"I enjoyed last night's talk at the club meeting on frame technology, materials etc, but felt that the speaker was too much of a salesman.
Unless I misheard him, his comments on the comparative strengths of titanium and carbon fibre directly contradicted what the man demonstrating Serrotta and the NY bike show said and what I've been told elsewhere. At the bike show, the Serrotta man told me that the carbon was stronger than the titanium, even though it's lighter.
I'm also not sure that the claims our speaker made about the Italian bicycle industry are true, ie that Colnago and Campagnolo were the only companies that have pure Italian engineering in their products. I would have liked to have heard some evidence to support what could otherwise have been slanderous and libellous claims.
Given what our speaker said last night about carbon seatposts and forks, why haven't we heard of people suffering serious injuries when these components have failed? Surely there would have been some well-publicised lawsuits by now. Is it really necessary for me to consider changing my five-year old carbon fork? Do carbon fork manufacturers put warnings on their packaging, saying, ""Replace after five years, failure to do so could result in failure and serious injury""? Do carbon seat post manufacturers say on their packaging ""Replace after two years, failure to do so could result in failure and serious injury""? I don't think so.
If aluminium is so bad, why is the Saeco Team No 1 in the world UCI rankings?
I'd like to hear a talk on the subject given by a craftsman from a frame builder, rather than a sales representative, or a technician who can speak objectively about the quality of frame building and the merits and properties of carbon, steel, aluminium, titanium etc."
Last night's sales pitch at club meeting
I never heard him or anyone say carbon was weaker. He did say that over time and with the nicks and scratches that occur with use, carbon is more prone to failure. He also said it would get more flexible with time as micro cracks occur in the epoxy.
Besides define weaker- fresh from the factory or after being hammered for 5 years? Or define carbon fiber. Or titanium. Are we talking about the same outer diameter/inner diameter tubes in each material, or just the same weight, configured in any form that gets the job done? Sounds like apples and oranges.
I have never heard about carbon getting softer with use before, but I have heard many people express concerns about sudden catastrphic failure in both carbon and aluminum frames and parts. Campy Nuovo Record cranks were noted for breaking.
I've never heard of a carbon fork mfgr saying their forks were only good for X number of years, but I have an aluminum Deda Newton bar and stem. In addition to very specific ft/lbs of torque for all the bolts, the mfgrs insert in the box says to race with it for 1 year and throw it away. I'm on my 3rd season, but I don't race and don't put in the kind of mileage that racers do. Life is a risky proposition.
Now let's remember, he is a sales rep, and as far as I know, we don't pay speakers at the NYCC, so other than sheer love of the sport, what do you think his incentive was to come entertain us? I expect him to want us to get interested in his products, just as a chiropractor or dietician who comes to talk might expect to pick up a new patient or two as a result.
He certainly ground his axe about steel and rust (and far too dramatically at that) but at least he didn't try to tell us that steel gets soft with age. 8^/
And these days with all the coatings rust isn't much of an issue... as long as you don't store the bike on the terrace all winter. And rust is apparent, unlikely to cause a fatigue failure (granted Ti has similar toughness at a lower weight but higher price)... At a certain body weight a pound or two of frame matters very little (see l'etape du tour - bad climbers posting)
"I think Anthony's point is well taken. Regardless of Doug Kalb's motivation I think it is important to recognize that his case for Titanium was somewhat slanted and his case against other materials far too dramatic, as Evan pointed out. He also seemed hard pressed to give a straight answer to many of the reasonable questions that were asked. As an example, Doug mentioned that aluminum is okay for a few laps of the park but too uncomfortable to ride to Piermont. Bill Strachan made the excellent point that many ultra-distance riders he knows ride Cannondales, all of which are made of aluminum. Doug's response? ""[That's because]Cannondale is a great value."" If that isn't tap dancing, I don't know what is. The conventional wisdom is that aluminum is a rough ride but to say that it is too uncomfortable for a 50 mile ride streches the point way beyond credibility. And to say that price is the only motivation for so many ultra-distance riders to use aluminum is likewise a strech.
For those of us who own aluminum, carbon or steel frames, I wouldn't go out and trade them in for titanium based solely on Doug's presentation. There are plenty of people who put in a lot of miles over many years on frames of those materials who have not experienced rust, cracks or failures of any type. And there are plenty of stories about problems with titanium as well.
"
I rode a Cannondale track bike to Nyack a few times years ago...it wasn't too bad (even with it's steep angles and shorter wheelbase).
