Carbon Fibre Road Frames are Delicate? Tell that 2 this guy

On 09/25/2012 06:45 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:38:23 +1000, James
wrote:

On 25/09/12 10:49, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:33:23 -0400,
wrote:

On 09/24/2012 02:17 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:45 am, Frank
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende:

People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right?

This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you.

Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt
that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire
to keep up with new technology?

Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike
magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny
improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive
products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys
who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and
upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much
more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they
have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate?

Not quite accurate based on my experience. I don't see the racers in
my peer group going from non-Di2 2010 Dura Ace to 2012 Dura Ace for
example. I haven't even seen switches to Di2 except as part of a new
bike purchase. I see very few people upgrade brakes, stems or bars.
Most people stick with their group until they get a new bike or until
the old group is no longer sufficiently supported. However, I do see a
lot of wheel upgrading.

I ride with people in the industry who get pro deals and can upgrade
at will, and oddly enough, my best riding buddy is still on the same
Pinarello he had five years ago with the same Campy group. His wheels
have changed a few times, though.


You can get a lot more benefit by upgrading wheels than by upgrading
brakes or bars. Even changing the group is not likely to make as much
difference. Anyway, that has been the case for me. I was at the LBS
talking to them about upgrading to a new bike and they let me try some
new wheels instead. I ended up keeping my bike and buying the wheels.

I hate to say it but you rather prove Franks' thesis. What "benefit"
does someone who is not a racer enthusiast gain from these new wheels?
Softer rides? More weight carrying capacity?

Is it not possible to get a pair of wheels for a utility bike that are
lighter, more aero and possibly stronger than brand whatever was sold
with the bike?

Of course it is possible. No one would deny it. What is at question is
why would one add a set of aero, CF, wheels (an extreme example) to a
utility bike? Unless of course one wanted to go faster.


How is that what is at question here? Aero? And CF? Even though you
say it's an extreme example, your technique is reminiscent of another
poster here. The original question can't be argued against so you use
an extreme interpretation of it and argue against that.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/reso...fallacies.aspx


For someone like Dan who commutes 60 mi a day, he may well benefit from
more aero for a start. Also more aero can be stronger due to the deeper
rim section. Light, aero and strong comes at a price, but it's not
impossible or without benefit.

The advantage of aero wheels for someone like Dan O depends largely
on what terrain he travels over on his way back and forth. If a hilly
route where one is either toiling up the mountain or roaring down the
other side probably would see little decrease in travel time.

Obviously if you just hoot around the corner to the grocery store for a
couple of items, or idle down the street at 10 mi/h, the benefit is less.

Benefit must be evaluated by the end user, but it is not restricted to
people who race.

That is of course true however I do suggest that the majority of the
people who spend big bucks for super wheels do it primarily because
they want to go fast, i.e., the racer syndrome.


Big bucks? Super wheels? Both are rather relative, are they not?

Most people wouldn't spend more money on better wheels to go slower, if
that's what you mean. Why do you state that in some derogatory light?
I don't dis people that ride utility bikes in their work clothes.
Everyone riding bikes is good.

On Sep 25, 5:37*am, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:37:35 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie









wrote:
On Sep 24, 7:04 pm, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:21:44 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:27 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:23 am, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:33 am, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/23/2012 10:09 PM, wrote:

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:17:01 AM UTC-4, Lou Holtman wrote:

On this side of the

pond 95% of the new roadbikes is CF. The installed base is enormous and

yet I don't see CF frames break more than Steel frames in the old days,

in which these guys still living. Hell even crossbikes and ATB are more

and more made from CF. Like I said before a 1800 gr CF frame is much

stronger than a 1800 gr steel frame. Indeed CF is not a good idea for a

commuter bike which get jammed in a bike rack every day of tossed in the

back of a pick up truck.

A CF frame might be a good idea for a racer looking for minimum bike weight, willing to treat the bike very carefully, and willing to dispose of the frame - or sell it it someone who was ignorant of its history - within a couple years. People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right?

OTOH, it's a much worse idea for a person who wants a bike that can withstand the normal bumps and bruises that afflict any bike used for practical transportation.

- Frank Krygowski

That may have been an argument 35 years ago regarding
Graftek and similar efforts.

Unfortunately that's where Frank is stuck!
Most of his bicycle related knowledge comes from when he used to hang
at the LBS run by Wilbur and Orville.

DR

Just out of curiosity, are there reported cases of normal bumps or
bruises causing failures in well manufactured CF frames? I've looked
for data discussing the failure rate of CF as compared to other
materials and never found anything.

-- Jay Beattie.

