On this channel we show marketing free, real information about the bikes that you ride. www.luescherteknik.com.au www.insidecarbonbikes.com #insidecarbonbikes
The whole point of any GCN video, where some particular manufacturer or product is involved, is always advertising. Therefore they have taken a fancy aero carbon bar to show of, the one they hope to sell the most of, because of the bigger earning margin. Actually, advertising is the whole point of the vast majority of youtube videos nowadays. In that perspective, your videos are a rare and striking deviation from the bunch. You give always actual information to the people. I’m very grateful for your cut-up analysis. As far as I know, you’re the only source for such information about the build quality of today’s carbon bike frames and parts. As an automotive engineer, I wouldn’t have thought, what crap the big bike manufacturers would sell for such high prices. They even don’t seem to bother about potential catastrophic failures during the ride. I hope they’ll eventually evolve the manufacturing, because for now, from what I’ve seen on your channel, I am a bit hesitant in buying carbon frames.
Well done, thoroughly explained, looking objectively at both sides and pros/cons of the two materials, without any marketing nor sponsorship bias pressures. Thank you
Sharp edges creating indent are a very important thing to look at ! I had to throw a brand new mtb handlebar after mounting brake lever BELOW torque spec. Because the edge was sharp it dig in the bar. Now, like Raoul i take a file to round the edge of all parts i clamp on carbon, it's critical.
You got the point! Reliability! And instead to expend a lot of money on lightness expend this money on a good coach! Fitness is the one that makes difference not a couple of grams less on the bike.
@@antonhelsgaun Would not trust a carbon bar as cheap as this. Yet, for hiring a coach to make sense, you'll need more than a few lessons, and those will be far more expensive than even a quality carbon bar.
So glad you've done this. Find it incredibly frustrating whenever GCN touch science. I know it's meant to be entertaining and have mass appeal but sometimes they seem to actively take steps to avoid being able to make valid comparisons - not using same shape bars in this instance, not doing crossovers in time-trial tests etc. If they could take what you've said on board and do a more indepth video (giving appropriate credit of course) for those who're interested that'd be amazing. I'm sure there's the market for it.
The problem with a channel like GCN is they have to be diplomatic and make sure to offend no one. They don't want to take a hard stance on some products or brands because they'd become an enemy to a lot of people or even be discredited for saying something honest, yet somehow controversial. The few people they will likely offend are engineers, bike mechanics, and other people who already know it's nonsense anyway. I loved some of GCN's other videos, presenter challenges etc for their entertainment value, but I take a lot of things from any channel with a grain of salt unless of course it's someone like Raoul who knows more than what he's talking about.
GCN doesn't do science. Case closed. The difference is GCN is sponsored, hence they cannot be unbiased. Raoul is an engineer, giving his professional opinion. Ignore at your peril.
You are right Raoul, the Shimano DuraAce stuff from those times is pretty indestructible when properly mounted and not messed with. I have an original Shimano DuraAce headset on my 1981 Follis and it is still very smooth. I also have a Mavic 603 Titanium Cartridge Bottom bracket on that same bike and it spins exactly like the way you showed despite the almost 40 years. With perfect factory alignment, good quality, good size bearings and a well protected enclosure and they will outlast your knees. I have had many more modern set-ups go bad on me since on "modern" bikes. I find the comments on measuring bearings under load funny. When a 2 year old modern BB feels like a coffee grinder and will not spin one full turn you do not need to measure under load to know it is shot and eats many watts. I also have great doubt about the BB stiffness argument as far as I know the deformation is elastic and the energy stored in any deformation is given back at a different time in the pedal stroke that's why so many modern frames feel hard on the legs. In the 40 years I ride I have seen only two true ground breaking innovations: clip-on pedals and indexed shifting integrated in the brake hoods. Maybe 1x with 12 or so gears in the back might make the short list in a few years... All the rest I can give up on ;)...
In the GCN video, the 2nd test for impact look more like simulating impact hitting potholes and ruts while holding onto the drops. It may not be the best way to show crash impact like a frontal impact but more like an indication of how much force it can take before breaking.
