Carbon Fiber

To differentiate between all the bogus marketing and outright deception purpoted by the industry and your local bike shop that sells carbon like hotcakes, here's the truth. Nothing personal, carbon fiber needs a closer examination.

Carbon fiber, carbon-reinforced plastic, or any of dozens of trademarked names are used interchangeably to a degree and it isn't very fair to carbon fiber. The differences between these substances are more than night and day. It does make it easier to hide the truth in a bunch of crap from the manufacturer or salesperson.

Generally, it is very light, very strong, chemically stable, mostly inert, has almost limitless theoretical applications and tunability. Its properties can be programmed into a computer to design infinite combinations and possibilities without the expense of making one-off prototypes. Any reasonable argument against the use or viability of this product can easily be dismissed, happens thousands of times a day.

So says the math. I agree with the math, it's based on hard data. Implementing the math into a workable design - just because it exists on paper doesn't mean it exists in reality, ergo time travel - is where reality begins to emaciate the variables that harmoniously exist on paper.

HISTORY AND CHEMISTRY - We generally consider carbon to be the cradle of life. It is a non-metallic element with an atomic number of 6 and an atomic mass of 12. Like many elements, carbon has isotopes (like carbon 14, used to accurately date carbon-containing compounds up to a hundred centuries or so) and allotropes (diamonds, among others). Other unique molecular arrangements include graphite and buckyballs.

Carbon nanotubes are another. These are mind-bogglingly strong, there is nothing to describe their strength in terms that we can readily understand. One valid study suggests a 1mm thick carbon nanotube could support approximately 20,000 pounds, about 9000kg, and remain flexible!

They are so strong that theoretical physicists have imagined an inexpensive way to travel to outer space: an elevator to an orbiting satellite. The satellite would effectively be an anchor in outer space held in place by centripetal force; the carbon nanotube cable doubling as the tether and cable to lift the payload hundreds or thousands of miles into space. Metal cables would be too heavy to support their own weight.

Yes, a cable thousands of miles long only possible with carbon nanotube technology. Space travel would be affordable for the average working Joe, requiring about $125 in electricity to lift someone into orbit. Don't bust open that piggy bank, no economy class tickets to space are available any time soon.

Even more impressive is the recent study by a scientist with the last name of Hone. He was researching the stronget material. In his article he found graphene, yet another allotrope of carbon, was the strongest material ever measured, some 200 times stronger than structural steel. His exact words: "It would take an elephant, balanced on a pencil, to break through a sheet of graphene the thickness of Saran Wrap".

Diamonds are one of the hardest substances on the planet and easily the hardest element. The refractive index is exceptionally high, the melting temperature the same. It's doesn't seem to be a coincidence that carbon keeps popping up when ultimate strengths or extremes are concerned. Carbon is strong.

We can create a multi-carat laboratory diamond that consistently rates flawless and approaches perfection on a molecular level. As far as carbon nanotubes and graphene sheets are concerned, they are painstakingly created under laboratory conditions sometimes on a molecular level. Most are very small, they exist as dust.

Therein lies the problem. The technology doesn't exist for practical applications, not yet anyway. Sizable pieces of these unique substances are beginning to appear yet their presence is more of a lesson in manufacturing than proof of their viability. Nanomachines might be up to the task, "welding" together individual carbon atoms to ensure 100% perfection. Those, too, exist on paper but haven't made the transition to real life.

All the testing and measurements are performed on extremely small pieces. The samples have to be perfect because any deviation or contamination will effectively destroy the structural aspect. These perfect pieces are then tested with the most sensitive equipment. The results are extrapolated to life-size models based on the small test samples.

Even with the rapid advances in this exciting field, there are no carbon nanotubes or graphene sheets anywhere that are long enough or thick enough to utilize their inherent strengths in cycling applications. No elevators to space right now, either, or pink elephants suspended on graphene sheets.

So how are some bike companies supposedly using carbon nanotube technology? There are only two logical answers and a whole lot of illogical ones.

First, somebody is ultimately responsible for an outright "I'm gonna f*ck you over" lie. Straight out blatant lie. Second, capitalizing on the theory of nanotubes by sprinkling some magic carbon dust in the mold for good luck is pathetic. That dust contains billions of nanotubes that require a scanning electron microscope to see them but performs no special function once the chef mixes them into the bicycle batter.

Malicious lying + purposeful deception = FRAUD. Or obscene ignorance, that is the only other logical possibility. There are more productive ways to appease the carbon fiber fairy but what a damn good way to deceive the customer.

APPLICATIONS - Still, carbon fiber is a wonder material but it's not the solution to everything on a bike or the only material that's worthy of a race bike. Carbon snobs are probably insulted now and should stop reading lest your anger and disbelief betray you. Go to your local bike shop and search fof sensible components.

