Cracked frame or scratch?

[Craigp.]

Global class action!

This whole saga is appalling, is there a product recall yet?

Apparently there was one for wide handlebars...

Nothing admitting fault in an email, it was all over the phone. Coincidence this was the only time they contacted me via phone? I think not

 

[stirk]

Nothing admitting fault in an email, it was all over the phone. Coincidence this was the only time they contacted me via phone? I think not

Anthems being a cracking bike has been a long running joke for a while.

Are heavy boned people riding these road bikes on fire trails?!

 

[golden path]

Carbon being the wonder material it is and all.......yet there are so many reports of cracked frames, cracked bars, squashed seatposts, etc.

Is it not all it's err, cracked up to be?


Flame suit on.

 

[Binaural]

Anthems being a cracking bike has been a long running joke for a while.

Are heavy boned people riding these road bikes on fire trails?!

I once managed to bend a Giant mid-downtube. Yeah, I'm pretty heavy, but that's just as weak as piss. Giant have in general been designing bikes that are borderline unsafe forever in order to get those headline low weights while keeping costs low elsewhere. I assume the costs of replacing a fraction of their frames frequently is outweighed by their larger sales volumes that results from this tactic.

 

[Mr Crudley]

Is it not all it's err, cracked up to be?

Flame suit on.

I guess it just doesn't cope well with impact hits as well as metal. I'd still love a carbon steed but still don't feel like I'm missing out on too much.

My pet grumble is how it was rumoured to cut production costs since the manufacturing process should be cheaper than welding. Still waiting for that to happen The opposite seems to be the reality.



----------
Sent with added typos from a tiny mobile keyboard and spellchecker that makes a mess of everything.

 

[golden path]

Yeah.

Maybe some MTB's and components are just being made lighter than what reality or currently technology and manufacturing processes will allow?

I like the look of carbon, but I'm not willing to pay the high premium for whatever alleged performance benefits there may be.

 

[Mr Crudley]

Yeah.

Maybe some MTB's and components are just being made lighter than what reality or currently technology and manufacturing processes will allow?

While we are grumbling away, I would also think that the modern bikes shouldn't be nudging 27-30 lbs too (which seems like where a new $4k-$6k spend will get you). Dropper posts and tubeless tyres can't be blamed for it all :whistle: but are part of it.

I like the look of carbon, but I'm not willing to pay the high premium for whatever alleged performance benefits there may be.

I have come to realise that a schwanky carbon steed won't get me onto the podium but wait, I'd have to race too.

 

[Boom King]

Carbon being the wonder material it is and all.......yet there are so many reports of cracked frames, cracked bars, squashed seatposts, etc.

Is it not all it's err, cracked up to be?


Flame suit on.

All carbon isn't created equally. It seems that a lot of the manufactures of bicycle bits don't quite have the processes and QC up to speed.

Formula one, many of the Hypercar manufacturers such as Ferrari, Porsche, Konigsegg, McLaren, Aston Marton etc and most Aerospace manufacturers have none of the problems we see in Bicycles. Most of those applications need to cope with way more stress than a MTB as well.

 

[JTmofo]

While we are grumbling away, I would also think that the modern bikes shouldn't be nudging 27-30 lbs too (which seems like where a new $4k-$6k spend will get you). Dropper posts and tubeless tyres can't be blamed for it all :whistle: but are part of it.



I have come to realise that a schwanky carbon steed won't get me onto the podium but wait, I'd have to race too.

12.5kg for a 150/160mm enduro rig is actually very light.

A sub $5k giant xtc advance would be close on 11kg .. or less.

 

[golden path]

All carbon isn't created equally. It seems that a lot of the manufactures of bicycle bits don't quite have the processes and QC up to speed.

Formula one, many of the Hypercar manufacturers such as Ferrari, Porsche, Konigsegg, McLaren, Aston Marton etc and most Aerospace manufacturers have none of the problems we see in Bicycles. Most of those applications need to cope with way more stress than a MTB as well.

Massive coin though, and they are *probably* dealing with more rigid parameters of what they can expect one of their cars to endure. And will the same components be used hard, for two or three years or more the way an MTB will be?

For example - Giant sells it's nice carbon Anthem which is by and large an XC style bike, with probably an XC weight dude on top. Presumably the frame is tested within certain stresses and parameters that might be encountered during the type of riding Giant have in mind for the bike.

Then along comes Mr 100kg Weekend Warrior, who just wants to ride it on his rocky trails, has no finesse, and gets out of shape from time to time. But he's a bit of a weight weeny and wants a light bike.

Nobody would expect a 22lb carbon racing hardtail to put up with the same nonsense, but IMO even a light XC race dually is more capable of hitting things harder and spurring the rider on to do more of the same.

I think with light carbon road bikes, manufacturers can pretty much foresee that the end user WON'T be jumping the thing, won't be messing up metre high drops, won't be seeing rocks thrown up into the frame, and so on.

This certainly isn't the case with MTB's.

 

[Boom King]

Massive coin though, and they are *probably* dealing with more rigid parameters of what they can expect one of their cars to endure. And will the same components be used hard, for two or three years or more the way an MTB will be?

