| |
Main
Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:49:12
From: raelwelcome
Subject: Broken Carbon Bars
|
Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
or
http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 23:48:43
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 9, 8:57 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>
> > How many aluminum bars have you had?
>
> maybe 20.
>
> > How many carbon bars?
>
> 2.
>
>
>
> > I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.
>
> er, that's a null argument if you haven't used any.
That's my whole point. Al bars are so common, and C bars are so
expensive and therefore rare, that pretty much any failure rate
comparisons for an individual rider are meaningless. Of course more Al
bars have failed on you, because you've had 10 times as many Al as C
bars. And any statistician will tell you that two specimens cannot
yield a meaningful sample.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 06:04:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Oct 9, 8:57 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>>> How many aluminum bars have you had?
>> maybe 20.
>>
>>> How many carbon bars?
>> 2.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.
>> er, that's a null argument if you haven't used any.
>
> That's my whole point. Al bars are so common, and C bars are so
> expensive and therefore rare, that pretty much any failure rate
> comparisons for an individual rider are meaningless. Of course more Al
> bars have failed on you, because you've had 10 times as many Al as C
> bars. And any statistician will tell you that two specimens cannot
> yield a meaningful sample.
>
er, /my/ whole point is that you can't say that if you haven't used them!
the facts are that aluminum fatigues, carbon otoh pretty much doesn't.
the only reason for failure is accident, abuse or manufacturing defect.
and each of those are just as much of a risk with aluminum. put
another way, one is guaranteed to break jra [eventually], the other only
if crashed, abused or defective. sounds like an easy choice to me.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:31:52
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:y8SdnYj-j7t1UJHanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 8:57 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>>>> How many aluminum bars have you had?
>>> maybe 20.
>>>
>>>> How many carbon bars?
>>> 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.
>>> er, that's a null argument if you haven't used any.
>>
>> That's my whole point. Al bars are so common, and C bars are so
>> expensive and therefore rare, that pretty much any failure rate
>> comparisons for an individual rider are meaningless. Of course more Al
>> bars have failed on you, because you've had 10 times as many Al as C
>> bars. And any statistician will tell you that two specimens cannot
>> yield a meaningful sample.
>>
>
> er, /my/ whole point is that you can't say that if you haven't used them!
>
> the facts are that aluminum fatigues, carbon otoh pretty much doesn't.
Which is of course bullshit, as any visit to a materials website will tell
you.
> the only reason for failure is accident, abuse or manufacturing defect.
Eh, low damage tolerance, beamboy. Ask the aircraft industry. Idiot.
> and each of those are just as much of a risk with aluminum.
Again, obviously bullshit, as any consultation with research papaers on CF
for the last 20 years will tell you.
>put another way, one is guaranteed to break jra [eventually], the other
>only if crashed, abused or defective.
So you're saying CF = infinite fatigue life. Idiot.
> sounds like an easy choice to me.
Yeah, it would be, wouldn't it?
Lying fucktard.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 04:09:01
From:
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 9, 12:50 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> It's like all the
> stupid-light mountain bike forks of yesteryear, that would fail in use.
> Riders wanted stupid-light, but eventually lawyers got involved and forks
> are now heavier, and much stronger, than they used to be.
Hmm. We should remember that next time we're tempted to complain
about lawyers!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 18:28:25
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 9, 1:50 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth
>
> <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > I really don't understand why anyone would want to
> >mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.
>
> Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
> question, right?
>
> Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
> of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
> years.
>
And those are specifically designed for such stresses. The FSA K-Wings
are designed for regular road use.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 14:07:46
From: damyth
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 9, 1:50 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth
>
> <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > I really don't understand why anyone would want to
> >mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.
>
> Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
> question, right?
>
> Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
> of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
> years.
>
> I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy crap, Easton and
> others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.
Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
as 3 months of use, and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
CX and road bikes.
Easton should count themselves lucky when their bars break in such a
short time. The risk comes when people get lulled into a false sense
of confidence.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 20:42:46
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:07:46 -0700, damyth
<mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
>> Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
>> question, right?
>>
>> Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
>> of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
>> years.
>>
>> I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy crap, Easton and
>> others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.
>
>Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
>as 3 months of use,
I ventured a guess. You are asserting facts. It is incumbent on you
to support them; otherwise they're nothing more than pure,
unadulterated b.s.
