End of Classic and Vintage as we know it.
06-28-22, 04:24 PM
#151
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 203
Bikes: 1965 Hetchin's, 1977 Galmozzi, 1956 Rochet, 1947 Gnome et Rhone, 1972 De Rosa, 1948 Bates B-A-R, 1989 Trevor Jarvis (Baines) "Flying Gate", etc.
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times
in
22 Posts
I think you might have a slight misunderstanding of carbon. It's a material with a pretty high tolerance for the types of stress induced by normal bicycling. It's throwing it into a car or against a pole that causes it to fail. The frames are built with a certain amount of deflection designed into the bike. That is, deflections under normal riding conditions. These deflections occur in the elastic region and do not "wear out" the frame.
I think a part of this idea that carbon "wears out" is the comparative differences between a 10 year old carbon bike and a brand new one. The 10 year old bike isn't any different from when it was built 10 years ago. Newer carbon frames are just that much better.
All that to say that there is no reason the carbon bike currently hanging on my wall won't last until a major collision or fall induces an abnormal stress to the frame and breaks it.
EDIT: Not to mention, a lot of the carbon failures in racing happen because of a part that is built pretty much on the edge of these aforementioned stresses. Add that to being ridden by guys who could tear phone books in half if you threw it into their chains, and you have a recipe for destroying carbon parts. I'm sure this is no different from failures of other lightweight metal parts built for racing. Hincapie's busted aluminum steerer on the Paris Roubaix race comes to mind.
I think a part of this idea that carbon "wears out" is the comparative differences between a 10 year old carbon bike and a brand new one. The 10 year old bike isn't any different from when it was built 10 years ago. Newer carbon frames are just that much better.
All that to say that there is no reason the carbon bike currently hanging on my wall won't last until a major collision or fall induces an abnormal stress to the frame and breaks it.
EDIT: Not to mention, a lot of the carbon failures in racing happen because of a part that is built pretty much on the edge of these aforementioned stresses. Add that to being ridden by guys who could tear phone books in half if you threw it into their chains, and you have a recipe for destroying carbon parts. I'm sure this is no different from failures of other lightweight metal parts built for racing. Hincapie's busted aluminum steerer on the Paris Roubaix race comes to mind.
Polymer resins have a limited useful lifespan, and factors like UV light exposure eventually will cause polymer degradation and failure. When resins have purportedly UV-resistant finishes applied, those aren't 100% effective, nor is radiation within the UV band the only kind a frame is subjected to. Even fluctuations in temperature will take their toll. And polymers are themselves unstable, over the span of decades, by nature of their molecular structure. As with most manufacturing processes, I would guess that many framebuilders working with it err on the side of "fast & cheap" to maximize profits, meaning that they may be adding chemicals to speed-up curing times, etc. Who knows what effects those additives might have on longevity.
So even if someone buys a carbon fiber frame, unwraps it and simply hangs it on their wall, there is no guarantee how long it will survive, since the materials are themselves, unstable. But a steel frame, properly painted and hung on the wall in a dry environment, will easily last centuries (perhaps millennia) without degradation. We know this because we have found steel items that are millennia old (such as armor and blades), which are still in excellent condition, with nothing more than superficial environmental effects.
Of course the question remains: "why would anyone want to unwrap a new frame and hang it on their wall, instead of riding it?", but I will leave that to others to debate.
Last edited by rch427; 06-28-22 at 04:53 PM.
06-28-22, 04:51 PM
#152
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 203
Bikes: 1965 Hetchin's, 1977 Galmozzi, 1956 Rochet, 1947 Gnome et Rhone, 1972 De Rosa, 1948 Bates B-A-R, 1989 Trevor Jarvis (Baines) "Flying Gate", etc.
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times
in
22 Posts
Wait. What? What are you basing that claim on?
No, they do not.