Due to man's incompetence and greed, not the failings of the material itself, carbon fiber is inappropriate for most things on a bike. I am hopeful - not convinced - better practices will one day change the facts and my observations. Until then I have no faith in the highest majority of carbon parts or manufacturers, especially the Asian stuff. I also have no faith in most bike stores, the carbon fiber problem is one of the main reasons.

OK, they make fighter airplanes and commercial jetliners out of the stuff, it can be used in very demanding applications. If that same quality control existed for bikes it would make a difference. Man has "ruined" carbon fiber for bikes by perverting and exploiting its physical properties, using poor manufacturing techniques, and sweatshop assembly practices. Consumers have been conditioned to "buy, buy" when they should be saying "bye bye".

Bike industry parts are usually approved and designed with the weight weenie genie at the helm. It would be counterproductive to manufacture a component out of carbon fiber that is heavier than a metal one...but it happens all the time.

Seriously, is an extra 1/2 ounce of carbon fiber reinforcement in the steer tube of a fork really a deal breaker? One company has had oodles of carbon fork recalls year after year after year. Single syllable, four letter "F" words belong in R rated movies, you shouldn't be riding one. They are not alone. Given the inordinately high number of carbon fork failures, many companies have been cutting too many corners and the products can't stand the scrutiny of real-life use.

It's not really a wonder material when you look at it. It might be lighter, stiffer, or more easily tuned than some of its metallic counterparts in some applications. It's also incredibly difficult if not impossible to repair, has a very limited lifespan primarily because of resin degradation, does not always stand up to environmental conditions, fails catastrophically, is prone to galvanic corrosion when bonded with most metals, and has potential for more manufacturing defects during all phases of construction. Add a mechanic who doesn't understand the importance of torque specifications and it's a bad recipe.

One significant advantage is the "tunability". No other material or construction technique used in frame manufacturing allows the versatility of being able to add bits of material in specific orientations to strengthen or reinforce a particular area on the bike. This has led to significant problems that didn't exist with conventional framebuilding techniques, problems that may never be solved.

One major problem is forming three-dimensional objects from two-dimensional fabrics. It requires a lot of precision cutting: the more complex the shape, the smaller and more abundant the pieces to "fit" properly. And precision layering to ensure the fiber orientation and compression and expansion of the fiber matrix do what they're designed and supposed to do. And precision positioning of the carbon fiber fabric to work in conjunction with the other pieces.

Carbon fiber fabric is very flexible so it willingly complies with any rational position. All this happens before the carbon fiber is molded into place providing many opportunities to introduce errors or defects.

Round tubes are easy to manufacture and relatively uniform. This is never the case on fancy carbon bikes with aerodynamic tubing and all sorts of strange shapes and requirements. During the final stages of frame production the inevitable overlap of particular fabric pieces, resin dispersion and impregnation, and sloppy molding techniques (voids, shrinkage, shifting of pieces) will produce a questionable product.

The carbon molding process is far less precise than machining. Since most carbon components and frames are molded...you do the math. This is a fact. That partially explains why a $300 carbon stem has sloppier tolerances than a $25 metal stem. Or why numerous carbon handlebars think a 31.4mm clamp is acceptable when it is supposed to be 31.8mm. Molding doesn't attain the hundredths-of-a-millimeter precision that machining does, not even close. Why spend thousands of dollars on a garbage frameset that is only a testament to man's neverending quest to be the stupidest and lightest at the expense of common sense?

For example, if it was a metal frame regular cutting tools could be used to face the headset dozens of times, even with titanium frames. Carbon frames save weight by eliminating the metal head tube insert or bearing races. Carbon frames eat up cutting tools, a few frames and the tool must be resharpened.

Or the manufacturer says facing a frame will void the warranty yet they won't replace a frame with misaligned headtube races or offer any solutions or apologies. Headsets never stay tight, damage to frameset, premature wearing of components, questionable handling. Usually it is the "Well, you're the only one complaining about it" response, or the flipside "You're the first person who has ever mentioned this...""

Others must notice and complain, it's not possible I'm alone. One of two very bad things is happening: manufacturers are lying about the problem and it is much more widespread (almost always the case); or other dealers are so incompetent and pathetic that they don't even care, care to notice, care to complain, or care to do anything about it as long as the sales keep flowing. Probably both and more, it's pathetic.

The bike industry is far too unprofessional as a whole to effectively embrace and utilize a material like carbon fiber. The bulk of the carbon problem is caused by a very sizable dose of carelessness and lack of ownership and oversight during and after the manufacturing process. Irresponsibility is the key word for everyone involved in the supply chain: mechanics who don't use torque wrenches; propaganda from manufacturers via their deceptive marketing campaigns; bike shops who don't fully educate consumers or accept the truth.

