every application, or invincible in use. The 787 is not the best example you could've picked when trying to demonstrate the integrity of CF partly because larger parts are carbon aramid or carbon kevlar, which are different composites to typical consumer grade CF used in cycle frames, and partly because it has suffered structural concerns and on one occasion dropped out the sky for an as yet undetermined reason.

CF technology isn't new per se, the fundamental techniques already having been utilised in GRP. However, the maturity of the technology doesn't automatically make CF suitable for every application, or invincible in use. The 787 is not the best example you could've picked when trying to demonstrate the integrity of CF partly because larger parts are carbon aramid or carbon kevlar, which are different composites to typical consumer grade CF used in cycle frames, and partly because it has suffered structural concerns and on one occasion dropped out the sky for an as yet undetermined reason.

Ach I'll be fine then its very rare that i ride my bike at 8000 ft

 

[Sittingduck]

How's the LBS fossil guy still in business?

 

[RCITGuy]

Beat me to it. The CAAD10 is fantastic (bottom bracket notwithstanding). Depends how much your Synapse or, to put it another way, how good is the carbon layout?

In any event, keep the CAAD.

Its definitely an upgrade, as the CAAD10/105 is heavier, flexes a LOT (Can be seen dramatically on the turbo) and is a sport racing frame, so is not as comfortable to ride, whereas the Synapse is lighter, has a far better groupset but more importantly for me, should be a lot more comfortable on my collapsed spinal disk and just more comfy all round.

Am I missing something then as you reckon the 2014 CAAD10 is better? Why is it better?