Location:
Santa Cruz, California, United States 
More Videos by larock
-
-
Mark Matthews' Freeride Line - Sweat Equity
81903 views
-
-
48007 views
-
-
48436 views
-
-
Dean Tennant - Spring Cleaning
106665 views
-
-
Richie Schley - Made in Taiwan
55898 views
-
-
Brendan Howey - Island Winter V.2.0
244220 views
-
-
16206 views
-
-
Gee Atherton's first ride on the GT Fury
127131 views
-
-
Blacked out to Stop SOPA. Thanks for watching.
40597 views
-
-
39318 views
-
-
65221 views
-
-
42649 views
-
-
Mark Matthews - Fall chromag edit
50788 views
-
-
Strahan of the Dead - Behind the Scenes
11177 views
-
-
93315 views
-
-
1656 views
-
-
23549 views
-
-
Tara Llanes Classic Day 2 Recap
17148 views
Pinkbike Visits The Santa Cruz Test Lab
You need to upgrade your Flash Player
Click here to install it
Click here to install it
Pinkbike Visits The Santa Cruz Test Lab
[Reply]
it would be interesting to see these tests done with frames from other manufacturers and see how they compare
My only concern is that, while the breaking point of the carbon frames was very high compared to the aluminum ones, the failure mode was much more catastrophic than with the aluminum frames. Rather than somewhat gradually crumpling, the carbon frames just snapped when they finally gave way. Ultimately this is just something that leaves me thinking and wanting to learn some more physics/engineering!
Yeah - with the aluminum you can see the point of plastic deformation, at that point the force has maxed yet the material can still strain - safe yet unfixable shape change. The carbon is just a catastrophic chain reaction between all the fibers.... still would love to have a carbon though 
wow,so rigid, no eye protection while splitting carbon.?...ehhhhhh im going to send the boys at santa cruz 2 pairs of saftey goggles,i know it sounds lame but eyes dont grow back.
[Reply]
During the JRA test, you can hear the weave separating and popping at 800 lbs or so. That's irreparable damage, folks. Also, all it takes is a chip, and your frame will begin to unravel. Carbon is great, sure, but it's not the wonder material these guys are making it out to be.
During the JRA test, you can see the aluminum is starting to deform at well under 1000lbs. That's irreparable damage too. All it takes is a small crack and the frame will begin to unravel... aluminum is great, sure, but it's not the wonder material everyone thinks it is.
I think what people are forgetting is that carbon is lighter and rides nicer. It has great characteristics on its own merit. So whether or not it is stronger than aluminum is really a secondary concern. If it is exactly on par, we have a winner. If it is even 10% weaker, then I think the benefits still outweigh the disadvantage. But I don't think that's the case; I'm pretty convinced it is at least on par, or slightly to significantly stronger.
It seem like for carbon to be a winner in most people's eyes, it has to be twice as strong, half as heavy and survive whatever any hack can throw at it. Well, that is not going to happen. Instead what we are getting is aluminum frames that are lighter than their predecessors and they dent easily and all the carbon haters call that progress.
Perhaps aluminum is better at surviving certain situations. But there is little doubt that carbon is better at other situations. End result? Probably a similar overall chance you will break your frame as before, except it's now lighter and rides better. And the carbon V10 costs the same as the old Aluminum one did. I've broken a total of 5 frames including an aluminum V10 and have not yet broken a carbon one, but I will give it an honest try.
I think what people are forgetting is that carbon is lighter and rides nicer. It has great characteristics on its own merit. So whether or not it is stronger than aluminum is really a secondary concern. If it is exactly on par, we have a winner. If it is even 10% weaker, then I think the benefits still outweigh the disadvantage. But I don't think that's the case; I'm pretty convinced it is at least on par, or slightly to significantly stronger.
It seem like for carbon to be a winner in most people's eyes, it has to be twice as strong, half as heavy and survive whatever any hack can throw at it. Well, that is not going to happen. Instead what we are getting is aluminum frames that are lighter than their predecessors and they dent easily and all the carbon haters call that progress.
Perhaps aluminum is better at surviving certain situations. But there is little doubt that carbon is better at other situations. End result? Probably a similar overall chance you will break your frame as before, except it's now lighter and rides better. And the carbon V10 costs the same as the old Aluminum one did. I've broken a total of 5 frames including an aluminum V10 and have not yet broken a carbon one, but I will give it an honest try.
my physics isnt great....BUT when you double the height wont the force be 4 times greater??? IF im right (and im not sure) that would make that test even more impressive
You have to calculate the speed of the impact using gravitational constant. Ignoring air resistance, after 450mm the weight would be falling at 2.96 meters per second but after 900mm it would be falling at 4.2 meters per second. Which would mean the force would be 1.42 times greater. I hope I didn't leave anything crucial out.
There's a lot of creaking before it actually snaps, is the frame still structurally sound if stressed hard, but below breaking point? At least several manufacturers won't warranty carbon frames that are clamped in a bike carrier - no good at resisting crushing forces as opposed to compression, so they are a pain to transport.
---owner of a carbon bike and an Alu one.
---owner of a carbon bike and an Alu one.
I really think this video will be looked back as a milestone in the history of the bike frames materials. Thank you Santa Cruz & PinkBike for the enlightenment.
