Do not, kids I repeat, do not...drop your bike!

I'm not really sure I understand the point of the pictures of the Pani's with the front end ripped off - what does that have to do with the frame? Would a trellis or aluminum belt frame somehow have a stronger triple?

Also, the original remarks about wrecks was not over which would sustain more damage (an argument that could only be full of anecdotes and no real conclusions anyway) but rather how to be sure structural integrity was not compromised.

Jello said:

I'm not really sure I understand the point of the pictures of the Pani's with the front end ripped off - what does that have to do with the frame? Would a trellis or aluminum belt frame somehow have a stronger triple?

Click to expand...

Maybe.

Originally Posted by Jello
I'm not really sure I understand the point of the pictures of the Pani's with the front end ripped off - what does that have to do with the frame? Would a trellis or aluminum belt frame somehow have a stronger triple?

yes the triple in trellis is stronger since it is part of the frame vs an airbox section bolted onto engine.

the issue is strength over time w/ a carbon frame a la magnesium wheels that developed cracks not visible to the naked eye, though in this case w/ the epoxy breakdown + vibration, potholes, wheelies, etc. over time. (mountain bikes dont have engines hanging off of them.)


ps i need me a new 2015 R....

I know BST suggests you send your CF wheels back to them and have them xray'ed every year.

I wonder if there would be a similar suggestion/requirement for frames.

Chaotic said:

I know BST suggests you send your CF wheels back to them and have them xray'ed every year.

I wonder if there would be a similar suggestion/requirement for frames.

Click to expand...

that is precisely what i am talking about a la magnesium wheelz;.. .

Ford is going to be selling street wheels for the new GT350R that are CF. That's a huge step forward in CF tech in the automotive world. Wheels are going to take massive hits on pot holes, curbs, etc. The thought of a CF subframe or frame doesn't bother me any more than the thought of CF wheels...and I'd ride on CF wheels.

My only concern is price. All the R&D they are doing for this will surely drive up the price.
The S1000 RR is hard to beat considering they have R level parts for what? ....$10k less?

slickwill said:

Ford is going to be selling street wheels for the new GT350R that are CF. That's a huge step forward in CF tech in the automotive world. Wheels are going to take massive hits on pot holes, curbs, etc. The thought of a CF subframe or frame doesn't bother me any more than the thought of CF wheels...and I'd ride on CF wheels.

Click to expand...

wouldnt b surprised if Ford has u sign release for said cf wheelz..

I'm never buying a 675...

http://youtu.be/LoeLoUh5KtA

You low side then get up and find there's no more bike! Hah, that's my luck!

A few points:

-It's stupid to compare motorcycle durability in cartwheel crashes. Especially sportbikes. Any bike that can gain a significant advantage in such a crash is going to be a fat pig, or a weightless 250cc machine.

-just about any sportbike under 400 pounds is going to be using lightweight materials, and just plain can't be engineered for tumbling crashes.

-many chassis seem to connect the engine to the fork. The swingarm still seems to connect to the engine on alot of bikes I've sampled. So that's half way Panigale anyways.

-My carbon mountain bike is more durable than any of my steel or Al bikes.

-aluminum frames snap like a twig in such a hard hit as a carttwheel. Keep in mind, Al is brittle. Carbon fibre can be very flexible.

-Carbon can be bonded to aluminum Truss's. Look up Cannondales early Raven bikes:

My Raven was indestructable. But it always had the illusion of cracking in half at any moment. Any creek from the pedals or bottom bracket was amplified through the large diameter frame like a guitar. Was very loud sometimes. The center of the bike is and aluminum casting.

It's glued together!!!!:




There's a ton of weird science involved with carbon. Don't underestimate it. If bikes didn't get so warm, I'd expect to see more polymer parts as well.


-carbon doesn't bend permanently. It can flex way more than metal and spring back. When you bend it too much, it breaks. It's convenient actually. No worries about riding a bent bike, it'll always be perfectly straight or cracked.

-IME carbon always seems to crack obviously. I haven't seen a carbon tube be damaged on the inside, without being damaged on the outside. So hopefully no Xray testing needed.

-A Panigale does indeed seem to survive simple low sides very well. Too bad that even slight damage can total a Panigale quickly. Those spare parts are $$$$$. As long as the engine is solid, and the front triangle is straight, bike should be repairable. Too bad when I start pricing everything, it's often a totaled bike. Swing arms seem cheap for some reason. I think I'll buy a used Kaw or Suz WERA race bike for track days when I'm less of a novice.

