Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

Carbon Frame Longevity: I promise won't lift the football this time Charlie Brown

7K views 67 replies 27 participants last post by  Maelochs 
#1 ·
Has anyone had a carbon frame that has seen serious use and that has lasted more than 5 years? I am considering getting a new bike. In the past (although maybe 8-10 years ago), I knew many people who had problems with their carbon frames cracking, but I realize the technology has been improving. I have seen videos showing that new carbon frames do not crack even under extreme pressure from punch presses in a machine shop: obviously people from companies trying to sell their bikes. However I have also seen the recent video where someone destroyed a bike, cracking the carbon frame in half, by slamming the bike into the ground in frustration. So I was wondering what experiences have people been having lately? Maybe carbon frames really have improved, I don't know. My steel frame was really heavy, 15-17 kg +, but lasted 30 years. My aluminum bike is a lot lighter and has lasted 12+ years and is going strong, but is starting to act up component-wise and is getting close to the "too-old-to-fix-easily" stage. I plan to get a 2nd bike, maybe better than my aluminum one, to replace the steel one, which recently died. I am doing a lot of hill climbing / mountain passes/ descending on the roads around here, but do not plan to do any racing. My gut feeling is that aluminum will probably be ok, but I am curious about carbon.
 
#2 ·
I have a carbon mountain bike that is more than 5 years old.
I have a carbon road bike that is 4 years old with 27,000 or so miles on it.
I have a carbon CX bike that is just over a year old.

They are all fine. But, I haven't smashed them in machine shops or thrown them on the ground.

Yes, aluminum would be fine. But, I am not sure that an aluminum frame would necessarily come out of smashing, throwing, or crashing unscathed.

I would ignore the frame material, do some test rides, and buy the bike you like most.
 
#3 ·
I am sure this thread will end in a flame war but maybe that was the intent. I think there are lots of folks here with CF bikes older than that that are just fine. My lower-end Douglas CF frame is still good after 9 years. Undoubtedly there have been failures, and if you search here you will find many tales of busted carbon. My feeling is that it is more about the pursuit of the lightest frames than an inherent issue with the material itself. I consider myself mainly a steel guy so I don't feel any need to defend carbon but i don't subscribe to the idea that all CF bikes are prone to failure.
 
#8 ·
Undoubtedly there have been failures, and if you search here you will find many tales of busted carbon. My feeling is that it is more about the pursuit of the lightest frames than an inherent issue with the material itself.
^This.^
 
#6 ·
Has anyone had a carbon frame that has seen serious use and that has lasted more than 5 years?
I bought a Cannondale Synapse Carbon 2 in July 2006, put anywhere from 3,000 to 8,000 miles on it per year, and it still works just fine. A few dings in the paint, but no structural damage, it hasn't gone all "flexy", it hasn't melted or asploded [sic] or given me any indication that the frame & fork won't last at least another 11 years if I continue to treat it the way I did in the first 11 years.
 
#7 ·
I don't own a carbon bike; all my current bikes are steel.

However, I wanted to get a bike that would be my dream bike and last as long as I did.

Originally, I was going to get a Calfee carbon frame; but after discussing it with friends and researching, I had the same concerns you did.

In the end, I decided to get a Titanium frame instead, since it *seemed* that that would last longer, all things being equal.

Had you thought of titanium as an option?
 
#9 ·
To me it is comical that these fears are still circulating.

Carbon Fiber has been around in the bike world for three decades now? In that time, there have been many failures and recalls ... of steel, aluminum and carbon fiber frames and forks and other parts.

There have been unexplained failures, there have been bad designs, shoddy manufacturing ...

And still, somehow, 99.9% of the people who buy bicycles ride them without incident ... or at least without major mechanical failure caused by materials or design. If you hit a parked car and bend your fork, that's on you.

For every guy who talks about his 11-year-old Cannondale with 50,000+ miles on it, you will see four people telling about a story they heard about how a CF bike snuck into its owner's house one night and murdered the whole family.

Yet for some reason we only remember the one apocryphal tale of CF asplosion, and ignore the reality that people have been riding CF bikes for decades.

Still, I'd recommend you buy the bike which makes you comfortable. If, despite logic and evidence, you are leery of CF, don't buy it. You need to like your bike, and if you cannot like a composite bike, admit it and buy a metal bike.

In the end, you will enjoy riding more on a bike you like better.

A bike which is 100 grams lighter or a tiny bit more aero or slightly more rigid or compliant by some measurable but imperceptible percentage won't make as much of a difference to your riding and owning experience as will the color of the paint.
 
#11 ·
For every guy who talks about his 11-year-old Cannondale with 50,000+ miles on it, you will see four people telling about a story they heard about how a CF bike snuck into its owner's house one night and murdered the whole family.