The more plastic that manufacturers use, the less of the car will survive, and cars made today are more than 50% plastic. Plastic begins degrading the moment it is manufactured.
https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.c...el%20efficient..
The more that manufacturers design the body to provide protection for the riders (instead of having bumpers, as all cars did until twenty years ago), the less likely they are to last.
Look at the nose of any new car: the grill, hood and quarter-panels are now exposed to the slightest impact, as is the tail. The low-speed impact that once required a body shop a few hours to repair will now require the replacement of all of those parts, or result in the totaling of a car by the insurance company, because that slight damage has compromised the intended ability of the body to be sacrificed to protect the passengers.
A friend of mine bought his daughter a new Honda CRV (with the spare and cover mounted on the tail). A few months later it was hit from behind at about 10mph in a traffic jam. The SUV that hit it pushed the spare into the tailgate, deforming it. The insurance company totaled-out the car. He took it to a garage and had them replace the gate from a donor car, and straighten the surrounding metal as best as they could, but it was never right again, because (among other things) the steel was so thin. A car from 30 years earlier would've emerged from such an impact unscathed, since the bumpers would've hit each other. Even if the tailgate had been deformed, the damaged area could've been cut-out and rebuilt without any significant lasting effects. I know because I have done that very thing over the past 40 years, on pre-1970s cars.
The cheaper and thinner the metals they use, the less longevity they will have. The steels and aluminum alloys used on today's higher-end cars are of lower quality than those used 50 and more years ago, and they use as little as they can possibly get away with, to save weight.
TL;DR -- cars now do not last as long as the cars of the past did. And that trend will only continue, and those lifespans will only shorten, going forward.
No, they do not.
The more plastic that manufacturers use, the less of the car will survive, and cars made today are more than 50% plastic. Plastic begins degrading the moment it is manufactured.
https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.c...el%20efficient..
The more that manufacturers design the body to provide protection for the riders (instead of having bumpers, as all cars did until twenty years ago), the less likely they are to last.
Look at the nose of any new car: the grill, hood and quarter-panels are now exposed to the slightest impact, as is the tail. The low-speed impact that once required a body shop a few hours to repair will now require the replacement of all of those parts, or result in the totaling of a car by the insurance company, because that slight damage has compromised the intended ability of the body to be sacrificed to protect the passengers.
A friend of mine bought his daughter a new Honda CRV (with the spare and cover mounted on the tail). A few months later it was hit from behind at about 10mph in a traffic jam. The SUV that hit it pushed the spare into the tailgate, deforming it. The insurance company totaled-out the car. He took it to a garage and had them replace the gate from a donor car, and straighten the surrounding metal as best as they could, but it was never right again, because (among other things) the steel was so thin. A car from 30 years earlier would've emerged from such an impact unscathed, since the bumpers would've hit each other. Even if the tailgate had been deformed, the damaged area could've been cut-out and rebuilt without any significant lasting effects. I know because I have done that very thing over the past 40 years, on pre-1970s cars.
The cheaper and thinner the metals they use, the less longevity they will have. The steels and aluminum alloys used on today's higher-end cars are of lower quality than those used 50 and more years ago, and they use as little as they can possibly get away with, to save weight.
TL;DR -- cars now do not last as long as the cars of the past did. And that trend will only continue, and those lifespans will only shorten, going forward.
06-28-22, 05:00 PM
#153
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,627
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3870 Post(s)
Liked 2,563 Times
in
1,577 Posts
Heads-up, @rch427: this thread had been sleeping peacefully since 2011. 
Likes For ThermionicScott:
06-28-22, 05:17 PM
#154
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,658
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1245 Post(s)
Liked 1,321 Times
in
673 Posts
I know very little about carbon-fiber-framed bikes, but I do know a little about the materials themselves (from non-cycling projects). It seems to me that your description -- which I can readily believe is accurate regarding the use and abuse of carbon-fiber frames -- doesn't speak to the lifespans of the materials themselves, when not subjected to mechanical forces.
