Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

User avatar
silentC
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:24 pm
Location: Far South Coast NSW

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby silentC » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:10 pm

Image
"If your next bike does not have disc brakes, the bike after that certainly will"
- Me

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5456
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby Comedian » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:57 pm

silentC wrote:Seems to me it's similar to mobile phones. A new one comes out, people want it, so they buy it. Nothing wrong with the old one. This creates a good secondhand market. I know a few blokes who have bought nice second hand bikes. We had one this morning, a 2016 Bianchi Infinito. Spotless condition. It complements his 2012 Inifinito - still going strong despite rumours of it's demise, and his 2012 Trek Domayne - currently with 22k on the clock.

My Merida is a 2016. I expect it to last me quite a long time. But I only manage about 5 or 6k a year.

You know what made me start digging and asking? A mate turned up on a ride with his Dogma. I said "wow new bike!". And he said "Yeah.. they crack every two years and they keep giving me new ones". Then I started asking around.

I had this discussion with my mates and they laughed at me. And one by one their frames crack.. or fall over on something and boom. The highest any got to was 30k. None of the rest even lasted that long. Now they just say "I like buying a new bike". Which is like you said...

Anyway.. I just don't have the marketing budget to convince you otherwise. :mrgreen: Z

But yes.. As warthog says it really doesn't matter. It's what's in you and what's in your legs. A good set of wheels and tyres is the most important thing..

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5456
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby Comedian » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:59 pm

g-boaf wrote:Where are you getting 4k on each of them from? :?:

I said 13k just this year. You are conveniently forgetting the amount of kms I did in previous years which was much higher.

1 of them has a bit less use than the other 2, but those other two get used a lot.

I divided 12/3 and got 4 (I rounded down shoot me). :mrgreen:

g-boaf
Posts: 9566
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby g-boaf » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:07 pm

Comedian wrote:
g-boaf wrote:Where are you getting 4k on each of them from? :?:

I said 13k just this year. You are conveniently forgetting the amount of kms I did in previous years which was much higher.

1 of them has a bit less use than the other 2, but those other two get used a lot.

I divided 12/3 and got 4 (I rounded down shoot me). :mrgreen:


You still got it wrong. Try 45 instead. Divide that by three - then you have a more accurate figure for three years. That 45 is rounded down.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5456
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby Comedian » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:11 pm

g-boaf wrote:
Comedian wrote:
g-boaf wrote:Where are you getting 4k on each of them from? :?:

I said 13k just this year. You are conveniently forgetting the amount of kms I did in previous years which was much higher.

1 of them has a bit less use than the other 2, but those other two get used a lot.

I divided 12/3 and got 4 (I rounded down shoot me). :mrgreen:


You still got it wrong. Try 45 instead. Divide that by three - then you have a more accurate figure for three years. That 45 is rounded down.

Good for you. So each bike has 15k on it. That's hardly high mileage.... Report back when you've got one over 30 and we'll talk...

Like I said.. it was clear to me that when I was doing 15k a year.. that a new bike was barely going to last two years before I had to play "Warranty Roulette".

One of my mates who laughed at me had to have his black BH replaced with a bright orange one at 30k. And his giant fell over and busted the TT... both fooked .. one he luckily got warranty on... the other one is only wind trainer safe now..

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5456
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby Comedian » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:21 pm

fat and old wrote:And as for manufacturers hiding the truth because we can't handle it...here,

Cervelo:

D. Intended Use
Cervélo produces bicycles designed and built for road racing, time
trailing and triathlon. They are intended to be used for long, fast types of
rides on smooth surfaces such as paved roads, and are not designed for
use on rough or loose, off-road surfaces. Small changes to components
such as wheels or tires will not render the bicycle suitable for use in such
harsh conditions. Please consult your Cervélo dealer to ensure you are
properly equipped to meet your unique requirements & specific goals.
E. Competition
By engaging in racing or aggressive riding you voluntarily assume an
increased risk of injury or death.
Not all bicycles are designed for these types of riding, and those that
are may not be suitable for all types of aggressive riding. Check with
your dealer or the bicycle’s manufacturer about the suitability of your
bicycle before engaging in competition.
WARNING: Although many catalogs, advertisements and
articles about bicycling depict riders engaged in various
forms of racing, this activity can be extremely dangerous,
increases your risk of injury or death, and increases the
severity of any injury. Remember that the action depicted
is being performed by professionals with many years of
training and experience. Know your limits and always
wear a helmet and other appropriate safety gear. Even
with state-of-the-art protective safety gear, you could be
seriously injured or killed when riding downhill at speed or
in competition.

