Busted Carbon

>>1038300


It's all bullshit from fags that cant afford nice things. Modern carbon frames will take as much abuse, if not more, than steel frames. Any serious crash will damage even the sturdiest of steel frames.

>>1038304

I'm thinking that. No sane person gets a steel frame fixed unless it has some deep emotional meaning to them (dad's bike or something)

Carbon steerer tubes alarm me though, I have to be honest w/you pham. What do you think? I mean, a full carb fork isn't very expensive even and is an obvious upgrade for any bike but I don't wanna die

>>1038304
i would trust a decent brand carbon frame / fork. those are nice things.

but whats up with chinese fake stuff? or generic stuff with no brand?i wouldnt rust those.. should i? do you?

and do you trust buying used carbon? would you buy?

>>1038306
>Carbon steerer tubes


You mean bars? Because a properly set up fork/steering tube should not fail unless youre in a serious crash.

As for carbon bars - I wouldn't trust them. There's a reason why most pros opt for aluminum bars instead.

>>1038311
shaaaat
rust = trust.
whats up with my brain?

>>1038300
>carbon touring bike
lolno

>>1038306
>No sane person gets a steel frame fixed unless it has some deep emotional meaning to them
Or when you're midway across an unfamiliar country and don't want to buy a new bike to continue your trip.

>>1038312
I'm actually totally down with carbon steerers (assuming a modern tapered steerer) and carbon bars. Ritchey carbon flat bars and Easton carbon drops on most of my bikes.

>>1038306
Sheldy says aluminum steerer tubes are more dangerous.

>>1038325
Repairing bikes is specialized welding. A rural farmer with a stick welder is just as likely to melt holes through steel as he is to weld it, and he definitely won't get it back to like new condition. Brazing is repairable to like new condition, but few people braze. He might be able to weld a piece of rebar to your top tube.

>>1038300

Carry some sandpaper, carbon fabric and resin if you're that paranoid.

The main issue I have with the diamondback is that the past few attempts to create carbon touring bikes have resulted in frames as heavy as equivalent aluminum frames. I suspect the only only benefit would be comfort if used with skinny tires. If used as intended with large tires the frame material doesn't matter so they would be no benefit.

>>1038300
>carbon touring bike
lol ya senpai cuz yknow you really need to shave grams off your touring bike, even tho you're gonna be loading it up with all kinds of shit

steel is, from my experience, typically a more comfortable ride. better for racks and attachments, and can take hits better. the thing about carbon is, any sort of hit, it's done. frame is compromised. Steel not so much.

I personally haven't had carbon parts "fail" but i've had stuff be compromised and had to trash it, and i know some people who've had their frames get cracks after like 7 or so yrs

i'm totally for carbon, stuff, but the benefits aren't really that significant for a touring bike. Steel's the way to go

It's easier to keep steel corrosion-resistant, and you can get away with a whole lot of strapping, clamping, and nigger-rigging with steel that is just not an option with carbon.

As long as you're extremely diligent about cleanliness and maintenance, and stick with purpose-specific gear that's all used precisely as specified, there's nothing wrong with touring on carbon. People really into touring and just outdoorsy types in general just tend to be people who value having the option to "rough it" or just like knowing that they have the *most* reliable option.

Also, the ability to have a frame welded to get through third-world tours is not a joke for people who actually do that kind of thing. Or even just to get you through whatever big tour you're on, instead of having to throw in the towel or try to track down a whole new suitable bike mid-trip.

If you're not even thinking about any of these eventualities, you probably aren't planning tours where the extra options steel gives you will even matter, so carbon should get you through just fine.

Good luck flying with your steel aeroplanes, too. Carbon is nice, but steel frames aren't bad either, especially if you don't clock every ride.

I have a 2006 TCR that I bought second hand. Its so lovely to ride, but the paint is in fairly bad condition, lots of scuffs etc. Its an alu frame, with carbon stays and carbon fork. There are no cracks or anything and ive tapped it all with coins and inspected it etc, but I'm still going to change the fork over when I can, Im sure with the mileage its had the alu steerer will fail soon and break my jaw.

>>1038306
Alloy steerer is way worse as the weak point is where it is bonded to the carbon fork legs. Full carbon fork will likely be one piece and thus stronger with fewer obvious stress points

>>1038332

The problem is finding people who can weld those thin tubes in shithole conditions. I've personally found the assumption that you'll be able to get anything repaired is a load of shit.

