On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 08:47 -0700, Erik wrote: > I agree with Steve. All of my current bikes are steel now that I'm > not racing anymore, however, I previously owned one of the original > OCLV models. Estimating conservatively, it probably had 30K miles on > it (probably closer to 50K) when I traded it to a friend (who still > rides it) for a vintage Dura-Ace crankset. There are certainly horror > stories of failed carbon forks and resulting injuries, but I wonder to > what extent our global connectedness plays into our overall > perception. When a fork failed twenty years ago, the twenty people > that were in that person's riding circle knew about it...not all of > cyberspace. I, for one, had an acquaintance whose steerer tube > separated from his fork crown (on a steel fork), mid-race, causing > substantial facial and dental injuries. I don't know anyone whose > carbon fork has led to similar circumstances. Does this mean that > carbon is safer? No...it's just a reminder that we can't rely on > anecdotal evidence. > > Yes, I agree that at least 80% of riders on carbon should be on a > different bike, not necessarily because it's inherently unsafe, but > because the design of the bikes is inappropriate. If a carbon bike > were designed sensibly, and slightly overbuilt, I might conceptually > support it. Likewise, there have been steel bikes that tried to push > the technological envelope too far, and have failed unpredictably and > spectacularly. The steel bikes that are out there now, are typically > quite conservative, and thus quite safe. I get all of the stuff about > how different materials fail in different ways, however, my many years > as a rider and shop mechanic (former) have led me to believe that > theory and reality not the same, regarding frame materials. I think a > more accurate generalization might be that well-maintained and > regularly inspected bikes are less likely to have "sudden failures" > than poorly maintained bikes that are never inspected for potential > indicators--regardless of material. The other generalization that I > would make is that racing bikes have become unsafe for long-term use > by recreational cyclists. Companies seem much more willing to push > the weight envelope on their racing frames, and the nature of carbon > manufacturing and consumer (wannabe racers) demands, has put these > same frames in the hands of everyday riders. I am hesitant, however, > too finger a frame material, when it has more to do with design and > marketing decisions that have more tightly intertwined professional > racing and consumer choice.
And I agree with every single one of your points! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
