This is next level ........it will not be the type of carbon as much as the coating on the bike (Look up shark-skin for planes).....there are always watts to be saved!!
Toray T800/1000/1100/M50 etc are considered intermediate modulus in the aerospace industry. We don't use that much actual high modulus, but it is there for some laminates. It's the resin systems where the magic sauce is at. Plus the documentation, subscale testing characterization, environmental degradation model and testing correlations, etc that take it to another level.
I've been in the aviation industry for over 40 years. Every single part that goes onto an airplane has to have trace certificates that follow the part back to its beginning. Part drawings have to be approved by a certifying authority. All parts must conform to the design drawings exactly within tolerances. Any alternate part or material has to be approved and documented. I design electrical parts and systems for large aircraft (Airbus and Boeing ). Each of my drawings is checked by 3-4 times before being approved by a government appointed official. That is why that $1.00 screw you can buy from the local hardware store costs $50.00 in the aviation industry.
You left out having to test materials to make sure they do meet the specs. We do random lot testing of fasteners and raw materials. We may buy a pound of rivets for $40, but then spend $500 to material test the rivets to ensure they meet the spec.
@@huffytoss Yeah...there is so much more I could have included. DER/DAR conformities, DO-160 testing, FAA audits, etc. Most people have no idea what drives up the prices...if they did they might not complain about them so much.
Having worked in production aerospace at Boeing and also inspected numerous carbon bike factories, I can safely say that there are significant differences, not just the grade of fibre used. Aside from the quality assurance and documentation, one of the biggest differences is the resins and cure cycles used. In terms of quality assurance, for example finding voids in the laminate, the location as well as the size of the flaw must be known to determine if the part is suitable for use. A flaw in the fork or handlebar is far more critical in terms of failure than in a seat stay, hence the number of recalls on these items over the years.
I worked in the aerospace industry for years, both the engineering and operations sides, and the only difference in the carbon fiber between bike components and aerospace components has nothing to do with the materials used. It is ALL about the purpose of use. Each component is designed for purposes in each environment. For example, You don’t want a super stiff rotor blade or wing because it’s “stronger” if it flexes - it takes more force to stress them to failure than a stiffer one. Also, like Ollie said, the consequences of failure is higher on aerospace components so the quality requirements and tolerances are stricter. The same for aluminum and titanium, etc. There are some unique alloys used for aerospace components that don’t have the right characteristics for sports equipment though (high temperature applications like jet engines).
Hi Guys. I've spent a life time in aerospace industries. A lot of the regulatory standards are based on the consequences of failure. In your example of helicopters, their are some parts for which a single failure will cause the loss of the aircraft, and, in my time at least, were called vital parts. They are life limited (thousands of hours, not 80 Alex) because of fatigue. They are designed to allow a certain level of flaw (because perfect is immpossible) and QCed against that. In fixed wing there is a high degree of redundancy so, whilst not desirable, a higher level of flaws are allowed. Space is a bit different because while the parts can be designed with a high degree of margin, the cost of launch per kg is enormous and the facility for repair is remote (send a repairer to Jupiter when it goes wrong?) so QC is fairly strict. In all aerospace there is an awareness that accidents happen (sometimes not so accidental when someone is shooting at you) so there is always an allowance for repair to damage, which might be fill with .....whatever to restore aerodynamic profile (you think aero's important on your bike, think what its like at hundreds of mph) to a full structural repair. Believe it or not there is a lot of motivation to repair a multi-million dollar plane! In composite manufacture, you're right that there is a high degree of inspection and that the plant is environmentally controlled (at least in aerospce). You think the strength of composites is the material, but it is even more the process. Layup, pressure, temperature profiles, all are controlled and monitored. For instance the hand layup with bare hands you show in your 'B roll' (with no reel of celuloid in sight!) should certainly not be allowed because the oils in her skin can cause voids in the laminate. I recall an x-ray specialist telling me of the perfectly recangular disbond found in a panel caused by not degreasing the adhesive of the label from the honeycomb core. So in composite 'cleanliness is next to godliness'. You must have seen film of people with shower caps and overalls in the documentaries. Thats why aerospace CFRP costs more the bike stuff. I think its a potato. You're right we don't have snow in the south of the UK anymore (they still get it up north), its because of global warming. Those of us who lived through the unforgettable winter of 1963, when the sea froze in the English channel, will never doubt the climate is changing. Great show as ever guys.
Definitely agree it would be nice to have some budget bikes on GCN. I ride a Voodoo myself, the other Halfords brands like Boardman and Carrera seem to get generally good reviews with the criticism being the store mechanics. Decathlon bikes also seem to be well thought of.
There have been a few videos with the Triban bikes. Connor also tried to complete the Donegal 555 a couple of years ago on an aluminium Canyon with Shimano Tiagra on it.
