Carbon fiber thoughts

"Dan Connelly" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I thought Cassius had feet of Clay.

Wasn't he involved in the Boxer Rebellion?

Barbara sucks.

On Jul 6, 8:15 am, " wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:34 am, Davey Crockett
wrote: " writes:
(http://www.velonews.com/tour2007/tec...s/12564.0.html)

"The spares get washed and tuned every other day and God forbid if
someone crashes, no matter how minor, mechanics change out the
handlebar, stem and fork - at the very least. If the frame is so much
as suspected to be damaged it's changed out as well. Imagine if two or
three guys crash in one day, whew"

This is one reason why I am very reluctant to spend huge sums of money
on a composite frame that could be history after a single crash. For
all the advances in composites de-lamination and stress points are
still a unresolved issue. Now 3d weaved composites my resolve the de-
lamination issue (http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3874).

I think many cyclists are unaware of the durability problems with
composites. It's amazing that the bike companies can sell frame with
such a short warranty period.



For the rider who doesn't need or can't afford a "throw away" frame,
Steel is the answer

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
"To see and not speak out would be a great betrayal. It is as if
watching my nation busily engaged in heaping its own funeral pyre. I
am filled with foreboding, for like the Roman I seem to see the River
Tiber foaming with much blood."
Enoch Powell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not good for a bicycle, but Boeing and Airbus are fine with them for
the 787/350/380? I think you under estimate composites.

On Jul 9, 10:19 am, "giorgitd" t

How do you think the Boeing folks are addressing this? Their new
'dreamliner' is CF!

My guess is that they won't try to fly them after a crash.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/200..._BRIDGE_slides...

In article
.com
,
"
wrote:

On Jul 9, 10:19 am, "giorgitd"
wrote:
"Simon Brooke" wrote in message

I think this one is overblown. Yes, carbon fibre can be damaged in a
crash,
in ways which are not visible without a stress jig. But I crashed a carbon
fibre bike at 46mph into solid granite two years ago. We swapped out the
forks and handlebars on the precautionary principle, and sent the frame
back to the makers to be checked on their stress jig. It was fine, and I'm
still riding it.

http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_41.html

Carbon is /incredibly/ strong and resilient.

Yes, but there is no relationship between observable damage leading to
either (1) no problems or (2) failure. So, every time there *might* be a
problem (after a crash, or a fall, or a tipover while waiting for your
latte) you either (1) replace the frame or (2) worry.

How do you think the Boeing folks are addressing this? Their new
'dreamliner' is CF!

I bet that CF damage isn't actually unobservable. People
make it sound invisible like the Fantastic Four chick, but
it's more likely that damaged CF that mysteriously breaks
later while "JRA" was cracked and/or delaminated all along,
it's just not cracking that the average bikie can spot
with the naked eye under cursory inspection.

Most frame failures aren't catastrophic, while most fork
failures are. So why do people put CF forks on non-CF
frames rather than the other way around? Either the
forks are overbuilt, people have no conception of risk
analysis, or some combination thereof.

Airliners, unlike most bicycles, come with thorough
periodic inspection protocols. That's not a guarantee,
but they aren't directly comparable.

Carbon forks seem to be save enough, but we only have
anecdote. Nobody, including manufacturers, are publishing
persuasive studies.

--
Michael Press