Discuss.

Dave

Yes.

They are a lightweight, high-quality, performance level material. That's not going to change anytime soon.

Just wait till the hemp-spiderwebsilk bamboo hybrid matrix frames hit the market. Everything else will be passe and retro-goruchy. INCLUDING CARBON!! These new H.S.B.H.M. frames will be lighter stiffer and tree huggin' hippie global warming green peace happy whale lovin' Sierra club PETA eco warrior *****in.

They will remain trendy only until the next latest greatest frame material comes along. Right now, a friend of mine is working with unobtainium. Once perfected, carbon will become just another branch on the tree. Just like steel, aluminum and titanium.

two words - wolverine adamantium

lighter than titanium and carbon, indestructible. learn more here: http://www.marveldirectory.com/miscellaneous/adamantium.htm

:-)

I heard it's going the other way- heavier, not lighter. Real men wanting to demonstrate their machismo will be on cast iron bikes. Rumor has it that next year's S-Works will be made from all cast. Trek will one-up them by using cast iron tubing filled with lead on the 5.x Madones, and Gerard over at Cervélo is promising something even heavier in a new model tentatively called the Juggernaut. It might not be ready for next year because he's having trouble sourcing the 256 spoke wheels and solid tires it will require. These monster bikes will also ride well because their kinetic energy will simply obliterate road bumps. The cobblestones of France won't know what hit them in the '09 Paris-Roubaix.

I heard it's going the other way- heavier, not lighter. Real men wanting to demonstrate their machismo will be on cast iron bikes. Rumor has it that next year's S-Works will be made from all cast. Trek will one-up them by using cast iron tubing filled with lead on the 5.x Madones, and Gerard over at Cervélo is promising something even heavier in a new model tentatively called the Juggernaut. It might not be ready for next year because he's having trouble sourcing the 256 spoke wheels and solid tires it will require. These monster bikes will also ride well because their kinetic energy will simply obliterate road bumps. The cobblestones of France won't know what hit them in the '09 Paris-Roubaix.

too funny!

Carbon is dead. Long live Carbon.

Steel is the new carbon. So long as the steel was obtained after a 4+ year wait list.

i'm still riding my 1991 Kestrel 200ems. was there ever a problem?
over the past few years, i've replaced a bunch of things, pedals,
stem(quill to threadless), seatpost, chainrings(53-39 to 50-38),
wheelset(from open 4cd/DA to lighter, cheaper clinchers - korso)
the only things i haven't changed are the frame, fork, bottom
bracket and crankset. aside from a bit of repair work courtesy
of Calfee, everything is still great. after my ultegra SL bits arrive
from probikekit, it'll be pretty close to up-to-date(aside from some
nicer light wheels, like zipp 303s)

that's not to say i wouldn't like a non-carbon frame(titus, seven,
serotta) or a another carbon frame(look 586, cervelo slc-sl) but
i don't have a need to replace what still works well.

i'm still riding my 1991 Kestrel 200ems.

You're lucky that thing hasn't exploded yet. You can only ride titanium and steel that long safely. Why, not even an aluminum frame could last that long......after all, aluminum isn't steel or titanium.

Discuss.

Dave

you're a trouble maker. I actually like the no nonsense opinions of the steel frame builders. I live on the beach and am riding carbon, sweating all over the bike in hot weather but the only reason I ride carbon is kind of a fluke, ebay purchases, and had been out of the cycling loop for a while..

Only the real knowledgeable serious riders know that steel is still a viable option, atmo...

You're lucky that thing hasn't exploded yet. You can only ride titanium and steel that long safely. Why, not even an aluminum frame could last that long......after all, aluminum isn't steel or titanium.

so true... beginner's luck i guess then. i kind of like the cast iron
concept myself - that should last a lifetime, maybe more.

anybody up for a concrete-based frame? with rebar of course...

You're lucky that thing hasn't exploded yet. You can only ride titanium and steel that long safely.

Wow... Really? Can you site any evidence, if any could possibly exist, for such a sweeping statement?

Well IMO a couple of things need to happen before we see a drastic change in materials.

1) UCI changing its weight limit. I believe it currently stands at a minimun 6,8 kg. This has pretty much been achieved by most if not all major bike manufacturers.

2) UCI changing its rules on bike geometry. Diamond shaped frames with two triangles etc. I used to own a Softride and I'll tell you that was one comfortable bike.

If that happens you may then see some major innovation in materials. If not, we'll probably be getting a few tweeks here and there for a while.

Wow... Really? Can you site any evidence, if any could possibly exist, for such a sweeping statement?

Me thinks he was making a tongue in cheek comment

you're a trouble maker. I actually like the no nonsense opinions of the steel frame builders. I live on the beach and am riding carbon, sweating all over the bike in hot weather but the only reason I ride carbon is kind of a fluke, ebay purchases, and had been out of the cycling loop for a while..

Only the real knowledgeable serious riders know that steel is still a viable option, atmo...

Trouble maker? Moi?

Believe it or not this semi-sarcastic thread actually has a point. All the recent threads about certain materials making a comeback got me thinking. With these questions there is an implication that the current status quo for mass produced bikes (carbon) is somehow here to stay. That is to say that carbon bikes will be the standard from now on. I've been playing this game long enough to know that isn't true. I don't know what material will come along and cause someone to start a thread titled "will carbon make a comeback" but I know it will happen.

When I started in this business in 1979 steel bikes were the standard. New materials came along. Some stuck and some faded away. Some just weren't mature enough at the time and died because they weren't ready for prime time (can you say Exxon-Graftek?). But in the end the market place is large and most all of these materials are still sought after and available. Some have become less popular because they don't work that well (aluminum) and some are now taking a smaller market share because they require too much skilled labor for the big companies to make at a profit (steel). The Ti market has shrunk due to the carbon bike being the newest lightest thing. The carbon bike has become the current darling due to it's ease and very low cost of manufacture and it's weight/cost ratio. Most of these materials have merit and are viable. But remember that the pendulum swings and things change and the king of the hill always gets knocked off the throne.