Polymer resins have a limited useful lifespan, and factors like UV light exposure eventually will cause polymer degradation and failure. When resins have purportedly UV-resistant finishes applied, those aren't 100% effective, nor is radiation within the UV band the only kind a frame is subjected to. Even fluctuations in temperature will take their toll. And polymers are themselves unstable, over the span of decades, by nature of their molecular structure. As with most manufacturing processes, I would guess that many framebuilders working with it err on the side of "fast & cheap" to maximize profits, meaning that they may be adding chemicals to speed-up curing times, etc. Who knows what effects those additives might have on longevity.
So even if someone buys a carbon fiber frame, unwraps it and simply hangs it on their wall, there is no guarantee how long it will survive, since the materials are themselves, unstable. But a steel frame, properly painted and hung on the wall in a dry environment, will easily last centuries (perhaps millennia) without degradation. We know this because we have found steel items that are millennia old (such as armor and blades), which are still in excellent condition, with nothing more than superficial environmental effects.
Of course the question remains: "why would anyone want to unwrap a new frame and hang it on their wall, instead of riding it?", but I will leave that to others to debate.
Polymer resins have a limited useful lifespan, and factors like UV light exposure eventually will cause polymer degradation and failure. When resins have purportedly UV-resistant finishes applied, those aren't 100% effective, nor is radiation within the UV band the only kind a frame is subjected to. Even fluctuations in temperature will take their toll. And polymers are themselves unstable, over the span of decades, by nature of their molecular structure. As with most manufacturing processes, I would guess that many framebuilders working with it err on the side of "fast & cheap" to maximize profits, meaning that they may be adding chemicals to speed-up curing times, etc. Who knows what effects those additives might have on longevity.
So even if someone buys a carbon fiber frame, unwraps it and simply hangs it on their wall, there is no guarantee how long it will survive, since the materials are themselves, unstable. But a steel frame, properly painted and hung on the wall in a dry environment, will easily last centuries (perhaps millennia) without degradation. We know this because we have found steel items that are millennia old (such as armor and blades), which are still in excellent condition, with nothing more than superficial environmental effects.
Of course the question remains: "why would anyone want to unwrap a new frame and hang it on their wall, instead of riding it?", but I will leave that to others to debate.
Wait. What? What are you basing that claim on?
No, they do not.
The more plastic that manufacturers use, the less of the car will survive, and cars made today are more than 50% plastic. Plastic begins degrading the moment it is manufactured.
https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.c...el%20efficient..
The more that manufacturers design the body to provide protection for the riders (instead of having bumpers, as all cars did until twenty years ago), the less likely they are to last.
Look at the nose of any new car: the grill, hood and quarter-panels are now exposed to the slightest impact, as is the tail. The low-speed impact that once required a body shop a few hours to repair will now require the replacement of all of those parts, or result in the totaling of a car by the insurance company, because that slight damage has compromised the intended ability of the body to be sacrificed to protect the passengers.
A friend of mine bought his daughter a new Honda CRV (with the spare and cover mounted on the tail). A few months later it was hit from behind at about 10mph in a traffic jam. The SUV that hit it pushed the spare into the tailgate, deforming it. The insurance company totaled-out the car. He took it to a garage and had them replace the gate from a donor car, and straighten the surrounding metal as best as they could, but it was never right again, because (among other things) the steel was so thin. A car from 30 years earlier would've emerged from such an impact unscathed, since the bumpers would've hit each other. Even if the tailgate had been deformed, the damaged area could've been cut-out and rebuilt without any significant lasting effects. I know because I have done that very thing over the past 40 years, on pre-1970s cars.
The cheaper and thinner the metals they use, the less longevity they will have. The steels and aluminum alloys used on today's higher-end cars are of lower quality than those used 50 and more years ago, and they use as little as they can possibly get away with, to save weight.
