Scott Ransom 20 frame fails 3 times!- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 233
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61

    Scott Ransom 20 frame fails 3 times!

    Ok…I wasn’t going to come on here and post this, mostly because Scott and my LBS handled the issue so quickly and satisfactorily that I kinda feel bad about it. My reason for changing my mind is that I feel I owe it to MTB culture to do what I can to prevent someone else from having a similar experience.

    Here’s what you need to know :

    Rider: 6’3”
    Weight: 180 lbs.
    Riding style: aggressive trail
    Location: Arizona
    Bike: Scott Ransom 20


    I ride 6 days a week here in Arizona and average about 12 – 14 miles each day. I ride I guess what people are calling “aggressive trail” these days, used to just be called mountain biking. I don’t venture off the trail for free riding at all, but when I see water bars or drops on the trail, I hit ‘em with all I have.

    The point? I have been through 3 carbon ransom 20 frames in as many months.

    The first one…stress fractures developed about 2” above the BB on the down tube, I was told by my LBS and local Scott dealer (not at all familiar with the bike by the way) that the cracks were superficial and only on the surface. They told me to ride with confidence as did my Scott rep…

    Well I did, and paid the price. While crossing from trail to trail at my local spot, I decided to gap the whopping 4’ space in between 2 parking blocks with an 18” high bunny hop. Huge, I know…I told you I go big. I land it smooth…and POP! I thought the shock blew up…turns out it was the frame exploding underneath me. 1 down…

    scott ransom 20 002.jpg

    So Scott makes good and demos me a Ransom 10 while they work on replacing my 20. Sweet ride…and mighty nice of them to boot. ‘cept for the part where they forgot the loc-tite on the pin that threads through the shock knuckle. The pin had backed out and under normal compression, rebounded …tearing a 1 1/2” x 1” hole in the interior of the carbon frame. 2 down…

    scott ransom 20 016.jpg

    scott ransom 20 021.jpg

    Now, I’m kinda pissed. But I play it cool and just call ‘em up, tell them what happened and that I was beginning to lose confidence in their product. I’m told by Scott these two incidents are the result of me being a “very unlucky person” and I go along with it because I do have really bad luck. They again tell me to ride with confidence and that their products are meant to withstand anything an aggressive trail rider can throw at them. LBS and Scott rep told me the 1st frame was sent to the engineers in Switzerland for inspection. LBS and Scott rep also told me that no carbon frames have failed in this manner on any of their U.S. bikes, but that the Swiss engineers have seen it a few times in Europe. They said that they were sending back a European version of the 20 frame, supposedly beefed up around the down tube where the break occurred.

    I got my 20 back and I’m so happy…back to riding what is (when in one piece) on the surface, a very formidable and fun point & shoot AM rig. But, given my recent history with the bike, I’m checking the down tube before every ride to make sure no stress fractures are developing…there aren’t any. I’m gearing up at the trailhead and a rider pulls up next to me and asks if I can show him around because he just moved to Arizona. I said yeah and we headed off to the best part of the loops…a decent that boasts about 40 2’ – 3’ water bars. I wanted to show him a good time so we were blasting off every one we could. Its worth mentioning that blasting off for me (and him) was pretty moderate jumping to slightly sloped landings. I’d say tires no more than 4’ off the ground and traveling about 15’ – 20’ down trail on the really big ones. And it was one of the big ones that claimed the last carbon bike I will ever ride…at least one made by Scott. This one completely snapped in half at the same down tube spot. I tweaked my wrist pretty bad, but again…kept it rubber side down. The guy I was riding with is the nicest guy in the world, he gets off his bike and hikes the 4 miles we had back to the car. Even gave me his name and number to contact him if Scott gave me any flack about the kind of riding I was doing when it broke…he was pretty amazed that what we were doing was all it took to break a frame like that. 3 down...

    scott ransom 20 030.jpg

    scott ransom 20 031.jpg


    All in all the LBS and Scott worked together to fully credit my account for the full purchase price of the bike and did it rather quickly (about a week). Also worth mentioning is that my Dad is an attorney and helped me put together a “letter of encouragement”…that helped as well, I’m sure. Scott’s customer service is great…and my LBS hung in there and made it right in the end. I just don’t think Scott’s carbon is up to snuff…and it has led me to believe that carbon in general may not quite be ready for aggressive riders…I could be way off, and maybe better technology is out there on other rigs…I just won’t ever find out about it.
    Last edited by Trail_Header; 11-11-2006 at 02:59 PM.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  2. #2
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,525
    carbon in general may not quite be ready for aggressive riders
    i do not believe in carbon, and i don't believe it will ever be a popular frame material simply because of incidents like yours.
    sorry to hear about your luck, sounds like scott is a decent company at least.
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  3. #3
    Weapon of Choice
    Reputation: Iceman69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    800
    Aye I'll keep my aluminum frame thank you very much.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,494
    mmmkona might be sweating when he checks out this thread. I was also wary of carbon because of my weight and riding style. Not for me.

  5. #5
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,848
    That sucks... I ride similar stuff it sounds like, plus I ride at Keystone, just learning to do jumps... I'm almost 200 lbs and will go with something heavier for my next bike. I'm considering a Canfield Balance (Aluminum), Knolly Delerium or an Intense Uzzi VPX. Maybe one of those would hold up better for you? They are all built to take some serious abuse...

  6. #6
    Your bike is incorrigible
    Reputation: Guyechka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,179
    I have to credit MBA with running that article a year ago about the downside (serious downside) of carbon frames and components. On the other hand, aside from that one article, they seem to be proponents of the stuff.

    I agree with Ferday; I hate carbon. I hate carbon components, and I hate carbon frames most of all. While it seems like a good material (and let's face it, it is sexy), the potential for mishaps is high. Those mishaps happen to carry more serious consequences than with aluminum or steel.

    The strange thing is that carbon frames have been around what seems like forever. I remember a friend of mine riding a carbon framed Giant in 1992. Maybe there wasn't as much manipulating of the frames into strange shapes back then.

  7. #7
    CURB HUCK!!!!!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    492
    it's unfortunate that had to happen to you, TH
    I'm suprised those frames broke though, especially at that junction at the bottom just because those seem like some really monstrous sized tubing
    hope you have better luck with your next bike
    Kona Coiler

  8. #8

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,544
    I'm waiting for the first Ibis Mojo to break.....

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,257
    Glad you are OK. Three failures put you in a very high risk category for crashing.

    What next, a Ventana? They don't often break!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Znarf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,053
    There was a ransom with a broken headtube at some Interbike demonstration. This camp in the desert thing where you can test all the new bikes, don´t know what it´s called.

    Saw a pic of the broken frame, headtube was popped off the main frame

    How about a Heckler? I own one, seems to be indestructible. Mine is now 4years old, no signs of weakness. Even the first bearings are still like new, and I DO ride a lot. In harsh conditions, all winter, all weather, mud ... That thing sure is ridiculously maintenance free

    Love it.

    Greetings znarf

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    thanks for the replies...i was considering the RM slayer, SC nomad, Intense 6.6, and the Scott Ransom when i bought this bike. i have riden all of them and put an intense 6.6 on order, it'll be built and ready to roll in 4 weeks.

    the potential crash thing really freaked me out on the drive home...the second one was at speed and through the trees...good thing the ring augered into the ground, brought things to a hault rather quickly.

    i'm not abusive to bikes, but i do ride hard and fast and expect my bike to take it. the intense seems stout enough to handle my style and light enough to let me earn my downhill runs.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  12. #12
    Motion activated
    Reputation: Steve71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,241
    WHOLE LEE SH!T
    Happiness is a warm 2 stroke.

