[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 51 posters in this thread.

10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
05/08/16Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!
[Hide] [Show All]



File: 1x 6000000.jpg (70 KB, 960x566)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
when will the end?
>>
>>1046824
>low quality bait
>>
Nice Bait.
1x is genuinely very nice if you can afford a proper setup. I hear complaints about cross chaining, but you spend most of your time in the middle, only using the low end for harsh climbs and the high end for long downhills.
>>
>>1046829
I think the meme is actually the size of the cassette, not 1x specifically. 50t on its own isn't a problem but it's usually paired with 32t or less up front to give stupidly low gearing for babylegged casuals. If I was dumb enough to buy Eagle I'd run something like 38t up front.
>>
>>1046844
I don't ride MTBs, but I wouldn't mind at least one retardedly low gear for those bullshit gravel/mud climbs if I did. Although maybe just getting out of the saddle is a better solution, I don't know that much about it.
>>
>>1046859
>Although maybe just getting out of the saddle is a better solution
if you can keep your rear wheel grounded, sure.
>>
>>1046859
32:50 is ridiculously low, like you'd have to spin at 60rpm just to get up to about 3mph (walking speed). It would be practically unusable on flat ground and on climbs you'll either be spinning needlessly fast or going so slow that staying upright becomes an issue and you'd probably be better off just getting off the bike. Very few people would actually need or be able to make use of such a low gear.

I run 32:42 as my lowest (where I got 38:50 from) and I can't imagine ever needing lower than that.
>>
>>1046890
I have 22:34 as the low gear on my ~12 year old MTB (whooo 3x9), which is nearly an identical ratio to 32:50. That low bailout gear sure as hell is nice on long, steep fire road climbs - I don't use it much, but I'm happy it's there when I do. It's certainly not low enough that staying upright is an issue.
>>
>>1046890

I run 30:42 and struggle in this time of year on those steep as shit muddy climbs. Having the ultra granny walking speed option is better than walking your bike up that hill and get your cleats full of mud and shit.

Also improves your balance spinning that low.
>>
File: EEEEEAGLE.jpg (749 KB, 2500x1667)
749 KB
749 KB JPG
>>1046824
>>
You aren't going to improve by walking up a fucking hill. If you need 32:50 to get up a hill use a 32:50 or whatever it takes. I've never understood this you would be better off walking BS. I've been riding for years and run a 32:42 and there are plenty of times if I had a 50 in the back I'd use it. There are still plenty of hills around me that whoop my ass.

People just like to feel superior. I don't need a fucking 50 in back so nobody should blah blah blah.
>>
File: 5006840002_9313d2b737_b.jpg (247 KB, 1024x768)
247 KB
247 KB JPG
>>1046908
>>
>>1046924
is this where the "eagle adapter" term comes from?
>>
>>1046896
>Also improves your balance spinning that low.
The gyroscope effect, huh?
>>
File: 1x_drivetrain.jpg (104 KB, 600x419)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>1046829
>>1046844
>I think the meme is actually the size of the cassette, not 1x specifically.

this!

1x on DH even in 2005 look perfectly normal but the new ultra wide range cassette just look rediculous
>>
>>1046844
man up sunshine, i run a 38t up front with 32t-11t in the rear, you just suffer through it
>>
>>1046954
11-34/36 does me fine on the mtb. Lots of hills around here, but only a couple that beat me!

I don't get the low climbing gear at the expense of top end speed. Spinning out at 23mph pisses me off on the downhills.
>>
>>1046946

how is looking "rediculous" a problem ?
they are functionaly far superior.
>>
>>1046946
Are you using DH drivetrains as an example of early 1x setups or are you saying they now use wide-range cassettes as well?
>>
>>1046956
If you're pedaling on the downhill sections of a trail you're doing it wrong.
>>
>>1046986
>Not going as fast as you can.
You're doing it wrong.
>>
>>1046993
Sometimes pedaling is not the way to go faster, young grasshopper. Pump the track, find the lines - heck, there's been world championships won with broken chains.

