Osella
Senior Retro Guru
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9w2U-jmT8
The Arrows, Tyrrell, Lotus 91, McLaren, Ligier & Brabham in this film are all made from Carbon fibre chassis and bodywork. None date from more recently than 1984. This video is 2 years old.
Carbon fibre. doesn't. decay. Not in the same way that all metal frames and parts will fatigue and fail eventually.
Yes, if you're going to hit (some) carbon parts hard they will break, and there are other considerations to take into account.
Would you buy a 4130 frame over a 'gas-pipe' frame, or over a Reynolds 853? How about Ox Platinum, 531, Tange DB, Dedacciai 12.5, SAT 16.5? Hell, what's the difference, they're all steel, right?
Like 'steel', there's no such thing as 'carbon-fibre'. There are different grades, layups, constructions, treatments, then there's whether they have been long-exposed to extremes of heat & cold, and particularly to UV light - which weakens the structure of the material.
The example of the particular-aged F1 cars I give is due to the fact they are prototypes and many were made in 'sheds' just as early experimental bikes and parts were constructed.
They genuinely were experimental and the teams/manufacturers had little to no idea whether they would break or not.
Some did, catastrophically, but those which didn't, from 1981 onwards many still running and are raced, (not just cruised around in demos) to this day.
The significance of this is that the CF still handles 2-3x the car's weight in downforce. The same is true of the CF-built Group C sportscars seen for instance at the 2014 Le Mans Classic.
Almost all except the Porsches are full CF chassis and bodywork.
In terms of racing, CF maintains its rigidity (specifically resistance towards torque/torsion) much more highly than an aluminium construction (Porsche found a factor of 14x difference in the torsional rigidity of a one-year-old Group C Aluminium chassis compared with a CF-version!).
The same is true of bikes, but mainly to a less-noticeable degree simply due to the lesser forces involved.
The basics are the same as any component - you can't have cheap, light & strong... Unless you buy 2nd-hand carbon frames 'cos nobody else understands the constructions and longevity; and believes the nonsense & heresay that they will all suddenly 'fail' leaving you embedded in the road, or nearest tree.
I like this, it means more cheap CF frames for me!
In no way scientific - but amusing "cracknfail" nonetheless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1jVQu-Fgk
I ride a 1995 CF Giant MCM (full carbon with Alu reinforcements) and a 1993 lugged & glued Giant Cadex CFM-3. Oh, and that one's got a disc brake conversion via custom swappable dropouts running 160mm rotors front & rear.
It also handled 120mm suspension forks for a while.
I also have Easton Monkeylite 25.4 bars on another bike, and a Syncros CF post on another. These are only 6 or so years old.
'Ancient'? Still works good for me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9w2U-jmT8
The Arrows, Tyrrell, Lotus 91, McLaren, Ligier & Brabham in this film are all made from Carbon fibre chassis and bodywork. None date from more recently than 1984. This video is 2 years old.
Carbon fibre. doesn't. decay. Not in the same way that all metal frames and parts will fatigue and fail eventually.
Yes, if you're going to hit (some) carbon parts hard they will break, and there are other considerations to take into account.
Would you buy a 4130 frame over a 'gas-pipe' frame, or over a Reynolds 853? How about Ox Platinum, 531, Tange DB, Dedacciai 12.5, SAT 16.5? Hell, what's the difference, they're all steel, right?
Like 'steel', there's no such thing as 'carbon-fibre'. There are different grades, layups, constructions, treatments, then there's whether they have been long-exposed to extremes of heat & cold, and particularly to UV light - which weakens the structure of the material.
The example of the particular-aged F1 cars I give is due to the fact they are prototypes and many were made in 'sheds' just as early experimental bikes and parts were constructed.
They genuinely were experimental and the teams/manufacturers had little to no idea whether they would break or not.
Some did, catastrophically, but those which didn't, from 1981 onwards many still running and are raced, (not just cruised around in demos) to this day.
The significance of this is that the CF still handles 2-3x the car's weight in downforce. The same is true of the CF-built Group C sportscars seen for instance at the 2014 Le Mans Classic.
Almost all except the Porsches are full CF chassis and bodywork.
In terms of racing, CF maintains its rigidity (specifically resistance towards torque/torsion) much more highly than an aluminium construction (Porsche found a factor of 14x difference in the torsional rigidity of a one-year-old Group C Aluminium chassis compared with a CF-version!).
The same is true of bikes, but mainly to a less-noticeable degree simply due to the lesser forces involved.
The basics are the same as any component - you can't have cheap, light & strong... Unless you buy 2nd-hand carbon frames 'cos nobody else understands the constructions and longevity; and believes the nonsense & heresay that they will all suddenly 'fail' leaving you embedded in the road, or nearest tree.
I like this, it means more cheap CF frames for me!
In no way scientific - but amusing "cracknfail" nonetheless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1jVQu-Fgk
I ride a 1995 CF Giant MCM (full carbon with Alu reinforcements) and a 1993 lugged & glued Giant Cadex CFM-3. Oh, and that one's got a disc brake conversion via custom swappable dropouts running 160mm rotors front & rear.
It also handled 120mm suspension forks for a while.
I also have Easton Monkeylite 25.4 bars on another bike, and a Syncros CF post on another. These are only 6 or so years old.
'Ancient'? Still works good for me!