  13. #13
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,619
    Trail Header.....I didn't see it in your post, but i'm surprised Scott didn't come back to you with an offer of an aluminum version of the same bike with a credit for the price difference? Seems like that would've kept you on a Scott that you'd have more confidence in.

    It seems like they did you right either way.

    EB

  14. #14
    Weight Weenie Shop Owner
    Reputation: DIRT BOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,006

    Personally after dealing with SCOTT tech dept...

    I have no faith in thier service. They don't know basic info on thier bikes and rely on the dealers for basic info .

    If you SCOTT rep told you to ride a cracked frame in confidence, he should be fired! They should have checked that frame out 100x over to make sure it was only superficial. They should be lucky as HELL you did not sue the pants off them and the reps! If I was SCOTT not only would I replace your Ransom, I would offer you a road frame or a HT as a sorry, our REP and the Compnay failed you!

    What worries me is they gave you 3 frames. They obviously don't feel it's rider error breaking these frame. After seeing this and SCALE frames having issues (SCOTT US admits to this) I would be nervous riding thier CF MTB frames.
    DIRT BOY
    Light-Bikes.com
    The Largest Site Dedicated to Light Weight Bikes and Sales
    Twitter: @lightbikes_com

  15. #15
    just ride
    Reputation: chequamagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,853
    Kick ass, where can I buy one of those?

    Funny shiz, I actually did ride one earlier this year when a rep stopped by trying to convince our store owners to carry Scott. I think they made a good choice.....
    Tires for real rides: www.terrenetires.com

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rocpyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355
    How does the aluminum version of the ransom hold up, or did they blow theyre wad on r&d for the carbon version?

  17. #17
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,854
    Dude, I sympathize deeply.

    However, it has always been an unwritten rule (perhaps all the engineering I took), that states:

    All mountain riding and Carbon frames are an oxymoron.

    the two just don't go together.

    However, that doesn't mean that Scott shouldn't be beefing it up when they advertise it!

    T

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Znarf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,053
    Maybe now there´s the time, where bikes will stay the same weight or get a bit heavier again.
    I am now roughly 15years into MTBing (although I was a kid when I started riding)
    I´ve seen the different hypes. Light bikes, small tires then wide tires, semislicks, then heavier bikes+suspension, then freeride, heavy bikes. Now the "Freeride" (Enduro, All mountain, Freeride are the same thing in the end, just different interpretations) bikes are super light. And they don´t hold up when they´re too light.
    I don´t talk about everybody using a Banshee Scream, but a bike like a Ransom with a super light build, all XTR or whatever, it just doesn´t seem REALISTIC to me. It weighs almost as much as a race full suspension. What are the top Ransoms, 27pounds or something like that?
    My Heckler weighs maybe 32-33lbs. Burly build, not too light, heavy wheels, UST tires, Saint+Hone parts. Pike+piggyback shock. But no ass heavy parts either. And it climbs perfect, at least, when I am in perfect shape. I am very light, only 149lbs, so I COULD come away with a lighter build. But I don´t want to, biking is dangerous enough, even without the bike disintegrating under your feet

    As soon as you become to much weight wheenie, something will fail at some point.
    I mean, the AM/Enduro bikes have a very fun to "abuse" geometry, slack head angle, endless travel. Big brakes... you just HAVE to use them hard. Even if Marzocchi says, no jumping on a Marzocchi AM1, who cares? (Besides, Scott boldly printed in the german biking magazines, that you could do the REALLY gnarly,rooty,rocky DH Track in Bad Wildbad(DH world cup course) as often as you want on the carbon Ransom. Without any limitations)

    On a race-hardtail no one will do consistently wheelies, manuals, drops etc. because it´s not fun. And the REAL racers, who do ride rough stuff on race-bikes, they tend to change their gear a lot, or they´re being sponsored. And they´re almost all really light guys.

    For me a good bike has to be durable, besides other qualities. And a certain riding style means a certain "minimum" weight. This minimum weight sure does shrink, year to year.
    But slower than the companies want to make us believe(oh oh, I am german, I hope my english is "understandable")

    Now if you take a 35lbs bike and a 28lbs bike, both WELL constructed. The 35lbs bike will be more durable. Just because it has more material. Thicker tubing, whatever.
    Take a FOX 36. Those things are really stiff and tough. But smash a stanchion into a rock and it can actually ovalize or get DENTS. I´ve seen that actually, the stanchion is FRIGGIn thin walled (on most big stanchion diameter forks).

    OK sorry for the long text.
    I am glad that you didn´t get hurt. Draw your consequences, get a burly build and ride the hell out of that nice bike. The Intense looks nice.
    I would get a Nomad if I had that amount of money, but at least I am only a student (for now, maybe someday

    Greetings znarf

  19. #19
    CURB HUCK!!!!!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Znarf
    (oh oh, I am german, I hope my english is "understandable")
    Greetings znarf
    completely
    I like what you think
    Kona Coiler

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,207
    Quote Originally Posted by IndecentExposure

    All mountain riding and Carbon frames are an oxymoron.

    the two just don't go together.
    Well stated.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Znarf
    I am glad that you didn´t get hurt. Draw your consequences, get a burly build and ride the hell out of that nice bike. The Intense looks nice.
    I would get a Nomad if I had that amount of money

    Greetings znarf
    nomad was my number 2...rode them both quite a bit and the intense just feels better for me, so i went with that. tough decision, read a lot...road a lot, liked a lot about both of them...but i know i made the right choice for me.

    DIRT BOY,

    i also was pretty miffed over the lack of knowledge from my local dealer and after having expressed some concern over the fractures...my rep didn't look at the bike before saying they were surface cracks and nothting to be worried about. i'm still scratching my head over that one a little bit. my local scott dealer (which is not where i bought the bike) was completly lost...they looked at it, but it was clear they were just guessing that they were cracks in the finish.

    i just wish the bike (which is a blast to ride) would have been advertised for what it is, a long travel, slack angled XC bike...that's all, plain and simple. i wouldn't have bought it if wasn't reviewed and advertised as being capable of AM use, because i know my style of riding is more aggressive than strictly XC. you can have a blast on the bike, and if you try to always keep your tires close to the ground and go really fast, it works like butter for that. but if you like to bang...even a little, i can't say from my experience that the bike works well for that at all.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by ebxtreme
    Trail Header.....I didn't see it in your post, but i'm surprised Scott didn't come back to you with an offer of an aluminum version of the same bike with a credit for the price difference? Seems like that would've kept you on a Scott that you'd have more confidence in.

    It seems like they did you right either way.

