Okay, so say I crash like Lance or Jan did. If I have a carbon fiber frame, will it be toast? I’m working on getting a new one and know that one day I will go down, so just trying to be prepared with the knowledge of what may happen.
Thanks, Neil
The nice thing about steel is that it can be bent back. Aluminium or carbon just break.
Lance crashed twice on a carbon frame (two different ones). They didn’t break. It is pretty hard to break a frame. The vast majority of frame damage comes from transportation and shipping accidents, not riding (according to two different frame repair guys I know).
If you crash hard enough to break your carbon frame, the least of your worries will be the frame. Your medical bills and pain and suffering will outweigh the frame’s cost.
On a final note – while steel can be repaired, it ain’t cheap. I replaced a top tube (roof rack incident) and it cost $300 for the repair and $350 for new paint.
It really depends on the crash more than the material. In the days of 531 steel you could bend the frame back into shape after all sorts of crashes, but today’s steel tubing is not that different from a beer can (you can push your thumb through the TT of an 853 frame if you are inclined to try it), so any advantage in crashes is pretty much gone.
Most of the crash damage I have seen was caused by other riders, bikes, cars, etc. and not by the crash per se. Going down out on your own the majority of the damage will probably be to you personally and the rest to the handlebars, brake levers and pedals.
I thought that he cracked his right chain stay when he crashed in the mountains(?). Hard to predict what the result of a crash will be, all depends on how you go down. Ti may give you a little more in this area as Tom D. alludes in his LS Tuscany review.
Correction, it was his non-drive side. From Velonews: When VeloNews contacted Trek to inquire as to why Armstrong was not riding that nifty new Madone 5.9 and instead riding what appeared to be 2003 technology, spokesman John Riley informed us that Armstrong was actually riding another all-new 2004 Trek bike.
Later:
You also might have noticed that after the tumultuous stage, Armstrong complained of “shifting problems.”
Shimano’s Chris DiStefano said he and his crew were taken aback by the problem and contacted team mechanics right away.
“When Lance crashed yesterday, Mayo fell right on top of his bike,” DeStefano said. “This cracked his non-driveside chainstay, which then caused some serious alignment issues. Obviously, this affected his bike’s shifting performance, causing gears to skip which caused him to then pop out of his pedal.”
It’s the luck of the draw. Lance and Tyler crashed pretty seriously in Stage one, neither of their frames broke (unfortunately Tyler’s collarbone did). At Luz-Ardiden, a crash that seemed more harmless, but Mayo rode over Lance’s bike and cracked it. That could have happened with any bike and any material. both Tyler’s and Lance’s bike test very well in fatigue testing, but you can’t prevent everything.
Same thing with driving your bike into the garage roof. Sometimes the bike is toast, sometimes the car, sometimes the garage. Better to prevent it altogether.
back when i owned a bike company i did quite a few deals with sponsored pros where i’d sponsor them, but in only exchange for getting hold of their old bikes from other companies. i then had a variety of testing apparatuses i built myself that i’d employ to see how their old bikes faired when put under stress (i.e., i destroyed a lot of bikes, both my own and others’).
by FAR and away the bikes that were the most difficult to break were the old kestrels (the original kestrel 4000). and when they did break, it wasn’t catastrophically, like you might be led to believe by virtue of how materials work on paper. what happened was that the resin cracked, then gradually the fabric started to become unsupported by the resin, etc. but you knew WAAAY in advance that there was a problem with the frame. no chance of a catastrophic failure. i wasn’t snapping pole vault poles here. completely different process.
the problem nowadays is that frames have become very light, and materials that were NOT known for catastrophically breaking, like steel, now absolutely CAN break all at once, with no warning (in a crash) because the tube walls are very thin, and the metal is heat treated to a very high rate of strength, but at the expense of becoming very brittle. and finally, that old outmoded idea of the “lug” has passed away in favor of the TIG weld, and if the tube is not sufficiently butted, then it’s an accident waiting to happen if the frame isn’t built right.
therefore, you can take most of what you’ve read about frame materials and throw it out the window. the safest frames are NOT those of one particular material or another, they’re the ones that are engineered the best.
Thanks for all the responses. I had heard years ago that if you got even a small scratch on a carbon fiber part that you might as well throw it away because it was going to fail on you when you least expected it.
Neil
Excellent points, Dan. I’m curious as to whether you think today’s Kestrel Talon would hold up as well as the old 4000? I have heard from owners that they seem to be as bullet proof. Their build, while similar to and derivative of the 4000, is not the same. Thoughts?
“I had heard years ago that if you got even a small scratch on a carbon fiber part that you might as well throw it away because it was going to fail on you when you least expected it.”
urban myth.
“I’m curious as to whether you think today’s Kestrel Talon would hold up as well as the old 4000?”
i don’t know, but i would bet so.
for my training bike, i ride a 5500. last year, i was hit head on by a car, where i wasgoing about 22-23 and the car was going about 35-40. my front wheel was trashed, and the fork broke. it wasn’t the carbon, however, the aluminum steer tube separated from the fork crown. the frame was fine. i put a reynolds ouzo pro on there, which i wanted to do anyway, and still ride it today. carbon is king. my bike took a large part of that impact and came through fine.
Trek can “unglue” and replace the tubes in their carbon frames. You would have a hard time fixing alu,steel,or ti in the same manor.
If the crash were that bad that the frame had broken, you won’t be riding for awhile, most likely. I have had two evil crashes on my Corima Fox, and it hasn’t even had a little scratch. Handlebars and wheels suffered the brunt.
Carbon is not nearly as fragile as it would sound. Sure, the CART, IRL, and F1 cars made of carbon will splinter into a zillion pieces (except for the tub) when they crash, but that’s from a wreck that was going over 150+ mph.
Carbon does have a little impact protection, just not tons. But neither does any other material, being that bike parts are made with the bare minimum of material these days. If a crash were to beat up carbon to an unrideabe point, then that same impact would probably make steel, aluminum, and ti unrideable, as well. Plus, carbon is pretty easy to repair, as evidenced by my rebuilt Flite Evolution saddle.
So if Carbon is so strong and light and all the other wonderful things you hear and read about, why are more mountain bikes not made out of carbon?
.
Actually, there are some carbon mountain bikes. Kestrel makes one, and there are a few rear triangles made of carbon.
Handlebars, seat posts and other things on mountain bikes are made of carbon. Down hill bikes would not be made of carbon too well (though you could, I suppose), and aluminum is a lot cheaper to replace and to build from for mountain bikes, which is probably why most frames of all rides of life are mainly made of aluminum.
In the end, there are a glut of bikes made of aluminum, and it’s relatively cheap to build with. But don’t count out the carbon mountain bike, as everyone is carbon crazy and I could see more carbon mountain bikes in the future.
The chain stay broke when Mayo fell on it. That is why Lance almost landed on his top tube a little down the rode.