Go play with your kids bike for a few years and come back when you've actually learnt to ride, m'kay?
>>
File: WP_20170207_12_29_57_Pro.jpg (1.94 MB, 3264x1840)
1.94 MB
1.94 MB JPG
I just did it- shifts fine without altering chain length but the chain wants to sit on top of the 42t. Can't fine tune until my fork gets back. The 32t looks tiny up there.
>>
>>1046997
>chain wants to sit on top of the 42t
Fix the limit adjustment screw.
>>
>>1046993
You totally missed the point; if you're having to pedal in the downhill sections, you're not riding your bike efficiently; you should be zooming through them faster than you can pedal.
>>
>>1047005
>faster than you can pedal
That's what the shifters are for
>>
>>1047012
You are not understanding
>>
>>1046993
>>1047012
>confirmed for never actually mountainbiked
>>
>>1047013
What is there to understand? Not all hills are a 45 degree drop off the ski lift you used to bring your bike up the hill
>>1047015
>confirmed for thinking mountain biking involves ski lifts
>>
>>1047021
>thinking you cant pump a trail unless theres a lift involved at some point
Dude, pumping is faster if at all possible, especially on technical descents. One day you might grow up to ride proper trails and not gravelled paths. You might also learn to ride a bike.
Or you might not. Either way, please stop embarrassing yourself on this Mongolian basket weaving forum.
>>
This disgusting affront to cycling and other disc """"race""" and """"aero"""" bikes
>>
File: BURN AFTER USE.jpg (134 KB, 1000x636)
134 KB
134 KB JPG
>>1047033
It's so ugly I even forgot to post the image
>>
>>1047034
You know jack shit about A E S T H E T I C S
>>
>>1047037

and you know jack shit about FULL-WIDTH CHARACTERS
>>
>>1047038
oh, facebook scrubs them from posts. huh. i'm a massive faggot please rape my face
>>
File: 1485967935685.jpg (13 KB, 349x314)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>1047034
That almost flat bar.
>>
File: cinelli max laser.jpg (233 KB, 1200x900)
233 KB
233 KB JPG
>>1047037
ahahahahahahahahahahahah

the funniest part is, you could actually be one of the many people who thinks that bike looks good

for reference I consider pic related a beautiful bike
>>
>>1047043
And you are right, it is
>>
File: 1486443880463.jpg (36 KB, 250x250)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>1047034
>trying to piggyback off of Lockheed's Skunk Works
>>
File: glas.jpg (1.14 MB, 1920x1080)
1.14 MB
1.14 MB JPG
>>1046890
>>so slow that staying upright becomes an issue

Haha, what kind of loser need momentum to balance a bike?

>>1046894
Low gears are the shit. My granny gear is 20:36 on my main mountain rig. However, I'm usually pedaling 8 pounds of tire up steep shit.. so it's required and still not exactly easy.

Would rather pedal than walk. Anyone who says low gears are for the weak obviously don't have rugged terrain, mountains, or even hills beyond little bitch grades. Higher cadence = more control on technical climbs.
>>
>>1047085
I respect you and your bikes but don't start talking shit. It's not about needing momentum to balance the bike, it's just a shit load harder when you're going really slow, uphill, sitting down and pedalling at a high cadence, and on terrain that could possibly warrant such a low gear. It's much easier if you stand up and pedal slower which means you don't need such a low gear.

Having low gearing is useful to a point, once it gets too low it's almost unusable (give 20:50 a go and see how that works out) due to the cadence or speed that it results in. 32:42 is around that point.

And yes, unless you have a really heavy bike, if you can't climb everything without going below 32:42 you are weak. I suppose if you're running 29/+ you can gear it a little lower.
>>
>>1047088
Yeah, I get ya. I always get ripped on, a lot of the times I post here, so just keeping with the common theme.

Also, once you master track stands then going slow isn't really much harder in most situations... tho it can be easier to get up over large trail obstacles with a bit of speed going.

I probably wouldn't want or need to go any lower of a gearing than I have. 20:50 would be ridiculous and probably not useful. 20:42 or something I could use on certain steep climbs probably but don't really feel the need to go any lower than I have now.