As anecdotal evidence to the contrary, check generally favorable
reviews on mtbr.com
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Handlebar/product_21843.shtml
Also tests on Easton website:
http://www.eastonbike.com/FLASH-SWF/bar%20test.swf
>and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
>they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
>CX and road bikes.
LMAO. Yeah, because of suspension, mountain bike bars don't take a
beating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdXcitOUzY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVAccWTrnIQ
>Easton should count themselves lucky when their bars break in such a
>short time. The risk comes when people get lulled into a false sense
>of confidence.
Now THAT'S a fine piece of logic. You defeat yourself.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 17:28:34
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
>> I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy crap, Easton and
>> others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.
>
> Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
> as 3 months of use, and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
> they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
> CX and road bikes.
The reason they get away with it is that it's considered cool to break stuff
in DH events. It shows you're an animal etc. One of those guy things. We
have customers like that, and I just don't get it. Then again, I can't see
myself doing a lot of things that might put me in the air unexpectedly.
(One other reason they get away with it is the typical warning that says, if
you use the bar for its intended use, you've voided all warranties and are
likely to kill yourself. You can do that for off-road stuff without scaring
people away. Thankfully, the on-road folk are a bit more reasonable.)
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote in message
news:1191964066.617426.222250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 9, 1:50 pm, Doug Taylor <dtay...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth
>>
>> <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>> > I really don't understand why anyone would want to
>> >mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.
>>
>> Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
>> question, right?
>>
>> Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
>> of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
>> years.
>>
>> I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy crap, Easton and
>> others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.
>
> Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
> as 3 months of use, and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
> they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
> CX and road bikes.
>
> Easton should count themselves lucky when their bars break in such a
> short time. The risk comes when people get lulled into a false sense
> of confidence.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 04:42:19
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
In article <T0VOi.4846$oA2.4055@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> >> I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy crap, Easton and
> >> others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.
> >
> > Your SWAG would be incorrect. Easton DH bars have broken in as little
> > as 3 months of use, and that's not to mention virtually all DH bikes
> > they are mounted on have suspension, a feature generally not found on
> > CX and road bikes.
>
> The reason they get away with it is that it's considered cool to break stuff
> in DH events. It shows you're an animal etc. One of those guy things. We
> have customers like that, and I just don't get it. Then again, I can't see
> myself doing a lot of things that might put me in the air unexpectedly.
Most of the time, they expect to be there.
> (One other reason they get away with it is the typical warning that says, if
> you use the bar for its intended use, you've voided all warranties and are
> likely to kill yourself. You can do that for off-road stuff without scaring
> people away. Thankfully, the on-road folk are a bit more reasonable.)
I think that's because off-road stuff that was built to withstand all
"forseeable" impacts would be several times as heavy as the current
stuff. Indeed, the weight gains might be so great as to be
self-defeating, as the now-heavier bike package started slamming into
the ground with even more energy than before.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03
From: damyth
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 8, 2:49 pm, raelwelcome <raelwelcome > wrote:
> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>
> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
Was the hubby attempting to "off" the wife? Or does he just deserve
the Darwin Award? I really don't understand why anyone would want to
mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.
This belongs to a category of "beyond clueless" or "particularly
diabolical."
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 16:50:56
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0700, damyth
<mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
> I really don't understand why anyone would want to
>mount CF bars on a CX bike. CF bars on a road bike is iffy enough.
Then, a fortiori, CF mountain bike bars must be TOTALLY out of the
question, right?
Tell that, as one example, to Easton, which has manufactured a variety
of CF mountain bike handle bars - including one for downhill - for
years.
I would hazard a guess that if these bars were flimsy crap, Easton and
others would be out of business by now with product liability suits.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:15:17
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>
How many aluminum bars have you had? How many carbon bars?
I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.
That's because I don't want to spend more on bars than I do on a set
of wheels, especially when so many very good aluminum bars are
available at a small fraction of the price of FSA K-Wings.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 20:57:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>>
>
> How many aluminum bars have you had?
maybe 20.
> How many carbon bars?
2.
>
> I can state that I've had exactly zero carbon bars fail on me.
er, that's a null argument if you haven't used any.
i've had two carbon forks start to fail. neither just shattered like
glass and fell apart. same model, same [dud] manufacturer.
none of the other carbon forks [8], carbon brake levers [2], carbon seat
posts [5] that i've used in the last 10 years have ever shown the
slightest integrity problem.
