[DaveW]

Interesting that they only use that particular layup on a small section of the down tube and the seat stays. My chainstays have rather pointy dents and my top tube receives a hammering in tumbles on rocks.

It's an impressive layup that can take that punishement and still outperform the aluminium bike in post impact ultimate strength tests.

Did you only listen to parts of the video??
There was a bit about how the OCLD carbon was surviving better than the Alu in the test and then even better again with the carbon armour.
So the ordinary OCLD is better at impact damage than the ALU.
Then there's the bit mentioned at the bottom of page 1 in this thread about the bit in the Santa Cruz vid where the bike was trail ridden for 2 years before beating an alu bike in testing.... I highly doubt that the SC test riders took it easy on the bike in that time.

 

[ilfreerider]

it will all come down to what happens in real world and for the time being we do not see any major problems with carbon frames from the major brands that use them.also, while every company wants to get on the latest and greatest bandwagon, i do not believe they will do it in the expense of their reputation.i guess time will tell !

 

[dilzy]

Did you only listen to parts of the video??
There was a bit about how the OCLD carbon was surviving better than the Alu in the test and then even better again with the carbon armour.
So the ordinary OCLD is better at impact damage than the ALU.
Then there's the bit mentioned at the bottom of page 1 in this thread about the bit in the Santa Cruz vid where the bike was trail ridden for 2 years before beating an alu bike in testing.... I highly doubt that the SC test riders took it easy on the bike in that time.

I believe it said only the down tube and seat stays are OCLV, with the down tube having the extra external protection. Swimming my way through the enormity of marketing manure on the Trek website I think that video must be out dated, as I believe that they're frames are entirely OLCV now?

Trail riding a bike for two years is not a very scientific way to test structural integrity when you want to make a comparison with another material.

 

[atrokz]

Troll be trollin'.

While we're on the topic of lab test and their correlation to real life, has any one here actually performed any testing on composites in comparison to their aluminum counterparts? If you did, you'd sing a different tune. Some people just don’t get how similar composite materials have been tested by research teams the world over, and CF is constantly picked for reasons in addition to ultimate strength. But hey, the DDG1000 is just a boat designed to take hits from 40mm shells, Leading edge CF composite wings on jets are only designed to hit birds at mach speeds, and F1 CF crash tubs are designed to take 100G+ impacts and stay intact. But I mean, BIKES and ROCKS seem to be a problem people think can’t be overcome....

GT did a good job of it, adding kevlar as rock protection. Others have other methods. But even as such, all things being equal, CF will take a bigger impact without deformation.

 

[atrokz]

http://787flighttest.com/hanger/wp-content/plugins/flash-video-player/mediaplayer/player.swf?streamer=rtmp://cp81820.edgefcs.net/ondemand/tpn/firstflight/&file=TestLog4.flv


Plastic deformation, what?

 

[Sandwich]

My one concern with carbonz is whether the investment is a good idea for a company with what is, essentially, a very small bottom line. I can understand that GT, Giant, and Specialized can (and should) do it, but that doesn't mean that other small makers should. For a single carbon frame, you need a single mold, which are (or used to be) very expensive. That's not a problem for Trek, but for a small company to change their entire mold to adapt or resize, it'll be next to impossible. What that translates to for you and I, is frames with outdated geometry because the mold had to be a certain size, limited sizing because they couldn't afford multiple molds, and longer model lifespans because molds cost money. So, whereas Trek and Specialized can play "today I want to carbon ALL THE THINGS", the little(r) guys cannot, but will try and follow suit anyways, resulting in outdated frames and lower QC with higher prices. It's not just carbon either, the cast alloy Empire frames had outdated geo by the time they actually came to market. Now they're not even rideable on the interbutts because the BB is over 14". Welding allows manufacturers to A) adapt to market trends and new ideas fast and easily, B) make changes that only real-world testing can account for, like adding gussets to crack prone areas and accommodations for different hardware, and C) Keep it local, which translates to easier repairs and more oversight of the production process, which some companies _do_not_get_.

tl;dr Carbon makes sense for large companies that can front the cost of entry, it does not make sense for the struggling micro-company trying to get a foothold in the market.