.
Those stories of gruesome murders are exactly the reason CF has earned its soulless reputation. I accuse the big carbon cartels of a huge cover-up
 
#10 ·
Pretty sure I've had just as many Ti frames have problems that could be covered by warranty as I've had carbon...at the shop level. If a carbon frame is damaged and it's not a 'warranty' issue it's for sure easier to repair than Ti...although Ti is more damage resistant.

That said there are millions of carbon frames being ridden now, why are you worried about them? Are you one of those people that can't take care of their stuff?
 
#12 ·
Has anyone had a carbon frame that has seen serious use and that has lasted more than 5 years?
How about a 1992 Kestrel 200sci that was still being raced on by junior racers up to 5 years ago? It had as a beginners bike been in a heap of prangs.I replaced the original fork after getting t boned by a car. It is still in the clubrooms but relegated to the last one chosen now. "not cool enough".
I handed it to the local cycling club when I was leaving the country and thought I was done cycling. Today my new carbon fiber road frame arrives. n+1 FU.
 
#13 ·
Some questions before I say something.
Budget?, your weight? Riding aptitude? Hours per week of riding? Road or mnt bike?
But even after you have answered all these my recommendation for longevity and return of investment would be a Ti frame as the material. It could be expensive but it depends. Expensive is very relative. Hence me asking for a budget.
Based on what you said you seem to like things that last.
Aluminum would be my second choice. Won't last as long but still it will probably last 10-15+ years.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#14 ·
Weight and riding style. Is something that all fail to mention when recommending a carbon bike. This is key for tolerance over one on a not custom carbon frame.
Someone said that the lighter the frame the more prone to breaking which is true.
The heavier and more aggressive the rider the more prone to break it too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#15 ·
The proof in the pudding are the warranties being offered by the manufacturers. Many are lifetime (usually to the original owner, some restrictions apply...) but if the frame is guaranteed for life, who cares whether it breaks; the manufacturer will most likely warranty it with a current model if the broken model is no longer available.

I've seen ALL frame materials break. It's not in the financial interest of the manufacturers to build frames with such iffy lifespans, so you should feel confident that regardless of which material you choose, it should last a long time. Just verify the warranty covers a lifetime of use and is not limited to a number of years.
 
#16 ·
The proof in the pudding are the warranties being offered by the manufacturers. Many are lifetime (usually to the original owner, some restrictions apply...) but if the frame is guaranteed for life, who cares whether it breaks; the manufacturer will most likely warranty it with a current model if the broken model is no longer available.
Key words for sure. Always remember that a warranty is only good as the company behind it. If that company is known for trying to weasel out of warranty claims and claiming user abuse, the lifetime warranty is worthless.
 
#31 ·
Actually, “Lighter is weaker” is totally bogus.

Pretty obviously if you make something out of one material, and then make the same thing out of less of the same material if the design doesn’t change, one could expect the lighter part to be weaker.

But not always. Look at the whole “drillium” idea. It started with sports care and airplanes ... remove excess material, material which is not load-bearing, and the resulting part is lighter and just as strong.

Hmmm ... Failure #1 of the “Lighter Is Weaker” theory.

Look at the same part made with a different material altogether. Simple comparison, a steel versus titanium bike frame. The titanium can be lighter and just as strong.

Failure #2 for that theory.

The the specific mention here, CF bike frames.

In fact, every years CF frames are getting lighter ... the ones produced by the major manufacturers, that is. Sub 900 grams used to be a “light” frame. Now sub 700 grams is considered light. Improved construction techniques, better designs .... Lighter and just as strong and sometimes stronger.

“Lighter Is Weaker” is just wrong. Badly designed and constructed” is generally weaker—or heavier— than “well constructed and designed” but then, weight and strength would be part of the criteria for “good” and “bad” in that case. Wouldn’t really be saying much.

So yeah ... the idea that anything lighter is always weaker is just wrong.
 
#32 ·
Actually, “Lighter is weaker” is totally bogus.

.
Really? Totally bogus? Removing material never results in loss of strength? There are two ways to get lighter. One is careful design to remove material that does not add to strength. That is good. The other is simply to remove material at the expense of margin. Both are required to get super light frames. This is why light frames have weight limits
 
#43 ·
my colnago c-59 four years and over 25,000 miles
my trek 5200 ridden since 2002 not sure of the miles
i don't much buy into the carbon bikes expire. that said, i'm not buying a 700 gram carbon frame and think i'm getting a longer lasting more comfortable bike by going a little heavier.
 
#44 ·
can someone explain to me how a 700g carbon frame is stronger than a 1200g carbon frame? I would like to hear the specific details as to how this can happen. I'm assuming that the "carbon fiber" used in these frames are from either Mitsubishi, Toray, and who else? I would really like to hear the science.

