|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#771
|
|||
|
|||
Canada's most dangerous city for cyclists
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 09:01:09 -0400, Duane
wrote: On 5/31/2013 7:49 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 31 May 2013 09:48:01 -0400, wrote: On 5/31/2013 9:28 AM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 31 May 2013 08:30:35 -0400, wrote: On 5/31/2013 6:51 AM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 31 May 2013 06:41:06 -0400, Duane wrote: On 5/30/2013 5:15 PM, sms wrote: On 5/30/2013 1:53 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: That's not true at all. Name brand producers police production, do QC, have ISO compliant factories, have sophisticated domestic designers. The bottom line is that the direct buyers of these frames are not reporting any more failures than the buyers of name brand frames. Well part of it may be Frank's theory of risk compensation and the buyers of the frames direct from China are treating them better. I'm not seeing well made CF frames breaking in great number. Maybe the bleeding edge stuff is disposable, but even if that is true, that's why you get the lifetime warranty. As I said, that's the value advantage of buying a Trek or Specialized from an authorized dealer, it's the warranty. I don't agree with that. The warrant may make you more comfortable with the idea of buying a bike with a frame that isn't lugged steel but the dealers provide a lot of value added dimensions to the bike. Jay gave you several examples. My Tarmac frame is a result of a lot of engineering, testing and design. That doesn't come for free. And the bike is more than the frame. At any rate, not everyone is going to buy their frame and put together a bike from scratch. If they do, they won't have a Tarmac. They'll have a CF frame bike that they built themselves. Plusses and minuses there. I've always been a bit ambiguous about "life time warranty". Is it because they've built something that never breaks or is it that it breaks so often that they need to offer the warranty to get people to take them :-? I think that the warranty is meant to deal with people's perception that the frames are not as durable as a bike made of metal. could be although I don't remember carbon golf club shafts being touted as having a lifetime guarantee. Or all the fiberglass yachts :-) But I think that you are right. Perception is everything. I don't know about it being everything but when I bought my bike I asked about the durability. You hear a lot of people saying that CF frames are fragile. On the other hand, the only frame that I ever broke was aluminum and that was the fork that cracked. There is no reason that carbon fiber composites have to be fragile, in fact fiberglass boats, made with a much weaker reinforcing material are far from fragile. But, working with a material that is really only strong in tension, and attempting to build something that is extremely light, when lack of weight is the mark of success, does tend to result in something that is less strong then it is possible to make. As for perception... Do you ask about the durability when you buy a steel or aluminum frame? Probably not as they aren't perceived to be fragile. No. That was my point. Also, I work in the heat treating industry so I understand a bit about steel. I didn't know anything about CF. Still don't know much about it except that it's light and seems to ride well. It's bunches of little bitty black threads all stick together with glue :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chichester: dangerous cyclists again | Mr Benn[_5_] | UK | 17 | May 18th 12 07:17 AM |
Toronto is Canada's most hazardous city for both cyclists and pedestrians | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 11 | May 30th 11 04:33 PM |
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City | Mike Jacoubowsky | General | 201 | February 9th 08 05:36 PM |
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Social Issues | 188 | February 9th 08 05:36 PM |
WA is a dangerous place for cyclists | bjay | Australia | 15 | December 6th 04 11:45 PM |