    EB
    they actually did offer me an aluminum frame and i would assume the difference between the two would have been refunded (though it wasn't mentioned). i turned it down in favor of getting all my money back and shopping around. they did everything they could have done...their PR guy even called me last night after he read the post and talked to me...very cool company/people and they took care of everything that they could. i applaud them for that...i mean, they called me on my cell phone to talk about it and even offered some free stuff.

    again, i feel like crap for making a post that is damaging to them, because the were so good about taking care of me. but not as bad as i would feel if this happened to someone else and they got hurt instead of what i got...lucky.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  23. #23
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Wow - pretty gnarly. I ride a Ransom LTD, and while I do not consider myself an agressive jumper, I like to go fast and hit some smaller drops. They do use a different CF on the LTD than the other models, but I'll still keep an eye on it. I doubt that I have been 4' off the ground anywhere, but 3' for sure. The only Ransom that I have seen break was at Sea Otter, when a guy nose-dived it into the face of a huge triple at big speed. It was a pretty moster crash that I am pretty sure would have broken or bent about anything except maybe a 40-lb freeride rig - he was hauling ass and I think got hurt pretty bad. But it was also a catastrophic failure of the frame when it went. That's a problem with CF - if you are a big rider, or like to huck, you're probably best off with aluminum. Since I'm not so crazy these days (don't heal as fast when you are older and 'miscalculate' ) I'll keep on it, but I do have concerns about a CF frame and if I crashed on a rocky downhill, how the frame may hold up afterwards... We'll see!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    if the carbn is beefier on the ltd, i wish they would have offered me one of those and a good deal on the difference between the two...i would have at least given it a shot. but by the looks of it...it would have to be a lot beefier.

    scott ransom 20 028.jpg

    check the wall thickness...just seems like it should be thicker than that, like a lot thicker.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  25. #25
    just ride
    Reputation: chequamagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header

    check the wall thickness...just seems like it should be thicker than that, like a lot thicker.
    Yes, I am no engineer, but it does seem thin to me. I can only make out 4 layers...... From what I have understood about carbon, you should be using 7-24 layers, depending on the stress of the area. Like I said, I am no engineer, but I find it hard to think that layup processes can cut the layer amounts in half. Let alone, a BB area with a pivot AND shock attachment is very high stress, and should be in the higher range.

    Plus, from what I can see, Scott is just using a unique weave of 12K carbon or close What we normally all think of as carbon is 3K weave, which has become very expensive. 12K is somewhat cheaper right now because its more available, at least at the suppliers I check. (Soller, Aircraft Spruce, and Fibre-Glast). I have read a bit that says 12K is stronger in large, flat parts such as body panels and such, but 3K is much more appropriate for small twists and turns and small stress areas of bike frames. Although, I also notice Cannondale uses something more like 12K on the carbon Leftys.... and I havent heard of any carbon Lefty failures.

    Again, I am no engineer and know very little about composites, except what I have read to do my own small parts in the garage. The guys who made that frame must know something we dont, or they are just nuts.
    Tires for real rides: www.terrenetires.com

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaySlave
    I'm waiting for the first Ibis Mojo to break.....
    It better not be mine!

  27. #27
    Live fast. die younG.
    Reputation: keeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    210
    I hope that SCOTT gets this problem fixed, because I would like to see them do well in the u.s. market.

  28. #28
    TranceX Rider
    Reputation: Onie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    948
    Trail_Header,


    I empathize with you. The more I'm having second thoughts of getting a Trance Advanced, hehehe!

    JeEz, thanks for shAring all of these!

    Chill out, guys!

  29. #29
    Weight Weenie Shop Owner
    Reputation: DIRT BOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header

    DIRT BOY,

    i also was pretty miffed over the lack of knowledge from my local dealer and after having expressed some concern over the fractures...my rep didn't look at the bike before saying they were surface cracks and nothting to be worried about. i'm still scratching my head over that one a little bit. my local scott dealer (which is not where i bought the bike) was completly lost...they looked at it, but it was clear they were just guessing that they were cracks in the finish.
    You said this: I was told by my LBS and local Scott dealer (not at all familiar with the bike by the way) that the cracks were superficial and only on the surface.

    So they SCOTT dealer said it was surface cranks without even seeing it??
    More reason to fire him!
    DIRT BOY
    Light-Bikes.com
    The Largest Site Dedicated to Light Weight Bikes and Sales
    Twitter: @lightbikes_com

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by DIRT BOY
    You said this: I was told by my LBS and local Scott dealer (not at all familiar with the bike by the way) that the cracks were superficial and only on the surface.

    So they SCOTT dealer said it was surface cranks without even seeing it??
    More reason to fire him!
    no...LBS and local Scott dealer saw the bike...Scott rep said surface cracks without seeing the bike.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  31. #31
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    I doubt the LTD uses more carbon in the frame - it is just using a higher modulus fiber and supposedly different molding process. It is interesting in that last photo to see that the frame seemed to fail where the "downtube" meets up with the molded BB assy. I am wondering if the shock bottomed and the load caused the edge where they meet to overload at a stress riser... What I find interesting is that there appears to be "weave" in the CF even in the underlying areas. I have a friend that is considered to be one of the top experts in the composite field - he was one of the first to consult with Trek and Specialized way back when and he is a part owner of a company that makes most of the forks that TdF stage winners seem to have on their bikes. Years ago, he made some composite seatposts, handlebars, etc... and I spent time at his place learning a bit about CF construction. One thing he told me was that unidirectional fiber should always be used for the main body of a part - the "weave" was primarily there for looks, as the places where the fibers cross can cause stress risers in the fibers themselves. A few layers of unidirectional fiber (running in different directions to each other to allow tensile strength in different dimensions) did the main job in a structure, and the weave gave a bit of protective layer, if it took an impact, the strike was distributed across different threads running in different directions, etc... When did you buy your Ransom? I wonder if there was a 'bad batch" possibly. I have one of the early numbers - I got the frame in late April,and spent a month or so building it.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    nice work, way to put the smack down on the Scott, glad you made it through mostly unharmed

    you should go into business as the official carbon frame tester dude

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    When did you buy your Ransom? I wonder if there was a 'bad batch" possibly. .
    in august of this year...that is an interesting posibility, and man would that suck if it were true. it was so fun to ride, and if the batch of carbon was just bad or something, i would feel like i missed out on owning a really great bike. it would make sense that both the frames i got were from the same batch if Scott didn't tell me the second 20 was a beefed up Euro version, but who knows...
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  34. #34
    Spanish Marathon Racer
    Reputation: Rapier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    120
    I think we will see more messsages like this in the next months. Some companies are trying to "sale" us the idea that we can have a "Extremely light" frame and "suitable for hard use" at the same time. I have seen this year a lot of carbon fiber frames broken. And not only for enduro, even also in XC races. For example, I have seen an 06 Epic Fact with the head tube totaly sewerd from the frame in a XC race. The last years, when some brands started to make Scandium frames for XC, I decided to wait, and then there were a lot of Aluminium-scandium frames broken, for example, Scott Team Issue. I think the problem is not using aluminium or carbon, the problem is try to remove material to save some grams. And the worst thing in my opinion, is some companies save grams this way in bike frames that ARE NOT for races, but for recreational use, where 300 or 400 grams (454 grams = 1 pount) is not important. what will be next? Save weight in extreme freeride frames? For example, this seasson some companies have pressented DH frames wich are VERY light (speaking about DH frames). How many people have to break his teeth to understand that this "race for the weight" is totally out of control?

    PD: Sorry about my english, I am Spanish
    Last edited by Rapier; 11-14-2006 at 06:46 AM.
    "Win gives you glory, continue to your last breath gives yo pride, surrender is not an option"
    "Like a beast freed from its chains, I pedal like If I had to scape from hell. As sweat falls from my face, my phantoms, my fears, are left behind until they are points at the horizon."

  35. #35

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    While technology has come very far in the last few years in terms of smarter builds that allow no reduction of strength as a weight savings, the simple fact is that the forces that would exploit that amount of travel are high. If you want a short travel bike, no sense in wasting money on a frame with long travel looks, but short travel strength.

    I'm also left wondering about those 6+ inch travel forks with qr dropouts. Flexy even on XC trails.

    Stuff like this is also what happens when the manufacturers are weight-weenies, just like the people that long for the golden fleece of bikes. Scott could have added more material, but I also think it's amazing that there were cracks in the surface at a high stress area and they gave the seal of approval to ride!
    Last edited by Jerk_Chicken; 11-13-2006 at 10:40 AM.