>
> That's because I don't want to spend more on bars than I do on a set
> of wheels, especially when so many very good aluminum bars are
> available at a small fraction of the price of FSA K-Wings.
shop sales then. i think my carbon mtb bars were under $50. new.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:29:12
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:dc6dnRN9qagJ0JHanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>>>
>>
>> How many aluminum bars have you had?
>
> maybe 20.
And they all broke. Lying idiot.
> i've had two carbon forks start to fail. neither just shattered like
> glass and fell apart. same model, same [dud] manufacturer.
Yeah, manufacturer fault, right beamboy? Idiot.
> none of the other carbon forks [8], carbon brake levers [2], carbon seat
> posts [5] that i've used in the last 10 years have ever shown the
> slightest integrity problem.
Sure beamboy, 8 carbon forks and 5 carbon seatposts indeed... having proved
your propensity for lying, can't you even come up with more believanble
numbers?
Fucking lying idiot.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 08:39:41
From: bookieb
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 9, 3:29 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
<snip >
> > Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
> > handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
> > bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
> > sometimes).
>
> > Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
> > for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
> > guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
> > the line?
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
> incident.
<snip >
> I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
> place for crash damage.
Agreed - quite possibly a QC problem, but I don't think that there is
info from the photo and/or the text to make a definitive judgement.
<snip >
> As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
> only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
> happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
> kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.
No, you're absolutely right.
Aside from this particular incident though, and your comments to Jim
below about "user error", Mike does have a point about the suitability
of parts for the application.
You'd hope that all responsible staff in an LBS would point out that
the lightweight stem/bars/wheels/whatever is not suitable for off-road/
loaded touring/cross/"a gentleman of your build".
Likewise, you'd hope that the shop would mention proper installation
procedure to the purchaser, and point out the recomended torque
figures on the stem - I've seen two sets of cabon bars destroyed by
over-enthusiasam with the allan key/lack of familiarity with the
concept of a torpue wrench.
Where does that leave mail order or internet sales?
Where does that leave sales from shops which are not as clued in (or
as responsible)?
...and this isn't limited to the carbon/non-carbon debate either - it
applies to any very light weight or limited lifespan product, e.g. the
very lightweight Velocity OC rims.
Regards,
bookieb.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 12:24:57
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
bookieb wrote:
> On Oct 9, 3:29 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
>>> handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
>>> bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
>>> sometimes).
>>> Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
>>> for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
>>> guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
>>> the line?
>> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
>> incident.
>
> <snip>
>> I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
>> place for crash damage.
>
> Agreed - quite possibly a QC problem, but I don't think that there is
> info from the photo and/or the text to make a definitive judgement.
>
> <snip>
>
>> As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
>> only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
>> happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
>> kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.
>
> No, you're absolutely right.
>
> Aside from this particular incident though, and your comments to Jim
> below about "user error", Mike does have a point about the suitability
> of parts for the application.
>
> You'd hope that all responsible staff in an LBS would point out that
> the lightweight stem/bars/wheels/whatever is not suitable for off-road/
> loaded touring/cross/"a gentleman of your build".
>
> Likewise, you'd hope that the shop would mention proper installation
> procedure to the purchaser, and point out the recomended torque
> figures on the stem - I've seen two sets of cabon bars destroyed by
> over-enthusiasam with the allan key/lack of familiarity with the
> concept of a torpue wrench.
>
> Where does that leave mail order or internet sales?
> Where does that leave sales from shops which are not as clued in (or
> as responsible)?
>
> ...and this isn't limited to the carbon/non-carbon debate either - it
> applies to any very light weight or limited lifespan product, e.g. the
> very lightweight Velocity OC rims.
All good points. Re: the last one, "stupid light" has been around since
bikes have been around. My concern with CF is that it's selling point is
weight savings, so it's pushed into "stupid light" more or less
automatically. Mike and others may argue that CF doesn't have to be made
that way, and they're right, but market pressures will push things that
way inevitably. Since CF carries a price premium (because it's
inherently labor intensive), the market pushes for cost cutting, too.
In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
"previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
damage and then catastrophically fail.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 16:50:12
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
> In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
> "previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
> and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
> what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
> damage and then catastrophically fail.