-The Pani needs a carbon swing arm. That's the future IMO. Easy to adjust flex.

-Airbus is going out of biz. And their customers seem to be buying 747's not 777's. (I think the new 747 has an Al wing still) So hopefully the cost of carbon comes down some more. When Airbus and the Boeing 777 ramped up production, the price of carbon for bikes and kayaks sky rocketed.

-If BMW would just switch to a V4, they wouldn't need a frame at all. Not sure who the next monocoque bike will be.

I've no doubts about carbon fiber, love the advancement.
All have great points here, pros and cons. But keep in mind, fiberous has worked for nature, millions of years. Trees are a perfect example. Wood is used in many applications for it's strength, durability and flexibility. I've yet to think of any car, bike or motorcycle that'll go head to head vs tree and win. Carbon fiber applies the same principles, specifically engineered flexibility and strength.
Wish Apple had made my Macbook Air out of carbon fiber

3D printing is where its at.

F1 motorsports team have for a while now printing prototype parts, bolting them onto cars and doing live testing.
One of the Nascar engine builders printed a series of High temp plastic manifolds, direct bolted them onto a test engine then dynoed. After each run, a slight design change was done, new manifold printed and repeated 7x in one day.

Also F1 have been testing new titanium/ceramic carbon fibre exhaust manifolds.
(their attempt at CF conrods wasnt a great success in the late 90's)

CF conrods is bound to fail.. CF isn't exactly known for high tensile strength CF+kevlar (or other high tensile composite) could work, if you can get it to withstand the working envionment..

TurboLag said:

CF conrods is bound to fail.. CF isn't exactly known for high tensile strength CF+kevlar (or other high tensile composite) could work, if you can get it to withstand the working envionment..

Click to expand...

Next to Boron, carbon fiber reinforced polymers have a higher tensile modulus and strength than any other composite...whether IM7 33M modulus or 80M modulus fiber. The issue is a low fracture toughness (strain rate vs cycles), and creep of the resin system (heat deflection). Eventually thermal mechanical fatigue wins.

The other issue is fiber orientation and joints / fasteners. Once you embed the fiber, put the fiber orientations in the right place, and add hard points for fasteners, you're basically at the stiffness of aluminum with 15-20 less weight and about 10x the cost.

Also remember, carbon fiber composites have 45-60% fiber volume fraction, which means half of the component is plastic!!!!!!!!

Carbon-Sic or Carbon-Carbon materials have even less fracture toughness.

Just use Titanium. It's half the weight (and stiffness) of steel and has very good strength and fatigue properties, and lends itself to low cost mfg.

I own a Co that designs composite weapon systems for the U.S. DoD.

Ponyboy said:

Next to Boron, carbon fiber reinforced polymers have a higher tensile modulus and strength than any other composite...whether IM7 33M modulus or 80M modulus fiber. The issue is a low fracture toughness (strain rate vs cycles), and creep of the resin system (heat deflection). Eventually thermal mechanical fatigue wins.

The other issue is fiber orientation and joints / fasteners. Once you embed the fiber, put the fiber orientations in the right place, and add hard points for fasteners, you're basically at the stiffness of aluminum with 15-20 less weight and about 10x the cost.

Also remember, carbon fiber composites have 45-60% fiber volume fraction, which means half of the component is plastic!!!!!!!!

Carbon-Sic or Carbon-Carbon materials have even less fracture toughness.

Just use Titanium. It's half the weight (and stiffness) of steel and has very good strength and fatigue properties, and lends itself to low cost mfg.

I own a Co that designs composite weapon systems for the U.S. DoD.

Click to expand...

yes & that hot engine re heat deflection hanging off the cf frame is a disaster waiting to happen, over time/cycles..

Indiana Jones said:

Structural integrity could easily be comprised. As it relates to carbon fiber bicycle frames...you drop them, you buy a new bike. Won't fair well with the BMW track boys...

Click to expand...

As a bicycle shop owner, I know 1st hand you are substantially off regarding the crashworthiness of todays carbon bicycle. The things are bulletproof. You must be one of the 6 people worldwide still stuck in the 80's new carbon fear cycle.

That said, comparing bicycles and bikes regarding structural carbon is like apples and bananas. Different, and much greater forces on a motorcycle. I have no doubt there will be some early growing pains.....but they will figure it out.