  36. #36
    Spanish rider
    Reputation: Pableras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    311
    I agree with you Rapier.

    The ways to reduce the weight of a frame is
    a) Using lighter (low density) materials (usually these materials are weaker)
    b) Reducing the amount of material

    I preffer to be sure that my bike won't break, so I don't like ultra light components
    A pessimist is an experienced optimist

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    i agree as well...that's kind of the point that znarf was making. have bike companies reached the point where they just can't make a mountain bike any lighter? that is one that is going to be riden even somewhat agressively and with concern to a riders safety. but as jerk chicken pointed out, the real failure was to say "ride with confidence" after a scott authorized dealer inspected the bike and for a rep to say the same thing WITHOUT having seen the frame.

    it will be interesting to see if companies continue to dump r&d money into the carbon AM fad, or if they give up and restrict composites to light use race only XC bikes.

    my question is who is testing these carbon frames for scott? i know what it takes, and if scott wants any proof, they can come up here to prescott arizona and i'll snap one right in front of them.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  38. #38
    Spanish Marathon Racer
    Reputation: Rapier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    120
    Trail_Header, I think your next frame should be this:
    "Win gives you glory, continue to your last breath gives yo pride, surrender is not an option"
    "Like a beast freed from its chains, I pedal like If I had to scape from hell. As sweat falls from my face, my phantoms, my fears, are left behind until they are points at the horizon."

  39. #39
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,063
    If I was riding a carbon fiber bike, there is no way I'd be jumping w/it. I wouldn't/don't trust carbon frames, seat posts, handle bars or anything other part made of carbon. Maybe XC or road riding....maybe. Jumping, never, ever. No way. Asking to get hurt, IMO. Sounds like its just a matter of time before your going to, if you keep ridin' CF frames that way.

    just my .02
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  40. #40

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1

    Ouch!

    Truly too bad to see three frames into the dust. Carbon is crazy, but don't fault the material for the advances of technology. I love lmy carbon mtn bike, but sounds like you should have bought alluminum in the get go. I've heard SCOTT guys are cool, RIDE ON!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    i like the chap...but opted for a intense 6.6 with a heavy build...and like i mentioned above, no more carbon for me.

    i don't ride abusively, definetly no DJ or freeriding...just good old fashioned hard trail riding. my beef is if scott is going to say "all mountain" when they market a bike...it better be able to handle a bunny hop and a water bar.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    i also dont think carbon should be anywhere on the frame of a trail bike. it's quite easy to build a sub 27lb aluminum 5" FS bike at a reasonable cost, and i don't think you'd really want it much lighter.

    if you're really that concerned about weight, i would focus more on rotational weight anyway. a pound here or there off the frame is much less noticable than say a pound off the wheelset.

  43. #43

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    106
    I don't even want carbon bars...little crap (headset space, maybe?) seems ok. Nothing beyond that for me.

  44. #44
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,848
    With carbon, design is not carried through to the manufactured product as consistantly as aluminum.... it is harder to manufacture cf to the design engineer's intent.

    I think cf frames could be fine if manufactured properly. I have not heard of a broken Ibis Mojo yet...

    Also if you get a small crack or big scratch in cf, it will tend to run more than it will in most aluminum alloys. Its resistance to impact is technically superior to aluminum, but instead of denting it might crack. Not the best for those who crash a lot...

  45. #45
    Made in China
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    378
    Only piece of Carbon I have on my bikesOnly piece of Carbon I have on my bikes are head set spacers. I won't even have CF Bar and post on my SS because seeing sooooooo many bad breakage like this!

    IMHO CF is for race ONLY! It really has to be manufactured PEFECT to have claimed benefit of strength but one little crack/nick from a crash, say good by to your skin and teeth. I like to keep my teeth for as long as possible thank you very much.

    I don’t even like 7000 series aluminum frames because they tend to crack under stress because of its higher tensile strength/hardness.

    Plus I should loose way more weight than my bike.
    "Didn't your doctor tell you to stop smoking and drinking?" George Burns "Yes but they all died"

  46. #46

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Don't forget that much of the CF being sold is from Taiwan and their focus isn't exactly quality, but profit margins. CF is very labor intensive, so they send the work overseas.

    It would be great to see them do well and unseat S, but it's likely to not happen. They're killing in the EU, so let it be.

  47. #47

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10

    benC = Ben Chournos @ ScottUSA?

    Quote Originally Posted by benC4130
    Truly too bad to see three frames into the dust. Carbon is crazy, but don't fault the material for the advances of technology. I love lmy carbon mtn bike, but sounds like you should have bought alluminum in the get go. I've heard SCOTT guys are cool, RIDE ON!
    Nice unbiased opinion coming from a Scott employee!!

  48. #48

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Quote Originally Posted by americanstandard
    Nice unbiased opinion coming from a Scott employee!!
    Interesting observation, but perhaps it's coincidence? The mods can answer that, I'm sure.

    Now here's what I found on the Scott site:

    Scott introduces the Ransom, the bike that redefines all-mountain biking.
    Pushing the travel expectations for this category upward, the Ransom maintains a reasonable overall weight and features an intelligent, efficient suspension design. The Ransom is the definitive backcountry bike experience, with a frame weighing less than 7 lbs including the rear shock (3080 grams including shock) and offering up to 165 mm (6.5 inches) of travel.
    I think there's some smart wording there because they're basically saying there that they are increasing the travel for the same kind of riding as a lower travel bike. Personally, the forces required for six inches of travel are the forces required for six inches of travel. No going up in travel while expecting the rider to stay XC light will ever happen. It appears they aren't lightening a stronger, longer travel bike. They're increasing the travel on a lighter type of bike.

    I believe we're going to see more failures in the future. The second frame is a situation where one will never know what could have been.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,294
    I think there is more than one Ben C. in the world.


    I'm not ruling that one out, but I think you're jumping to conclusions.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,294
    I know this is OT, but why the hell does that Banshee have a telescoping seatpost? The seat tube isn't interupted.

  51. #51

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10

    Too much of a coincidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtails Are Better
    I think there is more than one Ben C. in the world.


    I'm not ruling that one out, but I think you're jumping to conclusions.

    According to his profile he is from Clinton and his fav trail is just north in Ogden where ScottUSA's warehouse is and Ben Chournos is the warehouse supervisor.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by benC4130
    Truly too bad to see three frames into the dust. Carbon is crazy, but don't fault the material for the advances of technology. I love lmy carbon mtn bike, but sounds like you should have bought alluminum in the get go. I've heard SCOTT guys are cool, RIDE ON!
    certainly wouldn't call it an advance of any kind, more like a regress of technology? either in the frame design or the carbon processing. the bottom line is it done broke and that just can't easily be explained away

    and im glad he bought and rode the carbon frame like a MTB is meant to be ridden. without people like him going out and testing products (something which apparently the manufacturer is severely lacking in this case) we would not get the whole story, only marketing jibberish.

  53. #53
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by americanstandard
    According to his profile he is from Clinton and his fav trail is just north in Ogden where ScottUSA's warehouse is and Ben Chournos is the warehouse supervisor.
    Also his 1st post on MTBR. That's an 11 out of 10 on the "Busted" scale.

  54. #54

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Quote Originally Posted by americanstandard
    According to his profile he is from Clinton and his fav trail is just north in Ogden where ScottUSA's warehouse is and Ben Chournos is the warehouse supervisor.
    Ouch. If this is true, he pulled an Ellsworth.

