Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

feature

How safe is your carbon frame?

There are certain things you need to beware of when buying a used carbon bike, and they're not always visible...

If you've bought a used carbon-fibre bike, are you certain that the frame and fork are safe? Really certain? We don't want to be alarmist, but carbon can occasionally fail with no apparent warning because of hidden damage.

With a bike you have bought brand new, you'll be aware of any incidents that could have caused damage. But a lack of awareness and information available on the current condition of a carbon bike is even more serious in the used bike market.

2-scottsports_bike_2013_carbonstory_factory_03

Guides on buying second hand bikes exist, including our own, which explain how you can inspect a bike for wear and tear on parts such as chain rings, bottom bracket bearings, and so on. But when it comes to how to check for damage to the carbon frame itself, it is often just a remark about looking over for any obvious cracks to the frame. It’s not possible to properly check to see if a carbon frame is safe to ride from just looking at it or running your hand over it. Damage is often obvious, but sometimes it isn't.

Following a crash, some of us are diligent enough to send off a carbon bike to a place such as the Carbon Bike Repair in the UK for a deep scan (using digital microscopes and thermographic ‘x-ray’ techniques), even though no damage can be seen, to detect hidden issues.

But considering there can be hidden issues, why do so many of us continue to ride our ageing carbon bikes and buy used carbon bikes without taking them for check ups—at all, never mind regularly?

Is it okay to use your bike on a turbo trainer?

This current situation, with a lack of appropriate and accessible systems in place, is one that is only becoming more prevalent as the carbon bike industry continues to expand. Global market researchers Technavio has been monitoring the size of the carbon bike market and says it has the potential to grow by 6.48 million units from 2020 to 2024.

With the recent supply shortages and drive towards sustainability with reusing products – Decathlon recently launched "Second Life Marketplace" to sell refurbished bikes in stores, for example – more and more of us are heading to the used bike market. But the bike's history is not available to us, nor can bikes be easily and effectively inspected for underlying structural damage prior to purchase.

Imagine having access to data about a bike’s history and the failure rate of that particular brand’s model, so you can make an informed decision about whether a bike is safe to ride —whether that is one which you are intending to buy from the used bike market, or your own you’ve had for years and has potentially had some knocks along the way (but nothing so noteworthy that you were prompted to get it checked out).

This is what the founder of startup business Cycle Inspect, Michael Briggs, is on a mission to do. He may be driving this change from his base in Australia (Hobart, Tasmania) but the same issues are applicable worldwide.

Michael believes the issue of carbon bike safety has been reactive for far too long, and proposes the introduction of a standardised safety inspection service to be carried out by local bikes shops alongside routine bike services to look for hidden damage.

Long-term, Cycle Inspect hopes to build a database containing information about a bike’s history and the failure rate of particular models in order that consumers can make informed decisions about whether a bike is safe to ride.

Through a personal experience of buying a used carbon bike for his father, who was just getting into cycling, Briggs was hit with the reality that systems to determine the safe state of a carbon bike were not adequately in place for the second hand bike market.

Cycle Inspect carbon

Briggs admitted: “I felt guilty. I bought a bike for him that, a couple of months later, was diagnosed as unsafe to ride by a specialist—there were a couple of hidden cracks and delaminations under the surface.”

This prompted Briggs to do his own personal research on what he could have done differently and locating what services exist to help people like his father, buying their first used carbon bike.

His findings?

“I found there is none,” Briggs said. “There is a very small scattering of specialists who repair bikes and use inspection methods to locate and diagnose damage and risk. But as I started to talk to more experts, I found there is huge disagreement in these processes and technology they use, as well as the way it is applied.”

Uncovering this issue of a lack of standardisation with inspection methods and a lack of governance around the quality of inspections, as well as the quality of repairs, Briggs founded Cycle Inspect to tackle these issues and offer a viable solution—one that is accessible for consumers, both when buying a used bike and for carbon bike owners in understanding the current condition of their own, taking into account degradation over time.

1-scottsports_bike_2013_carbonstory_factory_02

Briggs said: “As a result of our research partnership with Deakin University, detailed literature review and consultation with the industry, our method looks to combine ultrasonic inspection with a variety of manual tests and techniques.

“We want to train individuals to perform these tests, rolling it out so it’s not just a small scattering of specialists that have these skills.”

The initial idea of an aggressive route of mandating safety measures and restrictions was aborted as Briggs says “it is not really addressing the problem”.