Back in the 1900's when I was a Phantom Phixer aka Crew Chief in the USAF, we had to document everything we fixed plus the pilots had to document their flight and what they broke while flying my airplane. Our flight shack had one wall filled with F4D model repair manuals aka TCTO's, Time Compliance Tech Orders.
The whole "conflict" is between strength, weight, reliability, and stiffness. It's difficult to predict the exact loads that you're putting into a bike, so it must be strength-overbuilt. Aerospace loads are more consistent and predictable (hopefully), so designing for optimal construction is easier. I used to build whitewater boats. Because they can experience unpredictable loads, they must be way overbuilt, and generally stiffness becomes more important than a possible structural failure.
One thing I think Ollie missed is factor of safety. Because most bikes are design with the UCI minimum weight, there is more tolerance for things like voids and laminate positions.
I think the weight limit does help, but the manufacturers and the UCI need to manage the weight minimum as material science and manufacturing engineering evolves
@@gcntech I'd actually like to see them raise the limit a little. Probably good for sustainability; it would bring more recyclable materials in. Also good for access to the sport and for getting manufacturers refocused on other parameters besides weight -- comfort, practicality, mid-range products, different use cases and so on.
Canyon famously was first to use CT scans for critical parts, ie. forks and cockpits, at manufacture and then back in Germany before build/dispatch. That's one of the reasons I chose them.
RE: "Budget bikes" Thoughts on; Do a bunch of 'new to cycling' type races on entry-ish level bikes - similar priced built up - 2nd hand Maybe team up with 5(?)fellow YT channels (nearby or within easy travelling), like... CycWeekly, roadcc, CadeMed, TraceVelo (+ another similar) and go something along the lines of 2x go with off-the-shelf, 2x new parts buyers, 2x find 2nd hand gems. No one grabbing the same thing, if possible. Then across next season, or two, get together for a crit', a cyclo-cross, a TT or Triathlon bike leg (the latter feels like a more common use case to me), a Century, a gravel ride, aaand finish with the Hillclimb nat's (DO IT!) Have round table chats after each extolling about virtues and shortfalls of the bikes. Cover what changes would improve things for each situation. Finally, I'd adore to see all of them get lent to a Conti' team to either enter a race in, or stick it to each other and we get them to run a fine tooth comb through the bikes in comparison to their usual steeds in regards to what's Lacking, "Off", N-th degree shy of, and Surprising about them all.
Here's the difference: the carbon fiber used in aerospace and military applications is required to meet specs. The stuff used in bikes is required to stroke egos.
@@dominicbritt Of course, but there are things we've accomplished in the aerospace realm that could not have been done without composite materials such as carbon fiber. Aside from high-end competition and record setting, there's no component of a bike that's being made of composites that can't be done with traditional metallurgy
Hey GCN on the affordable bicycle topic, Since a lot of you seem to have a lot of spare parts around why not do a special video and assemble a bicycle with them and then donate it to someone who needs a bicycle. On the main topic I'm a retired Aircraft Mechanic, everything and I mean everything done to Aircraft is inspected, documented, recorded and accounted for and for good reasons. Even after repairs we count and check our tools at least at the company I worked for we did. You break your bicycle carbon frame usually you can pull over and get a ride, as we used to say for aircraft "They don't have roadside assistance at twenty thousand feet"
To counter Ian's reason for giving a bike just a nice "A shadow stand exists instead of a potato": You can't use a shadow stand as emergency food, where as you can with a potato (and/or an avocado as Dr. B thought it was).
@askgcn it's not just about showcasing ford fiestas, it's about value for money. i.e groupsets these days work so well you don't need 105 on your comuter bike. especially in one by. compared to my raleigh activator 2, gears these days are amazing.
If you wanted aerospace levels of material traceability, quality control and qualification (ie testing) then be prepared to add at least an extra zero to the price of your carbon fibre bike frame 😂
For me if I'm paying a premium for a Carbon frame I expect that there will not be voids or inclusions or imperfections. Given the current state of Carbon frames from big manufactures where they don't even meet their own tolerances and can't even build a round BB on some I expect more.
Aerospace components have very small safety factors, making extreme quality control and frequent replacements necessary. Bikes are limited to how light they can be by the UCI, and nobody designs or even wants a bike frame with a safety factor of 1.5 or 2
Would be cool if they could make BB holes of correct dimensions and aligned with each other and maybe made extra allowance for QC on forks. Given the prices of frames this should be within the budget.
I used to be a crew chief on a helicopter. I have cut in half a myriad of $30,000 pressurized rotorblades because of leaks and defects. I think QC would need to be on a bike as well.
