Post images of beauty (quote pics sparingly) - see Mod warnings in OP

Lumen

route66 wrote: »

I couldn't really give a fiddlers about the technology other than the requirement that it should work.

I have owned a number of new cars and ALL of them required warranty work, including work that was safety-related.

In fact I have a bunch of letters from Suzuki covered in RED CAPS telling me that if I don't get my car looked at it will likely burst into flames. Fortunately someone stole it.

How is that different from a bicycle frame being replaced?

Also, most cyclists desire technologies that are faster, lighter, more comfortable, better handling AND don't break. It's the compromises between all these factors that leads to none of them being optimal.

RidleyRider

lg123 wrote: »

i was hoping he would give me the s-works venge with sram red and fulcrum zeros but the frame was a bit too big.

Your LBS are very nice!

route66

Lumen wrote: »

I have owned a number of new cars and ALL of them required warranty work, including work that was safety-related.

In fact I have a bunch of letters from Suzuki covered in RED CAPS telling me that if I don't get my car looked at it will likely burst into flames. Fortunately someone stole it.

How is that different from a bicycle frame being replaced?

Also, most cyclists desire technologies that are faster, lighter, more comfortable, better handling AND don't break. It's the compromises between all these factors that leads to none of them being optimal.

Maybe those big red letters were the logo (;)):




Anyway...

I'm guessing there are more incidents of carbon frames on bikes cracking than Suzuki's going up in flames:

How many of these:



Vs

How many of these:


But I could be wrong (More carbon horror stories here it you're up to it)

My point really has been made in your post above. Of the various criteria involved in frame design, the one given should be that they don't break. After that, the faster, lighter, more comfortable, better handling, etc criteria can be prioritised as a manufacturer wishes.

It should be possible. Formula 1 cars have a maximum weight - including driver and all the oily bits - of only 640kg. They all have a carbon chassis and they never break. Bit more expensive than a bike allright, but the technology comes from the same stem.

Lumen

route66 wrote: »

Of the various criteria involved in frame design, the one given should be that they don't break

You're expectation is that no frame shipped to a customer ever cracks. I don't know whether that's even possible.

It's certainly not the way the market works. If you buy something that isn't fit for purpose you get a replacement or a refund.

edit: in any case, those are just _your_ priorities. They could maybe make an uncrackable frame by adding more material, but it would be heavier and probably less fun to ride, it would get crap reviews, and almost nobody would buy it.

monkeyslayer

This was the crack in question. It was nothing major. In fact I paid no attention to it till I went to get the bearings in my bb replaced that a mechanic raised the alarm... but yea although it took over two months to get it replaced (mostly wiggle acting the prick) focus didn't seem to hesitate in replacing the frame. For my part the broken frame already had 20 odd months of sevaral thousands of kms so i was kinda resigned to binning it... happy days anyhows, suppose focus have a bit more 'in the field' r&d returned to them and i have a brand new 2012 frame.

route66

Lumen wrote: »

You're expectation is that no frame shipped to a customer ever cracks. I don't know whether that's even possible.

It's certainly not the way the market works. If you buy something that isn't fit for purpose you get a replacement or a refund.

edit: in any case, those are just _your_ priorities. They could maybe make an uncrackable frame by adding more material, but it would be heavier and probably less fun to ride, it would get crap reviews, and almost nobody would buy it.

Not none, just less.

Anyway, moot point for me now - to be reviewed when my BTW comes up again in a couple of year's time.

Wibbs

route66 wrote: »

Was it a manufacturing flaw? I know nothing about Carbon, but a failure in a frame manufacturered by a big name German company, is to me (I ride an aluminium Focus) shocking :eek: More generally, is the technology in carbon frames still a bit too new ?

*interloper*As Lumen points out carbon framed bikes have been around a very long time. Main tube (madly expensive)carbon frames were being knocked up in the mid 1970's(ditto for aluminium frames). Sean Kelly raced them on occasion(Vitus/Alan IIRC) and raced ally framed ones quite a bit. Aside; horrible frames, with the stiffness of a rotten banana, didn't seem to slow him down mind you, so it shows it's all about the legs pumping the pedals and the mind behind them. Stick me on an 11 grand turbonutterstripeddownracingsnakestolenfromthepartsbinatNASAcampag29speed bike and Sean older as he is would comfortably pass by me on a Triumph 20.

The various frame materials have different properties and different weaknesses.

If you ride an ally frame yourself, I'd "worry" more on that score as aluminium has the lowest predicted life of all the main frame materials. It fatigues particularly quickly and when it fails tends to do so catastrophically(similar to carbon), compared to steel or titanium which will take more bending forces and return to it's previous strength. Over stress a ally bike and it doesn't. It's either fail or be substantially weakened and good luck repairing one. Ally isn't very stiff at the same diameter as say steel, hence the early bikes were horrible and they need to have much wider and/or thicker tubes to compensate.