I don't see it as a shortcoming of carbon fiber as much as a failure to
exercise reasonable care in choice of equipment. Those are, near as I can
tell, road handlebars. Even aluminum handlebars fail in cyclocross; it's an
environment in which crashing is *not* the exception, it's the norm. And
there's no way a carbon fiber road bike handlebar is designed to withstand
multiple crashes. That's not why you buy them; the market looks to carbon
for its lightweight and vibration-damping characteristics. Unless a
manufacturer is going to produce a carbon fiber handlebar that's
specifically made (and thus durable enough) for 'cross use, I have to put
this failure into the suspect column for user error... the error, in this
case, being poor choice of equipment.
That's not to say that the bars might be defective, or designed poorly. But
they've certainly been used in an application guaranteed to bring out the
worst in them. That, to me, doesn't make sense. It's like all the
stupid-light mountain bike forks of yesteryear, that would fail in use.
Riders wanted stupid-light, but eventually lawyers got involved and forks
are now heavier, and much stronger, than they used to be.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:FqOdnYaIII7ENpbanZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com...
> bookieb wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 3:29 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon
>>>> fiber
>>>> handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a
>>>> mountain
>>>> bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
>>>> sometimes).
>>>> Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too
>>>> big
>>>> for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+
>>>> pound
>>>> guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we
>>>> draw
>>>> the line?
>>> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
>>> incident.
>>
>> <snip>
>>> I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
>>> place for crash damage.
>>
>> Agreed - quite possibly a QC problem, but I don't think that there is
>> info from the photo and/or the text to make a definitive judgement.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
>>> only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
>>> happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
>>> kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.
>>
>> No, you're absolutely right.
>>
>> Aside from this particular incident though, and your comments to Jim
>> below about "user error", Mike does have a point about the suitability
>> of parts for the application.
>>
>> You'd hope that all responsible staff in an LBS would point out that
>> the lightweight stem/bars/wheels/whatever is not suitable for off-road/
>> loaded touring/cross/"a gentleman of your build".
>>
>> Likewise, you'd hope that the shop would mention proper installation
>> procedure to the purchaser, and point out the recomended torque
>> figures on the stem - I've seen two sets of cabon bars destroyed by
>> over-enthusiasam with the allan key/lack of familiarity with the
>> concept of a torpue wrench.
>>
>> Where does that leave mail order or internet sales?
>> Where does that leave sales from shops which are not as clued in (or
>> as responsible)?
>>
>> ...and this isn't limited to the carbon/non-carbon debate either - it
>> applies to any very light weight or limited lifespan product, e.g. the
>> very lightweight Velocity OC rims.
>
> All good points. Re: the last one, "stupid light" has been around since
> bikes have been around. My concern with CF is that it's selling point is
> weight savings, so it's pushed into "stupid light" more or less
> automatically. Mike and others may argue that CF doesn't have to be made
> that way, and they're right, but market pressures will push things that
> way inevitably. Since CF carries a price premium (because it's inherently
> labor intensive), the market pushes for cost cutting, too.
>
> In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
> "previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
> and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
> what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
> damage and then catastrophically fail.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 14:38:25
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
>> "previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
>> and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
>> what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
>> damage and then catastrophically fail.
>
> I don't see it as a shortcoming of carbon fiber as much as a failure to
> exercise reasonable care in choice of equipment. Those are, near as I can
> tell, road handlebars. Even aluminum handlebars fail in cyclocross; it's an
> environment in which crashing is *not* the exception, it's the norm. And
> there's no way a carbon fiber road bike handlebar is designed to withstand
> multiple crashes. That's not why you buy them; the market looks to carbon
> for its lightweight and vibration-damping characteristics. Unless a
> manufacturer is going to produce a carbon fiber handlebar that's
> specifically made (and thus durable enough) for 'cross use, I have to put
> this failure into the suspect column for user error... the error, in this
> case, being poor choice of equipment.
>
> That's not to say that the bars might be defective, or designed poorly. But
> they've certainly been used in an application guaranteed to bring out the
> worst in them. That, to me, doesn't make sense. It's like all the
> stupid-light mountain bike forks of yesteryear, that would fail in use.
> Riders wanted stupid-light, but eventually lawyers got involved and forks
> are now heavier, and much stronger, than they used to be.
I guess what you're saying is that CF is fine for 'cross if the bars are
adequately strong to begin with? Or that CF isn't good for 'cross
because crashes are part of the game (and CF doesn't crash well)?
