As long as you don't crash one, they can last a really long time.

 

Good god, another one of these?

 

Nope I was joking

 

They only last one yr and a day, then u need to sell it to me for half price.

 

My brother has a Trek OCLV mountain bike that's 16 years old and has thousands of miles on it and still looks great. His OCLV road bike was almost that old when he damaged the drive side chain stay. That bike might have had 20,000 plus miles on it. Barring a defect in the construction or an impact they should last a long time.

 

The new over-sized ,ultralight thin tubing frames are suspect IMO, that said I have heard of several early Kestrel frames with over, 40,000 miles. They are definitely heavier than the light frames out now but time will tell.

 

Carbon is VERY strong but the strength is typically unidirectional. They are typically designed to be strong longitudinally along the tubes but they are susceptible to damage if struck from the side as might occur in an accident or if they are handled incorrectly in shipping.

The other potential problem is that failure is often catastrophic. Failure in steel or ti is often gradual; you can ride a steel bike with a crack in the frame for thousands of miles before it will fail. Get off a carbon bike with a crack in it (assuming that the crack is in the frame and not the clearcoat.) because it can fail with no notice.

Any ultralight frame has a limited life regardless of the material used to build that frame; that's one of the tradeoffs you make if you buy ultralight. There's no reason to think that a carbon frame can't last decades if that's what it's designed to do and it's well-designed.

 

I think they are better than they were in the early days for sure. I cracked 2 Trek 5200 bb shells. AWESOME warranty support, but too much down time for me to not ride aluminum. Litespeed Ultimate cracked carbon seat stay. Disaster warranty situation. I was done and have been back on alloys for some time. For my money the benefit of carbon went out the door after Time brought their carbon fork to market ~ '90. I couldn't tell one bit of difference in a carbon frame after I had a carbon fork beneath me. My fav ride of all time is still a late 80's Pinarello SL tubed steed with a Time carbon fork. As long as you buy new with a solid company like Trek, CDale or other with solid warranty history you are good to go though!

 

Trek is a nightmare in terms of warranty support. Cannondale has been pretty good as of late.

 

I think beyond 250,000 miles, all CF frames are suspect due to solar induced inverse neutrino phosphoressence.

 

I think beyond

2500 miles

, all CF frames are suspect due to solar induced inverse neutrino phosphoressence.

fixed:thumbsup:

 

This actually might be an interesting topic for the actuarial minds out there. What is the real world riding life of the average CF frame including: crashes, rider error, frame failure, garage door mishaps and boredom? That would be an interesting study to compare to other materials. How long do most people ride their bikes and is there a disparity based on materials?

 

I heard that some of them are hollow.

 

The instant you see a brand new bike you really want, your old CF bike could fail and kill you immediately,

 

this is so true, and so funny. i am laffing.

 

I know there are different considerations in overall design and application but this could give you some pause for thought. I have been whitewater kayaking for about 12 years and using an all carbon paddle for 10 years. In that time I have not broken a single paddle, it gets bashed on rocks, used to hold up fly's, thrown around, used as a balance pole and walking stick, ground on concrete walls etc etc. It has an incredibly hard life and it doesn't catastrophically fail when it gets chipped, scratched, wet or exposed to sunlight.

Do these paddles ever break, yes they do, but much like in cycling, its only when they are stressed past their intended use. These paddles are designed for their use, just like carbon bike frames are and I would be very surprised if they didn't last as long or longer than other materials.

P.S before someone use the argument of not wanting a bike to break while descending etc etc, I also don;t want my paddle to break when stuck in a box walled canyon, running a waterfall or doing a must make move. I still trust my paddle.

 

I too have seen bad Trek customer service... but have also seen really good.


so far as the actual question- No, it is very durable. In fact it has the potential to outlast steel or aluminum if it isn't stressed in such a way that it isn't designed for (as could happen in a fall). Plus, it's relatively easy to repair. Most of the broken carbon bikes I've repaired this year were broken in shipping or very hard crashes.

 

Plus, it's relatively easy to repair. Most of the broken carbon bikes I've repaired this year were broken in shipping or very hard crashes.

Easy to fix, but is it cost effective for the for the customer?

 

Thanks for the help so far.

