A frightening look inside of a BMC Road Machine RM01
#26
Thread Killer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,428
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3129 Post(s)
Liked 1,697 Times
in
1,026 Posts
Regarding the possibility of this being counterfeit, LT simply says, "unlikely." See video below from about 40:10. Relatedly, a funny thing coming out of the vid was someone's joke that BMC is the acronym for Badly Molded Carbon! Hahaha...ouch!
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Alamitos, Calif.
Posts: 2,474
Bikes: Canyon Endurace
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1041 Post(s)
Liked 922 Times
in
539 Posts
I am by no means a carbon hater. I'm riding a 2001 carbon Trek (that's a 16 y/o frame) and I have not noticed anything unusual or worrying about the bike since I received it about 6 months ago.
With that said... There may well be extensive testing and QC during the manufacturing process but this video makes me wonder why there isn't more QC'ing during the process. I would think if anyone who sells bikes was able to improve on the process and document that process they would probably sell a lot of frames.
With that said... There may well be extensive testing and QC during the manufacturing process but this video makes me wonder why there isn't more QC'ing during the process. I would think if anyone who sells bikes was able to improve on the process and document that process they would probably sell a lot of frames.
#28
Senior Member
RoadMachine is a newer bike, so the title of the OP is misleading.
Not sure what to take from this other than CF bikes look ugly on the inside, having seen other cut-up videos. Mine rides like a dream, has seen some jarring terrain with my 200lb frame.
Are the -01 findings too surprising? 25% less Width of the carbon layerup and Weight of the -02 models (but stiffer carbon) , its bound to have some thin areas in the name of weight savings.
This is an interesting area. The ultimate weight weenie carbon bikes are built with the Pro Race crowd first and foremost who dispose of a frame like toilet paper, yet deep pocket enthusiasts want to ride what the Pro's ride , mega miles , long term ownership. Is a pretty good topic for discussion on its own where the general consumer is making the poor investment into a Pro Race Day Bike for road training and trainer use, when it comes to 'tiered carbon'/weight options in the marketplace.
Not sure what to take from this other than CF bikes look ugly on the inside, having seen other cut-up videos. Mine rides like a dream, has seen some jarring terrain with my 200lb frame.
Are the -01 findings too surprising? 25% less Width of the carbon layerup and Weight of the -02 models (but stiffer carbon) , its bound to have some thin areas in the name of weight savings.
This is an interesting area. The ultimate weight weenie carbon bikes are built with the Pro Race crowd first and foremost who dispose of a frame like toilet paper, yet deep pocket enthusiasts want to ride what the Pro's ride , mega miles , long term ownership. Is a pretty good topic for discussion on its own where the general consumer is making the poor investment into a Pro Race Day Bike for road training and trainer use, when it comes to 'tiered carbon'/weight options in the marketplace.
Last edited by Esthetic; 12-11-17 at 10:40 AM.
#29
Senior Member
I don't know if you don't understand quality or if you reject the idea of quality, but either way, it's a poorly defensible position to be in.
Using your example, your alu bikes "work" only under your specific conditions. What if the rider were 100kg heavier? What if the rider could spike power north of 2k watts? What if the road conditions were rougher? What if the riding was wet coastal? What if the ride volume was double? What if the conditions were any mix of those differences? Would a low build quality version of your alu bike last as long as a high quality build version?
Please don't attempt to answers those questions, because they're rhetorical, and the answers don't matter. What matters is understanding that a frame that's not as strong as it could be (because of voids, uneven material thickness, improper compaction, delamination, etc.) is not as good, though it may be serviceable.
Using your example, your alu bikes "work" only under your specific conditions. What if the rider were 100kg heavier? What if the rider could spike power north of 2k watts? What if the road conditions were rougher? What if the riding was wet coastal? What if the ride volume was double? What if the conditions were any mix of those differences? Would a low build quality version of your alu bike last as long as a high quality build version?
Please don't attempt to answers those questions, because they're rhetorical, and the answers don't matter. What matters is understanding that a frame that's not as strong as it could be (because of voids, uneven material thickness, improper compaction, delamination, etc.) is not as good, though it may be serviceable.
#30
Thread Killer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,428
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3129 Post(s)
Liked 1,697 Times
in
1,026 Posts
But "low" and "high" build quality don't exist in a vacuum. If smooth innards with zero voids doesn't make the bike perform any better, it's wasted effort. I don't reject the idea of "quality", but I know quality exists in a context. If the quality we're looking at is good enough, smoothing out the bubbles is wasted effort. Hence my questions. Did the things we see in that video contribute to a failure? Or are they purely cosmetic?