Where are the Nano tubes? - I was told there would be nano tubes.


Dave

Me thinks he was making a tongue in cheek comment

What he said.

Folks, Greg Lemond was riding Look carbon frames in 1986. They've been in use for more than 20 years, and have been ridden to victory in grand tours, world championships, triathlons, time trials, and track races. I'd say the staying power has already been demonstrated.

Much like the automobile and the internet, carbon frames are just a passing fancy.

You will ride what your told to ride. You will like it until you are told not to. It will be 332% stiffer then the old model yet more comfortable. The new paint on this years model is not only 148% lighter it make your old bike look like such crap that you must replace it. Your old bottom bracket is crap, your old headset too. you can not possably get by without more gears. We will make it electric, making your old groupset crap. We will sell you ceramic bearings becouse it will make you 1032% faster and your bearings on your brand new bottom bracket are crap anyway. You will use a seat mast so that you can't sell off your old crap to someone else. Its called consumer protection. Forget about being more fit unless you buy some powermeter to tell you your fit. If you don't buy it your not fit so you must buy a dimpled tire that will make you 23% faster. You have been told what to ride, now do it!

Dave, when are you going to build some carbon? You are inventive. It seems like you'd enjoy the challenge at least for a little while. Some retro grouches would poo-poo you, but who gives a damn. You have already made your reputation as one of the top 3 or 4 builders in the country.
After 20 years, carbon will be here a while longer. Steelman gave in, an now he seems to think there is no better material for frames (currently.) He's still building steel - I think there is room for both.

Dave, when are you going to build some carbon? You are inventive. It seems like you'd enjoy the challenge at least for a little while. Some retro grouches would poo-poo you, but who gives a damn. You have already made your reputation as one of the top 3 or 4 builders in the country.
After 20 years, carbon will be here a while longer. Steelman gave in, an now he seems to think there is no better material for frames (currently.) He's still building steel - I think there is room for both.

Good question - I won't move in that direction. I work exclusively with steel for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is I feel it gives the best ride bar none. I'm sure others might disagree and that's cool. But for me steel is the best riding material anyone has come up with. I also like it because -

* I love working with it. The way it feels and behaves. The way it sounds. The way the sparks fly from it and the heat radiates from it. It pleases me. I've done lots of work with other materials over the years and could build with most anything but it's steel that I enjoy working with.

* I love the way it looks. I like making it look a certain way and I like looking at it after the fact. If you are going to be around in this business you need to love what you do. And after almost 20 years of building with everything out there it's steel that blows my skirt up.

* It's a good business position. There are fewer and fewer folks out there offering top of the line steel so it's easier to get sales. If I offer carbon I compete against everyone on the planet. While I love what I do building is first and foremost a business for me. I need it to be if I'm not going to got the way of so many others. I'm 45 years old and as much as I love my Mom I have no urge to live at home again. With steel I can make a modest living and enjoy what I do.

Thanks for asking.

Dave

...I've heard one side of the story that says that materials are irrelevant, and a competent frame builder can put together any kind of ride you want from super plush to a sprinter's delight with any of the available frame metals. Having said all that good stuff, here's what I currently have for roadies:

- 2002 Litespeed Tuscany titanium, 53 cm.
- 2004 Trek 5000, 54 cm.
- 2008 Titus Oseo, 54 cm.

They are all more or less within the same general performance envelope (a spirited ride, but not overly twitchy, and something on which my 59 year old body can spend a few hours without Major Pain...), but the Litespeed and the Trek are *maybe* a little closer to the crit bike end of the spectrum, while I got the Titus because it has a little longer wheelbase and a 73 degree head tube, which I think will give me a real easy ride for 50 miles plus...and also, maybe the seat and chain stay design, and a few other things like that, make it a long distance steed (we'll see...it's ski season in Colorado, and I only have 2.1 miles on the Titus...). In terms of performance and comfort, for me, it's hard to beat either ti or carbon, but I have a slight preference for the CF ride of my Trek or Titus.

I forget where I saw the charts...maybe the Litespeed site...that show that ti has a greater ability to resist fatigue (and maybe absolute breaking or deformation forces?), but I really don't think for the forseeable lifetime of the bikes I have, that I'm all that worried about my CF bikes whipping out or otherwise self-destructing. The big drawback with CF is that it's relatively soft, and susceptible to notch delaminations from cuts, dings, and so forth. All I can say is I don't race any more, and I don't plan to drop any of my bikes or otherwise abuse them because my sorry 59 year old body is a LOT more susceptible to notch delaminations and other Bad Things than it used to be...so, in short, for me, CF rules...but I'm open to anything new as long as it doesn't cost as much as a replacement for the Space Shuttle...

Until it matures as a material, and the next big thing comes along to supercede it.

The question for reverse-historical puzzlement is this: After the next big thing appears, Is carbon the next steel, the next Ti, or the next aluminum? That is, will it be a perennial emotional favorite after it's been bettered, as steel has arguably been? Will it progress to a point where it truly is the previous generation premium bicycle material, as Ti arguably is/was? Or will it simply be the means to an end, more an evolutionary footnote than continued desireability, as is the case with Al?

My bet is that carbon is the next Al - fine for what it was, and (likely) the future value option among midprice bikes, but not something lusted after once it's sun has set.

The analysis is complicated because the next thing is not CF as we know it today, but will include it as part of a combined technology that incorporates the tensile strength of CF with the compressive strength of metallics to come up with something better than the either alone can yield. I'd also take a small wager on glassy metals, though that's probably an engineering generation out.

I have a large collection of bicycles mostly top end stuff. I've been riding about 20 years now and I ride a lot - on the order of 6,000 miles every year. I'm tall and ride a 61 cm or 62 cm frame.

I presently have a Time VX Edge that is probably the best riding bike I have. I do have some reservation of whether this bike will last a real long time because carbon is in an epoxy matrix and over time epoxy is known to slowly grow more brittle (though slightly stronger) and the Time is built very near the low end of weight. My guess is that eventually the epoxy will begin to fracture.