It would be good to include stats on carbon bike failures (frame, rim, saddle, bar) to know whether current level of QC used in the bike industry is adequate. The question on carbon fibre grade used in aerospace and bike industry has not been properly answered in my opinion. Olli already mentioned that different grades are around, so which aerospace grade carbon fibre is used for which bike components in pro bikes and 'everyday' bikes.
as far as the aerospace industry is concerned, process control is far, far more impactful on the strength of the resulting part than is the “quality” of the raw materials. The materials are often just good enough. That said, as Ollie described, the manufacturer also knows _exactly_ how good-enough that material is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of this comes down to safety factors? I think Ollie brushed right up against this in saying that bikes (and most consumer products) tend to be overengineered. When you send a consumer product out into the world, you rarely are able to know exactly what the end user is going to do with it, yet an engineer carries a certain about of liability around safety (this, and oversight by a professional college or governing body, is what makes P.Eng. a professional qualification). Designing an elevator to carry 6 people. Better throw a safety factor in their to cover the use-case of 10 people cramming themselves into the cab, and then maybe multiply by a few factors. My limited understanding is that human rated lifting devices involve HUGE safety factors - that cable should be capable of lifting 10+ times the expected load. In cycling, you can set a rider weight limit of 100Kg., you better design the forks to carry a 125kg lug over some BUMPY roads or you are going to get sued out of existence when your fork breaks and someone breaks their neck. Aerospace products, however, are a special use-case. Can't overdesign a commuter jet by a safety factor of 2 or 3 or it would never get off the ground. So airframes and components are designed right at the expected load ratings and not much more (critical controls may be duplicated to provide redundancy, but only just enough to ensure reliability in an absolute worst case scenario). Safety is controlled, rather than through 'over engineering', by strictly controlling use (no aerobatics in that commuter jet or say goodbye to your pilot's license), very high quality control through process documentation, destructive and non-destructive testing and inspection, accident investigations, and on and on and on. Of course this all adds to cost, but results in incredibly high levels of safety. "You can make it light, strong, or cheap. Choose two." So... the question: anyone have any idea what the typical safety margins for design actually are in the cycling industry? I honestly have no idea. Also, I wonder how far bicycle design could be pushed if the same high quality control / low safety margins that apply to aerospace were applied to non-UCI limited bicycle products? Track cycling seems like an ideal test-case. Super controlled environment, known loads, limited lifespan requirements. Outlaw track cycling, anyone? ruclips.net/video/qYeuTXj1FY8/видео.html
You certainly would not need the QC level as aerospace, if you did, a bike would be extraordinarily expensive, it's not needed, however your standard ISO-9001 would be adequate.
Carbon fiber in bicycles versus aircraft: Well... The furthest distance you're going to fall, if carbon fails, is off your bicycle seat. Versus..... Well, I think you can imagine the headlines.
A bike might actually run into more unexpected stresses than an airplane. After a plane lands, no one is throwing it on a pile of other planes (we hope) .
Magnus.Knutsen.Bjorkngenson's red Trek looks to be propped up by a fat, juicy rutabaga. Rutabagas are indigenous of Sweeden...akin to the sound of Magnus.Knutsen.Bjorkengenson's name. That said, glad to see a 'gravel' bike make the show.
Concur with your statement that economy-minded reviews reach a broader audience. See bicycle purchase statistics on bikes higher priced than 3,000 (Pounds, USD, AUD, and Euros).
It may seem crazy to log the operating hours for your bike frame, but I bet all of you know how many miles you have on your bike. What is the operating lifetime of a decent carbon frame? Should we be worried after N miles?
Alex, yes I'm using your pretend name, being color-blind doesn't mean Ollie can't see any colors. It means some colors he sees differently. I'm color blind and some hues of green I'll see as brown, some blue-greens I'll see as blue-gray, ... It's different for different people but it's a subtle effect.
"just the amount of paperwork" ??? Claiming aerospace carbon fibre is "the same" as carbon used in the bike industry is like claiming food manufactured for pets is "the same" as food manufactured for human consumption if the ingredients used are "the same". Or to put it another way, half a dozen eggs, 500g of cheese and a sickly sweet cup of coffee with some Italian biscuits on the side does not a tiramisu make. The "paperwork" (certification) is the end result of a much more stringent production and quality control process, that by definition ensures the end product achieves a degree of purity that reflects its intended application requirements. If bike industry and aerospace requirements are different, then by definition so are the materials produced at the end of their respectively different manufacturing process, regardless of any ingredient similarity.
Advancement in aluminum is what needs to happen. Carbon fiber is forever trash and aluminum is recyclable and can equal performance to CF while being much more affordable
larger parts dont need to be so precise. there's much more material so the strength and durability is more than enough. in cycling they try to eek out every single gram they can
Why would the carbon helicopter blades need replacing? I thought the whole thing was carbon didn’t fatigue? Obviously if it hits a few birds or something it could damage them
The resin in carbon fiber cracks after 800 hours of use. On a bike, no big deal but on a rotor it can become bad quickly. Physically the carbon doesn't fatigue much as bike snake oil salesmen tell you, but it's irrelevant info because the material holding it together does.