I run heavy as fuk tires, steel frame 35 lb bike so it works for me and still is an intense workout to climb anything. So many steep hills here, even in the city.
>>
>>1047043
>valves with caps
>valves are not aligned with wheel logos

8/10 bike.
>>
guys, my sister's gay and i like weed
what do i do?
>>
>>1047088
>I suppose if you're running 29/+ you can gear it a little lower.

thank god, i'm exempt. running 30:42 on my 29+
>>
>>1047097
sneak into her shower pull some of her pubes out of the drain and smoke them while reading your favorite issue of decline and pretending you're an athlete.
>>
>>1047097
Turn into a girl and seduce your sister.
Post detailed greentext here.
>>
>>1047120
wew
>>
>>1047097
>GUIZ I HAVE THE CAESE OF TEH RANDUMZ AGAIN XDDD
>>
>>1046824
Can someone redo the OP pic so the front wheel is filled with a giant disk rotor?

that would really complete the meme/trend
>>
>>1047168
ain't nobody got time for that but heres a pic if someone has over 1000 hours to spend in paint. Someone put this motorcycle brake on a e-bike.
>>
File: 09_1125cr_frontwheel[1].jpg (208 KB, 1024x768)
208 KB
208 KB JPG
>>1047170
>>1047168
>not rim-disk master race
>>
>>1047096
Why does everyone hate caps? Seems like a good idea to me.
>>
>>1047286
They serve no purpose
>>
>>1047287
They keep the valve from getting covered in crap and prevent it getting accidentally pressed if it comes unscrewed (which could either let out air or break the valve). They can also serve as Schrader adapters in emergencies. There's no downside to using them.
>>
>>1047290
I don't see why a valve would get covered in anything, unless you're dipping your wheel in a mud puddle over and over. Which wouldn't matter since after riding a while the crud would just fly away.
I don't see why it would unscrew itself either.
The emergency adapter point is valid I guess.
>>
>>1047295
>I don't see why a valve would get covered in anything
It probably won't if you only ever ride on the road and in dry conditions. If you ride in the rain or off road then it's going to get dirty and there's the chance it could get clogged up or rusty.

>I don't see why it would unscrew itself either.
Vibrations. I've had it happen a few times, and yes I do tighten the nut enough.

Are these massive issues? Not really, but when they're easily preventable and using a cap has no disadvantage I'm going to keep doing so.
>>
>>1047096
They are probably alligned when seen from the opposite side. Some rims have their decals that way, which makes it impossible to allign both sides.

You could still argue that it would have been better to allign the drive side, since most photos are taken from that side.
>>
>caring about fucking dust caps on a valve
so /n/ truly is as autistic and stupid as the rest of 4chan. nice.
>>
File: hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.jpg (66 KB, 612x574)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>1047290
>They can also serve as Schrader adapters in emergencies. There's no downside to using them.

TELL US YOUR SECRETES WIZARD
>>
>>1047340
Cut the top off the cap, or rub it on concrete to wear it down if you don't have a knife on you, and then put it back on (it may have to go on upside down, I've never actually needed to do it). The cap makes the valve the same size as Schrader.
>>
>>1047351
>The cap makes the valve the same size as Schrader.

that is ingenious, but does it actually work with pressure of the pumb etc, have you tried it out? Im always wearing a small schrader adapter in my saddle bag so I dont need this method but still its quite smart.
>>
>>1047352
I've seen it work in videos and plenty of people have said it works.
>>
>>1047290
Except when you have latex tubes and need to fill them up before every ride.
>>
>>1047352
Yes, it works. Nowhere near as good as an actual adapter though.
>>
>>1047360
Does an extra 2 seconds really matter?
>>
File: 100000031063-l0.jpg (48 KB, 600x600)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
So when will we see bikes with handlebars behind the steerer for further increased control?
>>
>>1047434
But then you'll need to steer left to go right and vice versa, like a boat with an outboard motor.
>>
>>1047436
>you'll need to steer left to go right
No, you still turn the bars left to go left. They'll _shift_ slightly to the right when you do so, but you still turn the bars to the left.
>>
>>1047434
Next step for cervélo, all those freds will have the uprightiest postures ever on their amazing aero bikes.
>>
>>1047438
I was joking. But yeah it'll feel weird as fuck with the bars moving to the opposite side. I'll have to try it out one day, I've got a 32mm stem somewhere so I could use that for a best case scenario (I also have a 30mm direct mount stem but I don't think I can put that on backwards).
>>
File: 1452097245765.png (1.34 MB, 1280x800)
1.34 MB
1.34 MB PNG
>>1047434
>hating on short stems and wide handlebars

as a retrogrudge I jumped on the short and wide boat instantly and never looked back, modern mtb geometry built around short stems and wide bars is the biggest thing in recent cycling history and made mtb riding so much more enjoyable compared to 90s geometry mtb
>>
>>1047551

could you explain the changes in geometry and how a short stem and wide handlebar synergize with it ?