When you put the weight on the drops, you are allowing the entire bar to flex, dissipating some of the force before it hits the stem. Typical riding positions would put more stress on the stem area, and at least some force on the shifter mounting area. By "coincidence", both of those are points of interest in carbon bar failures.
Great sliced views of bars.!!!. I love the FSA carbon wing. They have been engineered / stress tested . Be careful when clamping handle bars into stems evenly and don't over torque.!!!
Thank you again for the information about carbon bike parts in real life! Just facts, no hidden marketing, a lot of knowledge and experience! And I’m lmao, because I wrote a comment on the gcn video (despite the fact that I usually like their stuff) that anyone who’s interested in carbon technology and bikes should take a look at your channel... and in less than a day: this video occurred... 😊 keep up the great work 👍🏻
Thanks for the informative videos. I had a pair of 3ttt mutant 6061 road alloy bars catastrophically fail to the left of the stem back in 2001. They had, in hindsight a questionable design feature of two opposite placed thumb print shaped indents either side of the stem clamp area. I had them 13 months so was 1 month off the warranty date! Did have injuries and damaged bike. I learned from that and since use either 7075 or 2014 alloy bars on my road bike. I change them when i think they req changing. Couldn't bring myself to use carbon bars though.
I think I'm gonna stick to my aluminium bar, even though I've had carbon ergonova 3t bar in the past (which cracked in a crash with a motorist). But since then I've had all alum, and I've learned to like it again. Haven't had any issues in the alum yet, even though know they can fail too. I do like that alum bars are much cheaper in costs.
David Turner #51 yes true, people just want to believe bike manufacturers make perfect stuff. They blindly defend any critic of products. What riders fail to remember is the bike industry doesn’t have the same quality control as alot of other manufacturers products. Remember it is only a “bike”
In reference to impact testing, it seems that’s the vertical testing is to prevent the”Just Riding Along” failures and subsequent lawsuits. I’m assuming the forward impact test isn’t considered by manufacturers as once the bike is crashed the bar breaking is of minimal importance as long as it didn’t cause the crash. If a bar/stem is overtightened, is it more susceptible to failure in that area? I’d assume so.
Yes, your assumption is probably correct, however I would be concerned about sharp broken edges impacting the body in a crash. Any delamination or void in the stem clamp area would reduce the structural properties significantly, which often are the cause of "Just Riding Along" failures. As I suggested testing for flaws on carbon products is usually more relevant than a fatigue or impact test once a design has been validated.
Luescher Teknik Do you think that the majority of parts failing at the stem have been over tightened? Also given the shape of different bars I would expect some to handle frontal impact better than others, however this is a whole different can of worms. I agree with your comments regarding testing for voids and etc. My family background is military/aerospace manufacturing and the majority of the cost associated with many of the parts be them metallic or carbon is QC and material source/documentation. Unfortunately I don’t think that cycling consumers would tolerate the expense necessary for what you or I would consider “proper” QC. Also I don’t think the majority of the companies in the industry are capable of performing that level of QC given that most everything is made by a third party in Taiwan.
For sure, QC is a majority cost in aerospace, that is my background also, however when you know how much a part costs to make in China and the price it retails for in the west, AND then listen to people say they can't afford testing with such large margins......... it is a bit steep to me. A lot of the damage we find would be related to overtightening and manufacturing flaws, often in combination.
I have a bontrager race lite aero bar. 340g aluminum, flat tops with holes for internal cable routing. I highly recommend them if anyone is looking for some aero bars in aluminum.
I would think that that is a reliable bar based on the weight. It has over 100 grams more material in it than a round bar without holes and profile. It makes sense, and demonstrates the design compromise that the holes and shape bring compared with a round profile without holes.
Hav been riding with lightweight aluminium nadle bar (Deda Newton 215 anatomic and now a normally curved one). Have crashed several times and after 9 years of use I still would trust that more than a new carbon handle bar (but guess it matters which one). Also think I may have tested it harder than few others, so unless a handle bar is badly made or has evolved a problem through a crash (like my Dura ace cranks had) I guess it matters rather little if carbon or aluminium. But I was starting to get a bit nervous with my first Deda bar, but think there is no problem for 100 kg guy climbing a 26% slope on the big front ring still ... .