What usually happens is they burn a hole through something, and then they epoxy/fiberglass the shit out of your bike so you can limp somewhere that *might* be able to fix it or get a new bike for you.

>>1038300
Working at an LBS for a number of years, every failure I saw personally was the result of a crash and/or continuing to ride a frame after a crash when the frame was clearly compromised.

File: carbon steerer.jpg (106KB, 666x1000px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 666x1000px

>>1038300
>>1038306
>>1038304
>It's all bullshit from fags that cant afford nice things.

keep telling yourself that, custom steel road frames cost more than generic built in taiwan "highend" carbon.

Carbon has its place in racing and nothing currently comes close to C in terms of performance due to very low flex, but in terms of durability its absolute rubbish, Any scratch or abrasion (or even long sun exposure in some cases ayy lmao) can compromise the material and if you are dumb enought to run carbon bars, youll have to throw them away after even a lighter crash in order to stay safe.
Carbon fibre is like porcelain, treat it that way, it will perform, but be aware that you are dealing with sensible and sophisticated material.

>>1038402
>due to very low flex
Carbon has very high flex. Being flexy and not brittle is why it's used. Your post is cancer and so is you.
>sensible
inigomontoya.jpg
You twat.

File: carbon018.png (785KB, 948x1364px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 948x1364px

>>1038410
>Carbon has very high flex. Being flexy and not brittle is why it's used. Your post is cancer and so is you.

mmm salty!

>>1038412
Cyclists have been killed by folding frames and forks for all of time, anon. It it tangential, and your evidence is anecdotal. Say, what did you do on NYE? Does you mother like you, vegan-kun?

>>1038410
Carbon can be made to flex, but it can also be made to be much stiffer than even aluminium. That's one of the great things about it, it can be made to have vastly different properties and even in different directions. For example a frame could be made to be vertically flexy to absorb bumps whilst still being stiff laterally.

>>1038412
The fork was faulty. A faulty fork made of any material can be just as deadly.

>>1038429
>Carbon can be made to flex, but it can also be made to be much stiffer than even aluminium.
But the stiffer than aluminium carbon would still be flexier than aluminium. Carbons great strength is that it can withstand greater deflection with less or no fatigue.
Brittleness and stiffness and strength are... complicated things that don't reduce to the two dimensional thinking that OP is capable of.

>>1038430
Yeah it's confusing shit, I'm probably using the wrong terms. When I say stiffness I mean resistance to flex, not necessarily hard (and thus possibly brittle, like glass, although again that may be the wrong term).

>>1038412
In this case it was the alu-carbon bond what failed, not the carbon.

>>1038410

>Carbon has very high flex. Being flexy and not brittle is why it's used.

No.

Carbon fiber is attractive as a frame-building material because of its high rigidity and outrageously high specific strength. Its stiffness in line with the grain is and always has been the primary reason it performs well for cycling applications; arranging the sheets to allow them to flex at select parts of the frame for comfort reasons is of secondary importance.

When a cyclist talks about a frame being "flexy", they're describing a bending of the frame that carbon frames are specifically designed not to do, and are able to avoid doing specifically because of the immense stiffness that carbon fiber makes possible.

And you didn't even address the totally spot-on part about abrasion and sunlight before you made this dumbass post and insulted the guy you're replying to. Way to be a douchey nerd about this, faggot.

>>1038468
You are so misinformed that your incoherent ramblings can not even be said to be wrong. You completely miss the point of the post you're replying to, and you too fail to see the difference between strength, stiffness and fatigue threshold. UV-blocking lacquer is a thing even in woodwork and completely trivial - abrasion is a non-issue.

What did you do on NYE?

File: carbon10.png (2MB, 1068x1069px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1068x1069px

>>1038430
>Carbons great strength is that it can withstand greater deflection with less or no fatigue.

only if it is made that way. carbon fiber is generally made to have stiff properties, once the limir of impact/scrath is surpassed it fails dramatically

>>1038468
<3 for properly defending me bro, Im not entirely against carbon anything but I hate when people recive only infomercials (like these broscientist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs) about carbon insted of proper infos. IRL scencarions carbon is very britle compared to alu or steel. Period.