For example - Giant sells it's nice carbon Anthem which is by and large an XC style bike, with probably an XC weight dude on top. Presumably the frame is tested within certain stresses and parameters that might be encountered during the type of riding Giant have in mind for the bike.

Then along comes Mr 100kg Weekend Warrior, who just wants to ride it on his rocky trails, has no finesse, and gets out of shape from time to time. But he's a bit of a weight weeny and wants a light bike.

Nobody would expect a 22lb carbon racing hardtail to put up with the same nonsense, but IMO even a light XC race dually is more capable of hitting things harder and spurring the rider on to do more of the same.

I think with light carbon road bikes, manufacturers can pretty much foresee that the end user WON'T be jumping the thing, won't be messing up metre high drops, won't be seeing rocks thrown up into the frame, and so on.

This certainly isn't the case with MTB's.

Do you want good carbon or cheap carbon? Hard to have both but good carbon doesn't have to be massively expensive, it just needs to be made with care and correct process.

 

[golden path]

Yes, I think we all realise that, and it applies to light alloy frames too.

 

[bear the bear]

Massive coin though, and they are *probably* dealing with more rigid parameters of what they can expect one of their cars to endure. And will the same components be used hard, for two or three years or more the way an MTB will be?

For example - Giant sells it's nice carbon Anthem which is by and large an XC style bike, with probably an XC weight dude on top. Presumably the frame is tested within certain stresses and parameters that might be encountered during the type of riding Giant have in mind for the bike.

Then along comes Mr 100kg Weekend Warrior, who just wants to ride it on his rocky trails, has no finesse, and gets out of shape from time to time. But he's a bit of a weight weeny and wants a light bike.

Nobody would expect a 22lb carbon racing hardtail to put up with the same nonsense, but IMO even a light XC race dually is more capable of hitting things harder and spurring the rider on to do more of the same.

I think with light carbon road bikes, manufacturers can pretty much foresee that the end user WON'T be jumping the thing, won't be messing up metre high drops, won't be seeing rocks thrown up into the frame, and so on.

This certainly isn't the case with MTB's.

Really... suggest you google DIN EN ISO 4210 Part 2.....

 

[pliskin]

For example - Giant sells it's nice carbon Anthem which is by and large an XC style bike, with probably an XC weight dude on top. Presumably the frame is tested within certain stresses and parameters that might be encountered during the type of riding Giant have in mind for the bike.

Then along comes Mr 100kg Weekend Warrior, who just wants to ride it on his rocky trails, has no finesse, and gets out of shape from time to time. But he's a bit of a weight weeny and wants a light bike.

I bought my Anthem in 2014, not because i'm a weight weenie or wanted a lighter bike. i bought it because it was a 4inch travel , carbon framed bike with the best spec i could find, matched with the best value components.
The main trails i ride are XC trails here in Canberra / ACT region. (Kowen, Mt Stromlo, Sparrow Hill, Bruce Ridge, Mt Majura). These trails can be ridden on bikes with no suspension at all, so i think having 4inches is more than adequate.
kitted out i'm probably 84kg.

I doubt a novice rider would even consider spending $4-6k on a dual suspension bike, but to me, if ive just spent that amount of money on any brand of bike, i would expect it be designed / engineered for purpose. Giant has had quiet a few years with the same persisting issues on this range of frames.

 

[golden path]

Really... suggest you google DIN EN ISO 4210 Part 2.....

What's your point?

To save me reading the whole document, like...

 

[pliskin]

i think the point is, there is a document that states guidelines the manufacturers have to achieve in regards whether they are road bikes, mountain bikes or recreational bikes.

 

[golden path]

That much would be plainly obvious, yes.

 

[LPG]

It's interesting that the failure is where it is. You would assume that the suspension itself would smooth out shock loads to the bike and make it comparatively easy to calculate stress and correct the design. I wonder if the way suspension is setup to improve pedalling efficiency makes any significant increases to peak stress during riding situations.

That much would be plainly obvious, yes.

So then it is plainly obviously that as a manufacturer giant have the same guidelines for the type of loads and factors of safety needed to produce a mountain bike so they don't need to guess how heavy a rider is going to ride off what drop with what tyre pressure?

Good to see we are all on the same page again :Banane42:

 

[schred]

I don't know about easy to calc, on one hand yes it would seem as my 17 anthem adv has taken a beating and has wear marks from me rubbing off the dirt to regularly check behind the shock, and it's fine. Then Craig's went bang on day dot. Something is up, but that doesn't indicate design failure to me.

As I mentioned earlier, somewhere, the changes I noticed from 15 to 17 that may offer clues was a deeper, larger box section chainstay, obv one piece larger/stiffer rocker and trunion shock mount - that all says to me stiffen up the rear end and get the elements working in unison. Ie maybe things weren't operating as intended, and that section, combined with a pedaling motion around around the bb, was strained even twisted. Who knows.

 

[Mr Crudley]

12.5kg for a 150/160mm enduro rig is actually very light.

A sub $5k giant xtc advance would be close on 11kg .. or less.

12.5kg isn't bad but I guess I expect more in bike evolution. Light, strong, cheap - pick any two.
I think strong and (not) cheap have mostly been covered.