Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Jim's quoted text is interesting: I wonder how many of those broken carbon bits on that broken carbon site broke because of bad design? If (1) you could make a carbon fiber bike that rides as nicely as the best steel ones and, (2) you could prove that cf is just as reliable and (3) the cf frame can have both these attributes and still be lighter and reasonably priced: what's not to like? The second big defect of present cf frames is that so many of them are just fugging ugly. But I see no reason why you can't make a very nice looking monocoque cf frame and fork. -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 16:26 -0700, RJ wrote: > I have known two people locally who had carbon forks break and they > suffered quite a lot of damage. One is a bikeshop owner riding a > madone, the other was a racer whose carbon spoked wheels came apart in > a turn. It can happen with any material, but to say that it doesn't > happen with carbon, which is what I am getting from your post, is > ludicrous. I am not a fan or defender of carbon. What I am saying is to single out carbon as though it was especially dangerous, above and beyond all other materials, is ludicrous, and if you go by what I see on the forums and message boards, has gone a long way towards destroying Grant's credibility. If it was as uniquely and urgently dangerous as he makes out, you'd think that in a 39 year long career of being actively involved in bicycle clubs and club riding, you'd think I'd have heard of at least one local instance - but no. -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Looks like the link for the RR preview was removed? Am I not looking in the right place? -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 11:13 -0700, grant wrote: > Yeah, but it's not the Official one...just a stopgap. There are a > couple other things that'll change for the Permanent Paper addition. > Edition. The math reference shifted me wrongly there. The tradition of > pre-paper issues is good, though, so things like this can be caught. > Thanks. The $10 never did seem quite right, but if you account for > medical bills that may arise from riding carbon, I think we could get > it up to $10 or even more, per ride. I know lots of people, myself included, who have had medical bills resulting from cycling. I even had a friend die in a cycling accident. I've been riding with bicycle clubs virtually every weekend, and commuting, since 1972 and I know lots of cyclists. But I have never met one single cyclist who had medical bills that could be attributed to riding carbon. In fact, I've never met a single cyclist who had as much as a scratch that could be attributed to riding carbon. -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 13:19 -0700, newenglandbike wrote: > Well, I guess you have to figure in the cost of riding attire to go > with the carbon. Shoes, jerseys, etc. Seems like it could add up > fast. Riding attire has nothing at all to do with carbon. I use cycling shorts, shoes and jerseys with my steel and titanium bikes, and see no reason to feel the slightest bit of shame about it. On the other hand, that stuff lasts a long time if you take care of it. -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Speaking of that new RR 43 ....
Doug, I love you're rationale. I'm going to try using it on my wife. Bill On May 8, 2011, at 11:10 AM, doug peterson wrote: > I don't keep records but Grant's 250 rides per year feels about > right. My Atlantis just celebrated it's 8th b'day. At an original > cost just over $2k (those were the days!), I'm getting close to a buck > a ride. > > dougP > > On May 8, 5:46 am, Earl Grey wrote: >> Good stuff as always. Too bad about the math error in the price per >> ride piece. I almost don't want to point it out since it seems to have >> gone unnoticed so far. The difference in price per ride, with Grant's >> conservative numbers, is only a little more than one order of >> magnitude, not two: Compared to the carbon bikes $10/ride, the >> expensive steel bike is >> >> 250 rides per year * 20 years = 5000 rides >> >> 5000 rides / $4000 = $0.80 per ride, NOT $0.09 >> >> On the other hand, I doubt that most carbon race bikes outside of the >> Southwest and California get ridden 50 weeks out of the year, which >> would further increase the cost per ride. >> >> My $2000 Sam Hillborne gets ridden 8-12 times a week (if you count >> each commute leg separately, plus one or two fun rides plus errands) >> so for the past year and a half that I have owned it, I am already >> down to about $2.67 a ride (10 rides x 50 weeks x 1.5 years), and >> dropping. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gernot >> >> On May 7, 1:24 am, PATRICK MOORE wrote: >> >> >> >>> Nice buncha articles, tho' Grant's predilections come out strong. >>> (Yay for fast, skinny tires! Yay for lower bars! Yay for race-type >>> bikes with fenders, racks, bags, dynolights -- esp if you can "match" >>> yer bags. Any YAY for good beer, home-made bread, lots of pasta and >>> sugar in my coffee!) >> >>> Anyway: I was particularly pleased with the interview with BS who >>> comes across as less of an asshol* than you just might presume from >>> his, admittedly very funny, blogs, and who also comes across as, >>> undeniable, intelligent and, for our dismally uncultured age, >>> literate. Kudos to R, RR and GP for this interview. >> >>> Patrick "my bars range from 2" below to 3" above saddle, my tires from >>> 22 mm to 65 mm" Moore >> >>> -- >>> Patrick Moore >>> Albuquerque, NM >>> For professional resumes, contact >>> Patrick Moore, ACRW >>> patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com >> >>> A billion stars go spinning through the night >>> Blazing high above your head; >>> But in you is the Presence that will be >>> When all the stars are dead. >>> (Rilke, Buddha in Glory)- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