It is load dependent. Rarely on a bike are you putting loads high enough to microfracture the resin to a critical flaw size. On a rotor blade with many high load cycles and likely small manufacturing separations to begin with (extremely extremely small, but start to join together over time), this is more of a concern
"Skip the QC and just go straight from manufacturing to the customer" Isn't that the business models of the Chinarellos and other counterfeit carbon gear?
@@Fieldracing at least a reputable brand have a safety recall policy. It's often far from perfect and things can go wrong but the customer service process is there to protect your investment in your equipment. There will always be new products that come along that have a flawed design and as consumers we can hold established brands accountable when that happens.
Who goes for a ride and wants to carry a shadow stand?!?! I agree that they are nice for photos but I don’t ride for the purpose of taking pictures of my bike and a shadow stand is just excess baggage. It’s also possible to lean your bike against things without scratching it also.
From manufacturing floor directly to the customer with no QC to save money? Sounds like the cheap frame I bought from China. 😂 Though I love it, for what it's worth.
The difference is irrelevant, what matters is how much they’re going to sell it for and all the ways they’re going to convince us we can’t live without it.
Alu bikes and carbon bikes are trash, check out Wabi Cycles for affordable high quality tubing steel bikes. Everything the bike industry has done is to replace the high quality tubing welder to save money and nothing more.
Blockchain was supposed to give the backlog for every process, every transaction, critical or not, costly and cheap. Instead we got an inflated market of same but different pictures.
Aerospace carbon will be overpriced and still have faulty quality control. Bike manufacturers quality control needs to have a tube missing before it fails their checks.
I've not seen Ollie stutter and waffle so much when trying to explain something technical before. Kinda spoiled what should have been an interesting feature 🙃
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
Would you like to see Ollie and Alex try a snow ride? ❄
Nope I don't want them to get cold. I would prefer a barbecue making in the snow 🤗
you mean like riding in plowed bike path or like thick snow? the first one should be easy with studded tires. don't know about thick snow tho.
This is next level ........it will not be the type of carbon as much as the coating on the bike (Look up shark-skin for planes).....there are always watts to be saved!!
Yes. Finland welcomes you guys. -20c at the moment with 5-7m/s winds.
Skijoring with a bike instead a horse
Toray T800/1000/1100/M50 etc are considered intermediate modulus in the aerospace industry. We don't use that much actual high modulus, but it is there for some laminates. It's the resin systems where the magic sauce is at. Plus the documentation, subscale testing characterization, environmental degradation model and testing correlations, etc that take it to another level.
I've been in the aviation industry for over 40 years. Every single part that goes onto an airplane has to have trace certificates that follow the part back to its beginning. Part drawings have to be approved by a certifying authority. All parts must conform to the design drawings exactly within tolerances. Any alternate part or material has to be approved and documented. I design electrical parts and systems for large aircraft (Airbus and Boeing ). Each of my drawings is checked by 3-4 times before being approved by a government appointed official. That is why that $1.00 screw you can buy from the local hardware store costs $50.00 in the aviation industry.
Excellent explanation, thank you 👍
If done properly agreed but there are situations where corners are cut and often with fatal results 🙁
You left out having to test materials to make sure they do meet the specs. We do random lot testing of fasteners and raw materials. We may buy a pound of rivets for $40, but then spend $500 to material test the rivets to ensure they meet the spec.
@@huffytoss Yeah...there is so much more I could have included. DER/DAR conformities, DO-160 testing, FAA audits, etc. Most people have no idea what drives up the prices...if they did they might not complain about them so much.
Having worked in production aerospace at Boeing and also inspected numerous carbon bike factories, I can safely say that there are significant differences, not just the grade of fibre used. Aside from the quality assurance and documentation, one of the biggest differences is the resins and cure cycles used.
In terms of quality assurance, for example finding voids in the laminate, the location as well as the size of the flaw must be known to determine if the part is suitable for use. A flaw in the fork or handlebar is far more critical in terms of failure than in a seat stay, hence the number of recalls on these items over the years.
I miss your videos!
I worked in the aerospace industry for years, both the engineering and operations sides, and the only difference in the carbon fiber between bike components and aerospace components has nothing to do with the materials used. It is ALL about the purpose of use. Each component is designed for purposes in each environment. For example, You don’t want a super stiff rotor blade or wing because it’s “stronger” if it flexes - it takes more force to stress them to failure than a stiffer one. Also, like Ollie said, the consequences of failure is higher on aerospace components so the quality requirements and tolerances are stricter. The same for aluminum and titanium, etc. There are some unique alloys used for aerospace components that don’t have the right characteristics for sports equipment though (high temperature applications like jet engines).
Hi Guys.
I've spent a life time in aerospace industries. A lot of the regulatory standards are based on the consequences of failure. In your example of helicopters, their are some parts for which a single failure will cause the loss of the aircraft, and, in my time at least, were called vital parts. They are life limited (thousands of hours, not 80 Alex) because of fatigue. They are designed to allow a certain level of flaw (because perfect is immpossible) and QCed against that.