Now I don't believe that every carbon frame will eventually fail because most of them are considerably overbuilt, but surely the superlight versions are going to fail at a higher rate than any other material given enough time. What that time is I don't know.

The importance of this is: one of my other bikes is a Basso Loto built of ELOS tubing. This bike weighs about one pound more than the Time since its built pretty much the same save the frame and fork are steel.

Although the Time is the best riding bike, the Basso rides so well that the difference is essentially nil.

What makes more sense? Buying a fantastically high tech carbon bike that will sooner or later kick the bucket, or a steel bike that cost 1/3rd as much that rides indistinguishably different and is known to have a much longer working life?

When I'm dropping down Calaveras on the same road that the 4th stage of the Tour of California took last week, I always wonder if the frame/fork of my carbon bike will hold if I hit some of those potholes. I never have that thought on my steel Basso.

my prediction is that carbon composite bike manufacturers will be in for a spot of bad press & maybe hard times in a few years as these bikes start filtering down in numbers into the secondhand used market.
Once those pre-teen kids with their vise grips & screwdrivers and the not very mechanically inclined/maintenance aware folks start getting maimed on abused , trashed and neglected carbon bikes & the lawyers start sniffing around, there may be some rethinking about carbon's viability to the average cycling consumer.

I have to agree with you that bicycle manufacturers are perhaps not being nearly as nervous about this as they could be. Though Trek isn't known as being a company of fools.

However, I was with a Parlee rider this last summer on a tour and he bonzai'd a hill and hit a dog. The headtube snapped off clean and came very close to killing him. When I inspected the way that the headtube was wrapped I have to tell you it scared hell out of me. It appeared to be little more than a single wrapping of carbon fiber!

The victim survived a broken neck and being knocked unconcious so he lucked out. I never want to have that happen to me.

I have to agree with you that bicycle manufacturers are perhaps not being nearly as nervous about this as they could be. Though Trek isn't known as being a company of fools.

However, I was with a Parlee rider this last summer on a tour and he bonzai'd a hill and hit a dog. The headtube snapped off clean and came very close to killing him. When I inspected the way that the headtube was wrapped I have to tell you it scared hell out of me. It appeared to be little more than a single wrapping of carbon fiber!

The victim survived a broken neck and being knocked unconcious so he lucked out. I never want to have that happen to me.

Well, heck, I guess weez all needz to be scairt then of that there carbon fiber stuff. Why, I'ma gonna call my brutha, Jebediah, and tell him to sell all his carbon fiber stuff lickety split.

You're story tell us nothing other than you don't know Parlee's process for making frames. Likewise, looking at a broken frame told you very little. You also apparently have this mistaken belief that a metal frame would have saved that guy's bacon. Sorry. You'll need to learn some about how accidents work.

Well, heck, I guess weez all needz to be scairt then of that there carbon fiber stuff.
Are you suggesting that ultralight materials of any sort are safe to use by normal people out on the road for normal use?

In my book, special materials were designed to use in top flight racing bicycles where a fraction of a second makes the difference between winning and losing. Out on your local club ride a 1 lb 2 oz lighter bike does nothing for you but give you bragging rights. Of course if that's what rings your bell.

You're story tell us nothing other than you don't know Parlee's process for making frames. Likewise, looking at a broken frame told you very little. You also apparently have this mistaken belief that a metal frame would have saved that guy's bacon. Sorry. You'll need to learn some about how accidents work.
So if I understand you, someone that was present, observed the accident, saw the results and inspected the damage (and might I point out that I'm an engineer) isn't as qualified to speak about it than you as someone writing in witless and mispelled prose on a discussion group.

You'll forgive me if I don't pay a great deal of attention to your opinions.

Are you suggesting that ultralight materials of any sort are safe to use by normal people out on the road for normal use?

Yup. If they understand the limitation of what they bought, sure. Absolutely.

In my book, special materials were designed to use in top flight racing bicycles where a fraction of a second makes the difference between winning and losing. Out on your local club ride a 1 lb 2 oz lighter bike does nothing for you but give you bragging rights. Of course if that's what rings your bell.

Cool. You apparently know why everyone chooses what they ride. Congrats. Your book isn't the standard, luckily. Yours is only an opinion, and it bears no definitive conclusions about anything to do with materials.

So if I understand you, someone that was present, observed the accident, saw the results and inspected the damage (and might I point out that I'm an engineer) isn't as qualified to speak about it than you as someone writing in witless and mispelled prose on a discussion group.

I'm impressed that you're an engineer. Congratulations. Now, surely you realize that engineers run the full gamut from craptastic to genius. Unfortunately, we don't know where you fit in that spectrum. We only have what you claim. With that in hand, I would trust Bob Parlee and his experience with composites over your unproven opinion any day of the week.

And to tarnish the shine on your attempt to instill a bit o' fear, your insinuation that the rider's outcome might somehow have been different if he'd been riding, say, a David Kirk frame holds no water at all. None. Absolutely none. In fact, elsewhere in this thread, someone showed a Ti frame that suffered a catastrophic failure. If you google a bit, you'll find other ti frames that have failed catastrophically. No matter how they'd like it to not be known, there have been in the long, illustrious history of that magical metal, steel, failures of steel frames.

You'll forgive me if I don't pay a great deal of attention to your opinions.

Ouchee! That hurts! I guess since you whipped out your engineering merit badge, I'm supposed to brandish my credentials? Nah, that's your game.

http://www.engineeringedu.com/images/sewebpin.gif

:D :D :D :D :D


CF in cycling is here to stay. That makes it no better or worse than any other material. Full stop. It's another choice. The only thing that steel has over any of the other choices is that it was here first, and that is of so little importance. CF has been here since the mid-80's, and we've yet to see that onslaught of catastrophic failures about which people have been warning. In fact, the CF technology as it applies to cycling products has rapidly improved, and what failures there have been have dropped off significantly. As stated by others here and elsewhere, there are more than a few old CF frames still on the roads, still being ridden everyday, that haven't suffered the problems that all the Chicken Littles have been screaming about.

