In Part 2 of this examination of off-the-shelf carbon I ended the post with a question about who actually tests carbon bikes and parts, and how are the tests administered. Let's get on with it...
Compliance Testing: The majority of reputable cycling companies that sell carbon products into the market elect to test to the EN standards. The EN standards come from Europe and are currently the toughest compliance standards in the world. But, if you only sell into the US market you don't have to go that route. The CPSC standards for bicycle products are much easier to pass, and in some cases are virtually non-existent.
The EN standards exist to insure, as much as they can, consumer safety and fitness-for-use of the products we use every day. This includes bicycles and their associated parts. There are specific compliance standards for everything from handlebars to stems, frames to forks and so on. Within each compliance standard are the specific tests required to determine compliance. And this is where things can get wonky. This is where I should tell you that there are no material specific accommodations outlined in the standards at this time. If you think this is a problem, it sure is. Carbon is not steel, and steel is not aluminum.
How tests are administered (the fixtures used) is open to interpretation, which is also a challenge. And in many cases a brand can use more than one product to gain compliance. What I mean is that if there are six tests required to determine compliance for a bicycle frame, the manufacturer can use one frame for each test - not one frame to pass all six tests. Ok, don't get alarmed yet. Again, these tests where largely developed with aluminum frames in mind and it's very difficult to get any one carbon frame to survive the tests back to back to back. The frontal impact test alone fatigues the frame so much that surviving the remaining tests is very tough.
Using one frame for each test is perfectly acceptable, to be honest. That said, the testing standards allow you to test just one size, too. Huh? Yes, you can take your 54cm road frame, make six of them and use one frame for each test to qualify the entire size-run as compliant. The more reputable brands demand more, and test every size and will do everything they can to have any one frame pass as many tests as they can back to back to back.
When I helped launch a certain carbon bicycle brand we spent a lot of time and money testing frames. We pushed for one frame to pass all the compliance tests back to back to back, which was virtually impossible after the abuse the frame took in each preceding test. Carbon isn't aluminum, and the tests are designed around aluminum. We were close, but adding weight to reinforce certain areas so we could achieve our goal wasn't reasonable to remain competitive in the marketplace. So, we had to understand that after all the abuse the frame took, which resulted in more fatigue than any reasonable human could produce, not passing the final test was acceptable in our back to back scenario. So, we tested for frontal impact with a separate frame and it passed. In my mind, we went above and beyond what the testing protocols required; most reputable brands do.
Based on how the frame molds were being produced when I help launch a certain carbon bike brand, we had medium and large frames first, which passed testing. Now, with passing results on two sizes we could infer based on logic and experience that the small and extra-large sizes of this particular frame would be compliant. We were also only required to pass one size to determine compliance for the full size-run. But, we tested the small and extra-large sizes anyway, because it was the right thing to do.
So, who determines if these products are safe and where are they tested? Another question that's tricky to answer. A company can elect to self-certify the carbon products they produce. Depending on the company that might be perfectly acceptable, if they're known to be ethical and beyond reproach. In this case, an ethical manufacturer who self certifies will have tons of documentation around their procedures that show's complete transparency. In my experience, there are only a handful of carbon manufacturers in Asia the industry trusts to self certify their products; it's not the norm. Many companies will have their products sent to an independent third-party lab to be tested. This is better, but go back and read what I wrote about the testing protocols and numbers of samples a company can use to determine compliance.
.jpg)
Wrap-Up: When you ask why some carbon products cost more than others, it has a lot to do with the costs of development and testing. You can be sure that the bigger brands are testing each and every size of a given carbon model. They don't have to according to the standards, but they do it because they're committed to producing high-quality, safe and reliable products. When you buy a Colnago, a Trek, a Santa Cruz or any other reputable brands' carbon bike (including some off-the-shelf brands) the price you pay includes a lot of broken frames and development costs that are incurred over months, if not years. This is worth paying for folks. This is your piece of mind.
Remember our Ford Mustang example. It's what's under the hood that matters. Two bicycle brands might share the same mold, but that doesn't mean they're made the same, tested the same or developed the same. Different grades of carbon, different lay-ups, adherence to compliance testing protocols, demanding all frame sizes be tested for compliance and so on. They might look the same, but can be as different as night and day.