My limited perspective is that the several "failures", i.e warranty
replacements, that I am aware of were simply the appearance of obvious
cracks on the surface. No structural failures even with continued
riding. I also know a number of folks with CF mountain bikes and have
never heard of a failure from normal use.
For both road and mountain, that is disregarding any bike involved in
a crash. But even then the only one I can think of (road) DID have
structural failures and looked like a bike that had been involved in a
crash. But the brunt of the damage there was to the fork.
DR

I thought I remembered a bloke posting here about a crack in CF
handlebars and the lads rising in alarm and saying that it was
imperative that the handlebars must be changed; immediately!
--
Cheers,
John B.

You have got to be kidding. OK, you're not. But then you and Frank
operate similarly.
If it's a structural crack it's an issue. It often (most often) is not
a structural crack.

I should have made clear that I was trying to make a comparison
between handlebars and frames.

How so? In re-reading the entire post it appears that the thrust is
that carbon fiber is just as suitable frame material as anything else.
Indeed it is. Rough use included.

"That may have been an argument 35 years ago regarding
Graftek and similar efforts." for example.

Cracks are a common using this technique:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD7T7y6CsJA
In contrast, handlebars are pretty much one integral unit

I was unclear there. What is common (at least not unknown) from that
method is hairline cracks appearing in the surface coating at the
interface where two sections are joined. Almost any early Trek carbon
frame displays this on the larger frame tubes. It is a cosmetic issue
not structural. I have a carbon frame which has had such cracks for
years. In contrast, if cracks should appear in a CF handlebar (a
unitary piece) that would be a much more likely indicator of potential
structural issues since there are no joints and they are not generally
painted (ie a crack is not likely just a surface defect).

But for a concise description of the variety of *methods and/or
construction of carbon bicycle frames look here (I'll bet you thought
they were all the same!) :
http://www.calfeedesign.com/tech-pap...l-white-paper/
DR

Actually not. I've been involved to some extent in fabricating
composite objects since the 1960's so the fundamentals are certainly
familiar to me.

The significance of that paper that I was referencing was the variety
of methods used to create a structure of connected tubes.

As for your reference I might comment that you seem to be well on the
way to underwriting Frank's thesis that CF may not be the optimum
choice for a knock around bike, as the author writes: -

"Such things as the cumulative effects of numerous abrasions (leaning
the bike against a parking meter or wall) or the single catastrophic
event such as jamming a chain between a frame tube and the rotating
chain rings are a concern for carbon manufacturers."

If those are issues they are not unique to CF. But let's at least take
the entire quote regarding abrasion resistance. The part you
conveniently left out reads "Fabricating the tubes with a margin of
strength that will tolerate some minor abrasion despite the loss of a
number of fibers should be easy. In order to prevent minor abrasion,
the choices a use urethane enamel coatings, use a sacrificial outer
layer, or use a Kevlar or boron outer layer in the tubes."

And the "chainsaw" issue is addressed in the real world by adding an
appropriate protector or reinforcement.


Sounds very like Franks comments about bicycle racks and throwing the
bike in the back of the truck doesn't it.
Only when the relevant portion is excised as you did.

As I pointed out, Frank was misleadingly referring to the material
when he was really talking about ANY light bike and/or its design.

Frank has confirmed that he is utterly clueless about CF but doesn't
seem to let that get in the way of his non-technical "buycycling"
rants.

DR

On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan O

wrote:



On Monday, September 24, 2012 8:45:33 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Lou Holtman wrote:



Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende:







People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right?











This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you.







Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt



that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire



to keep up with new technology?







Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike



magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny



improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive



products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys



who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and



upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much



more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they



have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate?





"Class of cyclist?" "From what I've seen"?



How would you categorize those who specialize or engage specifically,

in one phase, segment, sector, of an activity?



I dont'know or care if it's accurate, but it sure comes across as disdainful.



class ~ noun common

1. a collection of things sharing a common attribute


Exactly my point. How can I know how he classifies "cyclists"? (I guess I would be in the ignorant and incompetent scofflaw drunk category.) How can I know "from what [he's] seen"? "Because they feel.. "? How can I assess the accuracy around all this?

Look, he does this all the time - describes some "class of cyclist" with all their character flaws and other egregious failings, then lumps anyone who doesn't aspire to be in Frank's "class" into the contrived dunce class.

Even though I go on and on about my exploits and adventures here, even *you* guys (by that mean everyone here) regularly misunderstand what it is to be me on a bike. I defy pigeonholing, so I would (hope) to give that same benefit of doubt to everyone, but he contrives a reality using his biased assumptions... and then asks us to verify the accuracy of his judgmental pronouncement.