CAUTION: Bicycles and bicycle parts have limitations with
regard to strength and integrity, and this type of riding can
increase the likelihood of exceeding those limitations.

APPENDIX A: THE LIFESPAN OF YOUR BIKE AND ITS
COMPONENTS
1. Nothing Lasts Forever, Including Your Bike.
When the useful life of your bike or its components is over, continued
use is hazardous.
Every bicycle and its component parts have a finite, limited useful life.
The length of that life will vary with the construction and materials used
in the frame and components; the maintenance and care the frame and
components receive over their life; and the type and amount of use
to which the frame and components are subjected. Use in competitive
events, trick riding, ramp riding, jumping, aggressive riding, riding on
severe terrain, riding in severe climates, riding with heavy loads, commercial
activities and other types of non-standard use can dramatically
shorten the life of the frame and components. Any one or a combination
of these conditions may result in an unpredictable failure.
All aspects of use being identical, lightweight bicycles and their
components will usually have a shorter life than heavier bicycles and
their components. In selecting a lightweight bicycle or components
you are making a tradeoff, favoring the higher performance that comes
with lighter weight over longevity.




Specialized has a whole manual on iot's bikes and reality...

https://media.specialized.com/support/c ... 093943.pdf

On the new fancy Tarmac..

CONDITION 1
Bikes designed for riding on a paved surface where the tires do not lose ground contact.
INTENDED
To be ridden on paved roads only.
NOT INTENDED
For off-road, cyclocross, or touring with racks or panniers.
TRADE OFF
Material use is optimized to deliver both light weight and specific performance. You must understand that (1) these types of bikes are intended to
give an aggressive racer or competitive cyclist a performance advantage over a relatively short product life, (2) a less aggressive rider will enjoy
longer frame life, (3) you are choosing light weight (shorter frame life) over more frame weight and a longer frame life, (4) you are choosing light
weight over more dent resistant or rugged frames that weigh more. All frames that are very light need frequent inspection. These frames are
likely to be damaged or broken in a crash. They are not designed to take abuse or be a rugged workhorse. See also Appendix B


Giant...

same as Spec.

https://www.giant-bicycles.com/_upload_ ... -%20AU.pdf

Word for word.

Colnago

http://www.colnago.com/downloads/COLNAGOwarranty.pdf

95kg limit. 95!!!! And street use only.

Pinarello

INTENDED USE. This product has been designed solely for road or track use on smooth surfaces. There are risks inherent in bike riding and factors such as poor maintenance, lack of frequent inspections, poor visibility, darkness or rain greatly increase these risks


I'm not seeing anyone hiding there?

So.. I was talking to a brand manager from one of the big (very famous) brands. I said "Hey - it says on your website that trainer use isn't allowed??". He said no.. it's ok .. if you use it on a modern trainer you should be fine.. :roll:

User avatar
silentC
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:24 pm
Location: Far South Coast NSW

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby silentC » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:29 pm

My mate has a 2014 Merida Ride that has 35k, is that getting in the ball park? He weighs in at around 90kg and does about 160km per week. He has also fallen off it at least 3 times that I know of.

If you're saying 'carbon bikes only last 2 to 3 years' I'm saying anecdotally there's not enough evidence to support that assertion. I have no cases I know of where people here have replaced bikes because the frames failed, and several cases of guys who are still riding old bikes around.

Maybe instead of me trying to prove you wrong, since you're the one making the claim you could give us actual numbers on bikes sold versus frames that died within 3 years. Then we'll have something to work on. Maybe your mates are just clumsy and don't look after their bikes :D
"If your next bike does not have disc brakes, the bike after that certainly will"
- Me

User avatar
silentC
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:24 pm
Location: Far South Coast NSW

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby silentC » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:30 pm

Correction: one guy bought a new Dogma and had to send it back because it had a crack near the BB. It was brand new.
"If your next bike does not have disc brakes, the bike after that certainly will"
- Me

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 6102
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby biker jk » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:53 pm

Raoul Luescher is busier than a one armed bricklayer in Beirut. :lol:

g-boaf
Posts: 9566
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby g-boaf » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:17 pm

silentC wrote:My mate has a 2014 Merida Ride that has 35k, is that getting in the ball park? He weighs in at around 90kg and does about 160km per week. He has also fallen off it at least 3 times that I know of.

If you're saying 'carbon bikes only last 2 to 3 years' I'm saying anecdotally there's not enough evidence to support that assertion. I have no cases I know of where people here have replaced bikes because the frames failed, and several cases of guys who are still riding old bikes around.