From the results of a petition it became clear that this was not an effective and popular direction. He added: “You may be mandating a safety inspection for a bike worth, say $1000, but that is only going to adjust people's behaviours. They’ll sell it for $999.99 or strip the bike down and sell parts individually to get around it.”

Instead Cycle Inspect strives to raise awareness of the issue of hidden damage in carbon frames, by informing consumers of both the risks and the solutions. The aim being to shift the mindset from one that is purely reactive (inspections following significant accidents) to preventative with inspections as a critical part of a routine bike service— looking for damage to the frame itself as a sort of health check, alongside traditional checks of components.

Cycle Inspect carbon

71% of riders surveyed by Cycle Inspect were aware of the potential for hidden damage, but only 48% who had been involved in an accident actually had their carbon fibre bike inspected for it.

While 78% of surveyed riders would buy a used bike, for those who wouldn’t, “unsure of history”,  “no warranty” and “no easy/effective way of ensuring quality and safety” were the key reasons why not.

With the local bike mechanic empowered to conduct these standardised tests as part of a larger network of trained (and trusted) inspection specialists, this accessibility to consumers will aid the move towards a preventative system.

Briggs said: “Whilst our focus is centred around the standardisation of inspection methodology and diagnosis, and increasing the accessibility of premium inspection solutions for riders to help reduce the risk of failure; there is a really important link I believe between our mission and the relative inaction of an industry which has not addressed this in any significant way since carbon bikes were introduced in the 70s.

“In essence, we want to arm consumers with the information they need to make better purchase or repair decisions, and build a capability within the industry for premium inspection services to reduce the reliance on manufacturers to drive change in safety standards and rider awareness.”

Briggs likens Cycle Inspect’s carbon bike safety solution to a three legged stool, with manufacturing safety standards being one leg, and the industry training of local bike mechanics and the bike inspection method—for which Cycle Inspect would be responsible—as the other two legs.

“If one of these three elements doesn’t exist, then the whole process falls down,” Briggs says.

Cycle Inspect carbon 3

Although this voluntary MOT solution can be conducted without any input from bike brands, Cycle Inspect's aim is for collaboration and for more brands be involved with its efforts towards improved safety procedures.

Briggs said: “We want to drive change amongst manufacturers for agreement on consistent safety testing procedures and for disclosure of critical safety benchmarks to enable independent safety assessments to be more accurately performed.”

Conversations about industry-standard tests from bike brands is beginning to happen, with, for example, VeloNews reporting Cervélo co-founder Phil White’s call for an industry-standard test for steerer tubes.

He said: “I’m not going to slag anyone, I’m not trying to target anyone, but as an industry I don’t think we’re doing a good job”.

“The reason the brands have different tests and the reason why repairers use different technology is because it is very hard to generate a single, 100 percent accurate approach,” Briggs explains.

“What we are doing is entering that discussion to provide something that is powered by science but with the intention of us learning as we conduct more inspections. The more we undertake, the more intelligent our system will become.

“Over time we can create a really powerful depository of data that can paint a picture around different brands and models, what are the different failure rates, what are the different contributing factors that led to certain types of damage.”

With this solution having direct implications for insurers (in how they diagnosis risk and utilise data to process claims) Cycle Inspect has partnered with the cycling insurance company Velosure.

Joe Fourie, Regional Head at Velosure, said: “Cyclists are exposed to several risks when riding their bicycles, and compromised equipment is one of them.

“We believe that knowledge is power, and if we can all learn more and understand the materials that we ride on and use every day, it will be beneficial for all involved. The Cycling Inspect model could potentially allow cyclists access to peace of mind that their equipment is safe to buy, ride and sell.

“We wish the Cycling Inspect team all the best in their development of this programme and are excited to see the results.”

Cycle Inspect has also received letters of support, including one from cycling commentator Phil Liggett. He said: “The issue of cycling safety is an important one, but is something that needs to broaden beyond driver awareness to bike maintenance and the risks involving in purchasing or riding damaged or defective equipment.

“What Cycle Inspect brings to the industry is a renewed push for higher standards in bicycle maintenance through a structured training and development program targeted at those entrusted to make riders safer on the road – the local bike mechanic.”

www.cycleinspect.com

Add new comment

25 comments

Avatar
Sriracha | 2 years ago
0 likes

Obviously there's been loads more metal frames made than carbon, so no surprise that they have more stories to tell. Without knowing the relative numbers it's all just anecdotes.

So for my part I've had a steel frame come unbrazed at the dropout, another one corrode under the paintwork to the point I would not trust it. My alloy frame cracked at the driveside seat stay to seat tube joint, replaced under warranty. As to my carbon frames, never had one!