TL;DR -- cars now do not last as long as the cars of the past did. And that trend will only continue, and those lifespans will only shorten, going forward.
No, they do not.
The more plastic that manufacturers use, the less of the car will survive, and cars made today are more than 50% plastic. Plastic begins degrading the moment it is manufactured.
https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.c...el%20efficient..
The more that manufacturers design the body to provide protection for the riders (instead of having bumpers, as all cars did until twenty years ago), the less likely they are to last.
Look at the nose of any new car: the grill, hood and quarter-panels are now exposed to the slightest impact, as is the tail. The low-speed impact that once required a body shop a few hours to repair will now require the replacement of all of those parts, or result in the totaling of a car by the insurance company, because that slight damage has compromised the intended ability of the body to be sacrificed to protect the passengers.
A friend of mine bought his daughter a new Honda CRV (with the spare and cover mounted on the tail). A few months later it was hit from behind at about 10mph in a traffic jam. The SUV that hit it pushed the spare into the tailgate, deforming it. The insurance company totaled-out the car. He took it to a garage and had them replace the gate from a donor car, and straighten the surrounding metal as best as they could, but it was never right again, because (among other things) the steel was so thin. A car from 30 years earlier would've emerged from such an impact unscathed, since the bumpers would've hit each other. Even if the tailgate had been deformed, the damaged area could've been cut-out and rebuilt without any significant lasting effects. I know because I have done that very thing over the past 40 years, on pre-1970s cars.
The cheaper and thinner the metals they use, the less longevity they will have. The steels and aluminum alloys used on today's higher-end cars are of lower quality than those used 50 and more years ago, and they use as little as they can possibly get away with, to save weight.
TL;DR -- cars now do not last as long as the cars of the past did. And that trend will only continue, and those lifespans will only shorten, going forward.
Last edited by Atlas Shrugged; 06-28-22 at 05:20 PM.
06-28-22, 06:14 PM
#155
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North, Ga.
Posts: 2,401
Bikes: 3Rensho-Aerodynamics, Bernard Hinault Look - 1986 tour winner, Guerciotti, Various Klein's & Panasonic's
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked 375 Times
in
162 Posts
Imagine collecting electronic groups like Di2 30 years from now! Will the bikes be unused functionless decoration? Will there be a subculture of die hards who find workarounds for outdated electronics? As with us today, both!
Last edited by embankmentlb; 06-28-22 at 06:26 PM.
Likes For embankmentlb:
06-28-22, 06:23 PM
#156
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North, Ga.
Posts: 2,401
Bikes: 3Rensho-Aerodynamics, Bernard Hinault Look - 1986 tour winner, Guerciotti, Various Klein's & Panasonic's
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked 375 Times
in
162 Posts
Wait. What? What are you basing that claim on?
No, they do not.
The more plastic that manufacturers use, the less of the car will survive, and cars made today are more than 50% plastic. Plastic begins degrading the moment it is manufactured.
https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.c...el%20efficient..
The more that manufacturers design the body to provide protection for the riders (instead of having bumpers, as all cars did until twenty years ago), the less likely they are to last.
Look at the nose of any new car: the grill, hood and quarter-panels are now exposed to the slightest impact, as is the tail. The low-speed impact that once required a body shop a few hours to repair will now require the replacement of all of those parts, or result in the totaling of a car by the insurance company, because that slight damage has compromised the intended ability of the body to be sacrificed to protect the passengers.
A friend of mine bought his daughter a new Honda CRV (with the spare and cover mounted on the tail). A few months later it was hit from behind at about 10mph in a traffic jam. The SUV that hit it pushed the spare into the tailgate, deforming it. The insurance company totaled-out the car. He took it to a garage and had them replace the gate from a donor car, and straighten the surrounding metal as best as they could, but it was never right again, because (among other things) the steel was so thin. A car from 30 years earlier would've emerged from such an impact unscathed, since the bumpers would've hit each other. Even if the tailgate had been deformed, the damaged area could've been cut-out and rebuilt without any significant lasting effects. I know because I have done that very thing over the past 40 years, on pre-1970s cars.