 

[atrokz]

^ Very valid points. Creates a concern for companys buying cheaply made catalogue carbon frames, then when they break groms get all upset and say 'carbonz suxors' without realizing that they frame they bought had less RnD involved in it than a brake pad.

 

[norbar]

My one concern with carbonz is whether the investment is a good idea for a company with what is, essentially, a very small bottom line. I can understand that GT, Giant, and Specialized can (and should) do it, but that doesn't mean that other small makers should. For a single carbon frame, you need a single mold, which are (or used to be) very expensive. That's not a problem for Trek, but for a small company to change their entire mold to adapt or resize, it'll be next to impossible. What that translates to for you and I, is frames with outdated geometry because the mold had to be a certain size, limited sizing because they couldn't afford multiple molds, and longer model lifespans because molds cost money. So, whereas Trek and Specialized can play "today I want to carbon ALL THE THINGS", the little(r) guys cannot, but will try and follow suit anyways, resulting in outdated frames and lower QC with higher prices. It's not just carbon either, the cast alloy Empire frames had outdated geo by the time they actually came to market. Now they're not even rideable on the interbutts because the BB is over 14". Welding allows manufacturers to A) adapt to market trends and new ideas fast and easily, B) make changes that only real-world testing can account for, like adding gussets to crack prone areas and accommodations for different hardware, and C) Keep it local, which translates to easier repairs and more oversight of the production process, which some companies _do_not_get_.

tl;dr Carbon makes sense for large companies that can front the cost of entry, it does not make sense for the struggling micro-company trying to get a foothold in the market.

Empire has sunday geo. They could sell it with an angleset and make everyone happy. Anglesets solve a lot of the questions you posted though also I doubt that the geo will change as fast as it did for the last few years. The last few mental bariers of "I'm gonna be hittin rokz with mah pedalz" and "I need dj head angle for dh" have been broken and even taken a bit too far in the last years.

Though I kinda see the problem. It's just much smaller now than 5-10 years ago.

 

[iRider]

Just think about it: how many millions of dollars do bike companies invest in R&D of carbon parts (or any part for that matter)?

Troll be trollin'.

While we're on the topic of lab test and their correlation to real life, has any one here actually performed any testing on composites in comparison to their aluminum counterparts? If you did, you'd sing a different tune. Some people just don’t get how similar composite materials have been tested by research teams the world over, and CF is constantly picked for reasons in addition to ultimate strength. But hey, the DDG1000 is just a boat designed to take hits from 40mm shells, Leading edge CF composite wings on jets are only designed to hit birds at mach speeds, and F1 CF crash tubs are designed to take 100G+ impacts and stay intact. But I mean, BIKES and ROCKS seem to be a problem people think can’t be overcome....

GT did a good job of it, adding kevlar as rock protection. Others have other methods. But even as such, all things being equal, CF will take a bigger impact without deformation.

 

[atrokz]

Just think about it: how many millions of dollars do bike companies invest in R&D of carbon parts (or any part for that matter)?

I do know some of the larger companys do invest quite a large amount, but it really is a drop in the bucket compared to the multiple billions in research from other industries like, say, naval defence, or aerospace defence. Both of which are using composites in large amounts these days.

 

[baca262]

yeah we need to get darpa to take up research on mission critical bicycles, now that would be some high budget ****. perhaps even literally bomb-proof.

 

[joeg]

Trail riding a bike for two years is not a very scientific way to test structural integrity when you want to make a comparison with another material.

just can't win on the internet.
if we'd shown our test rock strike test being done the webgineers would claim that its not the same as the east coast rox. Or that the angle the anvil hit the tube didn't have enough yaw.
Of course we've tested frames after hitting them with stuff. It took a long time to develop that so it made more sense than just hitting stuff with a hammer, and pinkbike didn't seem like the best place to discuss scientific method. Smash frame on rock. Carbon good!