Maybe instead of me trying to prove you wrong, since you're the one making the claim you could give us actual numbers on bikes sold versus frames that died within 3 years. Then we'll have something to work on. Maybe your mates are just clumsy and don't look after their bikes :D


Just don't bother. Just get out and do big rides in great locations. Enjoy it, maybe post a few photos now and then in the show us your bike topic. :) Let them debate the pros and cons of bicycle construction methods and materials.

I know of a few people on old carbon framed bikes who also have done massive kms on them, probably upwards of 30,000km. And they are still going. I don't intend on replacing the ones I have. I'm happy with them. They run faultlessly.

User avatar
Duck!
Expert
Posts: 6860
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: On The Tools

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby Duck! » Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:24 pm

My carbon TCR has about 35 thou on it, and it's in as good nick as when it was new. My carbon MTB has a bit less on it, a small ding in the top tube from a shifter-bite inflicted during a crash about 18-months ago, and hasn't spontaneously exploded like some people think it will. I'll patch it if it looks like it starts growing....

However I've had to replace one each steel and aluminium frame, and four steel forks - one from crash damage, the others due to structural failure. And I was a 50-something kg flyweight back then. Never have I had to replace a carbon component.
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.

User avatar
Lukeyboy
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby Lukeyboy » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:08 am

Comedian wrote:
Lukeyboy wrote:Oh look human909 is off on another triad about how he knows everything. Kudos for you mate. Go buy and leave some Zipp 404s outside for a year and see what happens. Or leave a carbon frame out in the elements and see what happens. Then see how your accc rights will fair.

So the problem is the bicycle industry is selling less durable products than they ever have before. Products that are very susceptible to all types of damage that was never the case in the past.


Depends on what the item is and how its treated. Is a muppet behind the bars or is it some one with experience. Is it someone that looks after their ceramic bearings or is it someone that runs them into the ground and then gets angry that they cost a bundle to replace. Is it a 16 spoke carbon rim vs a 36h alpine spoked alloy rim? Its the same with wheelbuilding. Take HPlusSon Archetype rims. They are very good rims but they have one design flaw. Alloy nipples. There are two ways around it. Lace them with brass nipples or build them with 2mm longer spokes using a 2mm longer offset nipple as the weakspot is around the the nipple head which cops extra load from the drillings on those particular rims. Its a similar story when it comes to carbon wheels where their biggest problem is heat and the resin. Is the rider a muppet that trail brakes on the long descents keeping the heat built up in the rim reducing its performance/warping the rim or is it someone with experience that can flow through corners and use minimal/precise braking which allows for the heat to dissipate quickly?

Then you also have stuff the designers have done and then an account comes along. Its the mess that we see now with the Giant Propels and the Di2 designed frames now having mechanical versions. You know what steel cables love? Big 'S' kinks through the top and down tubes. You see the same on TT bikes. And that's also led to the mess that is now known as aero brakes.

But these days you have a lot more choice of what you can get with a bike. Do you want performance? Aggression? Reliability? Redundancy? Commuter? CX? MTB? Gravel grinders? Electronic gears (not just for race bikes - ever built up a customer di2 flatbar bike before for an older rider - what about a Di2 cruiser bike with TT aero brakes/shifters on the bars)? Touring? Disc brake? Alloy? Carbon? Steel? Hell... ebikes? Cargo/transport?

You just have to know what to look for. If you don't know what to look for you look for the right people.

Comedian wrote:The problem is - when the customer is there with his/her wallet hand twitching they are afraid to say

"Mate... just so you know - if you let this bike fall over at a cafe and it lands on something badly it will break.. if it gets a decent hit from a rock while riding... if you clamp it incorrectly putting it on your car, and if you have any type of crash at all it will very likely be damaged or will require an inspection that is more expensive than it's worth. Mount your bike in a trainer and it cracks that's not a warranty item. If you over torque a bolt by a smidge..or god forbid you leave the bike outside for any time at all... These are not warrantable incidents and you'll need to get insurance or be prepared to pay for repairs or buy a new bike when it happens to you."


The problem is they don't want them going to the next guy who definitely won't mention any of this.. And the marketing says if it's good for the pro's it's very good for you. The problem is if the pro's break one they just grab one off the rack..