Quality does not exist in a vacuum, you are right. By imposing a definition of quality restricted to specific usage conditions though, e.g. when you say, "it works for me," you are trying to create a vacuum around your specific experience. Just because a frame doesn't fail under one rider's use in a given timeframe, does not mean that same frame would not fail under another rider in the same use, or within the same or shorter timeframe.
Smooth innards and zero voids do make a bike perform better, i.e. to it's fullest potential. Again, improper compaction, poor resin distribution, improper folding and delamination all make a frame not as strong as it could be.
The context for quality, then, is the frame as good as it is designed to be. If there are flaws, then the answer is no, and the quality lower.
Whether the things (i.e. flaws) we saw in the video contributed to a failure or not are questions of interest, but not relevant to the discussion of quality, other than to recognize and understand those flaws are proof of low quality construction. Like a house of cards or a hollow tree, if the conditions are right, a low quality frame will stand, but when sufficient stress is applied, and the structure exceeds its limit, then it fails. Whether or not certain limits are good enough is another matter, and one related to, but distinct from build quality.
#31
Senior Member
I don't understand what the disconnect is here, but I'll try again...
Quality does not exist in a vacuum, you are right. By imposing a definition of quality restricted to specific usage conditions though, e.g. when you say, "it works for me," you are trying to create a vacuum around your specific experience. Just because a frame doesn't fail under one rider's use in a given timeframe, does not mean that same frame would not fail under another rider in the same use, or within the same or shorter timeframe.
Quality does not exist in a vacuum, you are right. By imposing a definition of quality restricted to specific usage conditions though, e.g. when you say, "it works for me," you are trying to create a vacuum around your specific experience. Just because a frame doesn't fail under one rider's use in a given timeframe, does not mean that same frame would not fail under another rider in the same use, or within the same or shorter timeframe.
The context for quality, then, is the frame as good as it is designed to be. If there are flaws, then the answer is no, and the quality lower.
Whether the things (i.e. flaws) we saw in the video contributed to a failure or not are questions of interest, but not relevant to the discussion of quality, other than to recognize and understand those flaws are proof of low quality construction. Like a house of cards or a hollow tree, if the conditions are right, a low quality frame will stand, but when sufficient stress is applied, and the structure exceeds its limit, then it fails. Whether or not certain limits are good enough is another matter, and one related to, but distinct from build quality.
Whether the things (i.e. flaws) we saw in the video contributed to a failure or not are questions of interest, but not relevant to the discussion of quality, other than to recognize and understand those flaws are proof of low quality construction. Like a house of cards or a hollow tree, if the conditions are right, a low quality frame will stand, but when sufficient stress is applied, and the structure exceeds its limit, then it fails. Whether or not certain limits are good enough is another matter, and one related to, but distinct from build quality.
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,891
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4789 Post(s)
Liked 3,916 Times
in
2,547 Posts
...
The connections aren't lugged in the conventional way: funny as it sounds, it's more like they are glued and taped together. The ends are precisely cut, prepped, then joined and taped over with carbon fiber fabric. We saw connections in varying stages of completion, and amazingly the finished product was so carefully executed that one can finish it with a clear coat - it all looked like one continuous weave. Sublime.
...
The connections aren't lugged in the conventional way: funny as it sounds, it's more like they are glued and taped together. The ends are precisely cut, prepped, then joined and taped over with carbon fiber fabric. We saw connections in varying stages of completion, and amazingly the finished product was so carefully executed that one can finish it with a clear coat - it all looked like one continuous weave. Sublime.
...
Rather unrelated except not entirely - I go to see a TiCycles steel fork that had been cut up for a forensics study. So I got to see the braze at the top of the fork crown at the fork blade end. The braze had a perfect radius like it was machined except that until the blade was sawn in half, tools and human eyes had never seen it. (And the finish was matte; ie raw braze, not a polished machined surface.) My point? High quality and good looking work can be done in places that can not be seen but it does take skill and care.
If I am going to trust my life to a two pound frame of plastic as I go 50 mph down a mountain road, I want work that looks like it is up to the job. Yes, I know well from my fiberglass experience that you can do good looking work with fatal flaws but on the poor quality work, you cannot even look for those flaws.
Ben
Likes For 79pmooney:
#33
Senior Member
Please don't attempt to answers those questions, because they're rhetorical, and the answers don't matter. What matters is understanding that a frame that's not as strong as it could be (because of voids, uneven material thickness, improper compaction, delamination, etc.) is not as good, though it may be serviceable.
We still don't have enough information to condemn it.
For instance, given a quality defect that we can identify in the film, we don't know whether the bike was dependent on that quality defect not being there in order for the bike to meet its safety and reliability goals.
It's entirely possible, for instance, that the designers accepted that certain things would be difficult to pull off 100% consistently, and designed in enough redundancy to accommodate a certain rate of defects. Since we don't know whether this is the case, we don't have enough information to conclude that the simple existence of a defect implies that the bike frame did not meet its safety, strength, durability, reliability, etc. goals.