Good points brought up in this thread regarding difficulties for small manufacturers. In some ways its easier to change carbon frames to change stiffness and strength than aluminum, but shapes and geometry are harder to change. "Standard" testing is not enough to test for strength, especially on DH frames, as evidenced recently at races with companies both big and small. With aluminum, there was a lot of built-in assumptions in a frame design that one didn't have to re-open, which made it easier to get a design to market that wasn't a POS. Carbon is much more complicated to deal with if you want to end up with a frame that is lighter and stiffer than aluminum.

 

[4130biker]

stiff as fvck. makes the qr fork i'm running (older model fox vanilla rlc) feel like it has a thru axle. beyond that weight savings is a bonus.

and these are taiwanese house brand wheels.

I know your buddy got them for you, have you seen any place where the rest of us can get them yet?

 

[manhattanprjkt83]

i can't believe RM is still going around and around and....on this.

 

[Jeremy R]

just can't win on the internet.
if we'd shown our test rock strike test being done the webgineers would claim that its not the same as the east coast rox. Or that the angle the anvil hit the tube didn't have enough yaw.

Please post here MOAR.

 

[jonKranked]

I know your buddy got them for you, have you seen any place where the rest of us can get them yet?

i can send you the website of the company. only thing is you'll need to buy a whole cargo container of them, and then deal with customs and import taxes.

 

[norbar]

just can't win on the internet.
if we'd shown our test rock strike test being done the webgineers would claim that its not the same as the east coast rox. Or that the angle the anvil hit the tube didn't have enough yaw.
Of course we've tested frames after hitting them with stuff. It took a long time to develop that so it made more sense than just hitting stuff with a hammer, and pinkbike didn't seem like the best place to discuss scientific method. Smash frame on rock. Carbon good!

Good points brought up in this thread regarding difficulties for small manufacturers. In some ways its easier to change carbon frames to change stiffness and strength than aluminum, but shapes and geometry are harder to change. "Standard" testing is not enough to test for strength, especially on DH frames, as evidenced recently at races with companies both big and small. With aluminum, there was a lot of built-in assumptions in a frame design that one didn't have to re-open, which made it easier to get a design to market that wasn't a POS. Carbon is much more complicated to deal with if you want to end up with a frame that is lighter and stiffer than aluminum.

bbuut I had a 96 gt that broke... I'm with Jeremy. We need you more here. I used to hate on santa for that whole s shaped axle path bs and agressive marketing but comments like this make me a fan. Well that and how damn durable the new v10c is.

 

[William42]

and the fact that they have dudes on here offering to lend out their company tools to get somebody on a different companies bike riding again, because they're specialized tools that not everybody has. Pretty top notch.

 

[4130biker]

i can send you the website of the company. only thing is you'll need to buy a whole cargo container of them, and then deal with customs and import taxes.

I suspected as much, but had to ask! I'm convinced carbon is rad on my cranks, next step is rims, then i may make the leap to a frame.
baby steps for me

 

[IH8Rice]

has any one here actually performed any testing on composites in comparison to their aluminum counterparts?

Gridds and maybe joeg are the only i can think of

 

[ilfreerider]

does anyone know some real numbers (for costs) involved in making carbon frames ? are molds really that expensive ? what do you do if you want to make changes to the prototype ? ...
(for companies that actually do r&d for their frames and not catalog frame costs)

 

[MrPlow]

does anyone know some real numbers (for costs) involved in making carbon frames ? are molds really that expensive ? what do you do if you want to make changes to the prototype ? ...
(for companies that actually do r&d for their frames and not catalog frame costs)

Moulds are super expensive. And if you need to change them, depending on how your moulds are constructed you may need new moulds machined/made.
A frame layup can take a day. Then de-mould, tidy up, paint. There is no denying they are very labour intensive.