I don't know much about 'cross equipment, but I thought 'cross riders
usually used road bars. Wrong?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 12:06:42
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
> I guess what you're saying is that CF is fine for 'cross if the bars are
> adequately strong to begin with? Or that CF isn't good for 'cross because
> crashes are part of the game (and CF doesn't crash well)?
No. What I'm saying is that it's dumb to use a carbon-fiber bar that was
designed primarily to be light, in an application where it's normal to have
crashes. And that particular bar isn't in any way reinforced for 'cross
application. It's got a cool shape that people like, and it's substantially
lighter than a similar aluminum bar would be.
> I don't know much about 'cross equipment, but I thought 'cross riders
> usually used road bars. Wrong?
They use heavier road bars, not the stupid-light stuff. People break
stupid-light aluminum parts all the time in 'cross use. Smart people know
better. But with carbon fiber, I don't know that you even have the choice of
something beefed-up for 'cross use, and using a standard road bar is just
asking for trouble. But, some people have more money than sense, and figure
what the heck, they want the advantage, they just won't crash. In 'cross.
Sure.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:eN2dnW7sY_g_V5banZ2dnUVZ_qelnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> In that one blog/forum, there were 2 bar failures reported, both
>>> "previously owned". You would think the buyers would have inspected them
>>> and/or been watchful for symptoms of damage. To me, this is evidence of
>>> what I see as the greatest shortcoming of CF, its ability to conceal
>>> damage and then catastrophically fail.
>>
>> I don't see it as a shortcoming of carbon fiber as much as a failure to
>> exercise reasonable care in choice of equipment. Those are, near as I can
>> tell, road handlebars. Even aluminum handlebars fail in cyclocross; it's
>> an environment in which crashing is *not* the exception, it's the norm.
>> And there's no way a carbon fiber road bike handlebar is designed to
>> withstand multiple crashes. That's not why you buy them; the market looks
>> to carbon for its lightweight and vibration-damping characteristics.
>> Unless a manufacturer is going to produce a carbon fiber handlebar that's
>> specifically made (and thus durable enough) for 'cross use, I have to put
>> this failure into the suspect column for user error... the error, in this
>> case, being poor choice of equipment.
>>
>> That's not to say that the bars might be defective, or designed poorly.
>> But they've certainly been used in an application guaranteed to bring out
>> the worst in them. That, to me, doesn't make sense. It's like all the
>> stupid-light mountain bike forks of yesteryear, that would fail in use.
>> Riders wanted stupid-light, but eventually lawyers got involved and forks
>> are now heavier, and much stronger, than they used to be.
>
> I guess what you're saying is that CF is fine for 'cross if the bars are
> adequately strong to begin with? Or that CF isn't good for 'cross because
> crashes are part of the game (and CF doesn't crash well)?
>
> I don't know much about 'cross equipment, but I thought 'cross riders
> usually used road bars. Wrong?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 02:24:17
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
There's an attribution problem below. I think Peter Cole wrote the
questions Mike is answering.
In article <cjQOi.2835$y21.1628@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> > I guess what you're saying is that CF is fine for 'cross if the bars are
> > adequately strong to begin with? Or that CF isn't good for 'cross because
> > crashes are part of the game (and CF doesn't crash well)?
>
> No. What I'm saying is that it's dumb to use a carbon-fiber bar that was
> designed primarily to be light, in an application where it's normal to have
> crashes. And that particular bar isn't in any way reinforced for 'cross
> application. It's got a cool shape that people like, and it's substantially
> lighter than a similar aluminum bar would be.
>
> > I don't know much about 'cross equipment, but I thought 'cross riders
> > usually used road bars. Wrong?
>
> They use heavier road bars, not the stupid-light stuff. People break
> stupid-light aluminum parts all the time in 'cross use. Smart people know
> better. But with carbon fiber, I don't know that you even have the choice of
> something beefed-up for 'cross use, and using a standard road bar is just
> asking for trouble. But, some people have more money than sense, and figure
> what the heck, they want the advantage, they just won't crash. In 'cross.
> Sure.
The word that jumped out at me in that thread was "used." Which, along
with "big hole," pretty much tells you all you need to know.
http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
Note that later in the post, there's another victim of...a used set of
carbon bars!
Again, it's easy to blame the material for the sins of the designers and
builders. But carbon is full of terrible temptations for the new user:
"make the handlebars 175 grams! Your customers will love you...."