"there are two classes of detergents"


Um... you lost me here.



2. a body of students who are taught together

"early morning classes are always sleepy"



3. people having the same social, economic, or educational status

"the working class; an emerging professional class"







It seems to me very similar to the situation with computers, where



competitive gamers are the early adopters who jump on every new



processor or graphics card as soon as it comes out. Meanwhile, people



whose computers are for strict utility purposes keep the same computer



for five years or more. I doubt there are many gamers with unmodified



five year old computers.





I don't know what constitutes a "gamer", but I have very useful computers built more than five years before the last turn of the century (play games on some of them, too).



Try http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming/

for additional information on what constitutes a "gaming computer" (or

perhaps "gamer's computer")



I didn't ask what constitutes a "gamer's computer"; I questioned what might constitutes a "gamer" (in Frank's mind). And I think, yet again, you just don't know me in that realm.

On Monday, September 24, 2012 8:45:33 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende:



People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right?





This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you.



Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt

that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire

to keep up with new technology?



Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike

magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny

improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive

products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys

who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and

upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much

more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they

have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate?



It seems to me very similar to the situation with computers, where

competitive gamers are the early adopters who jump on every new

processor or graphics card as soon as it comes out. Meanwhile, people

whose computers are for strict utility purposes keep the same computer

for five years or more. I doubt there are many gamers with unmodified

five year old computers.


You and I and anyone else have lots of options for very nice bikes of mature, classic, vintage - whatever - design. So why not let the early adopters keep the bike makers R&D in business, test the new stuff in the real world, and supply the second-hand market?

Dan O wrote:
On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
I dont'know or care if it's accurate, but it sure comes across as disdainful.

class ~ noun common

1. a collection of things sharing a common attribute


Exactly my point. How can I know how he classifies "cyclists"?

You _could_ politely ask.

Try http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming/

for additional information on what constitutes a "gaming computer" (or

perhaps "gamer's computer")


I didn't ask what constitutes a "gamer's computer"; I questioned what might constitutes a "gamer" (in Frank's mind).

If you really want to know, ask politely.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Dan O wrote:
On Monday, September 24, 2012 8:45:33 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende:



People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right?





This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you.



Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt

that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire

to keep up with new technology?



Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike

magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny

improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive

products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys

who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and

upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much

more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they

have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate?



It seems to me very similar to the situation with computers, where

competitive gamers are the early adopters who jump on every new

processor or graphics card as soon as it comes out. Meanwhile, people

whose computers are for strict utility purposes keep the same computer

for five years or more. I doubt there are many gamers with unmodified

five year old computers.


You and I and anyone else have lots of options for very nice bikes of mature, classic, vintage - whatever - design. So why not let the early adopters keep the bike makers R&D in business, test the new stuff in the real world, and supply the second-hand market?

Actually, Dan, I do let early adopters buy whatever they like, no matter
what you may think. I've never tried to forbid the sale or purchase of
any equipment.

When I'm posting to a group where such things are discussed, I will post
my assessment of the advantages and disadvantages. I believe that's
what discussion groups are for.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:57:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Dan O wrote:

On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan O

I dont'know or care if it's accurate, but it sure comes across as disdainful.



class ~ noun common



1. a collection of things sharing a common attribute





Exactly my point. How can I know how he classifies "cyclists"?



You _could_ politely ask.



Try http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming/



for additional information on what constitutes a "gaming computer" (or



perhaps "gamer's computer")





I didn't ask what constitutes a "gamer's computer"; I questioned what might constitutes a "gamer" (in Frank's mind).



If you really want to know, ask politely.


Didn't want to know. (Have an idea what it might be anyway - like classes of cyclists - and I'll bet it's disdainful).

On 25/09/2012 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:38:23 +1000,
wrote:

On 25/09/12 10:49, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:33:23 -0400,
wrote:

On 09/24/2012 02:17 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:45 am, Frank
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op maandag 24 september 2012 05:09:56 UTC+2 schreef het volgende:

People like that would be likely to want the latest Shimano group anyway, because you _gotta_ keep up with the latest technology, right?

This is an example of one of your judgemental and narrow minded remarks people 'like' you for Frank. You could left that out of this post Frank your point would be the same, but you could not resist could you.

Leaving it out wouldn't have made it less true. Do you really doubt
that much of the market for high-end racing bikes is driven by a desire
to keep up with new technology?