It'd be cool to see people actually be objective about materials, but apparently that can't be done.

CF in cycling is here to stay. That makes it no better or worse than any other material. Full stop. It's another choice. The only thing that steel has over any of the other choices is that it was here first, and that is of so little importance. CF has been here since the mid-80's, and we've yet to see that onslaught of catastrophic failures about which people have been warning. In fact, the CF technology as it applies to cycling products has rapidly improved, and what failures there have been have dropped off significantly. As stated by others here and elsewhere, there are more than a few old CF frames still on the roads, still being ridden everyday, that haven't suffered the problems that all the Chicken Littles have been screaming about.

It'd be cool to see people actually be objective about materials, but apparently that can't be done.


As much as you annoy people, this piece was really well stated.

As much as you annoy people, this piece was really well stated.

Forrest Root, very well said.....

Forrest Root, very well said.....

I also agree with FR's statement. I don't feel that the sky is falling by any means. I think carbon bikes are cool and I'd plunk down my money for a Crumpton any day of the week.

That said I feel that we are still in the steeper part of the learning curve on the carbon bike deal. In relatively short order we will see fewer failures with carbon.

I'm out.

dave

I also agree with FR's statement. I don't feel that the sky is falling by any means. I think carbon bikes are cool and I'd plunk down my money for a Crumpton any day of the week.

That said I feel that we are still in the steeper part of the learning curve on the carbon bike deal. In relatively short order we will see fewer failures with carbon.

I'm out.

dave

I totally agree. There's no need to make frame or component material a religious choice, a choice resulting from a glossy ad, or a choice out of fear. As shown by the bike market landscape right now, all frame materials are doing well and for whatever reason is loved by some segment of the cycling public.

Ride what feels good or what you love, but don't stare down through your nose at some other guy's or some gal's bike: some weight weenies' custom 700g Rüegamer is just as valid of a choice as another person's Sachs, Lynskey, or CAAD 9.

I'm starting to really enjoy the weekly carbon vs steel vs titanium vs aluminum thread. If only a few more magnesium frames were on the market we could have a fifth contender for 'best frame material of the week'.

The carbon bike has become the current darling due to it's ease and very low cost of manufacture and it's weight/cost ratio. Most of these materials have merit and are viable. But remember that the pendulum swings and things change and the king of the hill always gets knocked off the throne.

Where are the Nano tubes? - I was told there would be nano tubes.


Dave

Right now carbon still has that "exotic" flavor to it and feels so gosh darn cutting edge but I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the "ease and low cost of manufacture." Already this rare wonder material feels ubiquitous and becoming less and less exciting as more and more of it appears on the market. It sounds to me that the material lends itself to mass production pretty easily once all the R & D has been completed so I wonder how much drool it will be able to produce once it starts showing up at all the price points not just the high end (already is actually). I think the bloom will come off the rose in about 4 years but hard to say if there's anything that's going to replace it. Plastic bikes might be what we're left with when it comes to the big factories.

And Richard Sachs points out on his website that one of the reasons he went to his proprietary Pego Ritchie tubing was that a steel seat tube, on a bike he built, snapped while he was just riding around. Hitting a 40 or 50lb dog at 30 to 40mph is a pretty crazy impact. Think about a stone hitting you in the face at 25 mph. It could do some damage.

I kind of don't understand this preoccupation with catastrophic accidents. My 68 year old mom tripped in a poorly paved parking lot about 2 years ago and smashed her face on the ground. She was ok, but she looked like a battered wife for a couple of weeks afterward. She might have been walking at around 3mph.

All this talk of crashing is just a huge faux pas atmo.

Coming down a hill at 40 mph or a mountain at 50mph is obviously kind of dangerous and a number of negative things can occur..like flats, whatever...

A frame failing seems like one of the least likely problems you may encounter, all things considered..

As the warnings say, riding a bike is an inherently dangerous activity. I enjoy it, so I'll take my chances, that's life..

And Richard Sachs points out on his website that one of the reasons he went to his proprietary Pego Ritchie tubing was that a steel seat tube, on a bike he built, snapped while he was just riding around. <cut>

eh - indirectly but not exactly.

the catalyst was the lack of interest on the part of the vendor to
do anything to make me whole, especially since it was agreed
upon that the upper most guage transition on the seat tube (about
6 cm below the end of the post) was faulty. it was not about the
tube, it was about the tube company. no matter - we're all friends
now atmo. the move to columbus and a fresh start on a white piece
of paper was because, er - some of us felt that we had been offered
up nothing new since the mtb era ushered out steel as a viable
material with which industry could make a profit. most of the builders,
including my handsome self, were using the leftover steel ideas that
the makers deemed good enough for industry. funk thatmo atmo.
with the PegoRichie stuff, the plan/goal was to make various tube
set available to small volume builders, and said tube sets would have
all th positive and salient features that one associates with steel,
and have it made such that the users could make a frame that is/was
light and strong, yet have none of the crap characteristics that are
part and parcel of the "super steels" that are/were targeted at mass
makers who wanted to market steel in their lineup atmo. with the
PegoRichie (SFL) set(s), one can make lugged frames that are as
light as 3.2 pounds and be confident that they will last as long as one
expects a steel frame to last, should that even be a concern atmo.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/2262284325_4b676ff899.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1163/749884200_77fe68ee2d.jpg

I would like to thank the builders for posting here and sharing their insights, and for the RBR'ers for keeping it civil and on topic (mostly :D )

FWIW, I have ridden all the materials (except Magnesium alloys). They're all good, and certainly one isn't more "real" or cutting edge then others. They're tools. It's the designer and execution that count. I have seen terrible AL, Steel, Ti and Carbon frames- just garbage. Seen amazing things too from each of them. In fact- the state of Al frames right now is more surprising then any other materials- many of the entry level road bikes put out by the Top 10 makers are surprisingly nice rides.