Don (who used to paceline to Nyack on skates)
Definitely, Tom. I have an old steel bike (Columbus SL) and a new aluminum one. The aluminum one w/ carbon fork is actually FAR more comfortable than the steel bike, even on 100 mile rides. Aluminum tubing has come a long way, and can't be compared to the aluminum of a few years ago. Also, there is no substitute for good geometry. The steel bike will outlast the aluminum one(fatigue), but as far as ride quality, no complaints about the AL.
I forgot to mention that I love my Cannondale Caad3, five-year-old road, aluminium frame, even though I spell and pronounce aluminium differently. I bought it in England and have now brought it back to the US.
It may be five years old, and it has a five-year-old Time carbon fork and even on the harsher roads of New York and the northeast US compared with kinder London and British road surfaces generally, I don't find it uncomfortable, even on long 100 plus mile rides.
In the first year I had it, I rode an End-to-End - Lands End to John O'Groats (southwest tip of England to northeast tip of Scotland) - 867 miles in five days, averaging over 170 miles a day for five successive days, and I did not find my Cannondale uncomfortable. I did have a bit of saddle sore on the last day, but who wouldn't under those circumstances?
The following year, I rode Nice to Paris, over the Alps in seven days - 737 miles, and found the Cannondale very comfortable, even on Alpine descents.
And I'm sure the technology has come on somewhat since then. If I could afford to buy a new road bike, I think I would stick to aluminium. In the meantime, I think I'll stick with mine and upgrade my Campag Record nine speed to 10 speed, seeing as my rear shifter spring is on the way out and the bike shops tell me that Campag 9 speed Record cassettes are becoming increasingly harder to obtain, even though Campag's website says they are still in production.
I also enjoy my steel frame on my touring bike, which is very comfy, but it is a touring bike, not a road bike - a different animal, used for different things.
I wonder what people think on whether or not I should replace my five-year-old carbon fork?
"I wanted to attend the meeting and presentation, but had to work late. I knew the discussion was going to be slanted toward titanium, with some degree of disinformation regarding other frame materials. Sheldon Brown, no mean bicycle expert, strongly believes that frame material does not contribute much to ride quality. First and foremost: wheels, tire and tire pressure. Then seatpost and saddle, lastly frame material. Given advances in technology and manufacturing processes, I tend to agree with him. Two bikes, with the same wheelset, tires, tire pressure, etc. but with different frame materials, won't ride appreciably different, especially regarding comfort, and its absolutely naive to propose that a modern aluminum bicycle will be appreciably less ""comfortable"" than a titanium, steel or carbon fiber one. I ride a Cannondale CAAD7 R5000SI and I do just fine on long rides. I will say this, nothing delivers power like an aluminum bike and this is something that can be appreciated, especially on long climbs."
The framebuilder's art.
Far more important than what material used is HOW it is used - in every material (steel, AL, Ti, CF) there are great frames, bad ones, and everything in between.
Forgot to mention this. Here, two materials, carbon fiber and aluminum have clear advantages over titanium and steel. Coupled with computer-aided design and a space-age understanding of material properties, a designer can maximize the properties of aluminum and carbon fiber to provide a desired feel.
"""computer-aided design and a space-age understanding of material properties, a designer can maximize the properties of aluminum and carbon fiber to provide a desired feel""
Boy, if that ain't BikeMag AdSpeak, I dunno what is.
I've got a steel bike that's 30 years old. And I've no doubt that, god willing, I'll be riding it 30 years from now. To me, that's performance.
Think you'll see many of today's disposable carbon or aluminum frames on the road in 2034? We'll see...
"
"""Boy, if that ain't BikeMag AdSpeak, I dunno what is.""
You have that right. Speaking of disposable, it should be interesting to see how long the latest Alu or Ti frames with glued on carbon stays last. Pure fashion and marketing.
Bike frames are basically trusses, and are extremely rigid in the vertical plane regardless of frame material. Ride comfort is determined by tire width and inflation pressure.
""Chainwheel""
"
I have owned 4 aluminum-framed road bikes since 1997; all are currently still being ridden: two by myself, two by others. Take a look at the stress test results I posted...
"Thin wall, super light frames of ANY material (including steel) can be classified as disposable. For pro racers who may be provided several frames a year, this is not too much of a concern.
Recreational riders (especially those over 170 lbs) are usually more concerned about durability. My comment was directed at the latest fad of gluing carbon stays onto Ti or Alu frames. This ""innovation"" does nothing for ride quality, but definitely compromises durability.