Avatar
pete666 | 2 years ago
0 likes

I have been riding a carbon framed bike for 11 years now and no problem. As said by others, it has been the steel and aluminium framed bikes that have given way, usually around the bottom bracket or rear forks for me. Powerful legs plus weighing around 85 Kg takes it's toll! Thankfully I have found the fatigue before it became an incident. The only exception being a case of bad luck with an aluminium framed bike: from a stop, pulled out of a junction, the chain snapped, wrapped itself around the rear derailleur which wrenched it off and bent the rear forks making it completely unrideable!

Avatar
Griff500 | 2 years ago
4 likes

As others have intimated, I am struggling to see that this is a real problem. Our bikes are made of very thin walled material, there ain't much inside! Are we really saying that they can be crashed badly enough to cause internal damage while leaving the exterior totally unmarked?  I note for example that the article is supported by pictures of some very obviously damaged tubes! Where are all the pictures of externally perfect tubes with defects showing up on x-ray? Of course there are many things that can go wrong with carbon fibre at the manufacturing stage which remains invisible, be it a poor resin batch, inadequate cure, wrong layup etc, but I'm not sure the answer is for buyers to instigate their own supplier QC at their own cost. Perhaps a more scientific approach would have been to make some attempt to quantify the problem, for example by telling us how many defects have been picked up by x-ray for which there was no externally visible evidence, before proposing a solution to a problem you have not defined.

   

Avatar
festina | 3 years ago
2 likes

The only people who know how strong your carbon frame is are the manufacturers. Even if defects are found it doesn't mean they are unsafe as some margin for manufacturing defect or damage will be designed for. No frame is ever built perfect and that goes for steel, aluminium and titanium too. Inspect those welds with a microscope and you'll probably find flaws, most of those don't fail without warning either.

Avatar
Dingaling | 3 years ago
3 likes

I've been riding carbon frames and components since 1995 and in all that time I have repeatedly read comments and reports trying to create fear around the use of carbon. I wish they'd give up. I've been bunny hopping my bikes over obstacles that might otherwise slow me down and hammered them over rough tracks and mountain trails and NOTHING has ever broken or given me the impression that it wasn't up to the task. Tough stuff is carbon.

Avatar
Nick T | 3 years ago
2 likes

Better buy a brand new bike and keep the site sponsors happy! Oops I mean stay safe 

Avatar
Miller | 3 years ago
2 likes

I'm with NZ Vegan Rider on this, carbon things are much tougher than reading the cycle interwebz would have you believe. I've had a few carbon frames. I damaged the top tube of one in a crash when the bars swung round and smacked it, so I had that one repaired. They've all been great and gave me no issues.

But I've had two steel frames and one titanium frame crack terminally.

Avatar
matthewn5 replied to Miller | 3 years ago
2 likes

Agree, the only failure I've experienced in riding - and misusing - bikes since 1965 was a tiny crack in an alloy frame. It didn't even fail.

Focus on the elephant in the room - bad road design and bad driving is what's killing and maiming our fellow cyclists, not carbon frames.

Avatar
NZ Vegan Rider | 3 years ago
5 likes

I've had nearly 100 road bikes - most in the last 7/8 years.

Only two were new.

Almost all carbon frames. I've only ridden/kept & sold perhaps 35 of them (I buy and sell / build up and sell). 

I've never had one fail on me or had someone contact me to say a carbon framed bike they'd bought off me had failed. 

I've trained and raced with people who've crashed their carbon bikes and generally they'd show up again the next week with the same bike and it would be fine. 

Carbon is pretty resilient  3

Avatar
John N | 3 years ago
0 likes

Not a problem with my TT steel Trek 950 (1993) or my old Peugeot PKN10 501 (1975).  I remember early aluminium failures on mountain bikes and steered clear of them but I think the Giant CSX300 hybrid is doing O.K.  Might be in my box before I consider carbon.

Avatar
froze | 3 years ago
0 likes

There is a reason I would never buy a new carbon fiber bike, but I would have to be insane to buy a used one!  Why you all scream?  like the article says you should have it scanned for damage, ok, the freaking inspection fees range from $300 dollars for the frame only up to $450 for the frame and fork, plus if you want a more detailed look you have to pay for it be ultrasound tested and that cost $140 per 15 minutes, plus you have to pay for shipping both ways, and having the bike fully dismantled unless you do that yourself, but you could be out at least $650 for that inspection. And if you find a problem, well you already bought the bike and you would be in for a big fight with the seller to refund your money, and if you bought it privately you're not going to see a dime of the money you spent back.