The cheaper and thinner the metals they use, the less longevity they will have. The steels and aluminum alloys used on today's higher-end cars are of lower quality than those used 50 and more years ago, and they use as little as they can possibly get away with, to save weight.
TL;DR -- cars now do not last as long as the cars of the past did. And that trend will only continue, and those lifespans will only shorten, going forward.
No, they do not.
The more plastic that manufacturers use, the less of the car will survive, and cars made today are more than 50% plastic. Plastic begins degrading the moment it is manufactured.
https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.c...el%20efficient..
The more that manufacturers design the body to provide protection for the riders (instead of having bumpers, as all cars did until twenty years ago), the less likely they are to last.
Look at the nose of any new car: the grill, hood and quarter-panels are now exposed to the slightest impact, as is the tail. The low-speed impact that once required a body shop a few hours to repair will now require the replacement of all of those parts, or result in the totaling of a car by the insurance company, because that slight damage has compromised the intended ability of the body to be sacrificed to protect the passengers.
A friend of mine bought his daughter a new Honda CRV (with the spare and cover mounted on the tail). A few months later it was hit from behind at about 10mph in a traffic jam. The SUV that hit it pushed the spare into the tailgate, deforming it. The insurance company totaled-out the car. He took it to a garage and had them replace the gate from a donor car, and straighten the surrounding metal as best as they could, but it was never right again, because (among other things) the steel was so thin. A car from 30 years earlier would've emerged from such an impact unscathed, since the bumpers would've hit each other. Even if the tailgate had been deformed, the damaged area could've been cut-out and rebuilt without any significant lasting effects. I know because I have done that very thing over the past 40 years, on pre-1970s cars.
The cheaper and thinner the metals they use, the less longevity they will have. The steels and aluminum alloys used on today's higher-end cars are of lower quality than those used 50 and more years ago, and they use as little as they can possibly get away with, to save weight.
TL;DR -- cars now do not last as long as the cars of the past did. And that trend will only continue, and those lifespans will only shorten, going forward.
However, cars built prior to say the early 1990s are pretty much past their reliable life at 100k miles.
Today cars have a useful life of 250k miles and in some cases much more. Thank you Toyota.
Older cars may have physically lasted longer but in a practical usable manner not so much.
Last edited by embankmentlb; 06-28-22 at 06:28 PM.
Likes For embankmentlb:
06-28-22, 06:50 PM
#157
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bastrop Texas
Posts: 4,467
Bikes: Univega, Peu P6, Peu PR-10, Ted Williams, Peu UO-8, Peu UO-18 Mixte, Peu Dolomites
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked 1,619 Times
in
1,039 Posts
So can we keep a carbon frame for years and years to the point of them becoming Vintage. I think so but they would most likely be somewhat Wall Hangers. Maybe we need to concentrate on developing new ways to reliably inspect our carbon frames integrity. So we can keep using them. Just like they do on auto racing components via sonogram imaging.
My son took all the components from an 80's FUJI and transferred them to an old 70's Peugeot UO8 for a better ride. Both bikes were old but the question is if the UO8 is still a Peugeot. So what will happen in the future when someones old vintage carbon frame gets the "CRACKS". I guess we'll just change it out and call it something else...
__________________
No matter where you're at... There you are... Δf:=f(1/2)-f(-1/2)
No matter where you're at... There you are... Δf:=f(1/2)-f(-1/2)
06-28-22, 07:35 PM
#158
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Central Florida, USA
Posts: 1,987
Bikes: Litespeed (9); Slingshot (9); Specialized (3); Kestrel (2); Cervelo (1); FELT (1); Trek (2)
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 433 Post(s)
Liked 3,443 Times
in
994 Posts
From Bicycling, June 1992.