  55. #55
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtails Are Better
    I know this is OT, but why the hell does that Banshee have a telescoping seatpost? The seat tube isn't interupted.
    look just below the rocker

  56. #56
    Glad to Be Alive
    Reputation: SHIVER ME TIMBERS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    42,954
    Quote Originally Posted by DIRT BOY
    I have no faith in thier service. They don't know basic info on thier bikes and rely on the dealers for basic info .

    If you SCOTT rep told you to ride a cracked frame in confidence, he should be fired! They should have checked that frame out 100x over to make sure it was only superficial. They should be lucky as HELL you did not sue the pants off them and the reps! If I was SCOTT not only would I replace your Ransom, I would offer you a road frame or a HT as a sorry, our REP and the Compnay failed you!

    What worries me is they gave you 3 frames. They obviously don't feel it's rider error breaking these frame. After seeing this and SCALE frames having issues (SCOTT US admits to this) I would be nervous riding thier CF MTB frames.
    true dat........personally I am glad you are alright......things I would never do....ride a bike with Carbon handlebars or frame

    some people's opinion about aggressive trail riding are different.....some would call your riding style easy DH.....
    the trick is ENJOYING YOUR LIFE EACH DAY, don't waste them away wishing for better days

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip
    Also his 1st post on MTBR. That's an 11 out of 10 on the "Busted" scale.
    well it doesn't look like he tried too hard to hide his identity, and his comments were pretty casual, so i wouldn't make too much of it even if it is an employee. the part about buying aluminum and the SCOTT guys being nice was probably in jest, an attempt to make light of the situation, nothing to get too excited about. unfortunately for him there is no light to be made here though...
    Last edited by salimoneus; 11-13-2006 at 10:13 PM.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: misctwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,034
    those busted Scott carbon frame pics should be on www.rotten.com.....jeez....scary stuff they're building...

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Guyechka
    I have to credit MBA with running that article a year ago about the downside (serious downside) of carbon frames and components. On the other hand, aside from that one article, they seem to be proponents of the stuff.

    The strange thing is that carbon frames have been around what seems like forever. I remember a friend of mine riding a carbon framed Giant in 1992. Maybe there wasn't as much manipulating of the frames into strange shapes back then.
    Carbon is stronger then aluminum, by far, and these pages have seen many reports of aluminum frames failures and the fact that somebody that clearly pushes a sub-7 pounds frame to the limit brakes it means almost nothing both in respect to the Ramsom and especially carbon in general. The guy should buy a Banshee or something that can deal with his style of riding.

    And you are right: carbon frames have been around for a while they last a LONG time and they are only getting better. Composite is the way of the future in 20 years you will not see metal frames around any more!

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Znarf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,053
    For me the question here is less CARBON VS. ALUMINIUM

    I think more essential is. Should a bike, which lets you do EVERYTHING in regard of it´s travel(the Ransom has more than the claimed travel! it has over 7" of travel) be limited trough it´s strength?

    That doesn´t seem to make sense.
    If you push a bike beyond it´s possibilites, let´s say ride a real gnarly trail (without jumps though) on a 80mm race hardtail. It will either feel shitty, or it will feel acceptable and you´re a really good and smooth rider.

    Now if John Doe(I do NOT refer to Trail_Header or someone in person here) buys a frame that has 7" of travel and has big brakes, a decent (maybe even through axle) fork, his riding style is sure to be "different". You can go much faster without your feet bouncing from the flat pedals on repeated impacts. The slack head angle will lead you to jump...

    And then the frame fails, or one of the super light components. A lot of LIGHT Aluminium/Scandium frames fail too. And that´s not mainly because they´re this or that material. But because they´re MAXED out for maximum lightness.

    If you´re not a racer, why should that bother you? Light bike is flickable and nimble. OK. But will you notice 200g in frame weight difference? Give safety up for 200g?

    (that´s just an estimate though, but I would say that 200g of Carbon, placed in critical places could beefen up a frame dramatically)

    Greetings Znarf

  61. #61

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    112
    umm, carbon doesn't stress, that's why it was designed. it only faults on sudden impacts, and that's only if it was poorly designed.

  62. #62

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    i feel like crap for making a post that is damaging to them
    I don't think your post is damaging to Scott as a company, as you stated they did try to help you and refunded full value on a used bike that failed. What you did is expose the flaws of carbon fiber for mountain bike applications. CF and MTB should be limited to very light weight XC riders, even then only if they are sponsored.

    Metals (whether aliminum, steel or titanium) are generally a better choice of materials for MTBs, as they will crack/deform and give you a good indication of impending failure. In the case of steel and titanium repair is even possible. I wouldn't repair a CF or aluminum bike, but for agressive riding, AM, enduro, etc I wouldn't even consider CF.

    What Scott needs to do is owe up to the fact that their CF bikes are weak and will break when pushed a little bit harder than strict XC riding. I am a 200 lb rider and would be scared to ride a CF AM bike...

    I am glad you are ok and that Scott came through in the end. It was the honorable thing for Scott to do and, like I said, I don't believe you damaged their image.

  63. #63
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by sanmusa
    ...What Scott needs to do is owe up to the fact that their CF bikes are weak and will break when pushed a little bit harder than strict XC riding. I am a 200 lb rider and would be scared to ride a CF AM bike...
    One thing that I find interesting is this: I wrench in a shop that has sold quite a few CF Ransoms, Scales and TONS of Scott CR-1 road bikes. Some of the guys that ride the Ransoms are pretty big guys and ride pretty aggressively. I'm not that tiny myself, but I don't consider myself big either (5' 9" and 200+ with my full pack on). I have witnessed no failures or warranty issues on any of these bikes, FWIW. One of the big guys made a few trips up to Northstar area to do some lift-serviced riding. I believe that the Ransom was purchased to replace a Prophet that failed on him - so there is some evidence that the guy was not easy on bikes. While I do not want to say anything at all about the person that initiated this thread, because I do not know him or have ever seen him ride, but some people are just plain hard on sh!t and break things. One guy had THREE frames go? Bad luck, like he says he is prone to? Maybe. Maybe a combination of bad luck and just the manner in which he happened to land a couple of times that did the trick? Maybe he is the smoothest rider in the land, or the roughest, I don't know. I had a friend years ago, pre-suspension days, and he was only about 150 lbs, but broke EVERYTHING - some people just have the knack! I think that the advice to buy a very heavy-duty FR rig is well-given.

    I'm going to keep riding my Ransom, because it feels frickin' great and the occassional times that I do catch larger air, it has felt fine and I like the way it flies. I think that CF will be everywhere, for a long time. I still have a seatpost that is over 20 years old on my Ritchey that is one of the first CF posts around. It has held up fine, but I also know the guy that made it, and it is incredibly durable stuff if made right and not damaged. That is the one downside to CF. At least until something better and stronger is invented, I'm willing to avoid the rock strikes and take care of my frame from impacts and being crammed onto a trailer full of other bikes and all the things that CAN damage CF. If there is any lesson here it is that the Scott Rep or dealer should have made no comment about the reliability of that particular frame until the frame had been inspected! Glad no serious damage was done to the rider in any of the events. Maybe that new Intense Socom would be a nice rig to check out!

  64. #64
    illuminator82
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    251

    Stupid light

    "so, when i see that frame in reality,a scott spark, in a medium or large at 4lbs with shock, that you can race without it imploding on you, i will become a believer!!"

    also does the warranty cover my hospital bills???

    yes, i have seen many trek fuels cracked too, i know of one friend who races at the national level who is on his 3rd fuel in 14 months.....and dont even get me going on the OCLV hardtails and their ovalized bb's....

    you can have it!!!!