 

That's what I was worried about when I recently bought my Specialized Roubaix from 2006. Should I have bought a brand new carbon bike with cheaper components or an older carbon bike with better components? At my amateur level, it didn't really seem like I needed the best carbon and I could get a really solid bike for cheaper.

 

All CF frames aren't made equal though. It'd be nice to compose a list of companies with quality CF frames, low breakage rates, good warranty and customer service. Someone do a survey or something.

 

FWIW, my 1991 Secialized Allez Epic hasn't broken yet, and will be celebrating its 21st birthday in about 6 months.

Re Trek et al: A lot of warranty service comes down to how well (or otherwise) the dealer gets on with the rep. There have been some companies where the rep was such a scumbag that I wouldn't have considered buying anything possibly needing a warranty as I knew the rep would deny it if they could get away with it. There are some people out there you just don't want to have to deal with... :-(

 

Everything has a fatigue life. My experience using carbon oars in rowing is that carbon is stiffer and lighter initially but fatigues faster than steel or titanium. Basically, every time you put stress on the carbon, tiny little microscopic cracks are created (my limited understanding of metallurgy leads me to believe this also basically happens to steel and titanium as well). eventually there are enough cracks that the carbon loses its rigidity and becomes flexible.

The speed this happens is directly related to the force applied. An international heavyweight crew can go through 2 sets of oars a season, while lightweight females could go through a set ever couple of years. Note that the level of acceptable flex depends on who you are; pro cyclists or international rowers need maximum stiffness for power transfer, while club level athletes actually benefit from flex (for century cyclists it's more comfortable, for rowers it allows you to lock the oars into the water easier).

I believe that old carbon frames were put together when nobody knew exactly how much was needed. The old 200 SCi, 5000 series and Allez frames effectively had more material than needed, which causes a higher weight but a longer life than their modern descendants. Curiously, this is much like sailboats using fiberglass. When these first came out, the builders used a lot more than needed, so today a '65 Ericsson is nearly as good a boat as when she first sailed. A '05 Benneteau, less so.

 

The stress on oars is totally different than bicycle frames.

You say CF has a limited life and then talk about how good a 1965 sailboat is. By the way the reason an Ericsson is regarded as better than a Benneteau is because they are just built better overall.

 

The answer is:

log S = l - m log N

where S is maximum stress normalized with the static strength, N the number of cycles to failure, and m is the fatigue strength degradation exponent.

I urge everyone to tape this equation onto your toptube and make a running calculation in your head as you ride using cadence for N. Ask your manufacturer for S and m. And be careful out there - log-linear laws can be a Bit$h.

 

Where's that on my slide rule, again?

 

Oh yah, carbon breaks on sight. Get Ti, it is prettier. Just do not tell my 4 carbon bikes.....

 

What's pretty about unpainted Ti? Looks like a water pipe...

 

great comments

I have been considering a carbon frame and these comments will help me make my decision.

 

I bought my Giant CFR 3 new in 1996, but admittedly until recently have been away from cycling for almost 8 years. I did log quite a few kilometers from 1996 to 2004, but had already retired from racing, so no crashes on this bike.

After putting some Continental 4000s (25s) on, it felt pretty good considering my obvious lower power.

I hope it's not about to explode!

The funny thing is I can only think of 3 things I ever broke on a road bike.
The frame on one of my steel bikes broke at the headset/top tube lug, I snapped a chain, and I snapped a steel pedal axle about 60 km from home (fun riding one legged -especially the hills- with the toe strap good and tight:biggrin5.

 

Niner Bikes Fork Hammering - YouTube

 

Nice vid, but it actually illustrates one of the problems with CF. With the steel fork, you can see the denting and comprehend the degree of damage. With the CF fork in this case, all you see is the superficial chips and you have no idea what the extent of the structural damage may be.

My main ride is CF and both my other road bikes have CF forks. It's a fine material for bikes, but like anything, it's best to understand its characteristics and limitations.

 

I had a "frame failure" today: the aluminium derailleur hanger of my carbon frame broke (it was a bit bent and I had tried to straighten it up a bit before the ride).

Carbon is durable, and can outlive other materials.

 

I think CF frames can be pretty strong.

Pinkbike Visits The Santa Cruz Test Lab Video - YouTube