When a shop's livelihood depends on selling (their chosen) products it's difficult to get the whole truth. Economics 101. Every shop will say how great their product lines are, how they would only sell what they believe in, how all work is performed by qualified mechanics, etc. One could argue they are almost "forced" to carry certain products due to contractual obligations but it is still a free world for those who want to exercise their rights.

One shop was the biggest area dealer of a particular stock and custom bike line. This manufacturer used aero carbon fiber tubing for custom frames, the only one at the time. Close to 100% of their carbon framesets came back broken, some customers with three or four failures in one year, the same problems over and over. It was a broken record list of excuses and denials. Couldn't seem to get a good paint job, either, delivering frames with uncured paint - a slight touch would leave permanent fingerprints. Packaging materials would leave a fossil imprint wherever they touched the frame, what a great $5,000 frameset!

How can close to 100% come back and not bankrupt the manufacturer or make the dealers of these frames look like a complete joke? The first part is easy, divide the number of times these frames came back by the number of frames sold; many of the frames failed numerous times which pushed the percentage close to 100%.

The second part, not being bankrupt, is only partially true. The owner had more wine, whine, and ambitions than common sense and thought owning a bike company would be great. It went into receivership like many other crappy companies. Some of their act has been cleaned up don't put away that old phonograph, the broken record still plays.

Back to the point, the shop sold these bikes like they were the most perfect, most well-designed machines without a hint of the guaranteed problems they would have. This was supposedly one of the best shops in the country, known for their fitting "expertise" and "first-tier" quality products. As the mechanic who had to work on these defective and substandard frames, I was thrown under the bus many times by the shop owners for taking a stand against these visibly defective and faulty products. I was always right and in hindsight, this infuriated the powers-to-be and probably led to an inordinate yet undeserved number of bus encounters. I'd need an Australian land train for the owners who are basically co-conspirators at this point, a regular bus wouldn't suffice.

Maybe it is reasonable to expect more from expensive parts, certainly logical, but expensive and logical are diametrically opposed in this industry. The list of offenders never shrinks, only grows, mainly because the shops and mechanics do not demand quality and those few that do are regarded as flukes, loud-mouthed troublemakers.

If industry folk decide to use junk on their own bikes, that's their choice, but at least give clients the opportunity to know and decide what's appropriate for them. Maybe the glitz and bling of carbon are enough to overcome small things like durability, safety, functionality, and ease of use. Maybe customers expect to throw everything away at the end of the season and repeat every year. Still, it should be their choice, not a mandate due to crappy equipment.

Regarding Asian manufacturers, it's a cultural thing. Low-quality workmanship couples nicely with their "the end justifies the means" mentality: lie, steal, cheat, and deceive. It is a legendary part of their culture, do your own research, it's really quite disturbing! Human rights abuses, tainted dog food, poisonous baby formula, lead paint in children's toys, internet censorship, poor working conditions, sweatshop standards, rampant fraud, industrial pollution, billions of counterfeit products. The bike industry is just another means to their end.

To recap, carbon fiber is thread and glue, "glorified plastic". Call it nanotube technology, OVLC or whatever the trademarked anagram moniker for the current model line or year is. 3K weave, 10K weave, uni-directional, blah blah blah. Man's insatiable appetite for bigger and better, lighter and faster pushes the limits further than current carbon fiber production methods and materials can support. And it really eats up and dulls cutting tools.

CONCLUSION - Carbon fiber is basically junk as it's used in the bike industry. Sure, some frame and component manufacturers might hit that magic mixture that allows an exceptional piece of equipment to be created, devoid of most defects. Then the very next part or entire production run could be defective, it's really a hit-or-miss more than anything. Inconsistency doesn't promote reliability.

It's readily apparent across the industry. Some companies cannot make carbon fiber to save their life and they have multiple recalls year after year on the same components. You'd figure that after six or seven fork recalls that a company would be able to learn from their repeated mistakes.

There are only so many carbon fiber frame manufacturers in the world. Many companies buy pre-made or pre-designed components and slap their logos on them. Instead of one product line being affected by crappy manufacturing there are now dozens of products because they are all made by the same company with the same defects.

Carbon fiber is not the limiting factor for quality, longevity, and strength. Man is responsible for and creates the failings of the material. What would it do for business if carbon fiber frames actually lasted for more than one or two seasons like they do today? It'd spell doom for bike sales. The impending disintegration of carbon fiber is hastened with poor manufacturing, virtually guaranteeing future sales as the marketing campaign kicks into overdrive about how great and improved the next generation of components are. They are ready to fail at the drop of a dime.

More information soon!