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Znarf
    For me the question here is less CARBON VS. ALUMINIUM

    I think more essential is. Should a bike, which lets you do EVERYTHING in regard of it´s travel(the Ransom has more than the claimed travel! it has over 7" of travel) be limited trough it´s strength?

    Now if John Doe(I do NOT refer to Trail_Header or someone in person here) buys a frame that has 7" of travel and has big brakes, a decent (maybe even through axle) fork, his riding style is sure to be "different". You can go much faster without your feet bouncing from the flat pedals on repeated impacts. The slack head angle will lead you to jump...

    And then the frame fails, or one of the super light components. A lot of LIGHT Aluminium/Scandium frames fail too. And that´s not mainly because they´re this or that material. But because they´re MAXED out for maximum lightness.

    If you´re not a racer, why should that bother you? Light bike is flickable and nimble. OK. But will you notice 200g in frame weight difference? Give safety up for 200g?

    (that´s just an estimate though, but I would say that 200g of Carbon, placed in critical places could beefen up a frame dramatically)

    Greetings Znarf
    Oh yes, I completely agree: the material is irrelevant. The problem is intended use and perhaphs the Ramson is not a heavy duty freeride machine. For my riding style and weight (jumps well below 3', 150 pounds) the Ramson would last two lifetimes, for a 200 pounds Joe that drops off house roofs ... it'll brake. With 200 more grams of carbon? It will brake less

    So ... I am not really sure how to read posts about broken frames. I remember a sequence of broken seat-tubes on size large Turner 5-spots back in 2003. Why did they brake? Was it the people? Was it the frame? Who knows, they ended up beefing up the seatube, but I am sure you can easily brake a 5-spot if you start to drop 6' on a regular basis ...

    PS Has for the post below you are advised to substitute "brake" with "break" in the above
    Last edited by Davide; 11-15-2006 at 10:59 PM.

  66. #66
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,102

    New question here. Arizona (desert) Specific?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    ....

    Here’s what you need to know :

    Rider: 6’3”
    Weight: 180 lbs.
    Riding style: aggressive trail
    Location: Arizona
    Bike: Scott Ransom 20


    I ride 6 days a week here in Arizona and average about 12 – 14 miles each day. I ride I guess what people are calling “aggressive trail” these days, used to just be called mountain biking. I don’t venture off the trail for free riding at all, but when I see water bars or drops on the trail, I hit ‘em with all I have.
    I know, being a Southern Arizonian, that rocks have a tendency to hit the down tube of my bikes with regular frequency. I have dented the downtube just above the BB on both my steel singlespeed and my Bullit, which I assure was a powerful impact indeed. I ride the same type of riding as you, not DH nor Freeride perse but AZ XC as we call it down here. Drops, rocks, and rough everything. A simple impact from a rock on the down tube could easily have caused a stress fracture in the tube.

    As I have learned what works elsewhere in the US (or europe) doesn't necessarily work in Arizona. Scott will probably have series of failures in their AM line for this state and I suspect that it would be advisable to them to not sell the CF bikes here or at least expect breakages from point loading rock hits.

    I also suspect that the AL version is just fine here, but the Intense..oh baby!
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  67. #67

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    290
    It sounds to me that Scott's new definition of All Mountain is Cross Country.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    i disagree with many about carbon, IMO carbon is just too brittle and is more susceptible to cracking and damage due to brunt impacts off objects and flying rocks and such. sure it may be stronger than metals in some tests in the labratory but unfortunately things are a bit different in practice out on the trails

    all it takes is a nice deep gouge or scratch in the surface and you're basically sitting on a time bomb. no thanks.

  69. #69

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Quote Originally Posted by steve owens
    It sounds to me that Scott's new definition of All Mountain is Cross Country.
    It's all the rage in Europe to ride this way.

    And you know how much more sophisticated they are over there.

  70. #70
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    I know, being a Southern Arizonian, that rocks have a tendency to hit the down tube of my bikes with regular frequency. I have dented the downtube just above the BB on both my steel singlespeed and my Bullit, which I assure was a powerful impact indeed. I ride the same type of riding as you, not DH nor Freeride perse but AZ XC as we call it down here. Drops, rocks, and rough everything. A simple impact from a rock on the down tube could easily have caused a stress fracture in the tube.
    I did not catch the location... I spend a few days in AZ each February with a friend of mine to ride. National at S. Mountain has got to be one of the best trails around for technical climbing practice! 2 years ago, I put a nice ding in my downtube on my Enduro there - I was wondering if I would take the Ransom or not for the trip this next Feb, but thinking about it, I'll probably just take my Enduro - unless I can devise a nice DT protector. Again - a potential weakness of CF in that type of condition especially! White Tank has some good ding potential also...

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mb300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    385
    National at S. Mountain has got to be one of the best trails around for technical climbing practice! 2 years ago, I put a nice ding in my downtube on my Enduro there - I was wondering if I would take the Ransom or not for the trip this next Feb
    It is 2.4 miles from my front door to the start of the climb at National. I have sacrificed lots of parts and donated lots of blood to that trail.

    My take on National is that you don't ride anything there that isn't expendable. Given enough time, everything will break. And things usually break from a stupid miss-step or minor get off right onto a sharp rock, as there aren't any really big drop offs or jumps.

    I ride a relatively cheap frame because I know I'm going to destroy it. Same deal with cranks, LX is good enough for me because they won't last long. My record on a crank (crappy truvativ blaze) is 6 days with a total of 70 miles on it. Seat - cheap too. The only expensive bits are the wheels and fork, and the fork will probably die an ugly and expensive death....

    Stupid mountain, always hurting me.

    -Mitch mbaghdoi at hotmail.com

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    I doubt the LTD uses more carbon in the frame - it is just using a higher modulus fiber and supposedly different molding process. It is interesting in that last photo to see that the frame seemed to fail where the "downtube" meets up with the molded BB assy. I am wondering if the shock bottomed and the load caused the edge where they meet to overload at a stress riser... What I find interesting is that there appears to be "weave" in the CF even in the underlying areas. I have a friend that is considered to be one of the top experts in the composite field - he was one of the first to consult with Trek and Specialized way back when and he is a part owner of a company that makes most of the forks that TdF stage winners seem to have on their bikes. Years ago, he made some composite seatposts, handlebars, etc... and I spent time at his place learning a bit about CF construction. One thing he told me was that unidirectional fiber should always be used for the main body of a part - the "weave" was primarily there for looks, as the places where the fibers cross can cause stress risers in the fibers themselves. A few layers of unidirectional fiber (running in different directions to each other to allow tensile strength in different dimensions) did the main job in a structure, and the weave gave a bit of protective layer, if it took an impact, the strike was distributed across different threads running in different directions, etc... When did you buy your Ransom? I wonder if there was a 'bad batch" possibly. I have one of the early numbers - I got the frame in late April,and spent a month or so building it.

    This scares me as Im riding my Ransom hard. I love the bike, but now Im worried.

    By the way, where did you get the info that the LTD has different carbon? Is that on the website somewhere?

  73. #73
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    The guy should buy a Banshee or something that can deal with his style of riding.
    Ha, he was jumping 2-3' waterbars... broke the frame performing an 18" bunny hop.

    On a 6 plus inch bike with a 180lb rider

    This is not "freeriding" or abuse for any bike except a superlight xc racer.

    And I think youre completely wrong about carbon replacing metal for mtb frames. It costs a lot more to manufacture, and the material properties are NOT better in a lot of ways.