""Chainwheel"""
"Clearly, testing results previously posted show non- ""thin wall, light weight"" frames can and do fail, regardless of material. In addition, since Cannondale began supplying bicycles in the mid-1990s to the Saeco team, there has not been a single frame failure for any reason. All can be classified as ""thin wall, light weight"". Your comment classifying all light weight frames as disposable is simply ignorant."
"Easy, John. No need to use inflammatory words like ""ignorant.""
The test data you cited was collected in Germany in 1997 for an article in ""Tour,"" a German cycling magazine. Twelve bikes, manufactured using various materials and construction techniques, were tested. The results are indeed interesting, but let's not read too much into them.
For one thing, only one sample of each frame model was tested. And the frames were of different sizes and geometries.
As stated in the article:
""Because only one sample was tested in each case, no predictions about the quality and the scatter can be made about other frames in the series. During welding and brazing substantial deviations from the sample result are not unusual.""
The article goes on to say:
""The fact that aluminum and carbon frames in this test last longer than the steel frames is not in our estimate a question of the material, but the constructional expenditure. Not the material, but its skillful use gives the excursion.""
Some failures were likely due to manufacturing defects. Companies like Trek and Cannondale that used highly automated manufacturing techniques, would likely have had more consistent results than say, DeRosa which used hand brazing methods on their SLX frames.
Note that the welded aluminum Stevens frame failed much sooner than the lugged steel Barellia. So it's not really possible to draw any firm conclusions from this data.
The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.efbe.de/etour109.htm
""Chainwheel"""
"Earlier, I pointed to this study's small sample size as its leading flaw. I also pointed out other studies indicated similar results, albeit with the same problem of small sample size. Rightfully, you examine some possible explanations to the early failure of some frames as discussed in the full text: ""The fact that aluminum and carbon frames in this test last longer than the steel frames is not in our estimate a question of the material, but the constructional expenditure. Not the material, but its skillful use gives the excursion."" This is the very point I am trying to make regarding these materials, clearly contradicting your catgorizing of aluminum and carbon fiber bicycles as ""disposable"". So let me get this right. Steel frames will last 30 years provided they are lugged and are not manufactured by a small firm whose 70 year-old master fitter may have had too many vinos during lunch on any random day. Any other qualifiers?"
Sample size aside, the test does have some value. I think one conclusion that can be made is that aluminum and carbon are more than adequate materials for bicycle frames. Looking around at other's bikes while riding, it is not really shocking news, I'm sure.
As someone who rides a bike containing ti, al, steel and carbon parts, all such materials are suitable for a bicycle (frame). Most folks ride bikes w/ cranks made from Al and brake cables which are steel. The reliability of these parts, to name a few are much more critical than the frame as they are more likely to fail catastrophically. (Some folks without reservation will even manage to ride a cracked frame for a while ;-) Then there is the seatpost, seatpost collar pin, rims, hubs, etc. to consider.
There is one curious property aluminum has no other metal shares. Let's see if anyone knows of this property...
But so does stainless steel, an alloy (iron, carbon, chromium, and nickel and/or molybdenum).
I have an aluminum frame Fuji with a carbon fork. At 18 pounds, it has worked just fine for two years.
If I could afford a fine handmade steel frame or a titanium Litespeed, I'd be happy with one of those too.
It doesn't need to last for another 30 years, since I probably won't either.
Carol;
Many metals don't oxidize, this was not the property I an talking about.
Aluminum does oxidize. Those spiffy colored bike rims you see are usually anodized which in turn puts a protective oxide coating on the rim.
It cools quickly making a black frame tolerable to ride in the summer and its nonmagnetic which will make riding in thunder showers 0.001% safer and not interfere with electronics like a heart rate monitor and (notably) a power meter. ;-)
"I was going to point out this technicality but did not. Aluminum does oxidize but does not ""rust"" (corrode) like steel or iron. The oxidation layer forms a protective coating.
Aluminum is the most abundant metal to be found in the earth's crust; however, its never found in free-form and its existence was postulated before is discovery. What birthstones are aluminum oxide?"
What's the prize for accurately anwering this question?
How many columns to the right can we push this Web page? Will it cause an explosion of incomprehensible verbiage? How will we know the difference?
"Again, I wouldn't read too much into this limited data. The test shows that a lugged steel frame can outlast a welded aluminum frame (Barellia SLX vs. Stevens RPR4), and the opposite as well (Cannondale vs. DeRosa).
