Do "modern" carbon bikes really need replacing every 4 years?

In his latest effort to degrade and disparage carbon, Grant Petersen/
Rivendell appears to have it out for carbon in his new catalog. First,
he states:

"carbon fiber bicycle frame is still a carbon fiber bicycle frame, and
that’s
not necessarily good. Carbon is light, for instant mass appeal. It is
theoretically strong, but if the
reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
nobody in a right mind rides old carbon." (p. 2).

Then later in the same catalog he states:

"The MCRB (Modern Carbon Road Bikes) should be retired in four years,
and may force your
retirement sooner." (p. 16).

link: http://www.rivbike.com/assets/payloa...L_nospread.pdf

He is not talking about carbon stems, seatpost, handlebars or even
forks. His paranoid is specific to carbon frames. Of course, he
provides no evidence to support his statements. In contast, and this
is anedotal, but my 12 year old Calfee carbon, which I bought used in
1997 with supposedly 2500 miles on it, now has over 25K miles and
still going strong.

Nevertheless, are MCRB really that weak and delicate that they *NEED*
to be replaced every 4 years?! Or is Grant just putting out more
marketing puffery to dissuade people into buying his steel frames?
Good Luck!

bfd wrote:
In his latest effort to degrade and disparage carbon, Grant Petersen/
Rivendell appears to have it out for carbon in his new catalog. First,
he states:

"carbon fiber bicycle frame is still a carbon fiber bicycle frame, and
that’s
not necessarily good. Carbon is light, for instant mass appeal. It is
theoretically strong, but if the
reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
nobody in a right mind rides old carbon." (p. 2).

Then later in the same catalog he states:

"The MCRB (Modern Carbon Road Bikes) should be retired in four years,
and may force your
retirement sooner." (p. 16).

link: http://www.rivbike.com/assets/payloa...L_nospread.pdf

He is not talking about carbon stems, seatpost, handlebars or even
forks. His paranoid is specific to carbon frames. Of course, he
provides no evidence to support his statements. In contast, and this
is anedotal, but my 12 year old Calfee carbon, which I bought used in
1997 with supposedly 2500 miles on it, now has over 25K miles and
still going strong.

Nevertheless, are MCRB really that weak and delicate that they *NEED*
to be replaced every 4 years?! Or is Grant just putting out more
marketing puffery to dissuade people into buying his steel frames?
Good Luck!

My winter fixie is a 1990(?) Kestrel which I got as a crash
salvage in 1993. I repaired the frame and I ride it all
winter long ever since.
YMMV.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

older Vette owners experienced a fiberglass degassing result: brittle
panels.
Is there a year where the problem faded ? or are recent years too
recent for the degas brittleness or both ?
Is Kestrel the mean ?
Surely plastics resins composites are vatly diffrent than circa 1984,
but know with whom you deal.

On Dec 13, 3:27*pm, bfd wrote:
In his latest effort to degrade and disparage carbon, Grant Petersen/
Rivendell appears to have it out for carbon in his new catalog. ...
"The MCRB (Modern Carbon Road Bikes) should be retired in four years,
and may force your
retirement sooner." (p. 16).

I'm more concerned about his following statement:
"The Roadeo is lugged and steel, so is
inherently safer. The frame should last twenty years."

That's how old one of my youngest bikes is (an '89 Cannondale) and I
have no intention of retiring it any time soon. It only has a little
over 100 kmiles on it and I certainly hope it'll still be good for
many more. Also have a tandem and a single that are each over 40
years old and also show no signs of imminent demise.

Disparaging the competition has a long tradition, but this sounds like
he's disparaging his own product as well and I usually take that more
seriously. Just what does he expect to happen to a Rivendell frame
once it's over 20 years old?

Nevertheless, are MCRB really that weak and delicate that they *NEED*
to be replaced every 4 years?! *Or is Grant just putting out more
marketing puffery to dissuade people into buying his steel frames?

Grant seems like a nice enough guy, but I really doubt that he's got
any significant data on failure rate vs. age of different frame types.

On Dec 13, 5:27*pm, bfd wrote:
In his latest effort to degrade and disparage carbon, Grant Petersen/
Rivendell appears to have it out for carbon in his new catalog. First,
he states:

"carbon fiber bicycle frame is still a carbon fiber bicycle frame, and
that’s
not necessarily good. Carbon is light, for instant mass appeal. It is
theoretically strong, but if the
reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
nobody in a right mind rides old carbon." (p. 2).


He'd fit in around the local irrational creationists. Carbon is bad
and scary, so this alternative theory involving Jesus, Mary,
investment cast lugs, and a duck is obviously the answer! There's a
hole in his understanding reamed large by willful omission of facts
that he can stuff full of beeswax and tamp with a Nitto
Somethingorother.

Pbbbbbbbbt.

but wait ! statistics for frame life probbbabbbly are in Peterson's
ballpark. ask hi:
"Dear Grant, do you have the numbers"?

The problem I have with CF and bicycles is the lack of any sort of QC
document with the frames or parts. Simply put, you don't know how it
was made or who did it. Craig Calfee I exempt from this because his
reputation will substitute for any QC papers. But a Chinese CF frame
or fork? No thanks.
Phil Brown

Op 14-12-2009 18:55, Phil Brown schreef:
The problem I have with CF and bicycles is the lack of any sort of QC
document with the frames or parts. Simply put, you don't know how it
was made or who did it. Craig Calfee I exempt from this because his
reputation will substitute for any QC papers. But a Chinese CF frame
or fork? No thanks.
Phil Brown


Do you get a QC certificate with you no name Al, steel or titanium frame
and even if so what does mean?

Lou

On Dec 14, 12:01*pm, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 14-12-2009 18:55, Phil Brown schreef:

The problem I have with CF and bicycles is the lack of any sort of QC
document with the frames or parts. Simply put, you don't know how it
was made or who did it. Craig Calfee I exempt from this because his
reputation will substitute for any QC papers. But a Chinese CF frame
or fork? No thanks.
Phil Brown

Do you get a QC certificate with you no name Al, steel or titanium frame
and even if so what does mean?

It means you have yet another thing suitable for framing! (or wrapping
fish.)

On Dec 14, 8:52 am, landotter wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:27 pm, bfd wrote:

In his latest effort to degrade and disparage carbon, Grant Petersen/
Rivendell appears to have it out for carbon in his new catalog. First,
he states:

"carbon fiber bicycle frame is still a carbon fiber bicycle frame, and
that’s
not necessarily good. Carbon is light, for instant mass appeal. It is
theoretically strong, but if the
reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
nobody in a right mind rides old carbon." (p. 2).

He'd fit in around the local irrational creationists. Carbon is bad
and scary, so this alternative theory involving Jesus, Mary,
investment cast lugs, and a duck is obviously the answer! There's a
hole in his understanding reamed large by willful omission of facts
that he can stuff full of beeswax and tamp with a Nitto
Somethingorother.

Anyone seeking Truth and Enlightenment from the "G.Peterson
Catalog" (aka, rivbike.com) is bound to be disappointed. There is some
decent info, but it's mixed in with lotsa sales hype and hooey (e.g,
the Riv "fitting system" touted in the latest catalog apparently
relies solely on one measurement ["Pubic Bone Height"], yet is claimed
to be both more accurate than other systems and 100% successful.).
Long torso,short legs? Short torso, long legs? No Difference says The
Grant. Trust us!

IMO, Riv has steadily lost credibility over the years.

Pbbbbbbbbt.