Carbon Frame Reliability

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:33:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
My friend just returned from Italy on a tour up the entire length of the east coast.

He visited the factory that built his and his wife's custom steel frames.

They also build carbon fiber frames and sponsor a Pro team. When Mike asked them about their reliability the company official that was showing them around said that he would not recommend ANYONE buying a carbon fiber frameset.

He said that pro teams replace their framesets generally each race because they cannot take the chance injuring a rider with a failure. This is a famous Italian marque that has made bicycles since 1957. So the opinion of the factory should bear some weight.


Tommasini began making bicycles in 1957. And they still make steel bikes. And offer custom frames. So we will assume your friend and his wife were riding Tommasini bikes and stopped at their factory in Grosseto, Italy. Grosseto is on the WEST coast of Italy 100 miles north of Rome. But you said their tour was on the EAST coast of Italy. Seems your story already has some facts wrong. But I understand wrong facts do not deter you folks.

I am sure Tommasini has sponsored pro teams in the past. So that part of your story is believable. And as pointed out by others, your story has a lot of pieces in it. Your friend told you what he heard from the tour guide at the Tommasini factory. Generally truth is best if it comes directly from the source. Not two or three interpreters in between. And of course how knowledgeable a tour guide is about the quality of carbon bikes is a question. I worked for a utility company. But I do not know how good our gas and electric repairmen were at their jobs. Are you going to ask the GM factory worker how accurate and credible the financial statements are?

Now I am assuming you have never ever worked for anyone in your entire life.. I say that because most, all, people with current jobs, do not denigrate their own company during working hours. Yet you tell us that the company tour guide denigrated his own company's carbon bikes during a guided tour. That would be very similar to Andy Muzi's employees telling customers that Andy is an A Hole and is the worst bike mechanic in Madison or Wisconsin. And they had better run away from Andy's shop. Maybe that happens, but I doubt it.

On 8/7/19 8:20 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:14:50 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 7/7/19 10:06 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, James wrote:


Most of them have two bikes. A frame may be discarded after a
serious crash or at the end of a season. Generally not
before. Certainly not after every race.



The actual sponsor of a Pro Team said that is what they do. Where
are you getting your information from?

An actual pro.

-- JS

James, so your "actual pro" knows more about what happens with the
dimensions they take from him than the factory does? As I said, the
man who sent this to me is that man who saved my life. The man who
spent 30 years as a detective for the Federal Government. He was good
enough to catch quite a few foreign spies. That isn't a rumor because
I read it in the NCIS house organ praising his work. Do you suppose
he doesn't know what questions to ask?

Looking at videos that show the mechanics trucks what you can
discover is that each rider has two bikes minimum. Plus TT bikes.
What's more, there is an entire line of bare frames why would you
suppose that is? Even on GCN they mentioned that the cameras
purposely pan away when the frames break up. One of the mechanics
said that they often carry off these crashes in a wheel bag.

The idea that you can have ultra-light and ultra-reliable is rather
opposite ideas don't you think?


Of course they have two built road bikes and a TT bike to race. That is
normal. Many have a training bike as well.

Of course it is likely that a frame is damaged in a crash, and a spare
frame is kept on hand. The mechanic will have multiple spares of most
things at his/her disposal, but not a frame per race.

The team mechanic does clean each bike after every race. The team
mechanic does not strip all components from every bike after each race
(or three week tour), and rebuild them on a new frame.

Bear in mind that all teams are not funded equally. Some teams probably
can afford to discard equipment sooner than others, but frames are not
generally disposable.

Sure CF frames break, but metal frames bend in bike race crashes too.
I've bent a few myself.

Yes ultra light and ultra reliable are opposing, however I have ridden
my steel frame that is made from some of the lightest, thinnest and most
fragile steel tubes available, for over 88,000km so far. Most world
tour level pros cover 20-30,000km per year, and spread over two race
bikes and a training bike, each one of them has plenty more life in them.

How much force do you think it takes to dent a steel tube that has a
wall thickness of just 0.38mm?

--
JS

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts - sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

Err... Tom!
The first fiberglass/resin made boat seems to have been built by a guy
named Ray Greene in Toledo, Ohio, who built a fiberglass and
polyester sailboat in 1942.
Frank Thomas of the Shakespeare Sporting Goods Company conceived and
created the first graphite golf club shaft in 1969. Note: All graphite
shafts are made from layers of carbon fiber.
The first carbon fiber used in F1 racing cars was in the 1980's.