Carbon fibre is or can be very strong and while has a similar sudden failure vibe as ally, the forces required are massively higher than in that material. It has other advantages too. Can be made very lightweight and still keep most of the strength. Because of the nature of the material and how it's put together it can be "tuned" to different conditions and shapes. It also damps out road vibration wayyyyy better than ally. Though personally speaking any I've pushed around feel "dead" under me, still far better than any ally bike I've cycled. Again personally I've never sat on one that wasn't horribly stiff in all the wrong ways. Then again my time biking was sitting on high end Italian steel frames, which along with TI gives about the best comfort and "feel" though again a subjective thing. People differ.

Lumen wrote: »

Almost all carbon frames are manufactured in the far east. Why should one with a German brand sticker be better?

Very true. That said the problem with their origin can be well, their origin. As a material it's relatively cheap to produce a frame and slightest fault in potentially cheap labour putting one together can be cause problems. Add in the ripoffs/homages the "Chinarellos" etc. Still and all you don't hear of too many failures considering how many of them are out there.

route66 wrote: »

I know its not carbon and I know that there are no "normal" production cars made today from carbon (I'm ignoring the likes of the Lamborghini Aventador and McLaren MP4-12C) but when was the last time you heard a car's monocoque chassis cracked?

Eh do you understand the difference between a (mostly) tubular structure and a monocoque structure? Even more the difference in sheer weight/engineering/loads between a bicycle and a car? Apples and oranges. Hell more like apples and burmese pythons. Unless you're talking about steel ladder frame cars like some 60's Ferraris there's little comparison. In any event as Lumen also points out recalls in the car world are very common compared to the bike world.

Back on topic and speaking of gorgeous bikes and frame materials, how about wood. Yep. Chippendale would be proud.

From RENOVO bikes in the US. He uses different types of wood and reviews I've read are universally glowing.

Not forgetting the old "heavy" steel.

From Rodriguez bikes, the "Outlaw", so named cos it breaks the UCI weight limit for competition. 14.7lbs or 6.6K in new money, including pedals and cages. His website is an interesting read on some of the industries claimed weights for ally and carbon bikes, that often don't quite match up to the reality on scales.

Crow92

speaking of wooden bikes,
This is an irish guy making these.

route66

Wibbs wrote: »

<SNIP>

If you ride an ally frame yourself, I'd "worry" more on that score as aluminium has the lowest predicted life of all the main frame materials. It fatigues particularly quickly and when it fails tends to do so catastrophically(similar to carbon), compared to steel or titanium which will take more bending forces and return to it's previous strength. Over stress a ally bike and it doesn't. It's either fail or be substantially weakened and good luck repairing one. Ally isn't very stiff at the same diameter as say steel, hence the early bikes were horrible and they need to have much wider and/or thicker tubes to compensate.

I heard that ally gets harder over the years, but didn't hear it had "the lowest predicted life of all the main frame materials" :eek: Is there a best before date, or guidelines as to when an ally frame should be retired? My ally Focus Variado currently has about 5,000 kms on the clock ...

Wibbs wrote: »

<SNIP>

Eh do you understand the difference between a (mostly) tubular structure and a monocoque structure? Even more the difference in sheer weight/engineering/loads between a bicycle and a car? Apples and oranges. Hell more like apples and burmese pythons. Unless you're talking about steel ladder frame cars like some 60's Ferraris there's little comparison. In any event as Lumen also points out recalls in the car world are very common compared to the bike world.

I do, and I know that some carbon frames are tubular:

and some are monocoque:

I understand that those things might look like tubes, but they're not really. In any case, it might be a moot point as I'm more worried about carbon failure - however it has been implemented.

But my point is all about carbon bike frames being fit for purpose. Although I understand some of the technology behind this stuff, as a consumer, I don't think these should have the failure rates they appear to have. I suppose if you are riding for a top team, you can get a new frame every day/week/race but I would think most regular cyclists would expect a frame to last for many years - 10?

I know perfection is not possible, I accept that failures will occur. I am basing some of my views on anecdotal evidence - seen in boards and elsewhere - that carbon frames suffer higher failure rates that ally. It's possible that ally frames fail more more badly more often and people don't complain (or aren't in a position to complain :eek:). I am not basing my comments on some scientific research and could be assuming there is a problem when there is none.

So, is the collective view here that carbon frames suffer failure no more than the more common Ally?