Using one frame for each test is perfectly acceptable, to be honest. That said, the testing standards allow you to test just one size, too. Huh? Yes, you can take your 54cm road frame, make six of them and use one frame for each test to qualify the entire size-run as compliant. The more reputable brands demand more, and test every size and will do everything they can to have any one frame pass as many tests as they can back to back to back.
When I helped launch a certain carbon bicycle brand we spent a lot of time and money testing frames. We pushed for one frame to pass all the compliance tests back to back to back, which was virtually impossible after the abuse the frame took in each preceding test. Carbon isn't aluminum, and the tests are designed around aluminum. We were close, but adding weight to reinforce certain areas so we could achieve our goal wasn't reasonable to remain competitive in the marketplace. So, we had to understand that after all the abuse the frame took, which resulted in more fatigue than any reasonable human could produce, not passing the final test was acceptable in our back to back scenario. So, we tested for frontal impact with a separate frame and it passed. In my mind, we went above and beyond what the testing protocols required; most reputable brands do.
Based on how the frame molds were being produced when I help launch a certain carbon bike brand, we had medium and large frames first, which passed testing. Now, with passing results on two sizes we could infer based on logic and experience that the small and extra-large sizes of this particular frame would be compliant. We were also only required to pass one size to determine compliance for the full size-run. But, we tested the small and extra-large sizes anyway, because it was the right thing to do.
So, who determines if these products are safe and where are they tested? Another question that's tricky to answer. A company can elect to self-certify the carbon products they produce. Depending on the company that might be perfectly acceptable, if they're known to be ethical and beyond reproach. In this case, an ethical manufacturer who self certifies will have tons of documentation around their procedures that show's complete transparency. In my experience, there are only a handful of carbon manufacturers in Asia the industry trusts to self certify their products; it's not the norm. Many companies will have their products sent to an independent third-party lab to be tested. This is better, but go back and read what I wrote about the testing protocols and numbers of samples a company can use to determine compliance.
.jpg)
Wrap-Up: When you ask why some carbon products cost more than others, it has a lot to do with the costs of development and testing. You can be sure that the bigger brands are testing each and every size of a given carbon model. They don't have to according to the standards, but they do it because they're committed to producing high-quality, safe and reliable products. When you buy a Colnago, a Trek, a Santa Cruz or any other reputable brands' carbon bike (including some off-the-shelf brands) the price you pay includes a lot of broken frames and development costs that are incurred over months, if not years. This is worth paying for folks. This is your piece of mind. Remember our Ford Mustang example. It's what's under the hood that matters. Two bicycle brands might share the same mold, but that doesn't mean they're made the same, tested the same or developed the same. Different grades of carbon, different lay-ups, adherence to compliance testing protocols, demanding all frame sizes be tested for compliance and so on. They might look the same, but can be as different as night and day.
Now, I need to be careful not to imply that carbon frames and parts you can by on Ebay or the private label frame from an online retailer aren't safe. In my experience, it depends on who the manufacturer is behind those products. There are some very good carbon manufacturers that do due diligence to make sure their products are safe. And then there are some manufacturers that cut corners to save a buck.
Let me cut to the chase. As a consumer you need to have your eyes wide open when you're buying cycling products, especially carbon fiber. Ask the questions that need to be asked, and if the retailer or brand can't answer them...buyer beware. I'd also be wary of any testing documentation that's written in Chinese. Testing documents written in Chinese may be perfectly legitimate, but a reputable company selling carbon bicycle products to you will have done the work to insure the source manufacturer has done their job and provided documentation in English - the language here in America.
I hope this helps and gets you thinking about why things cost what they do, and why that might actually matter. I didn't go into how frame weights and the consumers quest for reduced weight plays into all of this; that'll have to wait for another day. Nor, did I get into the specifics of components. Again, that's a big topic on its own. My goal was to get you thinking about the cost of things and what goes into it. Big brands aren't ripping you off, and you're not paying for big marketing campaigns.
Send me an email or post a comment if you have any questions or feedback.
I hope this helps and gets you thinking about why things cost what they do, and why that might actually matter. I didn't go into how frame weights and the consumers quest for reduced weight plays into all of this; that'll have to wait for another day. Nor, did I get into the specifics of components. Again, that's a big topic on its own. My goal was to get you thinking about the cost of things and what goes into it. Big brands aren't ripping you off, and you're not paying for big marketing campaigns.
Send me an email or post a comment if you have any questions or feedback.
No comments:
Post a Comment