I never quite understood that.
>>
>>1047647
People want more control off road

wider bars give you more leverage to control the steering

spreading your arms wide means you cant reach as far forward

so a short stem is needed
>>
>>1046956

Try not riding fire roads...
>>
>>1047199
All the broken faces of rim brakes with the cost of disc brakes. Perfect choice for your local dentist.
>>
>>1048054

cool thanks,
bur what about the effective top tube ?
did the top tube length change ?
>>
>>1048338
It's difficult to generalise. Top tubes have probably gotten slightly longer but seat tubes have also gotten steeper to compensate which would actually shorten the top tube. Wheelbases have gotten much longer but that can be down to fork length, head angle slackness, top tube length, and chainstay length.

Geometry varies much more greatly than 20 years ago, you've got anything from steep and short XC rigid/hardtail/short travel bikes to long and slack AM/DH hardtails and full suspension bikes and all the things in between.
>>
>>1048408
I'd say top tubes have gotten longer. My bike has similar geometry as the OP pic and it feels really good compared to a 90s or even 00's bike. I'm old as fuck and it reminds me of my old BMX bikes with the benefit of gears and suspension. Its almost too easy to ride singletrack on a modern MTB. Sometimes I take my 90s hardtail for shits and giggles. New vs old is like comparing a metal folding chair to a recliner. Also shoutout to whoever invented modern shock lockout- works like a dream.
>>
>>1048410
>>1048408

that's pretty interesting.
I've red somewhere that nowadays reach is ofent mentioned over effective toptube because riding out of the saddle is the stance the geometry focuses on and so a long effectiv toptube might still be a comfortable reach length
>>
>then: 3x8 zomg don't cross chain man
>now: 1x12
>>
>>1048054

An alternative to that is the Jones style bar with longer stem, really nice.
>>
>>1048408
>>1048338
>>1047647
neo mtb geo:

>wider bars and shorted stem that lead to
>longer TT or if you will, longer ETT in order to keep similar position as 90s mtb (but still mroe upright). that helps dramatically for preventing OTB situations and more levereage with wider bars help in leveraging the front wheel at tuff stuff which leads to
>LONGER WHEELBASE (at least +10cm compared to roadbike, sometime even +15/20cm).

many people thing longer WB is bad, but in reality its helps dramaticly at mtb descending and it doesnt even feel less playfull. Longer WB stabilises the bike (together with wider bars and short stem) and the rear wheel is less prone to washing out for that reason, you can "attact the trail" insted of going in between it so to say.

bike geometry is a dark art and neo-mtb geometry deserves a Nobel prize, but carbon and many other meme trends in mtb still suck.
>>
File: Alutech cheptrick.jpg (370 KB, 1024x768)
370 KB
370 KB JPG
>>1048664
and offcourse slack HA that also increases the WB.
in early 00s they started the slack HA but havent prolonged the top tube so the advantages werent quite obvious.
>>
>>1048664
>carbon and many other meme trends in mtb still suck

Why is carbon bad? Surely it offers better strength-weight ratio with no downside, unless you count price.
>>
>>1048666
The hatred of carbon usually comes from either being too poor to afford it or being a retrogrouch, possibly because they're poor and use retrogrouching as a way to lie to themselves and everyone else that they wouldn't even want a nice bike.
>>
File: chromag_mage.jpg (562 KB, 1600x1066)
562 KB
562 KB JPG
>>1048666
>>1048676
>Why is carbon bad?

Carbon on mtb, when we count in its disadvantages (more brittle than any other bike material and less resistant to scratches + fails dramatically when it fails unlike steel or alu), doesnt provide nearly as much as advantages as carbon on roadbikes.