 

[jonKranked]

Moulds are super expensive. And if you need to change them, depending on how your moulds are constructed you may need new moulds machined/made.
A frame layup can take a day. Then de-mould, tidy up, paint. There is no denying they are very labour intensive.

i would argue not necessarily more labor intensive than an AL frame. whether your hydroforming tubes (pricey molds) or mitering tubes (labor intensive) and welding tubes (labor intensive).

no easy way to make a bike.

 

[WestCoastHucker]

does anyone know some real numbers (for costs) involved in making carbon frames ? are molds really that expensive ?

i would guess it would also depend on various different things. for example, i'm pretty sure that BCD didn't spend a grip of coin on a new mould every time he made another bike. then again i have no idea how he goes about making his bikes either...

 

[Routier07]

just can't win on the internet.
if we'd shown our test rock strike test being done the webgineers would claim that its not the same as the east coast rox. Or that the angle the anvil hit the tube didn't have enough yaw.
Of course we've tested frames after hitting them with stuff. It took a long time to develop that so it made more sense than just hitting stuff with a hammer, and pinkbike didn't seem like the best place to discuss scientific method. Smash frame on rock. Carbon good!

Good points brought up in this thread regarding difficulties for small manufacturers. In some ways its easier to change carbon frames to change stiffness and strength than aluminum, but shapes and geometry are harder to change. "Standard" testing is not enough to test for strength, especially on DH frames, as evidenced recently at races with companies both big and small. With aluminum, there was a lot of built-in assumptions in a frame design that one didn't have to re-open, which made it easier to get a design to market that wasn't a POS. Carbon is much more complicated to deal with if you want to end up with a frame that is lighter and stiffer than aluminum.

Your posts make me want to buy a Santa Cruz. We need moar guyz like you on here.

 

[dilzy]

just can't win on the internet.
if we'd shown our test rock strike test being done the webgineers would claim that its not the same as the east coast rox. Or that the angle the anvil hit the tube didn't have enough yaw.
Of course we've tested frames after hitting them with stuff. It took a long time to develop that so it made more sense than just hitting stuff with a hammer, and pinkbike didn't seem like the best place to discuss scientific method. Smash frame on rock. Carbon good!

Good points brought up in this thread regarding difficulties for small manufacturers. In some ways its easier to change carbon frames to change stiffness and strength than aluminum, but shapes and geometry are harder to change. "Standard" testing is not enough to test for strength, especially on DH frames, as evidenced recently at races with companies both big and small. With aluminum, there was a lot of built-in assumptions in a frame design that one didn't have to re-open, which made it easier to get a design to market that wasn't a POS. Carbon is much more complicated to deal with if you want to end up with a frame that is lighter and stiffer than aluminum.

Can I haz video?....but seriously, I'd really like to know how they performed against the impact and then post impact. PM me maybe?

On an entirely seperate note, can you guys pretty please make a carbon nomad with a pinion box?

Also, it's a 100% guaranteed fact that West coast rox are infact more harmful to wheel nuts...

 

[Wa-Aw]

just can't win on the internet.
if we'd shown our test rock strike test being done the webgineers would claim that its not the same as the east coast rox. Or that the angle the anvil hit the tube didn't have enough yaw.
Of course we've tested frames after hitting them with stuff. It took a long time to develop that so it made more sense than just hitting stuff with a hammer, and pinkbike didn't seem like the best place to discuss scientific method. Smash frame on rock. Carbon good!

Good points brought up in this thread regarding difficulties for small manufacturers. In some ways its easier to change carbon frames to change stiffness and strength than aluminum, but shapes and geometry are harder to change. "Standard" testing is not enough to test for strength, especially on DH frames, as evidenced recently at races with companies both big and small. With aluminum, there was a lot of built-in assumptions in a frame design that one didn't have to re-open, which made it easier to get a design to market that wasn't a POS. Carbon is much more complicated to deal with if you want to end up with a frame that is lighter and stiffer than aluminum.

Props to you. I always try to keep myself from reading these threads because of "webgineers" that refuse to be beaten down by common sense. Makes my brain hurt but occasional posts like this makes it worth it! Smash frame on rock test is as legit as it gets!