The problem is not just the small sample size. The test used much larger cyclic forces than normally encountered in bicycling (270 and 292 pounds) and a relatively small number of cycles. The 200,000 load cycles correspond to only about 700 miles of pedaling. As a result, the failures were more likely due to manufacturing defects than to material fatigue. Testing at more typical loads (but for a greater number of cycles) would likely have produced different results.
Yes, good engineering and manufacturing can produce frames that are light and durable. But when pushing the limits of ""stupid light"" there is certainly a point where durability begins to suffer. There's no free lunch.
Personally, I'd rather have a frame that is well engineered, well built, and perhaps a bit overbuilt. If that safety factor costs me few extra ounces, I don't mind. I'm not contesting L'Alpe d'Huez this year.
""Chainwheel"""
This is an obvious point for most of us, but the proper frame fit is crucial. A bad fit will make the frame material choice irrelevant.
For the uniniated who are considering the purchase of a new bike or frame, there have been plenty of postings where to get a good fit, regardless of body type, sex, et al
I didn't see the presentation, but I can testify that carbon seatposts do break -- one of my teammates snapped his Campy Record post a couple of weeks ago. It can't have been more than six months old, and he's not a particularly heavy rider. If anecdotal evidence (the comments of other riders after it happened) is to be believed, it's not that uncommon for them to break.
Removing the broken part from the seat tube is also trickier than you might think. We had neutral support that day, and they eventually managed to extract it by poking the tip of a screwdriver into the slot on the seat tube, then hammering it through the wall of the remaining seatpost and prying it out.
"I took broke a Campagnolo carbon fiber seat post, after only about 2 months use; could not get a warranty replacement either. Since then, I have used a USE Alien carbon fiber seat post, and more recently, a Deda Black Stick Mag carbon fiber seat post, each with no problems. I have heard that there are reliability problems with Campagnolo carbon fiber seat posts. I was so angry at their lack of response to my warranty claim, I vowed never to purchase any of their ""vaunted"" products ever again. And I won't. Go Shimano!"
"Debunking the myth that aluminum bicycles are inherently less strong or less reliable than bicycles made from other materials is the data shown below:
Frame Material Cycles Break Location
Barellia SLX steel, lugs 119,316 Head tube, lower lug
Cannondale alu, welded 200,000 no break
De Rosa SLX steel, lugs 56,690 Head tube, lower lug
Fondriest steel, welded 77,171 both chain stays
Klein Quantum alu, welded 131,907 down tube, cable guide
Merlin Team Road ti, welded 100,595 down tube, shift boss
Nishiki Team steel, welded 78,206 total failure
Principia RSL alu, welded 200,000 no break
Schmolke Titan ti, welded 160.356 down tube, bottle boss
Stevens RPR4 alu, welded 85,032 right chain stay
Time Helix HM carbon/alu, lugs 181,966 right chain stay
Trek OCLV carbon, lugs 200,000 no break
The test was stopped at 200,000 cycles. Only three frames -- Cannondale, Trek, Principia -- two of them aluminum, completed the test without failure. Of particular note is the early failure of De Rosa and Fondriest steel frames and the Merlin titanium frame.
Why the myths then? Disinformation, started by European manufacturers when high-quality American bicycle frames first appeared in the Peloton. Cannondale was the first American bicycle manufacturer to sponsor a professional team, starting in the mid-1990s. Their frames were very, very well received by team riders, being strong and very light. Thus, a threat to European, specifically Italian manufacturers. Being made of aluminum, a material not yet fully accepted, Cannondale frames were ""rumored"" to be susceptible to failure. This ""rumor"" was easily ""substantiated"" by an actual problem Cannondale had with one of its early models, where a frame failure did cause an injury, lawsuit, and settlement that included a warning label that all Cannondale bikes carry to this day. Like any good manufacturer, Cannondale learned from its early design problem and has gone on to produce highly reliable frames. The rumors were so vicious and untrue that Joe Montgomery, Cannondale's president, was forced to publish an open letter to settle the facts: since Cannondale began supplying bicycles to the Saeco team, not a single frame has failed under any condition, the only manufacturer able to make such a claim. I have seen the letter, and I will post it when I locate it."
why does this remind me of yet another round in the shimano vs campy wars? i would bet that given the way most of us ride, frame composition is only useful as a conversation topic. and, i would suggest, that people swear by whatever frame material they have chosen. i personally like my Ti bike; my only regret is that i'm not riding enough. since the tour is on, may i suggest chacun a son gout (sorry about the lack of circumflexes, etc.).
as an aside, i am given to understand that, for whatever reason, campy seat posts (others?) are very temperamental. overtighten and the post cracks, potentially leading to subsequent failure. that's why i let the lbs do the work on seatpost installation/removal.