BTW, nice wooden bikes. Do they come pre-treated for woodworm

CramCycle

Wibbs wrote: »

Not forgetting the old "heavy" steel.

I want that bike, must focus on winning the lotto.

07Lapierre

route66 wrote: »

Maybe those big red letters were the logo (;)):




Anyway...

I'm guessing there are more incidents of carbon frames on bikes cracking than Suzuki's going up in flames:

How many of these:



Vs

How many of these:


But I could be wrong (More carbon horror stories here it you're up to it)

My point really has been made in your post above. Of the various criteria involved in frame design, the one given should be that they don't break. After that, the faster, lighter, more comfortable, better handling, etc criteria can be prioritised as a manufacturer wishes.

It should be possible. Formula 1 cars have a maximum weight - including driver and all the oily bits - of only 640kg. They all have a carbon chassis and they never break. Bit more expensive than a bike allright, but the technology comes from the same stem.

I think its worth point out that the link to "carbon horror stories" shows quite a few failures due to Rider error/ crashes etc. You can't really blame the carbon manufacturers for this: "Yet another victim of the roof carrier system and garage"

Wibbs

route66 wrote: »

I heard that ally gets harder over the years, but didn't hear it had "the lowest predicted life of all the main frame materials" :eek: Is there a best before date, or guidelines as to when an ally frame should be retired? My ally Focus Variado currently has about 5,000 kms on the clock ...

Yea it has the lowest fatigue range of the current materials, followed by CF, followed by steel with TI at the top. That said many squillions of bikes with ally frames are being hacked around for years all over the world. The only issue might be with the lighter, more fragile racing type frames. I'd not be troubled in the least with some heavier MTB frames etc.

I suppose if you are riding for a top team, you can get a new frame every day/week/race but I would think most regular cyclists would expect a frame to last for many years - 10?

Well the general consensus among the experts seems to be any of the materials should last a decade. I'd be surprised to find lightweight high end carbon frames ridden regularly still knocking around in 40 years time. A time period that steel and TI would and have lasted*. Then again folks seem to upgrade more these days, so less an issue? Look at Monkeyslayers take earlier where he rode his frame for less than two years and was resigned to binning it.

So, is the collective view here that carbon frames suffer failure no more than the more common Ally?

Seems to be, though CF seems to get reported more. Looking at one of your links above the examples given look like crash damage to me. I'd prefer to have a crash on a steel/TI bike. I'd most certainly trust either more after a knock than CF. That's not the makers fault. Nature of the material. Dont crash one and don't ride one after a major knock of if you spot a crack.

CramCycle wrote:

I want that bike, must focus on winning the lotto.

Yea, gorge or what.:eek: 8 grand though. He makes cheaper ones mind you. The cheapest handbuilt steel frame he makes is just over the grand in euro.




Major aside... the fashion for high end ultralight pro racing these days may not be "fit for purpose" for the vast majority of riders, who might do better on stronger, less twitchy more relaxed frames. A pro bike of say the 70's/80's was designed for more longevity and comfort. Less specialised.

Zyzz

Crow92 wrote: »

'Special Branch'

:pac:

Roger Hassenforder

this used to be a lovely thread to come in and have a fap at nice bikes..:(

Lumen

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

this used to be a lovely thread to come in and have a fap at nice bikes..:(

4.6kg. Not mine, obviously.

ROK ON

^
Is that Astras new bike?

The tax man

I was contemplating using a stem adapter so I could use a modern stem and bars combo but I stuck the quill stem and bars I had off another bike on tonight and I think it's made my mind up.Just need a chain,inner/outer cables*,install Shimano levers to finish off.

*Can someone tell me if a ferrule is used on the outer cable were it enters and exits the top tube?(internally routed)
Was messing around with some old outer cable but when I pulled the rear brake, the outer just started compressing up on itself at the frame. Never had a frame with this internal routing before.

@Lumen Saddle angle yet to be adjusted flat.:D

chakattack

^ Ax Lightness machine

Horrible paint job, decals and bars. At least it looks like a proper bike for a low weight showpiece, no downtube shifters or missing bartape.

Roger Hassenforder

back on track!

Wibbs

The tax man wrote: »

*faps* Oh god that's bloody lovely. Looks like SLX badge? And chromed headtube lugs? Oh god... *dissolves in mush*

I was contemplating using a stem adapter so I could use a modern stem and bars combo but I stuck the quill stem and bars I had off another bike on tonight and I think it's made my mind up.

I'd contemplate no further Sir. It looks so good with the quill stem

*Can someone tell me if a ferrule is used on the outer cable were it enters and exits the top tube?(internally routed)
Was messing around with some old outer cable but when I pulled the rear brake, the outer just started compressing up on itself at the frame. Never had a frame with this internal routing before.