In fixed wing there is a high degree of redundancy so, whilst not desirable, a higher level of flaws are allowed.
Space is a bit different because while the parts can be designed with a high degree of margin, the cost of launch per kg is enormous and the facility for repair is remote (send a repairer to Jupiter when it goes wrong?) so QC is fairly strict.
In all aerospace there is an awareness that accidents happen (sometimes not so accidental when someone is shooting at you) so there is always an allowance for repair to damage, which might be fill with .....whatever to restore aerodynamic profile (you think aero's important on your bike, think what its like at hundreds of mph) to a full structural repair. Believe it or not there is a lot of motivation to repair a multi-million dollar plane!
In composite manufacture, you're right that there is a high degree of inspection and that the plant is environmentally controlled (at least in aerospce). You think the strength of composites is the material, but it is even more the process. Layup, pressure, temperature profiles, all are controlled and monitored. For instance the hand layup with bare hands you show in your 'B roll' (with no reel of celuloid in sight!) should certainly not be allowed because the oils in her skin can cause voids in the laminate. I recall an x-ray specialist telling me of the perfectly recangular disbond found in a panel caused by not degreasing the adhesive of the label from the honeycomb core. So in composite 'cleanliness is next to godliness'. You must have seen film of people with shower caps and overalls in the documentaries.
Thats why aerospace CFRP costs more the bike stuff.
I think its a potato.
You're right we don't have snow in the south of the UK anymore (they still get it up north), its because of global warming.
Those of us who lived through the unforgettable winter of 1963, when the sea froze in the English channel, will never doubt the climate is changing.
Great show as ever guys.
Definitely agree it would be nice to have some budget bikes on GCN. I ride a Voodoo myself, the other Halfords brands like Boardman and Carrera seem to get generally good reviews with the criticism being the store mechanics. Decathlon bikes also seem to be well thought of.
There have been a few videos with the Triban bikes. Connor also tried to complete the Donegal 555 a couple of years ago on an aluminium Canyon with Shimano Tiagra on it.
I've got an alu frame and Tiagra. Do you have the link to the vid?
@@robertbachmann1573 ruclips.net/video/30ATJwJXSN4/видео.html
@@robertbachmann1573 ruclips.net/video/30ATJwJXSN4/видео.htmlsi=U26ZY7E229EDEAsU
Back in the 1900's when I was a Phantom Phixer aka Crew Chief in the USAF, we had to document everything we fixed plus the pilots had to document their flight and what they broke while flying my airplane. Our flight shack had one wall filled with F4D model repair manuals aka TCTO's, Time Compliance Tech Orders.
@22:36 omg, that is super nice all day!
Really enjoying this discussion - great content
Love to hear it 🙌 Are there any other topics that you would like us to cover?
The whole "conflict" is between strength, weight, reliability, and stiffness. It's difficult to predict the exact loads that you're putting into a bike, so it must be strength-overbuilt. Aerospace loads are more consistent and predictable (hopefully), so designing for optimal construction is easier.
I used to build whitewater boats. Because they can experience unpredictable loads, they must be way overbuilt, and generally stiffness becomes more important than a possible structural failure.
Thanks Ollie for the carbon fibre explanation 😉
One thing I think Ollie missed is factor of safety. Because most bikes are design with the UCI minimum weight, there is more tolerance for things like voids and laminate positions.
How do you think the industry should approach this? Would a higher weight limit help? 👀
I think the weight limit does help, but the manufacturers and the UCI need to manage the weight minimum as material science and manufacturing engineering evolves
@@gcntech I'd actually like to see them raise the limit a little. Probably good for sustainability; it would bring more recyclable materials in. Also good for access to the sport and for getting manufacturers refocused on other parameters besides weight -- comfort, practicality, mid-range products, different use cases and so on.
count me in for a 24hr live video analysing all the bike vault submissions from the GCN App!
You heard it here first folks! We'll hold you to this Jon 👀
@@gcntech I've let Ollie know!
The sheer enthusiasm of Alex and Olli taking about carbon fibre QC is a genuine joy to watch
Nice suspense building, Hitchcock would be proud!
Love my Litespeed! Did you know they made parts for the Mars Rover?
Canyon famously was first to use CT scans for critical parts, ie. forks and cockpits, at manufacture and then back in Germany before build/dispatch. That's one of the reasons I chose them.
It’s amusing to watch Alex’s face saying “come on Ollie, get to the point. What’s the difference?”
RE: "Budget bikes"
Thoughts on; Do a bunch of 'new to cycling' type races on entry-ish level bikes - similar priced built up - 2nd hand
Maybe team up with 5(?)fellow YT channels (nearby or within easy travelling), like... CycWeekly, roadcc, CadeMed, TraceVelo (+ another similar) and go something along the lines of 2x go with off-the-shelf, 2x new parts buyers, 2x find 2nd hand gems. No one grabbing the same thing, if possible.