Powerloss by flex is much more noticable in road bikes (recreative or competative - its more noticable), while in mtb, carbon helps in better full suss due to lower flex, but the simple fact that the tires are at least 2x as wide than in road makes that factor far less noticable. Not worth it in my opinion.

Also if you ride a mtb geometry hartdtail and arent all about racing youll appretiatess steel since it has better damping properties. Steel is freeridish hipster material, Carbon is for performance but with many longterm downside.

>you just poor meme

both can play that game. well you are just too poor to ride MX, that is why you ride carbon mtb. BTW - you can get a carbon mtb frame these days easily its not an exclusive material anymore, pp shan or chromag ht steel frames arent actually cheap either.
>>
>>1048666
>Surely it offers better strength-weight ratio with no downside

your dubs confirm its downsides :).
With carbon you trade longterm durability and ease of mainintence for performance aspects (less flex and more stiffness) that arent quite worth it/noticable in my book.

After 2 years of heavy riding I would be extremly cautious with a carbon mtb frame, with alu about 4years, while with steel its mostly ride it until it brakes.
>>
>>1048681
>After 2 years of heavy riding I would be extremly cautious with a carbon mtb frame, with alu about 4years, while with steel its mostly ride it until it brakes.
That's just dumb, they can and do last much longer than that. There is no predetermined life span. I have a carbon frame from the early 2000s that's still going strong, my oldest aluminium frames are over a decade old and also doing fine even with hard use.
Carbon has the advantage that it can be made lighter than aluminium for the same strength (although better distributed strength) OR it can be made much stronger for the same weight. Carbon doesn't have to be a brittle material that can't take a beating, it just gives you that option if you want to be a weight weenie. An aluminium frame at the same weight would be even weaker.

As a fairly lightweight rider who rarely crashes (I don't think I've ever hit a frame on a rock before) I'd gladly ride a modern carbon frame if it wasn't so expensive.
>>
File: chromag_image.jpg (737 KB, 1600x1200)
737 KB
737 KB JPG
>>1048684
>I have a carbon frame from the early 2000s that's still going strong, my oldest aluminium frames are over a decade old and also doing fine even with hard use.

I was reffering mostly to DH carbon bikes that get thrown around and it can damage carbon frame on areas where it hasnt been made strong unlike alu and steel that have more or less consistent density all around (that is why they are considered "more durable" than carbon).

I however wouldnt even ride a road carbon frame older than 5 years unless Im 100% sure in it - sun exposure can damage the carbon glue and many other scenarios can create carbon damage where with steel and alu you can have an easire mind.
>>
>>1048685
>I was reffering mostly to DH carbon bikes
It is a DH frame actually and the previous owner(s) have obviously taken some tumbles as it has plenty of scratches and paint chips. The thing is this isn't exactly a lightweight frame and it weighs about as much as a fully aluminium one (only the front triangle is carbon), it's built to be stronger.

>sun exposure can damage the carbon glue
Bullshit. For a painted carbon frame UV is completely irrelevant and even unpainted it can be coated with a UV inhibitor. Even without that yellowing of the resin from UV exposure is only cosmetic, it won't affect the structural integrity of the frame.
>>
>>1048679
It may fail in more spectacular fashion but the threshold for failure is much higher than on an alu frame. If you manage to bin a carbon frame while riding it usually means you're going down no matter how the frame fails. The frame fails because you fucked up in a spectacular fashion by coming into a jump either way too fast or too slow and coming down where you're not supposed to land.

I didn't claim everyone who doesn't ride carbon is poor. There definitely are legitimate retrogrouches that don't do it because they're poor but because they're hipsters and hate nice things.

>>1048681
Show me a busted carbon frame that just spontaneously exploded into pieces because it was old.
>hard mode: no bonded alu/carbon frames
>>
>>1048676
I don't like it because I destroy bikes and I cant afford a new carbon bike every time I fuck up a landing.
>>
>>1049339

Even UCI DH racers don't replace their carbon frames after crashes. Look at the outtakes for a road bike trials edit to see what abuse even carbon road bikes can handle.
>>
>>1049339
Then how the fuck will you ever afford all the alu frames your breaking left and right.

https://youtu.be/xreZdUBqpJs
>>
>>1048664
>but carbon and many other meme trends in mtb still suck.