My understanding is that lighter carbon fiber (eg, T800, T1000) make a stiffer and more brittle frame, thus usually manufacturers have to mix in the lower grade fibers for strength. So by reasoning, if the "lightest" frame is to be desire, it would be made out of the highest grade fiber, making it very brittle. That's my understanding.

So if you say that a carbon frame of 700g can be stronger than one at 1200g, then I'd like to hear the science behind this claim. Eg, what sort of special fiber (if any) or technique that is used in a 700g frame that would make it stronger than a 1200g frame using the same construction technique.
 
#54 · (Edited)
Not sure where my deflection or lack of discourse was. But, i note your deflection with a personal attack.

FWIW, I did provide an answer to the OP question. You have decided to derail the thread in a completely different direction.

Your question cannot be definitively answered.

Is there a combination of layup, fibers, and resins where a 700 g frame is stronger than a 1200 g frame - depends on the particular layup, fibers, and resins.

Is there a combination of layup, fibers, and resins where a 1200 g frame is stronger than a 700 g frame - depends on the particular layup, fibers, and resins.

Also depends upon your definition of the word "stronger". Strong has different meaning in different contexts. It is not defined with a single value in all circumstances. As an example, distance has a single measure - regardless of the units to define it - distance is the space between two points. However, strength means different things in different arenas (Charpy fixed energy, shear strength, compression strength, etc.)

If you want to take it to a more basic level:
-Is here a situation in which a steel shape can be stronger with the use of less material?
Yes, for the transmission of torque a hollow shaft is stronger than the same diameter solid shaft made with the same material.

How about bike things: Double butted spokes are stronger and lighter than straight gauge spokes.

-Is here a situation in which a steel shape can be weaker with the use of the same amount of material?
Yes, a sheet aluminum foil is weaker than the ingot from which it was rolled.

Now that we know an empirical examples of things that are lighter and stronger; and something that is weaker with the same amount of material, can we move on from the baseless pontifications concerning carbon fiber frame design.
 
#55 ·
depends.. depends... depends... how about give specific details. What's layup schedule? Compaction process? or whatever process? What fiber type? How about crosslink within fiber layers? And oh yea, anything material and processes used on the 700g frame can be used on the 1200g, yet you claim the 700g can be made stronger. You made the claim, so you need to explain. "It depends" is not going to cut it in a technical discussion.

So far, your argument revolves around the thesis that "any technical explanation will be too hard for anyone in here to grasp, so people in here shouldn't ask for one, and shouldn't pontificate about one either, and instead just accept your non-technical explanation that things are true like you say". Yeah, real strong argument there. I guess that settles it.
 
#57 ·
The OP wasn't asking for a primer on materials science. The answer to his question is that a decent carbon frame (one made in a factory that has some quality control) will last as long as he wants to keep riding it. I have carbon frames in my shop going back to a 1991 Look. I stopped riding it not because it had anything wrong with it but because new technology made it obsolete. I moved on to a bunch of other frames, all replaced by newer iterations of technology - lighter, more aero, etc.

All frames can break due to a crash or some sort of accident. Carbon is probably the easiest to repair and can be typically repaired back to at least it's original strength, if not stronger.

Amanda Coker puts more miles on her carbon frames in a year than most people do in a decade - so far, I haven't heard of a single carbon frame spontaneously exploding on her...
 
#62 ·
" Nothing wrong with carbon, but I prefer aluminum for crit racing. Aluminum has a much better chance of surviving a crash than a carbon frame."

This is a generalization that is not necessarily true. Aluminum may stand up to a side impact better, but not a frontal impact where the aluminum frame is likely to crumple whereas a carbon frame is likely to flex and take no damage whatsoever.

This is why I agree with those who say that you can't generalize the longevity of any frame based upon the material from which it is made. There are far too many factors involved in the equation to just peremptorily claim that one is unsafe for long term use.
 
#63 ·
Not sure why these discussions tend to devolve into the "either/or" paradigm rather than the "both, and..."

Yeah- the more you understand about frame-building, the more you recognize the truth of 'it's not what you use, it's the way that you use it!'
That said, let me steer towards the autobiographical and mention that...

I have a Carbon Fiber 'Endurance Geometry' bike, an Aluminum Alloy 'Sporty' bike, and a 4+ decade old 'Real Steel' bike that I tend to use on jaunts with the missus, etc. To the extent that performance permits, I alternate between these three steeds. The actuarial tables suggest that my life is about ⅔rds over... but I expect that [absent collision-failure that would end the life of ANY bike], ALL THREE bikes will be usable- even after I die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwisimon
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top