Then across next season, or two, get together for a crit', a cyclo-cross, a TT or Triathlon bike leg (the latter feels like a more common use case to me), a Century, a gravel ride, aaand finish with the Hillclimb nat's (DO IT!)
Have round table chats after each extolling about virtues and shortfalls of the bikes. Cover what changes would improve things for each situation.
Finally, I'd adore to see all of them get lent to a Conti' team to either enter a race in, or stick it to each other and we get them to run a fine tooth comb through the bikes in comparison to their usual steeds in regards to what's Lacking, "Off", N-th degree shy of, and Surprising about them all.
When Ollie said " we really like a reach around...... "
I nearly spat my coffee out, thankfully he eventually said "the rules"
It's a good this presentation was so well rehearsed! 😂
Great vid guys.. I do think more budget friendly non sponsored content would be good 😊 Pete
Here's the difference: the carbon fiber used in aerospace and military applications is required to meet specs. The stuff used in bikes is required to stroke egos.
😂
Nonsense - there are many tiers of carbon fibre with variation in its intended use, properties and price.
Exactly, that's why Look and Time are better, these guys have huge egos 😂
@@dominicbritt Of course, but there are things we've accomplished in the aerospace realm that could not have been done without composite materials such as carbon fiber. Aside from high-end competition and record setting, there's no component of a bike that's being made of composites that can't be done with traditional metallurgy
Yup, my titanium road bike uses titanium.......directly sourced from a retired SR71.....no for real....right off the bird........bike's crazy fast man
3:55 Think Ollie hit a nerve there. Trevor looked like he was having a few bad flashbacks.
😂
Answer @ 1:55.
Hey GCN on the affordable bicycle topic,
Since a lot of you seem to have a lot of spare parts around why not do a special video and assemble a bicycle with them and then donate it to someone who needs a bicycle.
On the main topic I'm a retired Aircraft Mechanic, everything and I mean everything done to Aircraft is inspected, documented, recorded and accounted for and for good reasons. Even after repairs we count and check our tools at least at the company I worked for we did.
You break your bicycle carbon frame usually you can pull over and get a ride, as we used to say for aircraft "They don't have roadside assistance at twenty thousand feet"
How about Neville Shute's "No Highway in the Sky". James Stewart (my favourite actor) starred in the film.
TT hot take, I love all the new and unique areo gains may be we could have an anything goes category
@gcntechtweet - whoever was saying “engineer at heart, not a marketer” - I think he was talking about Josh Poertner.
To counter Ian's reason for giving a bike just a nice "A shadow stand exists instead of a potato": You can't use a shadow stand as emergency food, where as you can with a potato (and/or an avocado as Dr. B thought it was).
That SL6 might be propped up on a dog egg? 😂 Great show as usual. Thanks Alex and Ollie
Of course Ollie knows!
@askgcn it's not just about showcasing ford fiestas, it's about value for money. i.e groupsets these days work so well you don't need 105 on your comuter bike. especially in one by. compared to my raleigh activator 2, gears these days are amazing.
If you wanted aerospace levels of material traceability, quality control and qualification (ie testing) then be prepared to add at least an extra zero to the price of your carbon fibre bike frame 😂
That Cervélo bar tape is reptile green
For me if I'm paying a premium for a Carbon frame I expect that there will not be voids or inclusions or imperfections. Given the current state of Carbon frames from big manufactures where they don't even meet their own tolerances and can't even build a round BB on some I expect more.
Aerospace components have very small safety factors, making extreme quality control and frequent replacements necessary. Bikes are limited to how light they can be by the UCI, and nobody designs or even wants a bike frame with a safety factor of 1.5 or 2
Bikes are only limited by the UCI weight limit if they're intended to be used in UCI events. There are bikes out there below the limit.
First 3D flyovers... and now chat. Strava is on an absolute roll [rolls eyes] 🙂
Would be cool if they could make BB holes of correct dimensions and aligned with each other and maybe made extra allowance for QC on forks. Given the prices of frames this should be within the budget.
I used to be a crew chief on a helicopter. I have cut in half a myriad of $30,000 pressurized rotorblades because of leaks and defects. I think QC would need to be on a bike as well.
For sure the bike manufacturers need to stick to tighter tolerances. For all the fork, dropouts & axles, and bottom bracket areas.
It would be good to include stats on carbon bike failures (frame, rim, saddle, bar) to know whether current level of QC used in the bike industry is adequate. The question on carbon fibre grade used in aerospace and bike industry has not been properly answered in my opinion. Olli already mentioned that different grades are around, so which aerospace grade carbon fibre is used for which bike components in pro bikes and 'everyday' bikes.
No difference, it's just that aerospace has to meet all the paper work rules to be able to track where it's made etc. Etc.
