http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Could carbon frames be more dangerous than steel?" en Sun, 31 May 2026 16:14:14 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41818 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:16:58 +0000 Dave 41818@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>As someone who has a pair of stupendous wheels (although they cost a fraction of the price quoted upthread!), I can confirm that there's no "might" in "harder to control in windy weather".</p> <p>That said, not many pro crashes seem to be derived from the wind - if you look for compilations on YouTube there are only two main sorts: rider error and losing grip on wet surface (rider error). </p> <p>If there are a bunch of videos of frames/forks (of any material) failing and causing an incident, I'd love(/wince) to see them :) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41807 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:53:57 +0000 kaputnik 41807@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>And I think the deep section front wheels that pro's seem to use more now might make bikes harder to control in windy weather. </em></p> <p>If you can afford super-bucks on wheels (as in, not "just" £900-1000, but £1,500 up) then the cross-section of the deep-rim carbon wheels becomes more toroidal (rather than triangular), to improve handling in cross-winds. Hardly the sort of thing you'd want to risk on commuting though! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41796 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:51:03 +0000 Cyclingmollie 41796@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dave: <em>"I'm more worried about aluminium (i.e. handlebar) fatigue if I'm honest"</em></p> <p>Yep, I also think that's the bit that's most likely to fail. And I think the deep section front wheels that pro's seem to use more now might make bikes harder to control in windy weather. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41755 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:34:02 +0000 Dave 41755@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There are all sorts of excellent explanations (reassuring or otherwise!) from people who ought to know about this stuff, but from my point of view, there are now so many millions of miles ridden on carbon components and no real body of evidence of brutal failures that I'm pretty relaxed about it.</p> <p>If I bought a bike for life it would be steel, but the longest I've ever owned one is about 3 years. I'm more worried about aluminium (i.e. handlebar) fatigue if I'm honest. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41745 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:59:37 +0000 Smudge 41745@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Indeed, I think his frame snapping was the least of Johnny Hoogerland's (sp?) worries as he bounced along the barbed wire fence after being side swiped by the camera car :-o</p> <p>Unless people are being injured by frame shards, or are coming off because of frame failures it seems a bit of an irrelevant point.<br /> The absence of reports of this sort of failure/injury would lead me to believe it's either not happening or very unusual, and certainly if I were a cycle manufacturer I would quickly sort that sort of failure both in case it hurt sales and because broken bikes don't win races, get publicity, sell bikes etc etc. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41744 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:41:54 +0000 Min 41744@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yeah, the article barely mentions carbon and only in reference to that fact that on a steel bike you can straighten the handlebars and get back on whereas your carbon bike is probably in bits. Whether this increases injury is apparently being "examined" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41742 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:36:54 +0000 ruggtomcat 41742@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>kinda missing the point too, the problems are much wider than carbon frames. reminds me of the safety battle in F1. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41737 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:11:45 +0000 Arellcat 41737@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Druid, can you elaborate? Carbon fibre and steel and aluminium all have very different failure modes that are characteristic of the material structure. Is the article implying that 'poorly made' made carbon fibre frames are present in TdF teams? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41734 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:41:02 +0000 druidh 41734@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's not the material, it's how it's made.. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4009#post-41723 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:43:44 +0000 chdot 41723@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> carltonreid: </p> <p>Dangers of modern road racing in NY Times. Could McQuaid be right? Could carbon frames be more dangerous than steel? <a href="http://t.co/Y6pchSHy" rel="nofollow">http://t.co/Y6pchSHy</a> </p> <p>Original Tweet: <a href="http://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/118227247751634944" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/118227247751634944</a><br /> " </p>