>this thread again
>the thread where non-engineers incoherently ramble about the merits, drawbacks, and properties of different materials without understanding in the slightest the terminology that they are using

File: bl10.jpg (163KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 800x570px

>>1038474
Well, it's only really that sad loser VeganRider plus the odd sidekick who has no-one to talk to again. Being ignorant and belligerent, starting an argument is the only way of carrying a conversation that he knows, so this is his way of socializing. If only we could contact his mother somehow. We could have him committed (or euthanised) and instantly raise the mean quality of posts in this fine forum by at least two standard deviations.
It is a pity that he consistently refuse self-euthanasia. Exit tents are so accessible, after all.

>>1038471

>You completely miss the point of the post you're replying to

Your "point" is, "look at me I'm a fucking nerd who can list off jargon about different materials properties like a fucking Freshman" you arrogant egghead faggot.

Nobody cares how big you want to say your science-dick in abstract materials science is, we're talking about the emergent properties of materials as used in bicycle frame-building, and in that regard everything I said is 100% accurate. You haven't even claimed it isn't, you just keep saying "YOU'RE DUMB AND DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE" and then literally *LIST* jargon terms that you obviously just barely remember from a multiple choice question on an exam you crammed for two or three weeks ago at the end of your first semester of college.

The sensitivity to corrosion and sunlight of carbon fiber epoxies is not trivial at all; it makes diligent cleaning of the nooks and crannies of the frame twice as important as it is with other frame materials, to avoid having the protective coating stripped away. Which is *especially* relevant in a thread about touring, given that touring bikes as a practical matter have to go longer stretches with light maintenance at best.

At least wait until after you get your degree to start acting like a cunt. The stench of cocky undergrad shitstain in every post you make is unbearable.

>>1038479
Go give you mom a call. See if she'll pick up.

>>1038481

Only if you tell yours to stop calling me.

>>1038479
Confirmed for VeganRider. Boys, nothing to see in this thread.
Good god, would you ever just understand that no-one likes you? No-one ever will. Not even your parents do, and that's mighty special. Still you cling to this self image of some supreme genius who everyone would admire if only we could see your greatness. You're still that bullied little middle-schooler. You haven't had one iota of personal development since the age of ten, and you were a social failure even then!
Buy a cat for company - no, buy a cactus!

I'm starting to lose faith in carbon. Specifically shitty Chinese carbon where everyone gets there carbon from.

I've had several carbon frames pass through my hands with obvious defects, fraying carbon, poorly molded headset seats, dented headset cups, non-round steerer tubes. Most of them were Chinese from China, from sellers reselling them as the real thing and using real pictures. Another one was the store brand of a major online bike shop based in the USA.

>>1038479
>carbon fiber is more susceptible to corrosion than steel
t. anonymous

OP here

Okay how about I get a carbon frame and a steel fork? So then like maybe the fork can't explode but if the frame does I won't go face-first and maybe I could ride the fork like a unicycle while the carbon fiber frame disintegrates like twisting tissue paper beneath me?

get a wooden bike OP :)

>>1038632
>Carbon frame with steel fork

I've seen a hell of a lot of steel bikes with carbon forks, but I'm really struggling to think of any bikes that I've seen go the other way around.

File: carbon_Czmi.jpg (53KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 480x360px

>>1038632
>Okay how about I get a carbon frame and a steel fork?

literally wat? its usually reverse, steel frame for comfort and durability, carbon fork for more precise handling due to less flex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qsLYlVWkbQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZbg5hCRyvs

>>1038668
>literally wat? its usually reverse, steel frame for comfort and durability, carbon fork for more precise handling due to less flex.

Yeah but think about it

Fork failure more likely to murder you than any other part of the frameset

>>1038300
It's mostly a meme. There are counterfeits of name brands that were poorly made that have failed, and you've probably seen pics of them posted by fools who either believed they were the real thing, or by trolls who wanted you to believe carbon-fiber is junk, and there are cheap-ass, poorly-made no-name bikes made in Asia (China; all sorts of shitty shit comes out of China) out there that fall apart, but none of those are anything you should be buying in the first place.

That pic that you posted is either due to a massive accident, or it was a counterfeit -- or it was photoshopped.

Final word on the subject: If carbon fiber bike frames and parts were unsafe, there would be a MASSIVE lawsuit and recall of them by the name-brand manufacturers and/or they'd be outlawed. Pro riders wouldn't risk their safety on them otherwise. Ignore the poorfags, cheapfags, trolls, and fools.