HOLY SHIT, i could not do that to a frame or i may could if frames were free. i alwas say that carbon is the worst material for a bike, i see it handle and beat all the tests, but why i say carbpn do not work and hope someone give me the answer.
i always think that when a carbon frame hits a rock it may not looks like is broken or crack, but how about inside the frame it may cracks, i think thats is like a window if you hit it in a point with a rock lets say, not only where the rocks hits window breaks, it expands on the rest of it, doesnt happen the same to carbon?... that concrete test was brutal very eye opening, i just wonder that.
i always think that when a carbon frame hits a rock it may not looks like is broken or crack, but how about inside the frame it may cracks, i think thats is like a window if you hit it in a point with a rock lets say, not only where the rocks hits window breaks, it expands on the rest of it, doesnt happen the same to carbon?... that concrete test was brutal very eye opening, i just wonder that.
unless your name is josh bender i think you will struggle to get anywhere near that sort of impact riding your bike, looks pretty bombproof to me.
Completely agree with Jiffla, I recently purchased a nomad carbon myself. Never going back as long as I have the funds to keep myself on carbon. I had the same inhibitions but then I realized you know? I like to think of myself as a good rider but in retrospect I probably will never be able to put my bikes through the same fatigue that a pro rider who's riding at the highest level will and bikes these days stand up to that, especially carbon bikes.
Can anyone show me a picture of a smashed GT FURY? it looks bulletproof and I have not yet be able to find a broken frame image on the web. Is it the strongest carbon DH frame in market so far?
My carbon Blur LT is the best bike I have ever owned. Super stiff yet doesn't transmit the small stuff. Pretty freakin' amazing
The frames undergo a series of tests, this one in particular is to represent a jump casing. There are other tests that would simulate more typical types of fatigue, they're just not as fun to watch.
Way to go with faux engineering. Biggest piece of marketing concocted BS i have literally seen.
1st test, strain rate is not representative of real life, why even pay for the equipment to bother?
2nd test, does actually show the drawbacks of aluminium as a material, its poor fracture toughness. Though get a steel frame into the same test, we'd soon see whose fracture toughness is better, steel or carbon. though the quality, composition, orientation, heat treatment of the aluminuim is not known. We are also not just comparing material properties, we are also comparing designs, an aluminuim frame designed in such a way could attain the same values in this test as a carbon frame. For engineering design, how can you actually use this data? By this i mean what equations or values can you actually develop as an engineering aid? It's only benefit is marketing! these tests aren't conclusive of which is a better material to go with. (i'm not anti carbon, give me a carbon frame any day of the week, i just don't like the manner in which this video is misleading).
1st test, strain rate is not representative of real life, why even pay for the equipment to bother?
2nd test, does actually show the drawbacks of aluminium as a material, its poor fracture toughness. Though get a steel frame into the same test, we'd soon see whose fracture toughness is better, steel or carbon. though the quality, composition, orientation, heat treatment of the aluminuim is not known. We are also not just comparing material properties, we are also comparing designs, an aluminuim frame designed in such a way could attain the same values in this test as a carbon frame. For engineering design, how can you actually use this data? By this i mean what equations or values can you actually develop as an engineering aid? It's only benefit is marketing! these tests aren't conclusive of which is a better material to go with. (i'm not anti carbon, give me a carbon frame any day of the week, i just don't like the manner in which this video is misleading).
I understand what your saying but I don't find the video all that misleading. They wern't claiming these as accurate to the core engineering tests. It was simply showing the difference between two equivalent frame designs with two different materials. The data wasn't meant to compare outside of Santa Cruz, just show that -their- carbon frames can take more punishment than -their- alu. frames.
@ FBM-BMX: "These tests aren't conclusive of which is a better material to go with"??? Did we just watch the same video? Im sorry but if you can make a lighter, stronger frame with the same exact geometry (carbon vs. aluminum), why would you not? You state that an aluminum frame could be designed in such a way that can attain the same test results... yeah you could. But your frame would be 10 pounds heavier. Marketing gimmick? These are some of the ways that frame design is tested (minus the smashing into concrete corner). I realize the free weight drop seems a little jury-rigged, but even though there are no wires and sensors hooked up engineers are still gaining purposeful knowledge. Just accept the fact that carbon is f*cking awesome. I mean what other way would you want to portray carbon vs. aluminum? This video addresses nearly every one of carbon sceptic's main arguments. Square edge hits, hard impacts on head tube, slow compression placed on head tube...
It should also be noted that these are just two of their many tests. We showed tests that would be interested and dramatic on video. Their fatigue tests, while maybe more representative of more typical everyday riding abuse, aren't nearly as interesting to watch and we would have been there for a very long time watching nothing happen.
I was wasted at the time of writing that, i did somewhat over-react. I guess this video is good for shaking off the fear of breaking carbon for the masses. Carbon is an worthy avenue for MTB frames to go.
I just saw the tests as mickey mouse, tests that riders pockets are funding. I was hoping for more.
I just saw the tests as mickey mouse, tests that riders pockets are funding. I was hoping for more.
But the last guy did break it a bit just before the Pass sign came up at the end?
Maybe me just seeing things
Maybe me just seeing things
Made me think again about carbon frames that's for sure, I was convinced that they were good for nothing but some light XC!
At least Santa Cruz frames are. I don't think that every carbon frame is that much better than an alu one. I saw a few Salcano XC carbon frames (some turkish maker), all of them cracked, one cracked apart on 3 places, and the rear tire "ate" the seat and the chainstays. I takes much more of engineering to make a reliable and strong carbon frame.
reckon that can take a lot more abuse
Santa Cruz freely admits it. According to SC, the Blur LT carbon- yes, an XC bike, is the strongest frame they make right now.
just copy and paste the link at the top of this page into your fb account
like: http://www.pinkbike.com/video/243228/
like: http://www.pinkbike.com/video/243228/