They have such extensive logs because if there’s a catastrophic failure, they want to go back and see what’s failed and why
I have pictures of a brand new carbon fiber mtb (not mine) that completely came apart on its first use on the trails at Virginia Key.
good one guys
as far as the aerospace industry is concerned, process control is far, far more impactful on the strength of the resulting part than is the “quality” of the raw materials. The materials are often just good enough. That said, as Ollie described, the manufacturer also knows _exactly_ how good-enough that material is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of this comes down to safety factors? I think Ollie brushed right up against this in saying that bikes (and most consumer products) tend to be overengineered. When you send a consumer product out into the world, you rarely are able to know exactly what the end user is going to do with it, yet an engineer carries a certain about of liability around safety (this, and oversight by a professional college or governing body, is what makes P.Eng. a professional qualification). Designing an elevator to carry 6 people. Better throw a safety factor in their to cover the use-case of 10 people cramming themselves into the cab, and then maybe multiply by a few factors. My limited understanding is that human rated lifting devices involve HUGE safety factors - that cable should be capable of lifting 10+ times the expected load. In cycling, you can set a rider weight limit of 100Kg., you better design the forks to carry a 125kg lug over some BUMPY roads or you are going to get sued out of existence when your fork breaks and someone breaks their neck.
Aerospace products, however, are a special use-case. Can't overdesign a commuter jet by a safety factor of 2 or 3 or it would never get off the ground. So airframes and components are designed right at the expected load ratings and not much more (critical controls may be duplicated to provide redundancy, but only just enough to ensure reliability in an absolute worst case scenario). Safety is controlled, rather than through 'over engineering', by strictly controlling use (no aerobatics in that commuter jet or say goodbye to your pilot's license), very high quality control through process documentation, destructive and non-destructive testing and inspection, accident investigations, and on and on and on. Of course this all adds to cost, but results in incredibly high levels of safety. "You can make it light, strong, or cheap. Choose two."
So... the question: anyone have any idea what the typical safety margins for design actually are in the cycling industry? I honestly have no idea. Also, I wonder how far bicycle design could be pushed if the same high quality control / low safety margins that apply to aerospace were applied to non-UCI limited bicycle products? Track cycling seems like an ideal test-case. Super controlled environment, known loads, limited lifespan requirements. Outlaw track cycling, anyone?
ruclips.net/video/qYeuTXj1FY8/видео.html
You certainly would not need the QC level as aerospace, if you did, a bike would be extraordinarily expensive, it's not needed, however your standard ISO-9001 would be adequate.
Carbon fiber in bicycles versus aircraft: Well... The furthest distance you're going to fall, if carbon fails, is off your bicycle seat. Versus..... Well, I think you can imagine the headlines.
22:35 what about leaning agaist the wall?
Bike vault needs a written down rules so we can hold YOU on it
A bike might actually run into more unexpected stresses than an airplane. After a plane lands, no one is throwing it on a pile of other planes (we hope) .
Magnus.Knutsen.Bjorkngenson's red Trek looks to be propped up by a fat, juicy rutabaga. Rutabagas are indigenous of Sweeden...akin to the sound of Magnus.Knutsen.Bjorkengenson's name. That said, glad to see a 'gravel' bike make the show.
Thankfully I have my own integrated aero belly…
I definitely need to use this.
How is the bike vault going to work after next week with the app going away?
I think a few episodes back they were saying there's an effort to be able to upload the same types of pics to their website instead
Give you a like for the reach around comment😂, interesting carbon conversation.
Concur with your statement that economy-minded reviews reach a broader audience. See bicycle purchase statistics on bikes higher priced than 3,000 (Pounds, USD, AUD, and Euros).
"We love a reach-around..." (monocle falls out) "...the rules"
No! That scott should have gone in the bike vault. I could see it perfectly well. Call for a re-vote 🙋♂️
I think that was Mr. Hanky, the christmas poo holding the Trek up.
0:55 Oh the irony of Ollie chastising for a "bad joke" ........
...as a former mechanical engineer, just multiply the bike loads 2X for a safety factor!
It may seem crazy to log the operating hours for your bike frame, but I bet all of you know how many miles you have on your bike. What is the operating lifetime of a decent carbon frame? Should we be worried after N miles?
Alan and Ollie - never met a razor they liked.
@25:37... my fair urban friends, who may have never seen a potato field, look to the right... it's a potato field!
shimano cranks were all made in monsoon season
Not surprised that the carbon bikes are higher end than a lot of other stuff.
You guys ever been to Reap bikes to see their carbon bikes been made?
Ill bear this in mind when I buy my next Rocket Ship 😂
Send Ollie to Canada, while Jim stays home on zwift, see how their experience riding a century differs.
Alex, yes I'm using your pretend name, being color-blind doesn't mean Ollie can't see any colors. It means some colors he sees differently. I'm color blind and some hues of green I'll see as brown, some blue-greens I'll see as blue-gray, ... It's different for different people but it's a subtle effect.