Personally, carbon floats my boat. But I would be lying if I didn't admit lusting after a Sachs cross frame. Say a 58cm TT one. In red/white. Maybe built to work with the new Alpha Q cross fork. Just sayin. . .

:devil:

gets it atmo.
It's the designer and execution that count.
or perhaps, better stated as -
it's the design and the executioner that count atmo.

I have wondered for a while now if the current young shop rats will be lusting for the carbon frames of their youth 30 years from now the way we who worked in shops 30 years ago enjoy riding the finest steel frames now...........

I have been riding a 1990 Lemond Carbon for about 2 years. It was given to me by a friend as my first real road bike. I was riding a Schwin World (circa 1984??). I love riding that bike. About 3 months ago, she let me borrow her Merlin Extralight (2000 model I think still trying to figure that out) since it was collecting dust in her garage. What a major difference,absorbs bumps like they aren't there. I have just built up a 2005 Orbea Marmolada (al w/ carbon seat stays) Haven't got on it yet but will this weekend. I guess what I'm trying to say after this rambling. I love riding both the Merlin & Lemond regardless of material. It just depends on my mood. Obviously the Lemond isn't an up to date CF frame. But I still would say that for me a rec rider who averages about 75 mi a week its about the ride not a specific material IMHO:cool:

Right now carbon still has that "exotic" flavor to it and feels so gosh darn cutting edge

It's as exotic as a Mexican or Chinese food. At least here in CA, it's just dinner. When Scott came out with that Sub 1000 frame, Carbon got it's last oh-ah.

But now everybody is starting to paint over that crazy cool weave, and I think that says a lot about it's COOL factor. People are starting to consider that they are bikes first.

these frame materials threads crack me up almost as much as the wait list threads. they also drain my life force. but I can't stop reading them.

eh - indirectly but not exactly.

the catalyst was the lack of interest on the part of the vendor to
do anything to make me whole, especially since it was agreed
upon that the upper most guage transition on the seat tube (about
6 cm below the end of the post) was faulty. it was not about the
tube, it was about the tube company. no matter - we're all friends
now atmo. the move to columbus and a fresh start on a white piece
of paper was because, er - some of us felt that we had been offered
up nothing new since the mtb era ushered out steel as a viable
material with which industry could make a profit. most of the builders,
including my handsome self, were using the leftover steel ideas that
the makers deemed good enough for industry. funk thatmo atmo.
with the PegoRichie stuff, the plan/goal was to make various tube
set available to small volume builders, and said tube sets would have
all th positive and salient features that one associates with steel,
and have it made such that the users could make a frame that is/was
light and strong, yet have none of the crap characteristics that are
part and parcel of the "super steels" that are/were targeted at mass
makers who wanted to market steel in their lineup atmo. with the
PegoRichie (SFL) set(s), one can make lugged frames that are as
light as 3.2 pounds and be confident that they will last as long as one
expects a steel frame to last, should that even be a concern atmo.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/2262284325_4b676ff899.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1163/749884200_77fe68ee2d.jpg

one of the many reasons I have to get myself on the list......

these frame materials threads crack me up almost as much as the wait list threads. they also drain my life force. but I can't stop reading them.

you can stuff the chi back in through the top of your head.. That would necessitate getting away from the internets for a little while though.:)

one of the many reasons I have to get myself on the list......
atmorider -
'has a nice ring to it atmo...

But in the end the market place is large and most all of these materials are still sought after and available. Some have become less popular because they don't work that well (aluminum) and some are now taking a smaller market share because they require too much skilled labor for the big companies to make at a profit (steel). The Ti market has shrunk due to the carbon bike being the newest lightest thing. The carbon bike has become the current darling due to it's ease and very low cost of manufacture and it's weight/cost ratio.

Where are the Nano tubes? - I was told there would be nano tubes.


Dave

For my ignorance, could you explain-
1. What doesn't work well with aluminum? (Interesting bit on Cycling News about how Cipollini, free from any obligation to ride Rock Racing's carbon De Rosa, rides an aluminum frame)
2. The cost of producing a carbon fiber frame versus a steel frame? Are carbon frames cheap to engineer and manufacture? Does TIG welding steel tubes require more skill than aluminum tubes, or are you speaking of fillet brazing and custom lugs?
3. Did Ti shrink because carbon is "newer?" Lance's demand to Trek every year was for "lighter and stiffer" frames. Can you make a Ti [or steel] frame as light and stiff as carbon?

Carbon's hot because its the best material available for competitive cycling. Some may scoff at recreational riders paying big bux for hyperlight carbon frames, but I don't see it as different, or any worse, as other recreational cyclists paying the same money for scrolly lugs, a hip paint job, and a name-dropping brand on the down tube.

For my ignorance, could you explain-
1. What doesn't work well with aluminum? (Interesting bit on Cycling News about how Cipollini, free from any obligation to ride Rock Racing's carbon De Rosa, rides an aluminum frame)
2. The cost of producing a carbon fiber frame versus a steel frame? Are carbon frames cheap to engineer and manufacture? Does TIG welding steel tubes require more skill than aluminum tubes, or are you speaking of fillet brazing and custom lugs?
3. Did Ti shrink because carbon is "newer?" Lance's demand to Trek every year was for "lighter and stiffer" frames. Can you make a Ti [or steel] frame as light and stiff as carbon?

Carbon's hot because its the best material available for competitive cycling. Some may scoff at recreational riders paying big bux for hyperlight carbon frames, but I don't see it as different, or any worse, as other recreational cyclists paying the same money for scrolly lugs, a hip paint job, and a name-dropping brand on the down tube.

That one kind of smarted. There are some clever folks around here. I'd better watch out:D

For my ignorance, could you explain-
1. What doesn't work well with aluminum? (Interesting bit on Cycling News about how Cipollini, free from any obligation to ride Rock Racing's carbon De Rosa, rides an aluminum frame)
2. The cost of producing a carbon fiber frame versus a steel frame? Are carbon frames cheap to engineer and manufacture? Does TIG welding steel tubes require more skill than aluminum tubes, or are you speaking of fillet brazing and custom lugs?
3. Did Ti shrink because carbon is "newer?" Lance's demand to Trek every year was for "lighter and stiffer" frames. Can you make a Ti [or steel] frame as light and stiff as carbon?