    If this bike was sold as an xc racing bike, I wouldn't be surprised... but its not.

  74. #74
    Takw/agranofsalt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Oh yes, I completely agree: the material is irrelevant. The problem is intended use and perhaphs the Ramson is not a heavy duty freeride machine. For my riding style and weight (jumps well below 3', 150 pounds) the Ramson would last two lifetimes, for a 200 pounds Joe that drops off house roofs ... it'll brake. With 200 more grams of carbon? It will brake less

    So ... I am not really sure how to read posts about broken frames. I remember a sequence of broken seat-tubes on size large Turner 5-spots back in 2003. Why did they brake? Was it the people? Was it the frame? Who knows, they ended up beefing up the seatube, but I am sure you can easily brake a 5-spot if you start to drop 6' on a regular basis ...
    Davide, "brake" and "break" are two completely different words.

  75. #75
    CURB HUCK!!!!!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by mb300
    I ride a relatively cheap frame because I know I'm going to destroy it. Same deal with cranks, LX is good enough for me because they won't last long. My record on a crank (crappy truvativ blaze) is 6 days with a total of 70 miles on it. Seat - cheap too. The only expensive bits are the wheels and fork, and the fork will probably die an ugly and expensive death....
    are you kidding me
    that's pretty sad... 6 days
    Kona Coiler

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by umbertom
    are you kidding me
    that's pretty sad... 6 days
    maybe his last name is Knievel?

  77. #77
    Spanish Marathon Racer
    Reputation: Rapier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    120
    Mb300, You are what in Spain we call a "destroyer"
    "Win gives you glory, continue to your last breath gives yo pride, surrender is not an option"
    "Like a beast freed from its chains, I pedal like If I had to scape from hell. As sweat falls from my face, my phantoms, my fears, are left behind until they are points at the horizon."

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: misctwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,034
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    maybe his last name is Knievel?

    cheapskate + bad mechanic + bad rider = brokken stuff.....

  79. #79
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,579
    Trail Header,

    Bummer about your bikes, but the trail you broke the last one on sounds really fun. I'm in Arizona too, and I'm really interested in knowing what trail it is. Good luck on the Intense, I've heard they're a bit steep in the ha, a transition preston would be another good choice, sincerely doubt it would break.

    But more importantly how about dropping some info on that trail with about 40 2-3' water bars

    d
    Fall is here. Woo-hoo!

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,294
    On the topic of breaking stuff really quickly, I managed to take out a Mavic 717 rim in 20 miles of XC and road use. I also weigh 135#. The wheel was profesionally handbuilt with DT Revolution spokes and an XT hub (rear). I hit a rock (hard, going down hill), pinch flatted, hit the rim on the rock, and cracked the rim. It was (kinda) my fault.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    mainly trail #347 Granite Basin Recreational Area, Prescott Arizona. so fun...climb a little, decend a lot...my kinda ride, a little on the high use side though.

    shoot me your email in a pm and i'll give you driving directions...also there is very fun area 2 miles down the road called alto pits, with huge kickers and deep fast berms if you like the big lines

    intense frame should be here in 3 weeks...
    Last edited by Trail_Header; 11-15-2006 at 07:37 PM.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Khemical
    Davide, "brake" and "break" are two completely different words.
    wow ... I always wanted a personal editor this damn language still aunts/hunts/ants me after 20 years in San Francisco

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Carbon is stronger then aluminum, by far, and these pages have seen many reports of aluminum frames failures and the fact that somebody that clearly pushes a sub-7 pounds frame to the limit brakes it means almost nothing both in respect to the Ramsom and especially carbon in general. The guy should buy a Banshee or something that can deal with his style of riding.
    so...you say carbon is stronger than aluminum and then turn around and say i should choose a aluminum frame for my riding style? huh? using that logic, shouldn't i buy another composite frame? my style is NOT freeride...i can literally snap a ransom in half without leaving the parking lot...give me a dozen good high, hard bunny hops and it'll break in half. carbon may be stronger than aluminum, but scott's isn't. and that's my problem...scott shouldn't market the ransom for anything more than it is...a slack angled, light use, cross country bike.

    i'm reasonably sure i can bunny hop the intense i ordered with no catastrophic frame failures.

    davec113 gets it...
    Last edited by Trail_Header; 11-16-2006 at 07:56 AM.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    One thing that I find interesting is this: I wrench in a shop that has sold quite a few CF Ransoms, Scales and TONS of Scott CR-1 road bikes. Some of the guys that ride the Ransoms are pretty big guys and ride pretty aggressively. I'm not that tiny myself, but I don't consider myself big either (5' 9" and 200+ with my full pack on). I have witnessed no failures or warranty issues on any of these bikes, FWIW. One of the big guys made a few trips up to Northstar area to do some lift-serviced riding. I believe that the Ransom was purchased to replace a Prophet that failed on him - so there is some evidence that the guy was not easy on bikes. While I do not want to say anything at all about the person that initiated this thread, because I do not know him or have ever seen him ride, but some people are just plain hard on sh!t and break things. One guy had THREE frames go? Bad luck, like he says he is prone to? Maybe. Maybe a combination of bad luck and just the manner in which he happened to land a couple of times that did the trick? Maybe he is the smoothest rider in the land, or the roughest, I don't know. I had a friend years ago, pre-suspension days, and he was only about 150 lbs, but broke EVERYTHING - some people just have the knack! I think that the advice to buy a very heavy-duty FR rig is well-given.
    for what it's worth...i have been riding the same way on the same trails on aluminum frames for 7+ years and never broke a frame. i don't consider myself super smooth, cause i do hit trail jumps and trail drops, but i don't consider myself a frame annihilating hack either (not that you said that, but just to clarify). i don't need a 45 lbs freeride rig, but i would like a bike that can handle regular trail obstacles and bunny hops...for crying out loud, if i need a freeride rig for that, i think i'll give up mountain biking.
    Last edited by Trail_Header; 11-16-2006 at 12:33 PM.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  85. #85
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapier
    I think we will see more messsages like this in the next months. Some companies are trying to "sale" us the idea that we can have a "Extremely light" frame and "suitable for hard use" at the same time.
    Hey, if everyone bought carbon frames, it would be great for the manufacturers. The threat of catestrophic failure + limited lifespan + expense = $$$ revenue.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by SHIVER ME TIMBERS
    some would call your riding style easy DH.....
    so, 2-3' water bars and bunny hopping is downhill now?

    you have got to be kidding...
    Last edited by Trail_Header; 11-16-2006 at 12:30 PM.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    so...you say carbon is stronger than aluminum and then turn around and say i should choose a aluminum frame for my riding style? huh? using that logic, shouldn't i buy another composite frame? .
    I am pretty sure about my logic:

    You can build weak or strong frames with either carbon or aluminum. Try to do your tricks on any sub 5 pounds XC-racing bike and it will snap a little bit sooner, to say the least, then a 12 pounds downhill frame. An Intense 6.5 or the aluminum Ramsom might indeed be stronger then a carbon Ramsom, maybe they shaved too much "weight" from the carbon version.

    "Carbon" is way, way, stronger then "aluminum". The problem is learning how to use it. A good example is windsurfing masts. All masts used to be aluminum. About 15 years ago they started with carbon and, you bet, there were a lot of reported failures. Those of course ignored the concomitant aluminum failures, as it is the case nowadays with MTB, and there was a lot of discussion about "carbon just not being suited for windsurfing". Today you cannot, and would not want to, buy an aluminum mast: nobody makes them any longer

    Clear enough?
    Last edited by Davide; 11-16-2006 at 10:02 AM.

