I think you are locking in on a semantic argument that is not Grant's main focus. When Grant states the carbon is not repairable, I think Grant is talking mainly about the catastrophic failures that only carbon can and does exhibit. Like when the headtube breaks off from the top tube and downtube. Like when the fork legs completely break off from the steertube. Like when the frameset breaks into four pieces. I know that Calfee is a spectacular provider of carbon repair services, and if I handed them the multiple pieces of a shattered carbon frame and insisted on paying them to fix it, I bet they could do it. But would you actually get any of the above three failures repaired? I'd argue no. Nobody has Calfee fix a shattered fork (steel or carbon), but I bet Calfee could. Nobody has Calfee lash a headtube back onto a frame, but I bet they could. Nobody has a 5 piece frame lashed back together, but Calfee could. I think Grant is labelling those repairs that no sensible person would ever do as 'not repairable'.
I think the common ground for all of us is: 1. We can agree that carbon frames sometimes shatter into 4 pieces and that steel frames never shatter into 4 pieces. 2. we could also agree that when a carbon frame shatters into 4 pieces it is not worth repairing. 3. I think everyone can also agree that sometimes a stick goes into your wheel and causes a cracked or broken carbon seatstay, that probably would do nothing to your steel seatstay. Such damage can easily be and absolutely should be repaired in carbon. If the steel stay did get dented or bent, you would hold off fixing it until you next wanted to overhaul it or paint it. The thing that appears to scare Grant is the fact that voids inside carbon are Gremlins that can cause it to fail without warning. We can all agree that voids in carbon are bad and we can all agree that they are hard to inspect for because they are inside. You have no idea whether your new carbon frame has a void in it. You trust, however, that buy paying big big money to a top-notch supplier like Calfee or Serotta that they are so good about designing their processes to make voids vanishingly rare, that you can take the leap of faith that uninspectable flaws are not there. Grant and a lot of other people can't or won't take that leap of faith, and instead choose steel, which is inspectable for the flaws that can lead to failures. Secondly, I think Grant and others are afraid of the surface impact properties of carbon. How do you know whether a pebble thrown up from your front wheel at your downtube will lead to a crack that will grow and lead to a catastrophic failure? Grant knows and we all know that 95% or more of carbon frame riders do not regularly inspect their frames for damage. I rarely inspected mine. If they did, how many would find a flaw that should be taken to Calfee for repair (that absolutely can be done)? 5% of them? 1% of them? Even if it is 1%, that's hundreds of frames that are carrying scary damage that on a steel frame would not be scary. Of those hundreds of frames, some will shatter. Will it be because of pebbles thrown up from the front wheel? Not directly. Will it be a contributor? Likely. When frames shatter, is serious injury much more likely? Of course. I think Grant's thinking and language are built on the tragedy that out of the cycling community today, some of us will be paralyzed or dead within 10 years, and that some small percentage of those injuries or deaths would not have happened if none of us rode carbon. That is not a hard position to defend, and if you believe it strongly like Grant does, it's actually kind of an outrage. I believe that Grant actually does lose sleep over thinking about the safety of us riding 'his bikes', and I think he loses sleep over the safety of cyclists not riding 'his bikes' because he believes in cycling, and he believes that this entire community should take care of one another. Just like there are plenty of 2nd Ammendment folks who 'bash' assault rifles, Grant appears to believe that carbon fiber is bad for cycling as a community and a movement. I personally think he's a little rough with his language, but I admire what I think his motives are. I am certain that money is not one of his motives. On Mar 8, 7:08 pm, bfd <bfd...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 4:27 pm, Big Paulie <pauldgr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > This thread should be the last carbon fiber-related topic in this > > group, ever. > > > This is a Rivendell owner's group. > > > Rivendell doesn't make or sell anything made of carbon. > > > Every carbon thread to date has ended in tears or virtual fisticuffs. > > > Addtionally, Grant has made his postion very clear on this > > subject...with a great deal of sincerity and evidence to back it up. > > Nothing he says publicly will likely prevent a carbon fiber-related > > bicycle crash from happening. He, and we, should drop it. > > Agree, if Grant stops making his false statement that carbon FRAMES > are not repairable. Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