Carbon's hot because its the best material available for competitive cycling. Some may scoff at recreational riders paying big bux for hyperlight carbon frames, but I don't see it as different, or any worse, as other recreational cyclists paying the same money for scrolly lugs, a hip paint job, and a name-dropping brand on the down tube.

Aluminums big drawback is that it has a relatively low modulus of elasticity and that may give the frame a "stiff" or "harsh" feel if the frame is designed incorrectly. There are lots of good Al frames out there and lots of **** frames too. Aluminum is no more difficult to work with than steel, though the frames need to be heat treated before they are ready to ride. Aluminum as a raw material is cheaper overall than steel, for bike tubes anyways.
-Carbon fiber frames are cheap to produce. Almost every carbon frame comes out of factories in Asia that produce massive amounts of bikes, the economy of scale comes in to play here. Carbon tubes and lugs are also relatively inexpensive to produce and can be done so on a large scale thus driving the cost for the manufacturer down.
Titanium has disappeared largely due to carbon being cool and sexy, and the skyrocketing price of titanium. Titanium and steel frames will never be as light as carbon, a quick glance at the periodic table and a basic understanding of physics will tell you that a mole of carbon is significantly less massive than a mole of steel or titanium.

For my ignorance, could you explain-
1. What doesn't work well with aluminum? (Interesting bit on Cycling News about how Cipollini, free from any obligation to ride Rock Racing's carbon De Rosa, rides an aluminum frame)
2. The cost of producing a carbon fiber frame versus a steel frame? Are carbon frames cheap to engineer and manufacture? Does TIG welding steel tubes require more skill than aluminum tubes, or are you speaking of fillet brazing and custom lugs?
3. Did Ti shrink because carbon is "newer?" Lance's demand to Trek every year was for "lighter and stiffer" frames. Can you make a Ti [or steel] frame as light and stiff as carbon?

Carbon's hot because its the best material available for competitive cycling. Some may scoff at recreational riders paying big bux for hyperlight carbon frames, but I don't see it as different, or any worse, as other recreational cyclists paying the same money for scrolly lugs, a hip paint job, and a name-dropping brand on the down tube.



Good questions all. My responses in order -

1) It's just my opinion but I really dislike the way most aluminum bikes ride. Some are better than others but I've never tried one I liked. Just this man's opinion. If you or Cipollini disagree, I fully respect that.

2) Yes carbon tubes are cheap to manufacture. The cost of engineering is debatable. It depends on how much time it takes to get what they want. But in the end a carbon tube is pretty darn cheap. The labor cost of producing a mass produced carbon bike is a good bit lower than that of any steel bike, tig included. Tigging aluminum is just different that tigging steel. A different skill, but not harder or easier. Just different. In the end one of the main reasons carbon is so popular is because it's very cheap to mass produce and the profit margin is very high for the manufacturer. The low cost to produce a carbon bike allow the companies to spend more on advertising to sell more of them. A good business deal from anyone's perspective. Please note I think some carbon bikes are very cool. I'm not saying, nor have I said anything bad about carbon bikes in any of my post here or anywhere. I'd buy a Crumpton in a second if I couldn't build my own stuff.

3) I think the demand for Ti has shrunk for the reasons you stated as well as others. No I can not build a bike that is light as a carbon bike from Ti or steel. Ti has it's own challenges when it comes to making a stiff rear end. This isn't the time for it but suffice it to say that it's easy to make a stiff front triangle out of Ti but very hard to make a stiff rear end. That said......... If the lightest bike is the best then carbon would be the only way to go. I think about it differently and don't feel that the lack of weight is the main and over-riding goal. If you feel differently than I do that is cool by me. We can agree to disagree.




I personally feel carbon is hot for a few reasons. One is it's a pretty cool material. The other is it's a low labor/high profit process that yields a lightweight frame. I feel that if the big companies that sponsor pro teams still wanted to invest in the skilled labor required to produce high-end steel bikes that we'd see them at the front of the peloton. But that time has passed and the high end steel frames are left to the handmade crowd that will never be able to afford to sponsor a major pro team. Don't get me wrong.........I don't lament this in any way. It's just how it is and it.

I don't scoff at folks regardless of what they ride. I'm just happy that they ride something and enjoy it. If it's a carbon bike or an aluminum bike or a scrolly steel bike it's cool by me. They are out riding and that in the end is the important part. To each his own.




I asked a real question when I started this thread. Not what material is best or coolest or lightest. I asked if carbon would have staying power as the material of choice for the mass market. That's all I asked. I feel that some other material will become in vogue at some point in the near future and folks will move away from carbon the same way they did from steel, aluminum, and Ti. My point is that the whole thing keeps moving and will an always will. There will be a time when the carbon bike is built in small shops, by skilled hands, one at a time while the mass market will be riding something else deemed cooler by the crowd. The carbon bike won't go away. It will be like the steel bike and the Ti bike and have a following that will demand it. To think that carbon is the "best" now so therefore it always will be is short sighted. Of course it will be passed by something that is even cheaper to produce and lighter. But, on the other hand, there will always be a certain segment of the buying public that seeks a finer piece of equipment and is willing to pay for it and wait for it if need be.

Lastly it feels like you are taking a passive-aggressive swipe at me and the product I make and the folks that choose to buy it. It's unfortunate that you put out this vibe as it undermines the good points you otherwise made. In the end I produce the stuff I produce I and I enjoy doing it. And as long as my customers enjoy what I do I'll keep at it. If you don't like my work that's cool. It takes all kinds. Just cut me the same slack I cut you and your love of carbon. Fair?