Anything but carbon frames and rims I would agree on.
>>
>>1049473
I would say carbon bars and seatpost have a slight purpose in terms of comfort as they can be made to flex whilst still being strong, but that's a minor concern for mountain bikes. Also carbon fibre brake rotors (well not straight carbon fibre, composited with ceramic and other shit) apparently perform very well.

Other than that pretty much all carbon parts are all about saving tiny amounts of weight, so small that the extra cost is unjustifiable. Perhaps implementing it in forks could bring a significant weight reduction but I don't think anyone does that any more (maybe Cannondale if they're still doing lefties).
>>
File: carbon_shane_archbold.jpg (241 KB, 1600x1068)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
>>1049376
>Look at the outtakes for a road bike trials edit to see what abuse even carbon road bikes can handle.

road bikes cant handle implact as did old steel bikes, pic rel is what happened in the 2016 tour. those kind of pictures were a rarity in the 90s tour.

https://cyclingtips.com/2016/07/shane-archbold-after-breaking-his-pelvis-give-me-the-fing-bike/

>>1049409
>https://youtu.be/xreZdUBqpJs [Embed]

that video again, you are missing the point

controlled impact =/= IRL impact

sure carbon can take more impact from the fork or wherever than any other material if you desing it that way...but crashes arent controlled and often you get impact on the middle of the chainstay which isnt beefed up as is the headtube - in that case, alu dents and carbon often fails.
>>
File: atwill.jpg (554 KB, 1024x683)
554 KB
554 KB JPG
>>1049473
>Anything but carbon frames and rims I would agree on.

If I had to I would go for carbon rims, carbon frame only if I had no better option, but carbon bars absolutly never for mtb - carbon for bars is absolutly the worse option.
>>
>>1049482
Carbon rims would be a good upgrade and are are most definitely not a meme. People often talk about not being able to take out dings like al, but carbon rims easily soak up hits that would obliterate aluminium rims.

I agree on bars, that shit is just no.
>>
>>1049480
If you dent an aluminium chainstay that frame is now fucked (repairable, but unsafe to ride). Most of the time if you crash hard enough to fuck a carbon frame the same is going to happen if you were riding aluminium.

Broken headtubes are a fairly common failure with aluminium frames, caused by either a front end impact pushing the fork rearwards or casing a jump and having the front and rear wheels forced in opposite directions. Also at the end of that video they beat the frame against a concrete pillar, hardly a controlled impact.
>>
>>1049376
>>1049480
>https://cyclingtips.com/2016/07/shane-archbold-after-breaking-his-pelvis-give-me-the-fing-bike/

OK, this was not a good example, regarding shanes road bike, there seems to be a car involved so we cant tell for sure did impact cause the crack, but look this. Ive seen alu bikes fail dramatically, but never at the seattube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQPf5OIqO3Q

and that was a rocky mountain.
>>
>>1049483
>Carbon rims would be a good upgrade and are are most definitely not a meme.

Even from a retrougrudge perspective, this seems true, alu rims dont seem any more durable than carbon rims and the failure rate seems similar.

Regarding carbon bars, its really sad how much they are pushing them when you count in the failure rate and likely injuries of a bar failure.
>>
>>1049488
>tfw no doge to ride with
>>
File: serveimage (1).jpg (750 KB, 1600x1200)
750 KB
750 KB JPG
>>1049485
>Also at the end of that video they beat the frame against a concrete pillar, hardly a controlled impact.

what would be interesting to see is first beating both alu and carbon frame against a wall and then do the test. My guess would be that alu would deal with the stress better, thing with carbon is that small damage can create a big one because the stress translates to other fibers, while with alu a small dent on the chainstay can be just that.

Idk mang, my point is not to shit on your carbon bike, its just that its advertised in a wrong way that irritates me - it has its place, especially in rims.
>>
>>1049494
My point was not that a carbon frame would handle that impact better than an aluminium one (although it possibly could), just that it can take a really hard hit against concrete without exploding into a million pieces.