And all that depends on 'who' is selling 'you' the bike. The good and dedicated sales persons will go through with the customer about what bike they should buy, tell them the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages, tell them what size bike is right for them, listening to what they plan to do and offer a cheaper model or suggesting a higher up model, the differences of carbon vs alloy, components, explain to them the inns and outs etc. The customer might be interested in a bike thats on sale but the sale is only on current floor stock and not in their size. The good staff will explain to them the cons of why they shouldn't purchase it.

Is its someone there just wanting to earn a pay cheque or someone who is passionate about the industry. Is it someone that will stay behind 60 minutes after the store was supposed to be closed explaining and showing the differences to the customer. The same with the good mechanics. The great ones won't bs you around and will give it to you straight even when at times you don't want to hear it. You might not like what they said at the time but after you think about it you knew just how correct they actually were.

In saying all that there are also other staff influences. This can be due to how upper management is run or even how their pay is calculated - such as a percentage sales based tiered level income.

Its why there are people in the industry that are recommended for their non bs. And even then those same people have their own recommendations for other sales/mechanics in other stores.

silentC wrote:Correction: one guy bought a new Dogma and had to send it back because it had a crack near the BB. It was brand new.

I've had to warranty a warranty frame because the carbon seat stays were miss aligned. If it was made of another material you just grab some tools and bent it back but not with carbon. I've sent Shimano back Dura Ace C24s because there was a warp in the braking surface. I've had lights DOA. Some things get past inspections.

My 2013 propel is in the 25k area. Still going strong (even when off the bike for 10 months due to injury). Still getting koms. Still getting into those breakaways. Its been down the road a few times. Crashed at the roundabout outside the servo in the rain. Tboned a bike at 47kph and only bent the hanger (got a pr over the gateway bridge with it stuck in gear with the Di2 cable removed). Heard it (I think. Could have been my ribs or my collarbone breaking) getting hit by someones crank at states (took a chunk of the carbon out of the fork but I fixed it....with some race tape - replaced the fork but the frame is still going strong).

fat and old
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:14 am

Comedian wrote:So.. I was talking to a brand manager from one of the big (very famous) brands. I said "Hey - it says on your website that trainer use isn't allowed??". He said no.. it's ok .. if you use it on a modern trainer you should be fine.. :roll:



Yeah, trainer use is something I haven't seen addressed in any of the manufacturers blurb. Maybe because it's a relatively recent thing (popularity, Zwift etc)? I guess it's something that should be addressed.

Cervelo R5. Almost always above 85kg. 2.5yrs old, 25k +, including the local BMX track :lol: and a fair bit of unsealed/rough bike path. We'll see.
Last edited by fat and old on Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

fat and old
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:18 am

biker jk wrote:Raoul Luescher is busier than a one armed bricklayer in Beirut. :lol:


Good bloke that. Did you know his workshop had to be fire proofed to protect neighbours from the spontaneous combustion of all those carbon frames?

g-boaf
Posts: 9566
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby g-boaf » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:33 am

fat and old wrote:
Comedian wrote:So.. I was talking to a brand manager from one of the big (very famous) brands. I said "Hey - it says on your website that trainer use isn't allowed??". He said no.. it's ok .. if you use it on a modern trainer you should be fine.. :roll:



Yeah, trainer use is something I haven't seen addressed in any of the manufacturers blurb. Maybe because it's a relatively recent thing (popularity, Zwift etc)? I guess it's something that should be addressed.

Cervelo R5. Almost always above 85kg. 2.5yrs old, 25k +, including the local BMX track :lol: and a fair bit of unsealed/rough bike path. We'll see.


I know a number of very strong riders who use their bikes on trainers and none of them have problems. And they all do many more kms than we do (including flights overseas with their bikes). The only one of my bikes that has seen some use on a trainer would be the Cervelo P5, and it hasn't spontaneously exploded. But the with 20min average power of 313w, I'm not very powerful. But I'm also not very heavy either, so I don't put a lot of stress on those bikes. And I look after them all pretty well. It must be said that the P5 is a real tank of a bike.

User avatar
Duck!
Expert
Posts: 6860
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: On The Tools

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby Duck! » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:13 am

Only frame I've ever seen broken from trainer use was aluminium.....
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.

g-boaf
Posts: 9566
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby g-boaf » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:31 am

Duck! wrote:Only frame I've ever seen broken from trainer use was aluminium.....


Yeah, but you, me and Lukeyboy must be part of the carbon conspiracy theory. ;)

CKinnard
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby CKinnard » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:57 am

I've said it before but it deserves repeating.
I've stopped being surprised by how much time and money most riders invest in lighter bikes....all while carrying 5-30kg excess bodyfat.
Then it's not too long a string to draw to say bikes would last a lot longer if riders had sub 12% bodyfat.