Dave

I'm afraid that I am the target audience for major bicycle mfrs. I bought a carbon fiber bike so I could be like my favorite pro road racer. As soon as the pros ride something different, so will I.

atmorider -
'has a nice ring to it atmo...

when e-richie uses atmo in regardsto his frames

it means

And This is MY Offering

nuff said

Why is carbon referred to as 'exotic'. To me once something is mass produced in asian factories it loses it's it's exotic label. Go into any LBS and most of the frames are carbon. I would say Titanium and Steel are more exotic than carbon.

Good questions all. My responses in order -

1) It's just my opinion but I really dislike the way most aluminum bikes ride. Some are better than others but I've never tried one I liked. Just this man's opinion. If you or Cipollini disagree, I fully respect that.

2) Yes carbon tubes are cheap to manufacture. The cost of engineering is debatable. It depends on how much time it takes to get what they want. But in the end a carbon tube is pretty darn cheap. The labor cost of producing a mass produced carbon bike is a good bit lower than that of any steel bike, tig included. Tigging aluminum is just different that tigging steel. A different skill, but not harder or easier. Just different. In the end one of the main reasons carbon is so popular is because it's very cheap to mass produce and the profit margin is very high for the manufacturer. The low cost to produce a carbon bike allow the companies to spend more on advertising to sell more of them. A good business deal from anyone's perspective. Please note I think some carbon bikes are very cool. I'm not saying, nor have I said anything bad about carbon bikes in any of my post here or anywhere. I'd buy a Crumpton in a second if I couldn't build my own stuff.

3) I think the demand for Ti has shrunk for the reasons you stated as well as others. No I can not build a bike that is light as a carbon bike from Ti or steel. Ti has it's own challenges when it comes to making a stiff rear end. This isn't the time for it but suffice it to say that it's easy to make a stiff front triangle out of Ti but very hard to make a stiff rear end. That said......... If the lightest bike is the best then carbon would be the only way to go. I think about it differently and don't feel that the lack of weight is the main and over-riding goal. If you feel differently than I do that is cool by me. We can agree to disagree.




I personally feel carbon is hot for a few reasons. One is it's a pretty cool material. The other is it's a low labor/high profit process that yields a lightweight frame. I feel that if the big companies that sponsor pro teams still wanted to invest in the skilled labor required to produce high-end steel bikes that we'd see them at the front of the peloton. But that time has passed and the high end steel frames are left to the handmade crowd that will never be able to afford to sponsor a major pro team. Don't get me wrong.........I don't lament this in any way. It's just how it is and it.

I don't scoff at folks regardless of what they ride. I'm just happy that they ride something and enjoy it. If it's a carbon bike or an aluminum bike or a scrolly steel bike it's cool by me. They are out riding and that in the end is the important part. To each his own.




I asked a real question when I started this thread. Not what material is best or coolest or lightest. I asked if carbon would have staying power as the material of choice for the mass market. That's all I asked. I feel that some other material will become in vogue at some point in the near future and folks will move away from carbon the same way they did from steel, aluminum, and Ti. My point is that the whole thing keeps moving and will an always will. There will be a time when the carbon bike is built in small shops, by skilled hands, one at a time while the mass market will be riding something else deemed cooler by the crowd. The carbon bike won't go away. It will be like the steel bike and the Ti bike and have a following that will demand it. To think that carbon is the "best" now so therefore it always will be is short sighted. Of course it will be passed by something that is even cheaper to produce and lighter. But, on the other hand, there will always be a certain segment of the buying public that seeks a finer piece of equipment and is willing to pay for it and wait for it if need be.

Lastly it feels like you are taking a passive-aggressive swipe at me and the product I make and the folks that choose to buy it. It's unfortunate that you put out this vibe as it undermines the good points you otherwise made. In the end I produce the stuff I produce I and I enjoy doing it. And as long as my customers enjoy what I do I'll keep at it. If you don't like my work that's cool. It takes all kinds. Just cut me the same slack I cut you and your love of carbon. Fair?

Dave

You want to be the manufacturer, marketer, and philosopher at the same time. Hey, the frames are really beautiful. In the near future I'll have to pick one up. At any rate I ate about a pound of Mexican food tonite and washed it down with a bunch of maragaritas. Of course steel could be at the front of the peloton. A pound or two means nothing obviously. At any rate you're a better man than I to be on these threads and it's off to bed.....to close I think the steel riders realize that a steel frame can be a one time lifetime investment, which fits perfectly and doesn't allow them to make any excuses as to equipment. You buy the Rolls, then you enjoy the ride....later....

Lastly it feels like you are taking a passive-aggressive swipe at me and the product I make and the folks that choose to buy it. It's unfortunate that you put out this vibe as it undermines the good points you otherwise made. In the end I produce the stuff I produce I and I enjoy doing it. And as long as my customers enjoy what I do I'll keep at it. If you don't like my work that's cool. It takes all kinds. Just cut me the same slack I cut you and your love of carbon. Fair?

Dave

All fair. No swipe intended, didn't even know you were the Kirk of Kirk frames. But I'll let my closing lines stand- some people love to show off a bike that's custom made by a builder they respect, others love the frame that their favorite pro rides, or that's 1/2 pound lighter than their last one. Nothing wrong with either.

I don't love carbon. I've made sure to have little of it on my mountain bikes. What I do love is competition in the marketplace, lots of products and materials to choose from, advancements being made in engineering and design. I'll keep looking for cool bike bits, be they brakes or frames or pedals or whatever, that let me ride faster, farther, more comfortably and more in control. And sometimes, yeah, just to show off.

You asked where the nano tubes are- well, I've got some in my handlebar, even if I don't know what they're doing. I figure its Easton's attempt to improve the weak half of the carbon duet, the resin. In completely un-scientific terms, I think an improved carbon-type material would be one where the harder you squeezed it or the hotter you cooked it, the stronger it would be. Whatever the case, I'm certain evolutionary steps will be made to improve carbon frames, just as they're being made to steel tubes.

All fair. No swipe intended, didn't even know you were the Kirk of Kirk frames. But I'll let my closing lines stand- some people love to show off a bike that's custom made by a builder they respect, others love the frame that their favorite pro rides, or that's 1/2 pound lighter than their last one. Nothing wrong with either.

