maccraz

@jaame: Both TP and TS composites are used in a variety of structural components across multiple industries. Quick example: https://www.compositesworld.com/blog/post/injection-overmolded-composites-demo-comes-to-conclusion There isn't a better material to rule them all though. Different applications with different criterias will be better off with a TS or a TP, and there are dozens of each to choose from. Just like there are hundreds of alloys for a variety of structural applications. You won't use wood for a exhaust pipe, and you won't use glass for a baseball bat. Different properties for different uses.

@hamncheez: For Thermosets, you can burn the epoxy out to get the fibers and reuse them in a molding compound. For Thermoplastics, you can shop the rims in small pieces, and re-melt the whole thing into short fiber panels than can be formed again into something new, but you are downsizing the fiber length and contaminating the resin each time, so there might only be a couple of cycles possible. Still a bit better than burning the epoxy, but not much of a step towards circular manufacturing.

You are absolutely right; the author should have had a materials engineer proof-read before publishing. The paragraph on TS versus TP is full of errors and confusing. There is no such thing as a ThermoSet carbon or ThermoPlastic carbon; it's the same carbon fibers, but mixed in with either a TS or TP matrix, making it a TS or TP Composite, with a final resin content in the 35-40% range, by weight. Both TS and TP UD Tapes are very common nowadays, with large programs in Aerospace, Satellite, Rocket, etc. industries using a variety of TS and TP tapes for various applications. There is no clear "best" material for any application, just better choices for specific applications. Any other generalization is oversimplifying a complex, yet interesting, puzzle. Composite engineers out there generally acknowledge the higher impact properties of some TPs over Epoxies, but the processing challenges, i.e. no tack at room temp and high melt temp, make them much harder to use. There are also downsides to some TPs like mechanical properties dropping significantly with water absorption or poor chemical resistance to acetone or other volatiles present in most bike cleaning products.

Graphene, and many others such as different formats of Carbon Nanotubes, are interesting but the technology isn't mature enough yet. We tested a lot of these in our Carbon Lab, this was one of the main reasons why we built it, and the good stuff will find its way into our bikes in the future.

First massive thing: tooling costs. Not amortized on multiple years of production, but only on a few frames. Also, we developed entirely new processes (printed mandrels, latex bladders) and used brand-new materials which required testing and qualification in the lab.

@budjoni: a rotor blade is developed with vastly different load cases than bike frames or components. In your specific image, I suspect thick sheets over a very fine mesh honeycomb, which can definitely work well for that application. The beauty with composites is that there are endless combinations of processes and materials that can solve an engineering problem

We already use fiber-filled thermoplastics for injected parts, but as far as "continuous" long fiber continuous composites as concerned, we're still experimenting. CFRTP UD tapes are still very challenging to use in bike frames because the material is dry (zero tack) and is much more rigid than Thermoset (Epoxy) UD Tapes, which makes it very challenging for complex shapes and tight radii.

Frame: 1600g. Forks: 600g. Complete Bike weight: 9.6kg (21.0Lbs), which is about 1.8kg (4lbs) lighter than his previous bike.