> We don't think an aluminium bike is better than a carbon fibre bike
Depends on how you define better. Carbon bikes are prone to catastrophic failure, and if you fall often are a bad idea. Of course, you might just say "just don't fall".
Depends on how you define better. Carbon bikes are prone to catastrophic failure, and if you fall often are a bad idea. Of course, you might just say "just don't fall".
> Reed and other experts in carbon fiber agree that any material can fail. Wrecks happen from faulty aluminum, steel, and even rock-hard titanium. The difference with carbon fiber is that it can be difficult to detect signs of damage that might signal imminent failure. Cracks and dents in other materials are typically easy to see, but fissures in carbon fiber often hide beneath the paint. What’s worse is that when carbon fiber fails, it fails spectacularly. While other materials might simply buckle or bend, carbon fiber can shatter into pieces, sending riders flying into the road or trail. And this kind of catastrophic destruction can happen to any part of a bike made with the material.
> “It’s completely reasonable for someone who wants a lightweight bike to look at carbon fiber, but they need to understand the risks,” Elrath says. “Absolutely this is getting ignored.”
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/bikes-and-biking/...
There are plenty of videos from competitions where the carbon suddenly fails. I've never seen that with aluminum bikes. Last three accidents from 4:15:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpeTiF_Tm04
But going back, if one is not racing, is it really worth the extra risk for minor performance improvements? Some say that after any serious fall/crash a carbon frame/component should be replaced because it's difficult to assess if it was damaged or not. How many can afford that?
As a counterpoint to the video you linked, I'm reminded of this video of Danny Macaskill having to work pretty hard to break a carbon rim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc
> ... if one is not racing, is it really worth the extra risk for minor performance improvements?
It really depends on how much extra risk there is and how much the rider values the performance improvements. Without actual data about the (relative) risk of carbon fiber failure in bike components, we have to guess based on the information we have avaliable. Most of this seems to either be anecdotal, or coming from from interested parties, e.g. bike manufacturers, lawyers who make their living suing bike manufacturers, and journalists who are probably more interested in writing about something exciting happening than something exciting not happening. My impression is that the relative risk of of using carbon fiber in some (but perhaps not all) bike components is pretty small compared to the other risks involved in biking, and the performance improvements are big enough to be worth it for me, even though I don't race.
True of carbon as well, but they can be repaired in some cases; aluminum frames almost always need to be scrapped.
It is so much easier to wreck a carbon fiber frame than an alu frame. It just takes one pointy rock or one bad slide. Whereas an alu frame will only receive cosmetic damage
I can patch my fiber frame though, it's getting harder to "total" them nowadays imo. I've tried!