However, I don't take the view that the impure thoughts of designers are
sufficient reason to avoid tasty carbon parts. It is rather a case of
making sure that the designer's wayward impulses are curbed, and that
they stay true to their FEA, or whatever it is that designers are
supposed to do so their stuff doesn't break.
We're still talking about bike parts, right?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 08:29:23
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 8, 5:07 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
Now I am going to be paranoid. I wish we knew the history of
> these bars. -- Jay Beattie.
She did specify that she got them used.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 08:25:01
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
> glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption. no
> way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
> broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.-
Cue Jambo talking about "singing carbon"...
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:17:11
From: Marian
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 9, 8:07 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 4:55 pm, Jim Behning
>
>
>
> <jimbehn...@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
>
> > <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >raelwelcome wrote:
> > >> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
> > >> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>
> > >>http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>
> > >> or
>
> > >>http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>
> > >I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>
> > >Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
> > >another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>
> > >Dumb application.
>
> > One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
> > pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
> > cross bike after that.
>
> Aluminum is not a guaranty of strength. I broke a pair of aluminum
> bars that were OE on a cross bike -- after less than a year of
> commuting. With that said . . . DAMN! I own a pair of those FSA
> bars. They are really comfortable, and I got them cheap (they are
> otherwise horrendously expensive). It looks like they broke about
> where there is a hole in the bar for internally routing the brake
> cables. Now I am going to be paranoid. I wish we knew the history of
> these bars. -- Jay Beattie.
In fact, those are the exactly the bars I'm planning to buy.
Right now I've got an interesting pair of carbon/aluminum mix that,
with the handlebar tape on, look to the uninitiated like the FSA style
bars and which are almost as comfy but which aren't quite right
(haven't tracked down the source of non-rightness in them, just that
while they are better than the bars I previously had and vastly
superior to the FSA bars in that they were IN THE SHOP on the SAME DAY
as my bike build there is a wrongness.)
-M
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 17:07:04
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Oct 8, 4:55 pm, Jim Behning
<jimbehn...@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
>
>
>
>
>
> <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >raelwelcome wrote:
> >> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
> >> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>
> >>http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>
> >> or
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>
> >I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>
> >Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
> >another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>
> >Dumb application.
>
> One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
> pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
> cross bike after that.
Aluminum is not a guaranty of strength. I broke a pair of aluminum
bars that were OE on a cross bike -- after less than a year of
commuting. With that said . . . DAMN! I own a pair of those FSA
bars. They are really comfortable, and I got them cheap (they are
otherwise horrendously expensive). It looks like they broke about
where there is a hole in the bar for internally routing the brake
cables. Now I am going to be paranoid. I wish we knew the history of
these bars. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
raelwelcome wrote:
> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>
> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
another broken CF bar on the same thread.
Dumb application.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:55:21
From: Jim Behning
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
<peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
>raelwelcome wrote:
>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
>> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>>
>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>
>I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>
>Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>
>Dumb application.
One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
cross bike after that.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 21:28:33
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
Jim Behning wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> raelwelcome wrote:
>>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
>>> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>>>
>>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>
>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>
>> Dumb application.
> One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
> pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
> cross bike after that.
strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption. no
way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:24:35
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:ArGdnQdQasvvnpbanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
But since you're a proven liar and fraud, that statement really amounts to
nothing.
> the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
> glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption. no way
> that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then broken
> later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.
Sure. Learned that from "metarials skool", did we?
Idiot.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:19:00
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
jim beam wrote:
> Jim Behning wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> raelwelcome wrote:
>>>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran
>>>> across this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>>>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>>
>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>>
>>> Dumb application.
>> One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
>> pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
>> cross bike after that.
>
> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
I doubt that any single individual's experience represents a
statistically meaningful sample.
> the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
> glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption.
You must have the "microscope plug-in" for your browser. No way you can
make out that level of detail.
> no
> way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
> broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.
You know this, how? She doesn't mention a prior crash, she doesn't
mention creaking or flex.
"Blame the user", where have I heard that before?
I thought your claim was that all CF bars failed from over-clamping? Or
crappy Chinese process control? It looks like simple brittle failure to
me. Where's that "headroom"?, that "impact tolerance"?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 20:55:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Jim Behning wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> raelwelcome wrote:
>>>>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran
>>>>> across this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>>>>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>>>
>>>> Dumb application.