I don't love carbon. I've made sure to have little of it on my mountain bikes. What I do love is competition in the marketplace, lots of products and materials to choose from, advancements being made in engineering and design. I'll keep looking for cool bike bits, be they brakes or frames or pedals or whatever, that let me ride faster, farther, more comfortably and more in control. And sometimes, yeah, just to show off.

You asked where the nano tubes are- well, I've got some in my handlebar, even if I don't know what they're doing. I figure its Easton's attempt to improve the weak half of the carbon duet, the resin. In completely un-scientific terms, I think an improved carbon-type material would be one where the harder you squeezed it or the hotter you cooked it, the stronger it would be. Whatever the case, I'm certain evolutionary steps will be made to improve carbon frames, just as they're being made to steel tubes.

Cool.......enjoy the ride.

dave

If carbon remains a viable product in other industries/verticals, cost stays in check so builders can recongize profits then I think its hear for a while. I've owned 3 different carbon frames and am still looking for one I like but its getting cost prohibitive for me. I feel that some of the answer lies in the consumer base and demographics of who buys bikes today. Price point for newbies is key, kinda like the 80/20 rule. I always giggle when I hear people say " I wanna carbon frame that rides like steel or alum". Buy a steel or alum frame then for petes sake!

Kinda ironic for me cause I recently placed and order for one of Dave's road frames! Dave, turn around time is 3 weeks right?

forgot to ask:

should I get the Look 585 or Cervelo R3? I want the lightest one. Fit not's important.

carbon, unlike all the other materials is not homogeneous. it has infinite possibilities. shape and weave can be manipulated to no end. these endless possibilities will entice the market to never grow tired of trying to perfect it....sell it. i've always thought, this may be an unhealthy obsession. i wonder if they should try to develop a homogeneous carbon solution. a seamless carbon bike might prove interesting.

the material is just in its infancy. epoxy might become metallic in nature. weaves could go microfiber. thread count could set price points. however, something about having a weave just seems archaic. i fear all the shape possibilities will become marketing gimmicks. new each year for the sake of being different. real physics and data will suffer. carbon will keep getting better, but the bs will and already is pretty thick.

testing has to become more prevalent to keep outrageous claims muted. efbe type tests need to go wide. vibration/harmonic tests, crash tests, etc. poorly made carbon freaks me out way more than poorly made metal bikes.

Speaking as a guy who has spent his whole career in manufacturing, ultimately the bike cos want to sell bikes. The best way to do that is to create a demand for an "improved" material, model, or other feature that makes us all go out and plunk down our nickels (by the way, I'd really like to find a Pinarello white f3:13, 51cm if anybody knows of one!).

In my opinion, carbon is kind of the best of all worlds. It has real performance characteristics in being lightweight and stiff, plus it is very formable into sexy shapes. So it appeals to you guys who race, plus rec guys like me who just want to look good getting spit out the back.

Steel is the new carbon. So long as the steel was obtained after a 4+ year wait list.

Wait, so is 4-year-old steel the new carbon? Or is 4-year-old steel the 4-year-old carbon?

And if today's carbon is tomorrow's steel, what's magnesium from last Tuesday?

Wait, so is 4-year-old steel the new carbon? Or is 4-year-old steel the 4-year-old carbon?

And if today's carbon is tomorrow's steel, what's magnesium from last Tuesday?

Combustible. :mad5:

Today's steel is yesterday's steel. Just nicer- and more expensive!

:D

I work exclusively with steel for a number of reasons...(snip)...I also like it because -

* I love working with it. The way it feels and behaves. The way it sounds. The way the sparks fly from it and the heat radiates from it. It pleases me. I've done lots of work with other materials over the years and could build with most anything but it's steel that I enjoy working with.

* I love the way it looks. I like making it look a certain way and I like looking at it after the fact. If you are going to be around in this business you need to love what you do. And after almost 20 years of building with everything out there it's steel that blows my skirt up.



And that imho, is the best reason why someone should buy a bike made out of

...whatever Dave builds his out of. In this case obviously steel. Or whatever another equally passionate, committed builder choses to build their frame out of; if Nick Crumpton (or Bob Parlee, Craig Calfee, etc etc) get as much wood from building with CF as Dave does from steel, than I say bravo! That's the reason to buy one of their bikes. Not because it's built with carbon, but because it's built with love.

A bike is so not about the material, at least not any alleged physical properties of the material by itself. Riding is a synergistic relationship between the bike & the rider; when the builder is as intimately familiar with that equation as Dave clearly is, they become the third leg of that stool.

(Heh-heh, heh-heh...Hey Beavis, he said "stool"!)

I'd rather ride a bike built by someone who loves his work as much as Dave Kirk does than one built by factory worker #86791 regardless of what material was used in its construction...and I'm convinced that that care, passion, dedication, & respect for the intangible magic of the rider/ridee relationship will make a tangible difference in the final product's performance.

Thanks Dave.

And that imho, is the best reason why someone should buy a bike made out of

...whatever Dave builds his out of. In this case obviously steel. Or whatever another equally passionate, committed builder choses to build their frame out of; if Nick Crumpton (or Bob Parlee, Craig Calfee, etc etc) get as much wood from building with CF as Dave does from steel, than I say bravo! That's the reason to buy one of their bikes. Not because it's built with carbon, but because it's built with love.

A bike is so not about the material, at least not any alleged physical properties of the material by itself. Riding is a synergistic relationship between the bike & the rider; when the builder is as intimately familiar with that equation as Dave clearly is, they become the third leg of that stool.

(Heh-heh, heh-heh...Hey Beavis, he said "stool"!)

I'd rather ride a bike built by someone who loves his work as much as Dave Kirk does than one built by factory worker #86791 regardless of what material was used in its construction...and I'm convinced that that care, passion, dedication, & respect for the intangible magic of the rider/ridee relationship will make a tangible difference in the final product's performance.

Thanks Dave.



Thanks for understanding.

dave