Oh and by the way: If all you're doing is recreational riding, there is no real reason to spend extra money on a carbon fiber bike. Just stick to aluminum and use the extra money on accessories or clothing. You won't need the performance of carbon fiber for the kind of riding you're doing.

>>1038402
>generic built in taiwan "highend" carbon
Oh you mean counterfeits and poorly made cheap-ass shit the Chinese make to sell to gullible round-eye Westerners?

>>1038410
>Carbon has very high flex.
Depends on the layup and the grade of CF used. Very flexible rear triangles equal power wasted when doing thigns like sprinting equals losing races.

>>1038709
>Oh and by the way: If all you're doing is recreational riding, there is no real reason to spend extra money on a carbon fiber bike. Just stick to aluminum and use the extra money on accessories or clothing. You won't need the performance of carbon fiber for the kind of riding you're doing.

A poignant reminder

But on a personal level I wanna shred major miles at high speed. Aluminum frames + Full carbo fork seems to be the path... with heavy investment in light but sturdy wheelz

>>1038648
Some of the older lugged and bonded carbon frames.

>>1038668
That's wrong though. You see that because going from a steel fork to a carbon fork saves just as much weight as going from a high end steel frame to a carbon frame. It's how weight weenies justify their "steel" bikes with carbon wheels and carbon forks and carbon bars and carbon everything not the frame. Also lots of frame builders are too lazy to make forks themselves when off the shelf forks for the purpose exist.

>>1038709
>>1038714
If you're just doing recreation riding there's no reason to not buy a carbon fiber bike because the durability is a nonissue since you're not likely to crash like in a race or leave it outside. It's only lock up outside commuter beater that carbon is retarded.

>>1038712
>Depends on the layup and the grade of CF used.
No, it doesn't really. "All" grades have better fatigue behaviour and higher stress thresholds than your typical 6k aluminium. That doesn't mean it can't also be stiffer, just that it can always bend more and many more times before it fails.

>>1038709


I rather spend my money on a nice bike and opt to buy used clothing and accessories. About the only thing I wont buy used are bibs. Fuck. That.

Also, power meters are over rated and still over-priced for what they do.

>>1038744
Power meters are $400, and they make a bigger difference than most other upgrades when combined with structured training.

>>1038720
>That's wrong though. You see that because going from a steel fork to a carbon fork saves just as much weight as going from a high end steel frame to a carbon frame. It's how weight weenies justify their "steel" bikes with carbon wheels and carbon forks and carbon bars and carbon everything not the frame. Also lots of frame builders are too lazy to make forks themselves when off the shelf forks for the purpose exist.

idnk mang, as a retrogrudge I realize that my steel fork flexes, its not only weight, having stifness on your front wheel is very significant thing - mtb, road, even trials. even tom rithchey runs a carbon fork for that reason on his steel frame.

>>1038800

Excellent counter point

I think I'm sold on ALU frame, full carbo fork. If I die, tell em I did it shaving gramz

>Has anybody here actually had a carbon part fail on them?
Yes.

>It's just a goddamn meme isn't it?
No more of a meme than carbon itself.

Know what you're doing, know how to test carbon, and know that some parts are higher risk than others. Any frame, fork, and wheelset you ride on is something you should have complete confidence in, even if you're not throwing down big watts.

>>1038401
You've never seen a full carbon wheelset fail?

>>1038504
Open mol

>>1038800
You could say the same thing about muh bottom bracket flex. Forks are much cheaper to mass produce because with threadless steerers, they're basically one size fits all. Easton/ENVE forks can be put on any bike where the maker doesn't want to make the fork themselves. They're also simpler to make in many ways compared to a frame. You can buy a cheap China carbon fork for $50, but a frame costs $400. In terms of cost-to-performance, carbon forks are very cost effective. They also save a pound or so over steel forks, that's something a customer might notice when lifting a bike. When it's on a steel bike, sure it's better than a steel fork, the the way a carbon frame is better than a steel frame. It's just those people fell for the steel is real meme and think their steel frame bike with carbon parts is special snowflake.

>>1038908
There's nothing wrong with a steel fork as long as you don't care about grams. There's not much wrong with a well made carbon fork either though.

>>1038908

Just inspect it regularly and you'll be fine. In fact, you should be taking a close look at your bike regardless of what it's made of.