>>> One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
>>> pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
>>> cross bike after that.
>>
>> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>
> I doubt that any single individual's experience represents a
> statistically meaningful sample.
disregard anything that doesn't agree with your preconception! typical
peter cole.
>
>
>> the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
>> glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption.
>
> You must have the "microscope plug-in" for your browser. No way you can
> make out that level of detail.
you must have the "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
preconception" module plugged into your browser - the jagged ends of the
fracture are /clearly/ evident.
>
>> no way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
>> broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.
>
> You know this, how? She doesn't mention a prior crash, she doesn't
> mention creaking or flex.
so how exactly is that inconsistent with "not paying attention to the
warning signs"???
>
> "Blame the user", where have I heard that before?
where have we seen "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
preconception" behavior before?
>
> I thought your claim was that all CF bars failed from over-clamping?
no, not "all". that's you putting words in my mouth.
> Or
> crappy Chinese process control?
no. although it's a prime candidate.
> It looks like simple brittle failure to
> me.
saying that /proves/ you don't know what you're looking at!
> Where's that "headroom"?, that "impact tolerance"?
define "impact". oh, you won't? what a surprise.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:25:48
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:dc6dnRB9qaih0JHanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Jim Behning wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:58:09 -0400, Peter Cole
>>>> <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> raelwelcome wrote:
>>>>>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran
>>>>>> across this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>>>>>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>>>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>>>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dumb application.
>>>> One of my friends broke a CF bar in a cross race. He is about 160
>>>> pounds so not a heavyweight. I think he did aluminum bars for the
>>>> cross bike after that.
>>>
>>> strange. i've had more aluminum bars break than carbon. "jra" too.
>>
>> I doubt that any single individual's experience represents a
>> statistically meaningful sample.
>
> disregard anything that doesn't agree with your preconception! typical
> peter cole.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> the fracture surface shown in that pic is not that of "shatters like
>>> glass", it's jagged and evidence of substantial energy absorption.
>>
>> You must have the "microscope plug-in" for your browser. No way you can
>> make out that level of detail.
>
> you must have the "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
> preconception" module plugged into your browser - the jagged ends of the
> fracture are /clearly/ evident.
>
>
>>
>>> no way that got damaged just riding along - it was damaged first, then
>>> broken later by a rider not paying attention to the warning signs.
>>
>> You know this, how? She doesn't mention a prior crash, she doesn't
>> mention creaking or flex.
>
> so how exactly is that inconsistent with "not paying attention to the
> warning signs"???
>
>
>>
>> "Blame the user", where have I heard that before?
>
> where have we seen "disregard anything that doesn't agree with your
> preconception" behavior before?
>
>
>
>>
>> I thought your claim was that all CF bars failed from over-clamping?
>
> no, not "all". that's you putting words in my mouth.
>
>> Or crappy Chinese process control?
>
> no. although it's a prime candidate.
>
>> It looks like simple brittle failure to me.
>
> saying that /proves/ you don't know what you're looking at!
>
>
>> Where's that "headroom"?, that "impact tolerance"?
>
> define "impact". oh, you won't? what a surprise.
Here we go again, perfect example of beamboy getting caught out and
providing no useful response whatsoever.
Idiot.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:38:41
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>
> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>
> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported another
> broken CF bar on the same thread.
>
> Dumb application.
My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
they've been impacted but appear OK). I cannot think of a worse application
than a bar designed for normal road use on a 'cross bike. (Or does FSA make
a beefier version for 'cross use?)
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:x7KdnWDth9edK5fanZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com...
> raelwelcome wrote:
>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
>> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>
> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>
> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported another
> broken CF bar on the same thread.
>
> Dumb application.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:51:55
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>
>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported another
>> broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>
>> Dumb application.
>
> My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
> going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
> they've been impacted but appear OK).
But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).
> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:x7KdnWDth9edK5fanZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> raelwelcome wrote:
>>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
>>> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>>
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>
>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported another
>> broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>
>> Dumb application.
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 00:01:12
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>>
>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>>
>>> Dumb application.
>>
>> My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
>> going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
>> they've been impacted but appear OK).
>
> But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).
Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
sometimes).
Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
the line?