__________________
WTB: Slingshot bicycle promotional documents (catalog, pamphlets, etc).
WTB: American Cycling May - Aug, Oct, Dec 1966.
WTB: Bicycle Guide issues 1984 (any); Jun 1987; Jul, Nov/Dec 1992; Apr 1994; 1996 -1998 (any)
WTB: Bike World issue Jun 1974.
WTB: Slingshot bicycle promotional documents (catalog, pamphlets, etc).
WTB: American Cycling May - Aug, Oct, Dec 1966.
WTB: Bicycle Guide issues 1984 (any); Jun 1987; Jul, Nov/Dec 1992; Apr 1994; 1996 -1998 (any)
WTB: Bike World issue Jun 1974.
Last edited by SpeedofLite; 06-28-22 at 07:42 PM. Reason: provide source and date context
Likes For SpeedofLite:
06-28-22, 08:39 PM
#159
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Point Reyes Station, California
Posts: 4,526
Bikes: Indeed!
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1506 Post(s)
Liked 3,463 Times
in
1,130 Posts
This old horse got flogged pretty good in 2011. (and who knows how many times in subsequent similar threads?) Can't we let it out to pasture peacefully?
Brent
Brent
06-29-22, 02:15 PM
#160
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ashland, VA
Posts: 4,420
Bikes: The keepers: 1958 Raleigh Lenton Grand Prix, 1968 Ranger, 1969 Magneet Sprint, 1971 Gitane Tour de France, 1973 Raleigh Tourist, 3 - 1986 Rossins, and a '77 PX-10 frame in process.
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 221 Post(s)
Liked 237 Times
in
129 Posts
Wait. What? What are you basing that claim on?
No, they do not.
The more plastic that manufacturers use, the less of the car will survive, and cars made today are more than 50% plastic. Plastic begins degrading the moment it is manufactured.
https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.c...el%20efficient..
The more that manufacturers design the body to provide protection for the riders (instead of having bumpers, as all cars did until twenty years ago), the less likely they are to last.
Look at the nose of any new car: the grill, hood and quarter-panels are now exposed to the slightest impact, as is the tail. The low-speed impact that once required a body shop a few hours to repair will now require the replacement of all of those parts, or result in the totaling of a car by the insurance company, because that slight damage has compromised the intended ability of the body to be sacrificed to protect the passengers.
A friend of mine bought his daughter a new Honda CRV (with the spare and cover mounted on the tail). A few months later it was hit from behind at about 10mph in a traffic jam. The SUV that hit it pushed the spare into the tailgate, deforming it. The insurance company totaled-out the car. He took it to a garage and had them replace the gate from a donor car, and straighten the surrounding metal as best as they could, but it was never right again, because (among other things) the steel was so thin. A car from 30 years earlier would've emerged from such an impact unscathed, since the bumpers would've hit each other. Even if the tailgate had been deformed, the damaged area could've been cut-out and rebuilt without any significant lasting effects. I know because I have done that very thing over the past 40 years, on pre-1970s cars.
The cheaper and thinner the metals they use, the less longevity they will have. The steels and aluminum alloys used on today's higher-end cars are of lower quality than those used 50 and more years ago, and they use as little as they can possibly get away with, to save weight.
TL;DR -- cars now do not last as long as the cars of the past did. And that trend will only continue, and those lifespans will only shorten, going forward.
No, they do not.
The more plastic that manufacturers use, the less of the car will survive, and cars made today are more than 50% plastic. Plastic begins degrading the moment it is manufactured.
https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.c...el%20efficient..
The more that manufacturers design the body to provide protection for the riders (instead of having bumpers, as all cars did until twenty years ago), the less likely they are to last.
Look at the nose of any new car: the grill, hood and quarter-panels are now exposed to the slightest impact, as is the tail. The low-speed impact that once required a body shop a few hours to repair will now require the replacement of all of those parts, or result in the totaling of a car by the insurance company, because that slight damage has compromised the intended ability of the body to be sacrificed to protect the passengers.