File: tr road.jpg (289KB, 940x627px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 940x627px

>>1039203
>You could say the same thing about muh bottom bracket flex.

fork felx is far more noticable than BB flex and muh efficiency. Stiff fork helps not only with muh wats but with handling tremendously...and that goes also for mtb,
In years of doing mtb descents I was aways happier with forks with less flex that perform meh as a suspension, that with good performing forks that flex a lot.

>It's just those people fell for the steel is real meme and think their steel frame bike with carbon parts is special snowflake.

Idk, I think stell frame with carbon fork is best of both worlds. Easier to check everything or change just the fork in case of a crack, and steel flex in frame can provide an advantage in terms of comfrort (which isnt so much the case with steel forks since the tradeoff is with manuverability). Worth the tradeoff.

>>1039242
>Idk, I think stell frame with carbon fork is best of both worlds. Easier to check everything or change just the fork in case of a crack, and steel flex in frame can provide an advantage in terms of comfrort

Interesting perspective. So in your view, a hyper-stiff old Cannondale with alu frame and steel fork is the worst of both worlds

My main beef with carbon forks is the extremely selection of aftermarket forks (or even OEM) with eyelets able to bear a rack.

>>1039314
>So in your view, a hyper-stiff old Cannondale with alu frame and steel fork is the worst of both worlds

absolutly, early cheap alu frames are crap, steel fork only makes sense if everythign else is steel also

>>1039316

I'm going to have to try a steel frame + carbon fork. I have owned 1 steel roadie and 7 aluminum frame + steel/carbon fork bikes

File: web.jpg (1MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3648x2736px

>>1038300
Not going to trust carbon again I think.
Broken collarbone, serious concussion. Fork broke while breaking when it was just a few days old. There are manufacturing defects with steel and alu too, but carbon almost always fails catastrophic, like in my case.

>>1039331
dang man!

surprise surprise its a disc brake! I would only go for carbon fork on a rim brake, if even then. discs put too much pressure on the fork. how fast where you riding at the moment?

>>1039334
probably around 30 km/h / 20mph.
When talking about manufacturing mishaps, the breaktype doesn't really matter. Sure, there's more stress with diskbreakes, but the forks are designed for it, just like rimbreak-forks are designed for rimbreak specific stress.

>>1039340
>>1039331

What was the fork brand?

>>1038300
the thing about modern carbon frames is that the lamination proccess gives the manufactures very prcise control over how a frame reacts. most carbon bikes are made for racing and they are stiff. so we assume all carbon bikes are that way. I would imagine a touring specific carbon frame would be quite complient and beefed up for load carring. dont fall for outdated meme. the only place carbon falls short is abrasion resistance so make sure to protect your chainstays and mount your bags and racks properly. as for me I like steel because its cheap.

>>1039354
This. Please do tell.

>>1039354
This. I'd also like to know.

>>1039372
>>1039376
Irrelevant. Most brands outsource to a couple Taiwanese companies.

>>1039377
Liar detected going need a time stamp with a cracked fork.

>>1038488

Whatever this veganrider faggot did to you in the past must have been pretty terrible. My condolences. Just make sure you wipe all that salt off your frame like I said.

>>1038506

It doesn't matter that carbon fiber itself is extremely non-reactive. The epoxy that actually holds the sheets together is absolutely more susceptible to corrosion than steel, by a long shot.

>>1039393
> The epoxy that actually holds the sheets together is absolutely more susceptible to corrosion than steel, by a long shot.
I'm sorry but no, it does not degrade with exposure to hydrogen dioxide like steel does and is covered with paint anyways,

>>1039377
There's several shitty China (PRC) companies that make carbon parts, and if you bought a shitty Chinese eBay fork, there's a chance that it had no QC and wasn't even designed to handle disc loads, they just added disc mounts. Which seems likely considering the fork seems to be unpainted, and you refuse to state brand and have the it's all the same OEM, you're just getting ripped off by not buying factory direct mentality.

>>1039242
Your opinion is just muh feels the post, and stiffness in suspension forks with moving parts has absolutely nothing to do with rigid steel or carbon forks. You're an idiot if you think stiff forks help with watts, and you probably run your times at 140psi because you think it makes you go faster. Your post is garbage.

I'm in the market for a carbon fork that won't kill me. Can I get one from AliExpress.

>>1039354
>>1039372
>>1039376
It was a Rose bike (big german direct distributer with a pretty good reputation. I've ridden several of their bikes and liked most). They recalled the model after an independent expert found faults in several forks.