Avatar
matthewn5 replied to froze | 3 years ago
4 likes

Oh come off it. The real problem killing and injuring cyclists is bad driving, and that's where the focus on safety needs to lie.

If carbon frame failures were a real problem then the newspapers - and Road.cc - would be full of horror stories of cyclists maimed by bikes collapsing. They aren't, because they aren't.

Avatar
fwhite181 | 3 years ago
5 likes

I think this is worth a read too: Don’t be afraid of Carbon, it’s stronger than you think (yellowjersey.co.uk) From an insurance company that stands to lose terrifying amounts of money if it says 'that bike's safe' and somebody crashes.

Carbon does give shedloads of warning if you actually check your bike. Almost all the 'JRL' failures on record and that I've ever seen (referenced in endless internet debates - I only know one person whose frame has ever 'failed') are caused by alloy bonded to carbon (e.g. alloy steerers glued to carbon fork blades). The carbon doesn't fail, the join does. A friend had their steerer 'fail' while 'just riding along'. They'd slammed the stem on a carbon steerer, putting the clamping area below the expansion bung. It didn't 'just fail', it was broken because they didn't know how to look after a carbon frame. Carbon does not fatigue like steel/alloy and so the traditional 'snap at a joint' failure that kills off most metal bikes really doesn't happen to carbon. I'm not saying they don't fail, but carbon frames don't fail without warningMost JRL failures of carbon can be tracked to over-torqued bolts or the good old fashioned 'drive into the garage with the bike on the roof rack' trick.

Avatar
PRSboy | 3 years ago
0 likes

Whats the general feeling about buying second hand carbon wheels?  Madness or a potentially good way to bag a cheaper set?

Avatar
Ginsterdrz | 3 years ago
2 likes

Very poor article. FACT: more people have been injured or killed on aluminium and steel frames.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Ginsterdrz | 3 years ago
1 like

It may be a FACT, but it's not a particularly meaningful one, given that time periods, population sizes, uses, etc., etc. are not the same.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
2 likes

I was generous: I thought it was some sort of humour based on the capitalisation.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

Fair enough - could've been. If it was, it's probably a bit too good - needs some clues to distinguish it from the genuine fundamentalist loons. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

If only we could drill into people's comments, all would be revealed.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 3 years ago
0 likes

From what I've heard Carbon frames do give warning. Forks, not so much.
Aluminium is probably worse, cracking at the welds suddenly.

Avatar
Welsh boy | 3 years ago
2 likes

I have been riding for 47 years and the only frame I have seen fail without warning was a Reynolds steel frame, my friend's downtube broke completely without any warning.  So, come on Anna, do the same article for steel, aluminium and titanium frames now, they can all have hidden defects when bought second hand (or new for that matter).

Avatar
sparrowlegs | 3 years ago
1 like

I love watching Leuscher Teknik videos on YT. He's called out several large manufacturers for bad designs (Cervelo and BMC spring to mind) and he regularly cuts up frames to show how good/bad the cycle industry is at QC. He regularly says no one brand are particularly bad but the better ones just have really good QC which catches the bad frames before they get sold. 

Avatar
msackman replied to sparrowlegs | 3 years ago
0 likes

Yep. Which rather suggests:

> If you've bought a used carbon-fibre bike, are you certain that the frame and fork are safe?

applies just as much to new frames as 2nd hand frames!

Avatar
EK Spinner replied to sparrowlegs | 3 years ago
0 likes

QC is indeed the big difference, one of the reasons I have stayed away from the unbranded market, particularly the ones that look very like big name brands, are they simply frames that have failed inspection and been shipped out the factory in a skip.
There should be (and probably is) prcedures in place to ensure they are rendered useless priot to leaving for dispsal or recycling but we all know these won't always be followed
 

* I have no evidence to proove this is happening anywhere, just a worry of mine that it might be

Avatar
Smoggysteve replied to EK Spinner | 3 years ago
0 likes

I remember seeing an article about carbon frame waste. It showed a picture of a yard full of Giant bike frames that had failed QC for various reasons. They occasionally end up on the black market unbranded - they are yet to be painted or have any decals put on them. For most they could probably be perfectly rideable but they fail a very strict QC check. The Cheap carbon factory up the road knocking out bikes that sell on Ali express don't really follow these strict checks and so any frame you get could have any number of issues that may degrade over time until snap!

Latest Comments