Ultimately, the line is drawn by consumers and lawyers. Not me, not people
on rbt.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:iPSdnSFNW7kHX5fanZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>>
>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>>
>>> Dumb application.
>>
>> My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
>> going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
>> they've been impacted but appear OK).
>
> But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).
>
>> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:x7KdnWDth9edK5fanZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> raelwelcome wrote:
>>>> Not that I want to stir up the good/bad carbon debate, but I ran across
>>>> this post today. Looks like this could have been painful.
>>>> http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266
>>>>
>>>> or http://tinyurl.com/3xx7sr
>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>>
>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>>
>>> Dumb application.
>>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:29:39
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>>>
>>>> Dumb application.
>>> My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
>>> going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
>>> they've been impacted but appear OK).
>> But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).
>
> Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
> handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
> bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
> sometimes).
>
> Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
> for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
> guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
> the line?
>
> Ultimately, the line is drawn by consumers and lawyers. Not me, not people
> on rbt.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
incident. You seem to be asking whether the bars were suitable for
'cross, or whether they had been crashed and not replaced because of
expense.
We don't know whether they were crashed, no mention was made of it, so
I'm thinking not. I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
place for crash damage. If they were crashed, that gets us into the
whole "can CF be inspected" thing, and what constitutes a "crash" over
normal wear and tear.
As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 23:59:50
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
In article
<rtidneQFt_LJDZbanZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
> >>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dumb application.
> >>> My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
> >>> going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
> >>> they've been impacted but appear OK).
> >> But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross bikes).
> >
> > Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon fiber
> > handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a mountain
> > bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite making it
> > sometimes).
> >
> > Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too big
> > for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+ pound
> > guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do we draw
> > the line?
> >
> > Ultimately, the line is drawn by consumers and lawyers. Not me, not people
> > on rbt.
>
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
> incident. You seem to be asking whether the bars were suitable for
> 'cross, or whether they had been crashed and not replaced because of
> expense.
>
> We don't know whether they were crashed, no mention was made of it, so
> I'm thinking not. I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely
> place for crash damage. If they were crashed, that gets us into the
> whole "can CF be inspected" thing, and what constitutes a "crash" over
> normal wear and tear.
>
> As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
> only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
> happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
> kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.
She says "I hopped up to ride on the grass alongside the sidewalk"
leading me to surmise that she pulled up on the bars.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 12:49:21
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Broken Carbon Bars
|
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
> incident. You seem to be asking whether the bars were suitable for 'cross,
> or whether they had been crashed and not replaced because of expense.
>
> We don't know whether they were crashed, no mention was made of it, so I'm
> thinking not.
"I hopped up to ride on the grass alongside the sidewalk, and BOOM - hit a
hole. As I was headed off my bike,..."
Sounds like a crash to me!
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:rtidneQFt_LJDZbanZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> I don't think anything has to be said, that picture says it all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting she was only 150lb, and another female rider reported
>>>>> another broken CF bar on the same thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dumb application.
>>>> My biggest fear with carbon bars is that, due to their cost, people are
>>>> going to be less likely to replace them in the event of a crash (when
>>>> they've been impacted but appear OK).
>>> But that's part of the problem isn't it? (and not just for 'cross
>>> bikes).
>>
>> Inappropriate use of an item is always a problem, whether for a carbon
>> fiber handlebar or the guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to wreck a
>> mountain bike by riding it on the street jumping curbs (and not quite
>> making it sometimes).
>>
>> Should we not sell 23c tires because there are some riders who are too
>> big for them? I agree that the salesperson should point out to the 200+
>> pound guy that it's not appropriate, but should they not exist? Where do
>> we draw the line?
>>
>> Ultimately, the line is drawn by consumers and lawyers. Not me, not
>> people on rbt.
>
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, specifically about this
> incident. You seem to be asking whether the bars were suitable for 'cross,
> or whether they had been crashed and not replaced because of expense.
>
> We don't know whether they were crashed, no mention was made of it, so I'm
> thinking not. I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like a likely place
> for crash damage. If they were crashed, that gets us into the whole "can
> CF be inspected" thing, and what constitutes a "crash" over normal wear
> and tear.
>
> As to the suitability of those bars for 'cross, she is only 150lb, and
> only dropped the front wheel into a hole, the sort of thing that could
> happen to any road bike. I'd like to think any bars could survive that
> kind of event. Maybe I'm just picky.
|
|