RobertL
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby RobertL » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:25 am

CKinnard wrote:I've said it before but it deserves repeating.
I've stopped being surprised by how much time and money most riders invest in lighter bikes....all while carrying 5-30kg excess bodyfat.
Then it's not too long a string to draw to say bikes would last a lot longer if riders had sub 12% bodyfat.


Yeah, but as a larger rider, why shouldn't I have a nice bike?

When I bought my road bike I weighed about 120kg. I'm now down to 102kg, and planning (hoping?) to go lower. But I will never be a lightweight, so I'm always going to subject a bike to a lot of strain.

Also, losing bodyweight is a relatively slow process, but I could go out tomorrow and "lose" 2 or 3kg on a new, lighter bike without even trying hard. So why wouldn't I? (Answer = finances, like most of us).
Image

g-boaf
Posts: 9566
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby g-boaf » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:58 am

RobertL wrote:
CKinnard wrote:I've said it before but it deserves repeating.
I've stopped being surprised by how much time and money most riders invest in lighter bikes....all while carrying 5-30kg excess bodyfat.
Then it's not too long a string to draw to say bikes would last a lot longer if riders had sub 12% bodyfat.


Yeah, but as a larger rider, why shouldn't I have a nice bike?

When I bought my road bike I weighed about 120kg. I'm now down to 102kg, and planning (hoping?) to go lower. But I will never be a lightweight, so I'm always going to subject a bike to a lot of strain.

Also, losing bodyweight is a relatively slow process, but I could go out tomorrow and "lose" 2 or 3kg on a new, lighter bike without even trying hard. So why wouldn't I? (Answer = finances, like most of us).


Losing the kilos is a matter of steadily chopping away at it. Just clock up the kilometres and eat the right things and gradually you'll get there. I used to be up around 90kg, now I'm around 60kg. I started from being totally unfit. You can get there. It also depends on your height as well.

fat and old
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:14 am

g-boaf wrote:
RobertL wrote:
CKinnard wrote:I've said it before but it deserves repeating.
I've stopped being surprised by how much time and money most riders invest in lighter bikes....all while carrying 5-30kg excess bodyfat.
Then it's not too long a string to draw to say bikes would last a lot longer if riders had sub 12% bodyfat.


Yeah, but as a larger rider, why shouldn't I have a nice bike?

When I bought my road bike I weighed about 120kg. I'm now down to 102kg, and planning (hoping?) to go lower. But I will never be a lightweight, so I'm always going to subject a bike to a lot of strain.

Also, losing bodyweight is a relatively slow process, but I could go out tomorrow and "lose" 2 or 3kg on a new, lighter bike without even trying hard. So why wouldn't I? (Answer = finances, like most of us).


Losing the kilos is a matter of steadily chopping away at it. Just clock up the kilometres and eat the right things and gradually you'll get there. I used to be up around 90kg, now I'm around 60kg. I started from being totally unfit. You can get there. It also depends on your height as well.


Age, body make-up and occupation have an effect as well. At 53, 35 years of manual labour and 10 years of weight lifting have a different effect to 35 years of office admin and no exertion. Nothing really that a good program of Wiggans Weight Loss magic injections wouldn't overcome :lol:

User avatar
silentC
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:24 pm
Location: Far South Coast NSW

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby silentC » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:15 am

Yeah my mate with Merida Ride I mentioned was over 110kg when he started about 4 years ago. He struggles to get the ks in sometimes due to work but he has been down in the low 90's. His goal is to crack the 90 threshold but even if he doesn't he is way better off than he was before he started. Dropping 2 or 3 kg on the weight of the bike would not help him.
"If your next bike does not have disc brakes, the bike after that certainly will"
- Me

User avatar
P!N20
Posts: 775
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby P!N20 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:32 am

So a query about a stone chip has turned into a weight loss advice column? I wonder why the OP hasn't returned...

User avatar
silentC
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:24 pm
Location: Far South Coast NSW

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby silentC » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:12 pm

No, we're talking about the pros and cons of carbon frames. Try to keep up...
"If your next bike does not have disc brakes, the bike after that certainly will"
- Me

g-boaf
Posts: 9566
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

Postby g-boaf » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:21 pm

P!N20 wrote:So a query about a stone chip has turned into a weight loss advice column? I wonder why the OP hasn't returned...


The topic has long since turned into a spat between the pro-carbon and anti-carbon factions.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AdelaidePeter, Calvin27, Matt.O