Carbon is king in the mountain bike world, right? Most racers are riding on carbon machines, and they often sit proudly at the top of a brand's price list, decked out in the top spec. But carbon is far from perfect. It's expensive, it has a questionable environmental impact, and if it goes wrong, it can go really wrong. On top of this, some riders can find it overly stiff and harsh to ride. In short, there can be a trade off for the light and svelte frames it creates.
Over the past couple of years, a number of other materials and processes have emerged that could revolutionize the sport. At the moment, most of these are ways to tune carbon fiber, and may allow us to remove the negative aspects of carbon and keep all the good stuff. Let's take a look at four of the most promising:
Long Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composites - Recyclable CarbonA big talking point around carbon in the last few years has been its ecological impact - when you’re done with it, the land fill beckons.
Hoping to solve that problem, HYC (Hsin Yung Chien Co Ltd.) have developed Long Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composites (LFT) together with Taiwan's government-funded Industrial Economics and Knowledge Centre. The company started making slats for conveyor belts, but recently saw the utility for its carbon in bike manufacturing and debuted a frame at the Taipei show.
So how does it work? Well HYC claims that the non-recyclability of carbon comes not from the fibers themselves but the epoxy resin in which the fibers are set. HYC uses its own PPS resin that is recyclable and only requires 10 percent carbon fibers to form the LFT tubes, although stronger mixes can be made with up to 30 percent carbon fibers. Unlike traditional carbon fiber manufacturing, which requires a lay up process, the LFC can be produced using an injection moulding technique, which should also make it cheaper in the long run.
HYC had a protoype frame at the show that used carbon tubes and 3D-printed lugs, similar to the
Atherton Bikes production method. At the moment, the bike is heavier than a carbon fiber counterpart and reportedly, just as strong. However, HYC are hoping to bring that weight down as their methods become more sophisticated. HYC claims that LFT could be commercially viable within two years and that it has had interest from some of cycling's biggest manufacturers.
More info
here.
Un-Break System - Prevents Catastrophic FailureUBS or the Un-Break System, was developed by Kalloy Industrial and brought for the first time to the Taipei show. It's basically carbon with a layer of aluminium foil inside and Kalloy claim it can be bent, withstand greater impacts than traditional carbon fiber and even be drilled into. Basically, UBS is aiming to combine the lightness and stiffness of carbon fiber with the ductility and utility of aluminium.
When the UBS does break it will crack, but not totally fail like some carbon fiber structures do. Whereas regular carbon may expose sharp fibers and leave you looking for a bin bag to pick up what's left of your component, UBS should be more or less in one piece and could even be nursed home. While UBS is not lighter than carbon fiber in a straight fight, Kalloy claim it can be made thinner than carbon tubing thanks to the added strength of the aluminium so the final product should be lighter overall too.
This isn't the first carbon/metal composite material cycling has seen and
Rein4ced announced late last year they will be making frames from carbon and steel fiber. At the moment, Kalloy only have a few handlebars and seatposts made of UBS, but a greater product range, even frames would not be out of the question in the future.
Dyneema - Improves impact resistance and vibration absorptionIt may be old news in the road cycling world, but Dyneema, claimed to be the world’s strongest fiber, is yet to break through into the world of mountain biking. It was first discovered by accident in 1968 after Dr Albert Pennings was doing research into polyethylene for a coal mining and fertilizer company and discovered a thread he couldn’t pull apart. After 20 years of R&D, Dyneema was born.
It’s claimed to be 15 times stronger than steel on a weight for weight basis, yet it can float on water. This combination of extreme strength and low weight make it suitable for a wide and expanding number of applications.
In cycling, we’ve mainly seen it in road cycling clothing, where it offers abrasion resistance to help with crashes. However, we’ve seen
spokes made from Dyneema from Newman Wheels at the last two Taipei Cycle Shows, and a frame made from Dyneema, woven with carbon fiber, was displayed at a plastics show in 2016. DSM claim that Dyneema will increase the absorption of vibration by 100% and will also increase impact resistance.