The point of this discourse is that using composite is not "new
science" but rather an old - 77 years - and established practice. Your
example of carbon fiber handle bars with defects is not an example of
any shortcomings of the material but rather an example of very shoddy
construction.

Like cheap carbon wheels, you buy cheap and you get cheap (and
shoddy). As my Grandmother used to say, "you pays your money and you
takes your choice".
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:57:11 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts - sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

You don't need to be an engineer to question your story about disposable CF frames. The numbers don't add up. A factory would have to produce a staggering amount of product to outfit a pro-team for a single season. Each rider has maybe four to six bikes (road/TT/climbing and spares), and if you threw those out after every race or even stage race, that would over a hundred a year -- for every rider. The factory would go broke just supporting a pro-team. And now bicycle sponsors are paying money rather than just providing product, so that factory would be knocking out hundreds of bikes and paying some huge amount of money to sponsor the team. No Italian CF frame manufacturer that also makes one-off steel frames for your friends could do it. And if so, what is the name of the factory? We could easily fact check.

-- Jay Beattie.

In 2008 a German named Gunter Mai built a 3.2 kg bike and logged
over 20,000km on the machine over a couple years. Subsequently the
weight was further reduced to 2.7kg

Given that the lightest legal racing bike weighs 6.8 kg and a 3.2kg
bike has been ridden for 20,000 km with, apparently, no problems it
seems highly unlike that a bicycle manufacturer would built a 6.8kg
bike and than recommend that it be replaced after each race.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. writes:

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:57:11 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is
Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and
watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts -
sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life
engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most
especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not
manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be
seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely
unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows
large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components
that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the
difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

You don't need to be an engineer to question your story about
disposable CF frames. The numbers don't add up. A factory would
have to produce a staggering amount of product to outfit a pro-team
for a single season. Each rider has maybe four to six bikes
(road/TT/climbing and spares), and if you threw those out after
every race or even stage race, that would over a hundred a year --
for every rider. The factory would go broke just supporting a
pro-team. And now bicycle sponsors are paying money rather than
just providing product, so that factory would be knocking out
hundreds of bikes and paying some huge amount of money to sponsor
the team. No Italian CF frame manufacturer that also makes one-off
steel frames for your friends could do it. And if so, what is the
name of the factory? We could easily fact check.

-- Jay Beattie.

In 2008 a German named Gunter Mai built a 3.2 kg bike and logged
over 20,000km on the machine over a couple years. Subsequently the
weight was further reduced to 2.7kg

Given that the lightest legal racing bike weighs 6.8 kg and a 3.2kg
bike has been ridden for 20,000 km with, apparently, no problems it
seems highly unlike that a bicycle manufacturer would built a 6.8kg
bike and than recommend that it be replaced after each race.

Not to mention that all those frames would have to *go* somewhere. Even
if they were supposed to be thrown out there would be a great temptation
for someone to make at least a little money on them. Where are all
these carbon racing frames, only ridden once, by a little old lady, up
Alpe d'Huez? I would expect every homeless person in Portland to have
at least one.

--

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:33:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
My friend just returned from Italy on a tour up the entire length of the east coast.

He visited the factory that built his and his wife's custom steel frames.

They also build carbon fiber frames and sponsor a Pro team. When Mike asked them about their reliability the company official that was showing them around said that he would not recommend ANYONE buying a carbon fiber frameset.

He said that pro teams replace their framesets generally each race because they cannot take the chance injuring a rider with a failure. This is a famous Italian marque that has made bicycles since 1957. So the opinion of the factory should bear some weight.


Tommasini began making bicycles in 1957. And they still make steel bikes.. And offer custom frames. So we will assume your friend and his wife were riding Tommasini bikes and stopped at their factory in Grosseto, Italy. Grosseto is on the WEST coast of Italy 100 miles north of Rome. But you said their tour was on the EAST coast of Italy. Seems your story already has some facts wrong. But I understand wrong facts do not deter you folks.

I am sure Tommasini has sponsored pro teams in the past. So that part of your story is believable. And as pointed out by others, your story has a lot of pieces in it. Your friend told you what he heard from the tour guide at the Tommasini factory. Generally truth is best if it comes directly from the source. Not two or three interpreters in between. And of course how knowledgeable a tour guide is about the quality of carbon bikes is a question. I worked for a utility company. But I do not know how good our gas and electric repairmen were at their jobs. Are you going to ask the GM factory worker how accurate and credible the financial statements are?