With all that said, I'm riding a titanium bike right now, for quite a few reasons. None of the videos I saw, whether of the BMC, the Emonda, the Pinarello, or any of the others make me regret my choice of titanium.
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,891
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4789 Post(s)
Liked 3,916 Times
in
2,547 Posts
A concept not being talked about much is how does a frame fail when it is ridden into the ground. Ie, say it is a beloved frame with the perfect ride. Say it is ridden decade after decade until it fails. How does it fail?
My three furthest riding bike: my first, a Peugeot UO-8. It had a hard life. 5 winter in snow/salt country; typ 5 crashes/winter. At 19,000 miles the right chainstay failed behind the gusset. My Miyata 610. Picked up used with unknown history. I crashed it hard three times, ending its life on the third atr 27,000 miles. My Peter Mooney. A couple of crashes, one hard and a number of minor spills and slides. 47,000 miles and still running like new.
Point? These bikes were or are being ridden until they fail. I had/have confidence that those failure are very unlikely to be life threatening when they happen (barring life threatening crashes that are not the fault of the bike). One difference between my steel bikes and any female molded plastic bike is that potential problems will probably show as visible cracks or rust stains well before breaking. Another is that traditional narrow tubed steel bikes are built with materials and methods proven over many decades to work and be trustworthy. They were developed at a time when something that expensive was not a throwaway.
Another point actually directed at my post above (#32). I've sailed across the Atlantic on a 34' fiberglass boat. We saw two storms with winds to 60 knots and seas to 25'. And 1) those conditions were the norm, nothing exceptional and 2) the Atlantic can serve up far worse, even in late July/early August, pre-hurricane and statically the best weeks of the year. In those conditions, far from land, far from radio range of anybody outside of shortwave (we did this in the very early days of GPS and did not have on board any satellite access) you have no choice but to trust the workmanship of the fiberglassers who created the structure your life depends on. This was my dad's boat. When he was talking about this sail and asking me about what boat to buy, I researched the companies building the possible alternatives. I felt comfortable with what I read about one company in particular. I also instructed my dad to make it well know to the company that the boat he was ordering to be built was going to be sailed trans-Atlantic. I wanted the fiberglassing crew to get that word. I've built those boats. One to race to Hawaii single-handed. When you know, you pay special care. It's pretty obvious the crew that built the BMC of that video didn't have that care. Do I want to trust my life to them? (Not an idle concept to me. I nearly lost my life to a very preventable bike design and execution failure. Cost me thousands of dollars, years of my life and my education.)
Ben
My three furthest riding bike: my first, a Peugeot UO-8. It had a hard life. 5 winter in snow/salt country; typ 5 crashes/winter. At 19,000 miles the right chainstay failed behind the gusset. My Miyata 610. Picked up used with unknown history. I crashed it hard three times, ending its life on the third atr 27,000 miles. My Peter Mooney. A couple of crashes, one hard and a number of minor spills and slides. 47,000 miles and still running like new.
Point? These bikes were or are being ridden until they fail. I had/have confidence that those failure are very unlikely to be life threatening when they happen (barring life threatening crashes that are not the fault of the bike). One difference between my steel bikes and any female molded plastic bike is that potential problems will probably show as visible cracks or rust stains well before breaking. Another is that traditional narrow tubed steel bikes are built with materials and methods proven over many decades to work and be trustworthy. They were developed at a time when something that expensive was not a throwaway.
Another point actually directed at my post above (#32). I've sailed across the Atlantic on a 34' fiberglass boat. We saw two storms with winds to 60 knots and seas to 25'. And 1) those conditions were the norm, nothing exceptional and 2) the Atlantic can serve up far worse, even in late July/early August, pre-hurricane and statically the best weeks of the year. In those conditions, far from land, far from radio range of anybody outside of shortwave (we did this in the very early days of GPS and did not have on board any satellite access) you have no choice but to trust the workmanship of the fiberglassers who created the structure your life depends on. This was my dad's boat. When he was talking about this sail and asking me about what boat to buy, I researched the companies building the possible alternatives. I felt comfortable with what I read about one company in particular. I also instructed my dad to make it well know to the company that the boat he was ordering to be built was going to be sailed trans-Atlantic. I wanted the fiberglassing crew to get that word. I've built those boats. One to race to Hawaii single-handed. When you know, you pay special care. It's pretty obvious the crew that built the BMC of that video didn't have that care. Do I want to trust my life to them? (Not an idle concept to me. I nearly lost my life to a very preventable bike design and execution failure. Cost me thousands of dollars, years of my life and my education.)