"Like those ""scientific"" surveys that claimed 4 out of 5 doctors preferred Camels?
My guess is that those tests were most likely sponsored by those whose products came out on top. Any number of ways of rigging this come to mind. The alu and carbon frames could have been non-production one-offs built especially beefy just for the test. The steel or ti frames could have been deliberately overcooked, or they could have seen 10 years of hard use before being clamped into the jig.
The only honest test would have to be conducted (and funded) totally independent of the industry. They'd have to procure their samples through normal retail channels just like you and me. And to eliminate any flukes, they'd have to test several identical examples of each and take the average.
Funny that in the first half of your post you try to make your case for alu or carbon by attempting to provide ""objective evidence"", and then in the second half start spinning some vague tale about the Black Hand of the traditional European builders colluding against Cannondale by spreading fearful rumors and disinformation.
Really...
Nothing wrong with alu or carbon; like a Bic lighter, it's light, functional and cheap. But there's no reason to be charging premium prices for them, and you're deluded if you think you're going to be passing them on to your heies."
The test was performed by an independent laboratory in Germany on a randomly selected frames. The only real problem with the test protocol was a small sample size, something you neglected to observe. However, I have seen results from other similar studies and they are the same. Let me ask you and all you aluminum haters a simple question. Since you seem to believe aluminum is unreliable with a short lief span, what do you do for long-distance transportation? Aircraft frames are made largely of aluminum. What do you do? Extra insurance? I know, le chemin de fer, even if it takes you forever to get there...
...do they weld planes together?
Lots of stress points... Newer planes rely very much on bonding (glue) and carbon fiber.
...i guess i'll ride my trek 2300 frame a few more years. :)
Aircraft frames and bicycle frames? Apples and oranges.
Skyscrapers have steel frames, never aluminum or carbon fiber. But that's got nothing to do with bikes either, right?
Aluminum was new and not fully accepted by the pro peloton in the mid 90s? Huh? Aluminum and carbon fiber frames had seen wide use for 10 years plus by then. Sean Kelly won 186 pro races, mostly on a Vitus. When you're competing up there in the 99.9th percentile, every ounce saved is an advantage, and as long as it holds up until the end of the race it's durable enough.
No Saeco 'dale has ever failed under any condition? You mean after one of Super Mario's famous 40 mph crashes, he just got up, straightened the bars, and rode it the rest of the season? I'd bet anything that the Saeco guys get their frames replaced at regular intervals, just to be sure.
"I never said ""new"", I said ""not fully accepted,"" something obviously true even to this day. Regarding the frame failures, even if I do find Scott Montgomery's letter, you won't believe it so I wonder if its worth my effort trying to locate."
So... we have the results from yet another stress test currently being conducted in the Pyrenees.
One (same sample rate as above) Trek OCLV, dropped on the road in a minor accident, comes apart at the chainstay.
I hear the musette bag held up well, though, proving once and for all that cotton is far tougher than carbon fiber!
All my bike are aluminum, and have been for 10 years. I have not had a steel bike since I was a kid...
I didn't attend Tuesday's meeting. (No news there; I haven't been to one in ten years). But the opinion stated here that the speaker was too much a salesman for the occasion has real resonance even though I don't know him and didn't hear him.
Years ago the club had framebuilders Tom Kellogg (Spectrum/Merlin) and Richard Sachs (Sachs) speak (on separate evenings). They were instructed to NOT get into product sales and they didn't.
Perhaps more interesting was Harry Havnoonian (HH Racing) from Philadelphia. He builds in titanium, aluminum, steel, and carbon so his was an open-minded presentation.
Two or three months ago, Dan Empfield, who was the creator of Quintana Roo bicycles and is extremely knowledgeable about bikes--he left his company after it was bought by the group that bought Merlin, et al.--wrote in his bike column in Triathlete Magazine that he couldn't tell the difference in ride between one frame material and another.
To the extent I make a living, it is in advertising to and for the bike industry and I concur all that bike loggorhhea is just verbiage. It is pure hype. Unadulterated crap. Mere Attitude. Posturing. Swagger. Adjectives and adverbs devoid of any real information.
With an attitude like mine, is it any wonder I'm looking for clients? They don't know better. They think attitude/posturing/swagger/unsubstantiated proclamation IS advertising. It isn't. I know that. You know that. But they don't.
Richard