Now I am assuming you have never ever worked for anyone in your entire life. I say that because most, all, people with current jobs, do not denigrate their own company during working hours. Yet you tell us that the company tour guide denigrated his own company's carbon bikes during a guided tour.. That would be very similar to Andy Muzi's employees telling customers that Andy is an A Hole and is the worst bike mechanic in Madison or Wisconsin.. And they had better run away from Andy's shop. Maybe that happens, but I doubt it.

Are you telling us that touring the east coast of Italy doesn't allow one to take a detour to visit Rome and Grossetto before returning to the east coast to see Venice?

At what point in reality do you start designing the tour plan for other people? As I stated - this man spent 30 years as a detective. Explain to us all how many years were you a federal detective? The level of ignorance of people like you is grossly understated even by me.

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 5:10:40 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 8/7/19 8:20 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:14:50 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 7/7/19 10:06 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, James wrote:


Most of them have two bikes. A frame may be discarded after a
serious crash or at the end of a season. Generally not
before. Certainly not after every race.



The actual sponsor of a Pro Team said that is what they do. Where
are you getting your information from?

An actual pro.

-- JS

James, so your "actual pro" knows more about what happens with the
dimensions they take from him than the factory does? As I said, the
man who sent this to me is that man who saved my life. The man who
spent 30 years as a detective for the Federal Government. He was good
enough to catch quite a few foreign spies. That isn't a rumor because
I read it in the NCIS house organ praising his work. Do you suppose
he doesn't know what questions to ask?

Looking at videos that show the mechanics trucks what you can
discover is that each rider has two bikes minimum. Plus TT bikes.
What's more, there is an entire line of bare frames why would you
suppose that is? Even on GCN they mentioned that the cameras
purposely pan away when the frames break up. One of the mechanics
said that they often carry off these crashes in a wheel bag.

The idea that you can have ultra-light and ultra-reliable is rather
opposite ideas don't you think?


Of course they have two built road bikes and a TT bike to race. That is
normal. Many have a training bike as well.

Of course it is likely that a frame is damaged in a crash, and a spare
frame is kept on hand. The mechanic will have multiple spares of most
things at his/her disposal, but not a frame per race.

The team mechanic does clean each bike after every race. The team
mechanic does not strip all components from every bike after each race
(or three week tour), and rebuild them on a new frame.

Bear in mind that all teams are not funded equally. Some teams probably
can afford to discard equipment sooner than others, but frames are not
generally disposable.

Sure CF frames break, but metal frames bend in bike race crashes too.
I've bent a few myself.

Yes ultra light and ultra reliable are opposing, however I have ridden
my steel frame that is made from some of the lightest, thinnest and most
fragile steel tubes available, for over 88,000km so far. Most world
tour level pros cover 20-30,000km per year, and spread over two race
bikes and a training bike, each one of them has plenty more life in them.

How much force do you think it takes to dent a steel tube that has a
wall thickness of just 0.38mm?

--
JS

Yeah, we all have your opinion - you know far more about pro racing than the factory that sponsors it. What's next - you know more about the Tour de France than Bob Roll?

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 6:14:57 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts - sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

Err... Tom!
The first fiberglass/resin made boat seems to have been built by a guy
named Ray Greene in Toledo, Ohio, who built a fiberglass and
polyester sailboat in 1942.
Frank Thomas of the Shakespeare Sporting Goods Company conceived and
created the first graphite golf club shaft in 1969. Note: All graphite
shafts are made from layers of carbon fiber.
The first carbon fiber used in F1 racing cars was in the 1980's.

The point of this discourse is that using composite is not "new
science" but rather an old - 77 years - and established practice. Your
example of carbon fiber handle bars with defects is not an example of
any shortcomings of the material but rather an example of very shoddy
construction.

Like cheap carbon wheels, you buy cheap and you get cheap (and
shoddy). As my Grandmother used to say, "you pays your money and you
takes your choice".
--
cheers,

John B.

Again you demonstrate that it is impossible for you to have ever been an engineer. You cannot even fathom the strength to weight problem.

On Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:31:47 +0700, John B.
wrote:

In 2008 a German named Gunter Mai built a 3.2 kg bike and logged
over 20,000km on the machine over a couple years. Subsequently the
weight was further reduced to 2.7kg

"Weighing just 2.7kg, find out how this bike got turned into a lean,
mean climbing machine."
https://www.redbull.com/au-en/check-out-the-worlds-lightest-custom-road-bike

Given that the lightest legal racing bike weighs 6.8 kg and a 3.2kg
bike has been ridden for 20,000 km with, apparently, no problems it
seems highly unlike that a bicycle manufacturer would built a 6.8kg
bike and than recommend that it be replaced after each race.

The minimum weight for competition cycling exists to insure that there
is some safety factor built into the design and construction. It is
not a good thing having bicycles self-disassemble during a race.
However, the 6.8Kg limit was established in 2000, before the carbon
fiber became a commodity material. There has been some discussion on
lowering the minimum weight limit:

"How Tour De France Weight Regulations Will Make Your Next Bicycle
Better"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2015/07/25/how-tour-de-france-weight-regulations-will-make-your-next-bicycle-better/


Drivel:
"Ants Can Support 5,000 Times Their Body Weight Before Losing Their
Heads"
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5970/20140210/ants-support-5-000-times-body-weight-before-losing-heads.htm
A 6.8Kg bicycle in the Tour de France is expected to support a 65kg
rider. That's only about 10 times the weight of the bicycle. Perhaps
the next generation of bicycle design might need some help from the
ants. Or, dump carbon fiber and switch to carbon nanotube and
graphene:
"Graphene bicycles - the potential future of composites"
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/graphene-bicycles-the-potential-future-of-composites/
Carbon nanotubes might be 20 times stronger than carbon fiber, but the
ants still do it better.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 7/8/2019 9:32 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:57:11 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:00:37 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2019 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:

We might ask Frank whether he ever suggest that his engineering
students got their data from youtube. Or perhaps what his reaction
would have been if anyone had submitted a paper with a footnote saying
that "the values above were obtained from watching youtube".

One project I assigned annually was to research a variety of mechanical
and thermal properties of many different materials - various metal
alloys, a selection of plastics, a couple species of wood, etc.

No, YouTube would not have qualified as a source.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Another web source that is not usually accepted by professors is
Wikipedia. It's astounding how many people read Wikipedia and
watch You Tube and then pass themselves off as experts -
sometimes even on You Tube.

Cheers

There are problems that people who have never been real-life
engineers do not understand. That is that some materials, most
especially resin based materials are extremely easy to not
manufacture properly. Voids and sharp edges in areas that cannot be
seen can lead to failures that Frank's "numbers" are completely
unaware of.

When someone on YouTube has bisected a carbon handlebar and shows
large areas of voids on the most expensive American made components
that might give you reasons to think rather differently about the
difference between engineering numbers and actual end product.

You don't need to be an engineer to question your story about
disposable CF frames. The numbers don't add up. A factory would
have to produce a staggering amount of product to outfit a pro-team
for a single season. Each rider has maybe four to six bikes
(road/TT/climbing and spares), and if you threw those out after
every race or even stage race, that would over a hundred a year --
for every rider. The factory would go broke just supporting a
pro-team. And now bicycle sponsors are paying money rather than
just providing product, so that factory would be knocking out
hundreds of bikes and paying some huge amount of money to sponsor
the team. No Italian CF frame manufacturer that also makes one-off
steel frames for your friends could do it. And if so, what is the
name of the factory? We could easily fact check.

-- Jay Beattie.

In 2008 a German named Gunter Mai built a 3.2 kg bike and logged
over 20,000km on the machine over a couple years. Subsequently the
weight was further reduced to 2.7kg

Given that the lightest legal racing bike weighs 6.8 kg and a 3.2kg
bike has been ridden for 20,000 km with, apparently, no problems it
seems highly unlike that a bicycle manufacturer would built a 6.8kg
bike and than recommend that it be replaced after each race.

Not to mention that all those frames would have to *go* somewhere. Even
if they were supposed to be thrown out there would be a great temptation
for someone to make at least a little money on them. Where are all
these carbon racing frames, only ridden once, by a little old lady, up
Alpe d'Huez? I would expect every homeless person in Portland to have
at least one.


Pro teams (heck even some well organized amateur teams) have
an annual equipment sale at some large retailer. Been that
way all my life.

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