Ben
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,340
Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 496 Times
in
299 Posts
The layup on that BMC is the equivalent of risky behavior in motorist, or druggie or alcoholic. It will lead to a bad end sooner or later. All of manufacturing hangs on the the capacity for consistent adherence to manufacturing specifications.
#36
Senior Member
Great vid. These bikes are major investments for most people. If the companies are cutting corners on them and not making them to the high quality they market, than they should be held to task.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
I took a quick look at several other of his videos including some more frame cutups and a carbon wheel cutup. They all have lots of the same kinds of ugly things that are in the BMC cutup, though admittedly the BMC one just looks uglier. I guess the bottom line is that these things are laid up in a mold and then have compressed air blown into a baggy inside that presses the carbon fiber prepreg up against the mould. The process will make a nice looking appearance on the outside, but on the inside it's not going to be pretty. Lots of those videos show extra resin that's been squeezed up out of the prepreg and then hardened. It's probably a little better that it have a little more resin than it needs to completely filled the laminate, and have the excess squeezed out, than have places without enough resin and end up with voids or weak laminate. I'm no CF engineer so that's just my opinion looking at this.
vs
#39
Senior Member
#40
Senior Member
Apologies memebag if I misrepresented.
#41
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,027
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22571 Post(s)
Liked 8,918 Times
in
4,152 Posts
#42
Senior Member
That's pretty much it. I'm not saying that bike is good, but I don't know if it's bad based on that video. Maybe everyone else here knows a bunch more about CF manufacturing than I do.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 259 Times
in
153 Posts
End result is a frame that is either over engineered (heavy) enough to allow for this, or it will be susceptible to failure.
#45
Senior Member
Maybe I know too much about how sausage is made to judge a product just by looking inside it.
Imagine we had two CF bikes. Both were the same weight, both provided 20,000 miles of riding pleasure, blindfolded riders couldn't tell them apart, but one had inner wrinkles and voids and the other didn't, would the wrinkles and voids matter?
#46
Custom User Title
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times
in
14 Posts
But was it a bad bike? Was it too heavy? Did it ride poorly? Did it fail?
Maybe I know too much about how sausage is made to judge a product just by looking inside it.
Imagine we had two CF bikes. Both were the same weight, both provided 20,000 miles of riding pleasure, blindfolded riders couldn't tell them apart, but one had inner wrinkles and voids and the other didn't, would the wrinkles and voids matter?
Maybe I know too much about how sausage is made to judge a product just by looking inside it.
Imagine we had two CF bikes. Both were the same weight, both provided 20,000 miles of riding pleasure, blindfolded riders couldn't tell them apart, but one had inner wrinkles and voids and the other didn't, would the wrinkles and voids matter?
#48
Thread Killer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,428
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3129 Post(s)
Liked 1,697 Times
in
1,026 Posts
I agree with most of what's been said, and I agree the bike is ugly inside and I too noticed some specific quality issues that were alarming.
We still don't have enough information to condemn it.
For instance, given a quality defect that we can identify in the film, we don't know whether the bike was dependent on that quality defect not being there in order for the bike to meet its safety and reliability goals.
It's entirely possible, for instance, that the designers accepted that certain things would be difficult to pull off 100% consistently, and designed in enough redundancy to accommodate a certain rate of defects. Since we don't know whether this is the case, we don't have enough information to conclude that the simple existence of a defect implies that the bike frame did not meet its safety, strength, durability, reliability, etc. goals.
With all that said, I'm riding a titanium bike right now, for quite a few reasons. None of the videos I saw, whether of the BMC, the Emonda, the Pinarello, or any of the others make me regret my choice of titanium.
We still don't have enough information to condemn it.
For instance, given a quality defect that we can identify in the film, we don't know whether the bike was dependent on that quality defect not being there in order for the bike to meet its safety and reliability goals.
It's entirely possible, for instance, that the designers accepted that certain things would be difficult to pull off 100% consistently, and designed in enough redundancy to accommodate a certain rate of defects. Since we don't know whether this is the case, we don't have enough information to conclude that the simple existence of a defect implies that the bike frame did not meet its safety, strength, durability, reliability, etc. goals.
With all that said, I'm riding a titanium bike right now, for quite a few reasons. None of the videos I saw, whether of the BMC, the Emonda, the Pinarello, or any of the others make me regret my choice of titanium.
#49
Thread Killer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,428
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3129 Post(s)
Liked 1,697 Times
in
1,026 Posts
Regarding knowing stuff about CF manufacturing, watch the video and listen to the expert assessment. He definitely knows more about it than you do...unless you've been holding out on us?
#50
Custom User Title
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times
in
14 Posts
Never heard of him. Maybe he's just trying to make himself look like more of an expert by talking down about big names in the industry's construction methods.