A friend of mine bought his daughter a new Honda CRV (with the spare and cover mounted on the tail). A few months later it was hit from behind at about 10mph in a traffic jam. The SUV that hit it pushed the spare into the tailgate, deforming it. The insurance company totaled-out the car. He took it to a garage and had them replace the gate from a donor car, and straighten the surrounding metal as best as they could, but it was never right again, because (among other things) the steel was so thin. A car from 30 years earlier would've emerged from such an impact unscathed, since the bumpers would've hit each other. Even if the tailgate had been deformed, the damaged area could've been cut-out and rebuilt without any significant lasting effects. I know because I have done that very thing over the past 40 years, on pre-1970s cars.
The cheaper and thinner the metals they use, the less longevity they will have. The steels and aluminum alloys used on today's higher-end cars are of lower quality than those used 50 and more years ago, and they use as little as they can possibly get away with, to save weight.
TL;DR -- cars now do not last as long as the cars of the past did. And that trend will only continue, and those lifespans will only shorten, going forward.
Vintage cars may last longer sitting in a field as parts cars, because the thickness of metal and lack of plastics enables them to withstand the ravages of Mother Nature better than something make twenty years ago, but as running entities? You've got to be joking.
Going back to my childhood (the 1950's-first half of the 1960's), the average car needed serious maintenance by the time it hit 50,000 miles, and by 100,000 miles you were looking at rebuilding the car completely, to the point that nobody bothered as it wasn't worth the money. Going back to the days of my first car (a 1937 Buick Special bought in the summer of 1968 and showed on the local antique car circuit for the next fifteen years) it would have been worse. That Buick, while always garaged and well cared for (little old lady schoolteacher's car) still needed a fair bit of fettling during the 60's and 70's to get thru the 3,000 miles or so a year I put on it. Nothing ever went badly wrong, it never came close to stranding me on the highway, but it took a hell of a lot of maintenance to keep it running with a modern sense of reliability.
Putting those instances alongside the one 'beater' I've got on the property, a 2008 Kia Sedona minivan with 149,000 miles on it is no contest. I happily take the Kia on all my long non-motorcycle trips, have absolutely no second thoughts about it's reliability, and the maintenance it occurs to stay that way is nothing exceptional.
The one part that I'll readily give you is, given the makeup of cars in the last thirty years, I'm very glad that antique bicycles are my hobby, not antique cars. It's going to get increasingly difficult to restore cars of the last thirty years given the degradability of the materials they're made of.
__________________
Syke
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken, (1926)
Syke
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken, (1926)
06-29-22, 03:03 PM
#161
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 203
Bikes: 1965 Hetchin's, 1977 Galmozzi, 1956 Rochet, 1947 Gnome et Rhone, 1972 De Rosa, 1948 Bates B-A-R, 1989 Trevor Jarvis (Baines) "Flying Gate", etc.
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times
in
22 Posts
Besides, did you see the smirk on that cloud? It had it coming, the cheeky little ****...
Here's some food for thought for people actually curious about the longevity of polymer resins used as binders in carbon fiber frames. Spoiler alert: they don't last forever:
"Physical Aging of Epoxy Polymers and Their Composites"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/polb.22384
06-29-22, 03:56 PM
#162
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,658
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1245 Post(s)
Liked 1,321 Times
in
673 Posts
Well, I found this thread (years after the OP), so others will as well. It never hurts to have additional perspectives added to round-out the discourse.
Besides, did you see the smirk on that cloud? It had it coming, the cheeky little ****...
Here's some food for thought for people actually curious about the longevity of polymer resins used as binders in carbon fiber frames. Spoiler alert: they don't last forever:
"Physical Aging of Epoxy Polymers and Their Composites"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/polb.22384
Besides, did you see the smirk on that cloud? It had it coming, the cheeky little ****...