Graphene/borophene - Even lighter, stronger and vibration absorptionGraphene has been touted as the world's wonder material since it was discovered in 2003, but we're still yet to fully see its impact in the cycling world. It is the world's strongest material, yet also elastic and super light, so it's no surprise then that the scientists who first found it were fast-tracked to a Nobel prize. It has started appearing in road cycling with British brand
Dassi making a frame that wove graphene with carbon fiber for its light weight and vibration dapming properties. Vittoria also uses it
in its tires and cite improved cut and abrasion resistance, a higher tensile strength, less air seepage, and improved grip in wet conditions.
But recently, a new material has come along that may replace it,
borophene. The best way to think of borophene is as graphene+. It was first theorized in the 1990s and only synthesised in 2015. Much like graphene, it is a single layer thick but this time it's boron atoms, not carbon atoms. Borophene is claimed to be stronger and more flexible than graphene, while still sharing its conductive properties. At the moment, we can't make large quantities and it oxidizes very quickly, but if it can be refined, borophene could well bring even greater benefits to mountain biking.
Aluminum can be cut to shape and welded, so it doesn't require expensive molds for production, just cut and weld, and thanks to is ductile nature, it can be hidroformed and machined to cool shapes too. But that's not everything, this new material won't crack upon hard impacts leaving the frame unsuable, it will just dent with no further consequences. Also in case in case of failure it won't be catasthrophic in most cases, as visible cracks would develope before. Is also the most abundant metal in the Earth and is widely recyclabe too.
All these benefits at the only cost of 1 pound heavier frames vs. a carbon counterpart.
Damn, shut up and take my money!
#Steelisreal
All these benefits at the only cost of 1 pound heavier frames vs. a carbon counterpart."
Sounds like some kind of sorcery to me.
you left out the 1000ft deep and multiple miles wide holes that you can see from friggin space, that a bauxite mine is. Aluminium is a great material, but the envirnmental wunderkin, it is not.
Nothing is..... though I'd love to throw a leg over a bamboo bike.
But even those look like they use a ton of resin. So cool tho but it would be all kinds of ballsy and you'd need at least a crop of sharp armchair engineers to make a full susser out of the stuff.
It does mean it is a good frame material!
Now if we look at a frame like the Mondraker Foxy 29 or Mojo HD4, this is where carbon design shines (although the Foxy looks amazing in alu, too).
1. I live on the edge of a gritstone area (the Peak District) where carbon is prone to being delaminated and cut to shreds by the terrain.
2. The bike I chose was available in aluminium for a lot less and can be recycled a lot easier if and when it reaches the end of its useful life.
Also Agreed:
mondraker with their foxy 29 have managed to make their linkage, geo, lines, and composite come together to form an amazing object.
Yew wood makes a f*cking awesome bow but would be useless in bikes.
Most modern bows are also punny little things with child draw weights. Not that much stress. And some of them still break quite easily with nothing more than a few inches over draw.
Also much different kinds of stresses. @oneoldman:
After watching a few factory visit videos I have yet to stumble upon a company that upholds western standards regarding the workplace safety when handling composites. Very often they are sanding down parts and frames without protection, which will become even more dangerous with graphene or carbon nano tubes added to the resins.
Is graphene safe? - www.materialstoday.com/carbon/articles/s1369702112701013
EU-OSHA Workplace exposure to nanoparticles - osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/literature_reviews/workplace_exposure_to_nanoparticles
CDC Carbon nanotube and asbestos exposures induce overlapping but distinct profiles of lung pathology in non-swiss albino CF-1 mice. www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/20047759.html
Single- and Multi-Wall Carbon Nanotubes Versus Asbestos: Are the Carbon Nanotubes a New Health Risk to Humans? - doi.org/10.1080/15287390903486527
CDC Nanotechnology: Should carbon nanotubes be handled in the workplace like asbestos? - blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2008/05/20/nano
(Carbon nanotubes are graphene molecules (2D) folded to become a tube (3D))
I don't think the comparison to carbon nanotubes is warranted. Graphite, in pencils or other applications, is actually the 3d version of graphene, and there are no health hazards associated with that.