Maybe this kinda thinking is why bikes cost so much.... Keepemcoming 🧐💥
"just the amount of paperwork" ???
Claiming aerospace carbon fibre is "the same" as carbon used in the bike industry is like claiming food manufactured for pets is "the same" as food manufactured for human consumption if the ingredients used are "the same".
Or to put it another way, half a dozen eggs, 500g of cheese and a sickly sweet cup of coffee with some Italian biscuits on the side does not a tiramisu make.
The "paperwork" (certification) is the end result of a much more stringent production and quality control process, that by definition ensures the end product achieves a degree of purity that reflects its intended application requirements. If bike industry and aerospace requirements are different, then by definition so are the materials produced at the end of their respectively different manufacturing process, regardless of any ingredient similarity.
Yeah.. I will stick with aluminum. The weight difference is so minimal it's stupid. Just lower the prices and make great bikes.
Advancement in aluminum is what needs to happen. Carbon fiber is forever trash and aluminum is recyclable and can equal performance to CF while being much more affordable
larger parts dont need to be so precise. there's much more material so the strength and durability is more than enough. in cycling they try to eek out every single gram they can
Why would the carbon helicopter blades need replacing? I thought the whole thing was carbon didn’t fatigue? Obviously if it hits a few birds or something it could damage them
The resin in carbon fiber cracks after 800 hours of use. On a bike, no big deal but on a rotor it can become bad quickly. Physically the carbon doesn't fatigue much as bike snake oil salesmen tell you, but it's irrelevant info because the material holding it together does.
It is load dependent. Rarely on a bike are you putting loads high enough to microfracture the resin to a critical flaw size. On a rotor blade with many high load cycles and likely small manufacturing separations to begin with (extremely extremely small, but start to join together over time), this is more of a concern
@@Shadowboost thanks both of you. Makes much more sense
"Skip the QC and just go straight from manufacturing to the customer" Isn't that the business models of the Chinarellos and other counterfeit carbon gear?
@@Fieldracing at least a reputable brand have a safety recall policy. It's often far from perfect and things can go wrong but the customer service process is there to protect your investment in your equipment. There will always be new products that come along that have a flawed design and as consumers we can hold established brands accountable when that happens.
Submersible burn! Too soon?
Get on with it ollie. Turned this episode off with the initial Bull and Waffle (think I'll Google a bar by that name😅)
Who goes for a ride and wants to carry a shadow stand?!?! I agree that they are nice for photos but I don’t ride for the purpose of taking pictures of my bike and a shadow stand is just excess baggage. It’s also possible to lean your bike against things without scratching it also.
I‘d consider something that is ridden into Arenberg at 60kph on the front of the bunch very mission critical.
That would be a scary place to be 👀
@@gcntech I‘d go in the break at all cost just not to be in the bunch there.
Not as much as carrying 400 people over a densely populated neighborhood
From manufacturing floor directly to the customer with no QC to save money? Sounds like the cheap frame I bought from China. 😂 Though I love it, for what it's worth.
If you are impressed by the phrase “military grade” in a sales pitch… it’s obvious you’ve never served in the military 😅
Most cases they result with the lowest bidding manufacturing company… at the cost of quality. 😢
Yeah, milspec is a joke
Definitely pine cone
How the hell did Alex manage to stay awake?
There’s goes the bike prices
The difference is irrelevant, what matters is how much they’re going to sell it for and all the ways they’re going to convince us we can’t live without it.
i like how people talk about carbon bikes and i am still looking for steel bikes. don't even really like aluminum.
Alu bikes and carbon bikes are trash, check out Wabi Cycles for affordable high quality tubing steel bikes. Everything the bike industry has done is to replace the high quality tubing welder to save money and nothing more.
Blockchain was supposed to give the backlog for every process, every transaction, critical or not, costly and cheap. Instead we got an inflated market of same but different pictures.
The regular carbon got too cheap so now they came up with aerospace carbon. 🤷♂️
No mention of the intentionally shoddy QC of bike frame fabricators, to save money.
You'll need to watch a Hambini video to learn about that.
Titanium is forever.
Aerospace carbon will be overpriced and still have faulty quality control.
Bike manufacturers quality control needs to have a tube missing before it fails their checks.
It's just a shame that carbon fibre can't be recycled
so carbon road bike is over kill ? 😂
Lack of quality control, straight from the factory floor to the customer...... Sounds like an advert for Aliexpress 😂
I've not seen Ollie stutter and waffle so much when trying to explain something technical before. Kinda spoiled what should have been an interesting feature 🙃
GCN Tech: "Are carbon bikes stronger than spaceships?"
Elon Musk: "🤔🤨 . . . 😝 📞🐦
potato!!!!
Andy you haven’t received Strava messages yet because, with all the joking, we have forgotten your real name.