Here's some food for thought for people actually curious about the longevity of polymer resins used as binders in carbon fiber frames. Spoiler alert: they don't last forever:
"Physical Aging of Epoxy Polymers and Their Composites"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/polb.22384
06-29-22, 05:42 PM
#163
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,364
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2479 Post(s)
Liked 2,948 Times
in
1,674 Posts
Well, I found this thread (years after the OP), so others will as well. It never hurts to have additional perspectives added to round-out the discourse.
Besides, did you see the smirk on that cloud? It had it coming, the cheeky little ****...
Here's some food for thought for people actually curious about the longevity of polymer resins used as binders in carbon fiber frames. Spoiler alert: they don't last forever:
"Physical Aging of Epoxy Polymers and Their Composites"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/polb.22384
Besides, did you see the smirk on that cloud? It had it coming, the cheeky little ****...
Here's some food for thought for people actually curious about the longevity of polymer resins used as binders in carbon fiber frames. Spoiler alert: they don't last forever:
"Physical Aging of Epoxy Polymers and Their Composites"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/polb.22384
Very interesting. So, according to that paper, resin-impregnated carbon fiber structures are capable of being rejuvenated, unlike all other materials used for bicycle frames and components. Perhaps there are already companies out there that can provice such a service. Imagine: carbon frames and components with theoretically limitless lifespans!
From the link provided above:
The effects of physical aging can be reversed through thermal rejuvenation (a.k.a. thermal de-aging and erasure). There are multiple reported thermal rejuvenation mechanisms for epoxies that have been discussed in the literature. The most effective mechanism is super-Tg thermal rejuvenation. When an aged epoxy polymer is heated above the Tg for an appreciable time, the physical aging history is lost, and the aging clock is reset to zero.
It has been reported that temperatures that are at least 40 °C greater than Tg with annealing times of 10–15 min are more than adequate for this purpose.28 If the rejuvenated polymer is cooled to an aging temperature below Tg, then it will exhibit the behavior corresponding to the appropriate cooling rate shown in Figure 3 for ta = 0. More details of the thermal rejuvenation process can be found elsewhere.10
Likes For Trakhak:
06-30-22, 01:03 PM
#165
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 1,070
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 582 Times
in
336 Posts
They handled well enough that you could steer with just the doors at about 55 mph.
But, at 12:45 am, with two screaming friends in the back seat, the patrolman will not be amused.
Or maybe it was because the lights were off? So, what's a year off of driving?
I loved that car.
But, at 12:45 am, with two screaming friends in the back seat, the patrolman will not be amused.
Or maybe it was because the lights were off? So, what's a year off of driving?
I loved that car.
Likes For bamboobike4:
06-30-22, 02:55 PM
#166
Veteran, Pacifist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,327
Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?
Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3897 Post(s)
Liked 4,829 Times
in
2,228 Posts
Who thinks all today's bikes are made from carbon fibre?
I can name a very large number of manufacturers (and framebuilders) who might disagree.
And who thinks all the carbon fibre bikes will be dust? My Calfee ('00) is still in warranty for a few more years.
I can name a very large number of manufacturers (and framebuilders) who might disagree.
And who thinks all the carbon fibre bikes will be dust? My Calfee ('00) is still in warranty for a few more years.
__________________
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.
06-30-22, 02:59 PM
#167
Veteran, Pacifist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,327
Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?
Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3897 Post(s)
Liked 4,829 Times
in
2,228 Posts
06-30-22, 03:48 PM
#168
Newbie
Maybe in the case of a collision but otherwise every car we had from the late 60's through the mid 80's rusted pretty badly within 8 years.
Likes For frogger72:
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Barrettscv
Classic & Vintage
101
03-20-19 01:49 PM
lewt539
Classic & Vintage
103
10-10-11 08:19 AM