>>1039377
Not me BTW

>>1039384
See above... the fork has been replaced, the replacement still sits in my shelf unused, so no timestamp, but you won't find the above photo elsewhere.

>>1039396
see above. Also I didn't refuse, I just haven't been online for a few hours. The fork was clearcoated with decals under coat.

>>1039414
Can I have your deathtrap fork?

>>1039414
>They recalled the model after an independent expert found faults in several forks.
Yes, and? Scott and Merida have both had recalls on forks in the last few years. Alloy forks.

>>1039427
I know, And Salsa recalled steel forks. As mentioned before however, aluminum and steel often give you a warning or bend before completely disintegrating. If carbon fails it tends to do so in the most catastrophic ways.
I'm not trying to say carbon is a bad material for bikes, it isn't! However we do not get the QC they have for planes or racecars and there will be failures. I personally am scared and probably won't ride carbon again, after that fork nearly killed me. That is purely subjectiv, I totally understand that others want to ride carbon.

>>1039435
If an aluminium fork goes it's likely to fail just as badly as carbon, only some of the time will you be able to catch a crack before it completely fails (if you're paranoid I suppose it's a good excuse to regularly clean your bike). Steel has a higher chance of bending in from an impact, however should a weld fail it is again going to be fairly similar to carbon.

>However we do not get the QC they have for planes or racecars and there will be failures
Sure, however it is possible to QC carbon parts without going to quite that much effort. They will (or should) be designed to withstand much greater forces they will see during regular use and it's possible to subject them to forces above regular use (but still below the intended failure point) and that would weed out the defective parts. Whether this is actually done I don't know, any manufacturers that do probably don't do it on every part because if you take enough care parts should turn out close to identical (so they'd test samples from batches to find widespread defects).

>>1039435
>aluminum and steel often give you a warning or bend before completely disintegrating
No it doesn't. Bend the tab of your MountainDew to have the point illustrated. Alloy fatigue failure is sudden and catastrophic.

>>1039439
You might be right, but I cought several cracks in aluminium before catastrophic failiure while my new carbon fork basically exploded while breaking. I know that this is not representative of anything and pure subjective perception -yet I will stay away from carbon. I don't advocate not riding carbongenerally.
My point was basically: Busted carbon isn't a meme. Obviously it's not the norm either and I should have probably made it more clear that carbon generally is alright, just not for me anymore.

File: trekaggr.jpg (73KB, 951x713px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 951x713px

>>1039435
>As mentioned before however, aluminum and steel often give you a warning or bend before completely disintegrating.

Complete gobbleygook. If a fatigue crack starts in an area you can't see or never inspect (junction of the steerer to the fork crown, inside of the crank spider), you're never going to see it or hear it until near-instantaneous catastrophic failure occurs.

Surf around http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html a while. Everything breaks eventually.

The issue I have with carbon being used on bike frames is the lack of abrasion resistance, and the lack of strength to impacts. It's fine for race bikes. I'd never want to own a townie or touring bike made out of carbon though, where a poorly-attached bag or bungie cord can abrade through the frame in a day's worth of riding.

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-116.html

>>1039414
Let me guess: it was the team DX model right? They put rack eyelets on this thing. Not only is carbon a poor material for this use, but the fork was made in such a way it looked inherently too weak for that use.

>>1039568
>http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-203.html
>We just completed a tour of the Rhine / Mosselle rivers in France and on a descent from one of the castles we managed to melt a Xt ice tech rotor. Actually two of use did it on a 200 meter elevation loss 15% grade descent.

Jesus.

>>1038300
>Be me
>Have 16-17 years
>Saving to buy a decent mountain bike
>Go to Decathlon and buy the base model because poor
>Testing bike, pretty happy to ride it
>Decide to run at 100% downhill in an empty bike lane to test new bike
>One pedal comes off
>My other foot slides and got stuck by the other pedal and I fall on the ground
>I fall at motorbike speeds head first
>Somehow I survived without any serious injures because I landed on sand and because cat reflexes

That was a traumatic experience, I have had other accidents before, but that time it was totally unexpected and since then I can't ride a bike being totally comfy because now I know that something could just break down suddenly because factory defects. At least I went to decathlon and they repaired the bike for free and fast, but now that I think about it my parents should have denounced them or something.

>>1039683
Decathlon doesn't do BSOs but one should really only go after their mid+ tier offers.