Joined
·
461 Posts
I'm an aerospace engineer. Carbon fiber composites are wonderful structural materials. On bikes and cars they are being used as trim.
What's the attraction?
-Don
What's the attraction?
-Don
Carbon
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
It's lighter trim!
Besides, it looks cool ;D
Seriously though, consider a fairing on a bike. It has to be rigid enough to hold it's aerodynamic shap at high speed and, if you're racing, it has to be light. CF has the structural rigidity necessary and is lighter than Aluminum, fiberglass or plastic.
Non race bikes? It's bling. We know that. But it's appeal is based on real utility on race bikes.
Besides, it looks cool ;D
Seriously though, consider a fairing on a bike. It has to be rigid enough to hold it's aerodynamic shap at high speed and, if you're racing, it has to be light. CF has the structural rigidity necessary and is lighter than Aluminum, fiberglass or plastic.
Non race bikes? It's bling. We know that. But it's appeal is based on real utility on race bikes.
G
Guest
·man the word "bling" sure has made it deep into the american vocabulary.
I think the attraction to CF is simple, it just looks good.
It might be asked why do harley riders insist on slapping chrome on everything within reach, and some parts that are not?
I think the attraction to CF is simple, it just looks good.
It might be asked why do harley riders insist on slapping chrome on everything within reach, and some parts that are not?
G
Guest
·[No message]
Joined
·
196 Posts
Too much of a good thing can be bad. Please use in moderation are good words to live by, well at least for carbon "bling".
Buz.
Buz.
G
Guest
·Carbon and Titanium are like crack for those that still want to dump weight and have no personal flesh-poundage to lose....power-to-weight ratio can be a dreadfully expensive addiction
I like the look of carbon, especially with my yellow bike.
I agree that is mostly a trickle-down asthetic from race bikes, but even there it is mostly for weight savings.
Ever seen a Ducati Supermono up close? They use carbon structurally - rear subframe, footpeg/brackets. Of course, the Supermono is an EXPENSIVE race bike.
I agree that is mostly a trickle-down asthetic from race bikes, but even there it is mostly for weight savings.
Ever seen a Ducati Supermono up close? They use carbon structurally - rear subframe, footpeg/brackets. Of course, the Supermono is an EXPENSIVE race bike.
G
Guest
·I just love hearing about a 5'9" 240 pound guy shedding "ounces" from his bike for higher performance! Hey Lardass!? Ever hear of a treadmill!? ;D
Joined
·
461 Posts
Hey Herb! I resemble that remark. 'Cept I don't worry about ounces too much on the bike or myself.
I do worry about that stuff on aviation gas turbine engines, though. Those things are designed to weight limits, and we use CF, titanium, magnesium and aluminum depending on what the component requirements are, and we've worked with carbon-carbon and ceramics as well. The difference is that a) cost is no object; and b) weight really is important.
When it comes to bikes, if weight reduction is the issue, then one starts with heavy stuff and takes it off or replaces it. Exhaust stuff. Non-essential plumbing and electrics. Wheels. Controls. By the time fractions of ounces are costing $$hundreds, the cost-benefit curve has gone non-rational. Replacing a plastic feather with a CF one for weight reduction is silly. Throw that plastic away instead.
The gas tank may actually make some sense dollar for pound (or pound for gram). I'd have to paint it too, though.
But I won't consider the gym. If power to weight were really all that important to me, I'd have bought a lighter bike with three times the power.
It's more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow.
-Don
I do worry about that stuff on aviation gas turbine engines, though. Those things are designed to weight limits, and we use CF, titanium, magnesium and aluminum depending on what the component requirements are, and we've worked with carbon-carbon and ceramics as well. The difference is that a) cost is no object; and b) weight really is important.
When it comes to bikes, if weight reduction is the issue, then one starts with heavy stuff and takes it off or replaces it. Exhaust stuff. Non-essential plumbing and electrics. Wheels. Controls. By the time fractions of ounces are costing $$hundreds, the cost-benefit curve has gone non-rational. Replacing a plastic feather with a CF one for weight reduction is silly. Throw that plastic away instead.
The gas tank may actually make some sense dollar for pound (or pound for gram). I'd have to paint it too, though.
But I won't consider the gym. If power to weight were really all that important to me, I'd have bought a lighter bike with three times the power.
It's more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow.
-Don
G
Guest
·I'm really starting to like this D. guy! ;D
G
Guest
·G
Guest
·Dennis, I'm afraid I'm about as subtle as a bulldozer in a china store! I thought billet was for the Hardley Ableson guys? ;D
G
Guest
·I guess I would be a Harley guy. But I like to go fast and drag my knee more then I like to polish the bike. With the monster I get the option to make it a bad ass street fighter and still get to do track days on it. Its teh best of both worlds. As since I shoot tract days just about every weekend between March and November. Having the Monster along looks great and gives me the chance to get a few sessions in each day.
G
Guest
·Dennis' where do you normally shoot?
Gotta agree with you on that one....though I most prefer riding a fast bike fast.
Lighter parts may make the bike faster, but dollar for dollar, I expect spending the money on improving the skill of the 'nut between the seat and handlebars' yields the biggest benefits.
G
Guest
·
Joined
·
403 Posts
Kinda funny but I really did not care for CF on my bikes until I bought my S4, now suddenly it looks really hot. ;D
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!