Yes some frames have weak as shit chainstays but that is not the fault of carbon fibre. There have been road frames (aluminium or steel) with tubes so thin that they dent easily from gravel and stones being thrown up by the tyres.
>>
>>1046924
Why do they miss teeth? Its about the size of the ring not the number of teeth surely
>>
>>1049508
Makes shifting to the larger cogs easier.
>>
>>1048596

is this a real option ?
I only see these setups on tourers.
>>
File: 1442787386380.jpg (261 KB, 936x1199)
261 KB
261 KB JPG
dead meme inbound
>>
>>1049480
Yeah your pic related kinda damage didnt happen to steel frames because carbon and steel fail differently. However I can guarantee you that there have been busted frames even with steel frames on pro races. Just because you didn't see a spectacular busted in half frames didn't mean they didn't go through frames. Bent steel frame is about as good as the one if your pic for racing and will have the riding characterics of a wet noodle.

>in that case, alu dents
Yeah and that frame is binned just as much as the failed carbon frame. It doesn't look as dramatic and you can still somewhat ride it but the frame is still useless for any serious riding.
>>
File: Dsb-1.jpg (118 KB, 800x532)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
>>1049480
some possibly out of date knowledge here
iirc carbon fibre when compared to steel or alloy

ductility - does not stretch
Malleability - does not compress
resist abrasion - with friction epoxy overheats and carbon de laminates
modulus elasticity - does not bend

carbon has in some ways better grain/directional strength but overall needs work to be less brittle
where the above is a problem kevlar or titanium is used instead
magnesium is also a possibility but is not used nowadays

chrome molybdenum is my favourite
>>
>>1048664
the trails near me are all clay
and I have found the positive caster and rake can cause understeer in corners and strange hop in the suspension

this was only only 8000 $ carbon frames
and some 6 years ago
>>
File: Bike-2-670x388.jpg (106 KB, 670x388)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>1049480

People are doing almost 10 foot drops to flat on carbon road bikes, they can handle some impacts. Carbon road bikes usually snap because the bars can't spin 360 degrees like a MTB so all that crash force from the front wheel goes into the frame.

>>1049488

Riding with 3 feet of seatpost will crack any frame, Especially if you ride like that guy.
>>
>>1049376
Maybe I exaggerated but I will off a bike in a season and cannot afford a new carbon bike every season.
>>
>>1049409
They are cheaper. That's my point
>>
>>1049618
The bikes from Road Bike Party/Road Bike Freestyle are not your normal off-the-shelf road bikes.

I saw Vittorio Brumotti's bike up close. It looks like a road bike, but it's one of a kind - extra beefy tubing, wide spaced dropouts to accept front and rear thru-axle boost-spacing hubs from a DH mountain bike, etc.
>>
>>1049579
Carbon fibre can bend, they even make springs from it (Lauf fork for example).

>>1049635
Sounds like you need to get better at riding or get a better/more appropriate bike if you're destroying them so rapidly.

>>1049649
Source? I think you're bullshiting, I can't find any mention of it not being a standard C59 frame and the wheels are QR and normal 100/135 spacing.
>>
File: p4pb5268282.jpg (219 KB, 800x600)
219 KB
219 KB JPG
>>1049579
>magnesium is also a possibility but is not used nowadays

some small brands still make mg bikes, why isnt it a thing? less prone to fail than carbon and more stiff that alu. weight also comparable to carbon.

>>1049585
>and I have found the positive caster and rake can cause understeer in corners and strange hop in the suspension

welcom to the neo-mtb geometry, yes, it has its advantages but also downsides, slacker HA (that in most case leads to more trail) are harder to contersteer, and you have to be VERY careful about front suspenssion adjustment since you have less weight on the front wheel, but overall its a worthy tradeoff if you dont go to extremly slack HA.

shan PP is especially prone to what you describe, cotic BFe has a much more better geometry (BB is slightly higher on cotic and HA is not as slack, but overall performance is slightly better)
>>
File: the future is bright.jpg (249 KB, 541x380)
249 KB
249 KB JPG
>>1049732
>magnesium is also a possibility

>when a pebble dings your frame




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.