I’ve broken carbon bars. One with a very minor fall, another as part of a car accident, where I hit the deck, but not the car. I’m sticking with aluminum from now on
budes matpicu Those riders that put a lot of power through the handlebars they are often on aluminium. They are only scared if the bar fails mid ride and that cause them to fall, than that's a shame.
Very interesting content as always, thanks a lot for uploading that sort of stuff ! Personnally, as a racer and beeing on a budget I made the decision to stick with aluminium frames and components untill I can afford a high-end carbon bike and potential spare bars/stem. My dream bike would actually be an aluminium frame with Dura-ace and Mavic Ksyrium pro wheels as we can get under 7kg around 4000Eur in my country= reliable components and a classic touch ... plus a good conversation subjects on group rides :)
Makes sense, I do prefer the ride of a good carbon bike however. As a racer, reliability is king, you will see much bigger gains training hard than saving a few grams of weight on the bike.
I just bought a 2007 trek slr 1500. It has literally 4 miles on it and then hung up. Do aluminum bars this old get weak and fail even if they have never been used? Does aluminum just get weak with age, or does it get weak with use? Thank you for your time.
OK, OK, whats the deal with the Collnago hanging on the wall? is it going to be cut up? what model is it? do you ever come across any c59's or c60's that have failures? any M10's? cx-1's?
I get the point of an apples to apples comparison, but I do expect the handlebar to do the same job regardless of its aero profile or internal routing. So I don't really have a problem with the GCN test from that perspective.
Do you have any interest or plans to quantify the characteristics of various carbon components? Having a seasonally updated table with strength/strain as well as vibration damping capability would be great. You talked about a testing setup, and I think we'd all like to hear your views on any results so far.
3T ergnova alloy for me. I chuck em in the recycling bin when I feel they have been used up. I also sand back the internals of my stem edges. Not sure why they don't do that at factory...
Anyone who thinks the aircraft industry is having few problems with carbon might want to search that, not true. Carbon is amazing but it is not good with dynamic loads even formula 1 car's use other materials in the crash structure around the driver. S-glass or Kevlar better with dynamic loads. Aluminum alloy can be hard to beat for the money.
Got to be mindful people of conflicting torque specifications on stuff attaching to carbon bars. For example, the Shimano 9100 STI shifters call for 6-8nm which is insane. If you torque to that you are going to crack the bars.
wouldn't a larger stem clamp be a good idea for using carbon bars to spread the load across a greater area? I have a ZIPP Sl Sprint stem which is much larger than normal stems, I've also seen very narrow stems which look like it would create pressure points on the bars.
Ive got a chinese integrated handlebar and crashed on them plenty of times. No damages what so ever, Same goes with the frame. Pretty high quality carbon. Had a authentic carbon wheelset but it cracked after a crash.. Pretty disappointed for a high end wheelset to fail.
it is not fatigue that is the problem.... (although, and I say this with all respect, in 30 years of cycling I have never seen an AL bar fail at all and that includes years of shop work) it is impact problems and carbon sucks at impact. I have seen many carbon bars fail. Anecdotal evidence....
Sills71 seen lots of alloy bars fail happens a lot with mtb and not in crashes, seen road bike bars fail also, worked in a lot of bike shops and there's a difference in were you work to what you see fail, funny like that
You say there is a galvanic response between aluminum and carbon. So how do they bond them in a carbon fork with aluminum steerer? Very interesting and informative videos.
Where is the carbon vs al vibration dampening vid link? I searched your channel for vibration and dampening and got no results. I also searched for bars and didn't see it.
Alors moi je sors d un cintre alu Cannondale et j ai remplacer par un 3t superergo carbone et y a une super différence déjà en confort je sents moins les vibrations etc et la prise en main et bien meilleur donc faut juste bien choisir !!