Shimano, SRAM and Campy come out with new stuff every year. Bike
magazines review the stuff and write glowing reports about tiny
improvements. Manufacturers spec the new stuff in their most expensive
products every year, and advertise the supposedly great benefits. Guys
who race tend to buy as close to a top-end bike as they can afford, and
upgrade their bikes frequently. From what I've seen, they upgrade much
more frequently than any other class of cyclists, because they feel they
have to keep up. Is any of that inaccurate?

Not quite accurate based on my experience. I don't see the racers in
my peer group going from non-Di2 2010 Dura Ace to 2012 Dura Ace for
example. I haven't even seen switches to Di2 except as part of a new
bike purchase. I see very few people upgrade brakes, stems or bars.
Most people stick with their group until they get a new bike or until
the old group is no longer sufficiently supported. However, I do see a
lot of wheel upgrading.

I ride with people in the industry who get pro deals and can upgrade
at will, and oddly enough, my best riding buddy is still on the same
Pinarello he had five years ago with the same Campy group. His wheels
have changed a few times, though.


You can get a lot more benefit by upgrading wheels than by upgrading
brakes or bars. Even changing the group is not likely to make as much
difference. Anyway, that has been the case for me. I was at the LBS
talking to them about upgrading to a new bike and they let me try some
new wheels instead. I ended up keeping my bike and buying the wheels.

I hate to say it but you rather prove Franks' thesis. What "benefit"
does someone who is not a racer enthusiast gain from these new wheels?
Softer rides? More weight carrying capacity?

Is it not possible to get a pair of wheels for a utility bike that are
lighter, more aero and possibly stronger than brand whatever was sold
with the bike?

Of course it is possible. No one would deny it. What is at question is
why would one add a set of aero, CF, wheels (an extreme example) to a
utility bike? Unless of course one wanted to go faster.

Going faster is a valid reason, isn't it? Is a commuter bike a utility
bike? If so, and the commute was a good distance, why not?

For someone like Dan who commutes 60 mi a day, he may well benefit from
more aero for a start. Also more aero can be stronger due to the deeper
rim section. Light, aero and strong comes at a price, but it's not
impossible or without benefit.

The advantage of aero wheels for someone like Dan O depends largely
on what terrain he travels over on his way back and forth. If a hilly
route where one is either toiling up the mountain or roaring down the
other side probably would see little decrease in travel time.

Taking your extreme example, a pair of Zipp 303 wheels are quite light
compared to most wheels with Al rims - particularly if you try to match
the aero of a Zipp 303 with Al. The Al will be quite heavy by
comparison. In that case hills are not a problem for Zipps. A pair
weighs only about 1100 - 1200 g according to Weight Weenies. You'd be
lucky to get just a back wheel in Al that aero for the same weight!

But it comes at a price.

Obviously if you just hoot around the corner to the grocery store for a
couple of items, or idle down the street at 10 mi/h, the benefit is less.

Benefit must be evaluated by the end user, but it is not restricted to
people who race.

That is of course true however I do suggest that the majority of the
people who spend big bucks for super wheels do it primarily because
they want to go fast, i.e., the racer syndrome.


"the racer syndrome"? We just discussed why a commuter might like some
go fast wheels, and now you equate that to some kind of affliction?

Hell, Frank has aero bars on his touring bike. He must be afflicted
with racer syndrome too!

--
JS

James wrote:

Hell, Frank has aero bars on his touring bike. He must be afflicted with
racer syndrome too!

I still recall - not very fondly - spending over 8 hours on them on a
solo tour, riding west along the south shore of Lake Erie. And gazing
down hour after hour at my cyclometer, which kept saying "8.0 mph." It
was a hell of a headwind. And yes, the aero bars were both more
effective and more comfortable than riding the drops.

But besides fierce headwinds, I like them for the added positions on any
long ride. Not only the one for which they were designed, but putting
my hands on the elbow pads provides nice variety and comfort once in a
while.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:57:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Dan O wrote:

On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Dan O

I dont'know or care if it's accurate, but it sure comes across as disdainful.



class ~ noun common



1. a collection of things sharing a common attribute





Exactly my point. How can I know how he classifies "cyclists"?



You _could_ politely ask.



Try http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming/



for additional information on what constitutes a "gaming computer" (or



perhaps "gamer's computer")





I didn't ask what constitutes a "gamer's computer"; I questioned what might constitutes a "gamer" (in Frank's mind).



If you really want to know, ask politely.


Didn't want to know.

I suspected as much.

(Have an idea what it might be anyway - like classes of cyclists - and I'll bet it's disdainful).

It's not, not at all, for either statement you complained about.

http://www.pcgamer.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Gamer
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...sts-for-years/

But you'll still somehow imagine offense.

--
- Frank Krygowski