I've had two such frames waaaaaaaaay back in the day (and my current tease) and no ferrules were involved. I never had the compression thingy happen. Now to be fair it wasn't as good as an un interrupted cable setup. Defo a compromise. How I got around the "drag spot" was to get a slick50 teflon(or similar) can and spray into the internal cable to within an inch(CM) of it's life. That defo made a diff for me, though the rear brake was noticeably more sluggish compared to the front regardless(but much better).

**Edit** I may have a chain for ya. I haven't see ya in yonks so it'll be a good excuse to talk our usual shíte with it

Wibbs

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

back on track!

Not just track, but road and mountain too. Fecking single speed snobs... :pac:

The tax man

Wibbs wrote: »

*faps* Oh god that's bloody lovely. Looks like SLX badge? And chromed headtube lugs? Oh god... *dissolves in mush*

**Edit** I may have a chain for ya. I haven't see ya in yonks so it'll be a good excuse to talk our usual shíte with it

More Thron Super than SLX. Down the scale from slx as Columbus tubing goes but you have to see the paint job in the flesh.
Yeah must hit the local for a few soon,well over due at this stage.;)

G rock

@taxman: can we have a picture if then all together please??

Must be one of the best stables around!

Wibbs

The tax man wrote: »

More Thron Super than SLX. Down the scale from slx as Columbus tubing goes
Not by much though TTM

http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/columbus/columbuschart.htm Outside the later Nivacrom steel and specialised breathe on them and they'll fall apart TT tubesets SL was about the lightest. A lot of the Italian builders used to mix and match tubesets to their own tastes anyway. I read of a guy in a bike shop who weighed different Colnagos, Olmos and Rossin frames of the same size and the same label and found big diffs in weight. Up to a pound in old money. Apparently Colnagos tended to be the heaviest.

G rock wrote: »

@taxman: can we have a picture if then all together please??

Must be one of the best stables around!

+1000 I checked out your Raleigh Road Ace earlier and oh god how I lusted after them at the time. I ruined my kaks when I saw your eddy merckx, never mind the Campy C-record version too. One of the best looking Gruppos they ever made in my humble. Stunningly high quality fit and finish. Spin a wheel on one of those hubs and you'd think they'd invented a perpetual motion machine.:)

There was even a (crazy biscuits rare)gold version for Colnago.

God bless Italians. I dunno how they can get away with it, but they usually can.

The clipless pedals weighed about the same as a semi-detached house mind you. I could only afford the seatpost and crank at the time. Funny enough my crank was the special grey "century finish" and the shop couldn't get shot of it so 25% off. Result! Now they're the rare ones. I've seen a NIB CF crankset go for 800 quid. Remarkably light crank even by modern standards too. Lighter than most of the campy alloy ones that have followed it. Very strong.

The brakes were/are/can be death traps mind you. :eek: Even with modern pads. Heavy too and a nightmare to set up(required a 6.5 "special" allen key). The Shimano Dura Ace AX aero jobs are remarkably good with modern pads Dremeled to fit(5 minute job). Best ones of the 80's aero craze IMHO. I found the trick with all of those brake designs is to run them further away from the rim than you'd think(especially the Campy jobs).

The tax man

As requested:

G rock

And a mercian to boot!
Is that the next project?

The tax man

G rock wrote: »

And a mercian to boot!
Is that the next project?

Yeah,hope to do an Audax setup with it.
Have a Shimano 600 tri-colour group set all lined up.
As a frame and groupset in a box it takes up less room.

Wibbs

Ohhhhhhhhhh jebus. :eek: Gorgeous lineup. It's like you went back in time and read the centrefold of my mind just before I discovered girls.

Is that a Colnago Master frame on the left in the first pic? *drools* And now a Mercian Reynolds frame too? Cooool. Bulletproof frame that you could ride all day. For life.

You must love ebay. The digital equivalent of the early 80's Freewheel catalogue(before it turned into a shimano catalogue). It's great that these bikes get a second life because of it.

One I'd love to discover in a shed would be any of the the Cinelli Laser models of the 80's

Though this one has the "OhmigodI'mgonnadie!!" Modolo Kronos brakes.

Well I have the same water bottle...
Or the truly wild;



PS can't believe you got that Road Ace for 200 quid. Unreal. I've seen crappy condition ones go for triple that and more. And it has all the right parts that usually get trashed(the clear placcy "aero" bit under the bottle and the little ally cable connector under the bars, even the headset shroud that hasn't gone brown.

lennymc

this thread just got a whole lot more fap.

Thanks taxman!

lennymc

edit - double post