Rewatching ths video for propably the 50th time, feel the need to point out that the drop test simulates hitting a pothole or curb while riding instead of crashing
Now that I'm riding a custom steel frame bike, I'm doing away with carbon bits. I'm replacing them with aluminum. It's just worry free. Sure, nothing is guaranteed and any material can fail, but metal is just more idiot-proof especially when you buy it from a reputable manufacturer. I think there are some carbon parts that have proven themselves to be reliable like forks (provided that they are worked on by a good mechanic of course). These days, anyone who puts any real miles on a bike just has to learn to wrench as much of their bike as they can just to be on the safe side. But yeah, I'm enjoying riding a bike that I don't have to worry about when I hit rough roads and it looks like some makers (like Shimano) are hydroforming aluminum to get nice aero & flat top shapes for bars.
Deda SuperZero Aero Alloy Road Handlebars $55.00 305 grams - Deda SuperZero Carbon Aero Road Bike Handlebars $155.95 215 grams. A $100.00 just for 90 grams difference? I think it does not worth paying $155.95 just eliminate 90 grams. I would choose alloy handlebar. Tks.
Of course the actual riding loads are important, but also the in service aspects are important. In some types of racing crashes are common and the parts should be designed to survive those. Bikes are for riding, you should not have to nurse it all the time.
I can think of a time where the load on a bar is vertical. It happened to me recently when i hit a super deep pot hole. If you're possitioned right over/on top of the bar at the moment of impact i guess that creates a vertical load. In my case it destroyed my carbon bars completely!
Makes a lot of sense to me with a one-piece construction, as the frames. Only consideration is that you might be less willing to replace it, in case of a crash... I have my eyes on a one-piece bar from Black Inc. Have you ever done any cut-ups on any of their products? (Same guys who makes Factor bikes.) They seem very capable..? Thanks Raoul, great videos!
Another great video! Thanks! Couple of quick questions. First, I know GCN concentrated on road bars but are MTB bars similar although the design is probably for strength in the strength|weight calculation. Second, on MTB bars (and any bars in general) at what point do users need to consider replacement if one has no way of determining damage? (i.e. clamp imprinting on outside coat or scratches from impact). For example around 2 min Alex shows similar impact damage to what I have seen in my carbon MTB bars: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--Gk7FKcwtSE.htmlm Is this the type of blemish you would scan or replace?
On an expensive bar, a scan would be worthwhile on an impact area and on the clamp areas. As I said in the video, we used to replace our aluminium bars every year regardless, because they are cheap it makes sense to replace. I would replace an aluminium bar if it had a deep scratch, imprint or dent.
20 minutes and I didn't hear a clear recommendation one way or the other. The criticism of the other video's testing was clear. And your said you use carbon on your own road bike. OK. I guess you're recommending carbon for road bikes (???).
why don't all bike manufacturers use ultrasound to test every frame? for the money we spend, you would think it a matter of fact kinda thing sheesh! these voids are scary as hell !
You've unintentionally hit on the big problem with carbon - critical damage can be completely invisible. Carbon fibre is made from layers of (usually) woven fibres, laid on top of each other and then bonded with resin. Delamination is when those layers become separated, which causes weakness. Impacts and poor manufacturing quality control can lead to internal delamination, which you can't see, but which is still a weakness in the component.
You've unintentionally hit on the big problem with carbon - critical damage can be completely invisible. Carbon fibre is made from layers of (usually) woven fibres, laid on top of each other and then bonded with resin. Delamination is when those layers become separated, which causes weakness. Impacts and poor manufacturing quality control can lead to internal delamination, which you can't see, but which is still a weakness in the component.
Question is how can I determine whether something is delaminated or not. I can't, right? I mean at the end of the day you can't ultrasonic scan every single part after some little crash. Therefore my question remains how dangerous such a delamination is? Does it instantly fail or slowly bend ?
Again, that's the problem - it's impossible to verify whether a carbon part is even safe to ride when it's brand new, never mind after a crash, unless you analyse it under the scanner. You can see from the videos on this channel how many frames have manufacturing defects in them, although they're not all actual causes of failure. The problem with assessing the danger due to delaminations is that it depends on how big the delamination is, whereabouts in the component it's occurred and what crashes, or impacts, the component might experience to trigger failure. Carbon failure though is, as a rule, sudden - no bending, stretching and very little warning. There are videos on this channel talking about warning signs, like cracking in the paint, unusual flex/movement, but generally it's safest to replace a component after any kind of crash, or impact.