Nevertheless there are real risks with nano particles made from materials that are harmless in bulk, and many of these so-called graphene products are just composites with some nano-sized graphene flakes added to them so you do have a point that care should be taken. I would not say that there is any proof yet either way about the harmfulness of graphene,but we should be wary.
I still think the dumbed down explanation of single wall CNTs as rolled up graphene is valid, but I agree with you, that carbon can be found in different modifications one of which is graphite. Often the toxicity of airborne materials is dependent on the dimensions of the respired particles, as can be seen with WHO fibres.
"I don't think the comparison to carbon nanotubes is warranted. Graphite, in pencils or other applications, is actually the 3d version of graphene, and there are no health hazards associated with that. "
not even close. Graphite like atomic bonds are hybridized sp2, that's why it esfoliate into 2d structures, while graphene are diamond like sp3 bonds, EXTREMELY strong. It really is a different game.
@Bruccio As far as I know also graphene has only a hybridized sp2 configuration
@jmjr you're right mate, i had a brain fart and i was thinking about diamond like carbon nanotubes...just saw a nice presentation at a conference and got carried away
Graphene used in tires could become airborne, especially after the rubber matrix of the abraised particles degrades. As tire abraison already is the biggest cause of micro plastic pollution in western Europe and one of the biggest contributors to the particulate matter pollution, I still have concerns, especially as car tire manufacturers are already looking into graphene.
It shouldn't be the case that potentially hazardous materials are used for products that pollute the air we are breathing, without having been cleared beforehand. Asbestos was happily used for ages in brake pads before someone saw the dangers (even tough since WWII they were known), this shouldn't happen with graphene too.
But I think we can agree that a lot of research still has to be done, before definite decisions can be made.
I think the biggest difference these days is that it doesnt take 20-30 years for marerials to trickle into the civilian sector like it used to.
Anyway whats happened to carbon being a wonder meterial...'lighter, stonger, stiffer, better' than all things metal?? Thats what the industry had been banging on about for years. Now we need to find ways of making it stronger...makes me laugh!
(and I own a carbon DH bike)
They managed to keep the weight in the 12-16kg, which is a good choice in my opinion.
The bikes are longer > more material
The bikes have bigger wheels > more material
Add to this that due to the bike park trend, almost all bikes are made to be used at least from times to times in bike parks, and therefore they are made stronger.
They already told you.
Technology evolved with an emphasis on performance and therefore weight went up. You cannot manufacture a dinnerplate sized rear sprocket that is lighter than older, smaller ones without raising cost to astronomical levels. Same goes for wheels. They got lighter,but also bigger, so the advantage was offset already. Dropper posts are inherently heavier than normal posts,there's no way around that and tires need a certain amount of material in order to provide damping and carry momentum. It's all simple physics. We can't just expect evolving technology to decrease weight further and further. There are obviously limits for weight on any given part.
As long as tires are made of rubber,the only way to make them lighter is to use less material. That however will always impact performance. Dropper posts are built from two posts/tubes, a hydraulic system and seals and therefore will always be inherently heavier than one single tube.
Also dh bikes got lighter because they went the exact other route.
They started using less gears for example.
Also that statement isn't that true really. Check some pro bike weights. They mostly ride some really heavy bikes.
-bigger wheels (26" vs 29")
-wider rims (+30mm internal width)
-bigger tires (2.5 or 2.6" on trail bikes)
-Massive rear cogs (+50 tooth cogs)
-4 piston brakes
...and if your bike isn't heavy enough, just convert to coil sprung suspension!
Thinking it was that red one people like Gracia wore. I had one, was a really comfortable lid. Just can't remember the name.....
How did aluminium dh bikes get heavier over 5 years?
5 years ago you could build most Dh alloy frames up around 35-36lbs
Now they sell at 37-40.its Pure bullshit,give me a refined alloy bike any day over carbon.
I’ve broken at least 6 carbon frames all of which failed with a pop delaminates and left a crack and were ridden home gingerly without blowing to bits ...sure if loaded over the absolute limit it can be catastrophic but I feel most cases are not like that and if they are it’s a bad design or used for something it shouldn’t be
100% carbon is scary too brittle alone.
rein4ced.com
The reality is that it’s usually just not that simple.
www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment?language=en