  88. #88
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Trail_Header, Davide is right - CF is much stronger than aluminum, on a pound-per-pound basis. It is stronger than steel, or titanium or many other materials - but there are applications that it works better for - and not. If I lived where it is rockier than it is here in Nor Cal (like even in San Diego - where I used to live) I probably would not have bought a CF frameset. Rocks flying up from your front tire can ding up downtubes, shins, etc... as I am sure all you people who live in that type of dry rocky environment are all too familiar. Scott's Marketing does say that the Ransom "Redefines All-Mountain" - but has anyone put out a real definition of "All Mountain" for buyers? Not that I am aware. It gets interpreted differently. To me - AM means being able to ride just about any trail that I am going to run across that I have the ability (or the balls) to try to negotiate my bike up or down. It does not (to me) mean larger hucks, catching air whenever possible, etc... but it does mean being able to roll at speed through pretty rough terrain. For that the Ransom works very well. Some of you might call that "Rough XC" and that may be a good definition of it. Some of you might think that "AM" is catching big air and jumping everything in sight. You're not wrong - you're just at an extreme end of the definition.

    I think that potential fault lies in three different places: Scott should perhaps define what they consider to be "AM" and educate the dealers. They do not show the Ransom being aired out in any of their ads that I have seen, they show it in rough terrain/rocky trails, etc... but "on the ground". They have to know that some jumping is going to be done, even if just to negotiate trail obstacles. At least they took care of you refund-wise. The dealers need to do their job and consult with the consumer about what that rider will be doing with the bike, knowing the riding in the area that they are in, and recommend an appropriate bike. Especially if the rider is a repeat customer and they know a bit of the history of that person and what they tend to break, etc... And if a rider knows that he/she likes to catch big air, use anything that is on the trail to try to launch off of just "because it is there" or is particularly agressive, they should probably not buy lightweight ANYTHING. Doesn't mean that you need a FR rig, but not bleeding edge either! I did not mean to imply that you hack on your bike - but like my friend, it does sound like you have "the knack'. I hope you like the Intense - that is a nice ride. (If you break that, THEN get a FR rig!) :o)

    BTW - 3 foot water bars at speed is going fairly large - most trails don't get water bars until they get around 10% or more grade. If you are jumping off a 3 foot water bar (even ignoring any vertical upward component of your jump off the water bar) and traveling 20 feet down the trail - that works out to about a 5 ft vertical drop, as far as physics is concerned. Some reduction in impact will be taken off of this from the slope landing, but for the most part, it is like riding off a 4 ft loading dock. That's a reasonably big hit.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mb300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    385
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by salimoneus
    maybe his last name is Knievel?

    cheapskate + bad mechanic + bad rider = brokken stuff.....
    __________________
    Coffee
    cheapskate - yes (got crank w/BB brand new on ebay for $32 shipped)
    bad mechanic - nope, good record going there, I'm a maintenance freak
    bad rider - definately, always doing stupid stuff, because stupid is generally fun.

    wasted the crank trying to go UP big big steps over and over again. I'll work away at an obstacle for 1/2 hour till I clear it. hike a bike is no fun. I'll post a picture of my bash ring tonight, it gets tested frequently.

    parts replacement seems directly proportional to fork travel. at 100mm I didn't replace much. at 125mm and 145mm things got worse. at 160mm I hit stuff much much faster now

    download this (not me, but guys much better than me):
    http://www.mtbvideos.net/video/bloopers.mpg
    most of the biffs are on national.

    more video:
    http://www.mtbvideos.net/video/national.mpg

    - Mitch mbaghdoi at hotmail.com

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    I am pretty sure about my logic:



    "Carbon" is way, way, stronger then "aluminum". The problem is learning how to use it.

    Clear enough?
    the people that need to learn how to use carbon fiber are the people making the frames...not me. the testing should be done by them.

    what you're saying is i should ride like a XC racer if i want a CF frame then right?. see, we agree, that is my point exactly...they don't market their bike as a light use XC bike. they market it as an "all-mountain" bike capable of taking on (inserting quote from scott rep) "anything an aggressive trail rider can throw at them". i consider myself a mountain biker...i am not even aggro enough to warrant "all-mountain", the new darling term of the industry. i've never lift accessed, and i've never shuttled.

    i have been on some pretty craptastic aluminum frames in my time and have never broken a single one, same riding, same place. that's why i'm going back to aluminum and getting the intense 6.6...i will eat my saddle if the frame breaks under the exact same conditions...stay tuned.
    Last edited by Trail_Header; 11-16-2006 at 10:32 AM.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    Trail_Header, Davide is right - CF is much stronger than aluminum, on a pound-per-pound basis. It is stronger than steel, or titanium or many other materials - but there are applications that it works better for - and not. If I lived where it is rockier than it is here in Nor Cal (like even in San Diego - where I used to live) I probably would not have bought a CF frameset. Rocks flying up from your front tire can ding up downtubes, shins, etc... as I am sure all you people who live in that type of dry rocky environment are all too familiar. Scott's Marketing does say that the Ransom "Redefines All-Mountain" - but has anyone put out a real definition of "All Mountain" for buyers? Not that I am aware. It gets interpreted differently. To me - AM means being able to ride just about any trail that I am going to run across that I have the ability (or the balls) to try to negotiate my bike up or down. It does not (to me) mean larger hucks, catching air whenever possible, etc... but it does mean being able to roll at speed through pretty rough terrain. For that the Ransom works very well. Some of you might call that "Rough XC" and that may be a good definition of it. Some of you might think that "AM" is catching big air and jumping everything in sight. You're not wrong - you're just at an extreme end of the definition.

    I think that potential fault lies in three different places: Scott should perhaps define what they consider to be "AM" and educate the dealers. They do not show the Ransom being aired out in any of their ads that I have seen, they show it in rough terrain/rocky trails, etc... but "on the ground". They have to know that some jumping is going to be done, even if just to negotiate trail obstacles. At least they took care of you refund-wise. The dealers need to do their job and consult with the consumer about what that rider will be doing with the bike, knowing the riding in the area that they are in, and recommend an appropriate bike. Especially if the rider is a repeat customer and they know a bit of the history of that person and what they tend to break, etc... And if a rider knows that he/she likes to catch big air, use anything that is on the trail to try to launch off of just "because it is there" or is particularly agressive, they should probably not buy lightweight ANYTHING. Doesn't mean that you need a FR rig, but not bleeding edge either! I did not mean to imply that you hack on your bike - but like my friend, it does sound like you have "the knack'. I hope you like the Intense - that is a nice ride. (If you break that, THEN get a FR rig!) )

    BTW - 3 foot water bars at speed is going fairly large - most trails don't get water bars until they get around 10% or more grade. If you are jumping off a 3 foot water bar (even ignoring any vertical upward component of your jump off the water bar) and traveling 20 feet down the trail - that works out to about a 5 ft vertical drop, as far as physics is concerned. Some reduction in impact will be taken off of this from the slope landing, but for the most part, it is like riding off a 4 ft loading dock. That's a reasonably big hit.

    that is a very sensible post atbscott...i define it diferently than you do, but not quite to the extreme that you laid out. i blast off everything on the trail if i want to have fun. i roll fast and smooth and climb a lot if i want a workout. i go slow and poke around if i feel lazy or am with someone less fit. i do all day epics, or late night fun runs. that's my definition of "all-mountain", being able to ride trails any way i want to...a bike for all of the uses this particular mountain biker has. that's the way it was marketed, reviewed, and sold to me, and i would have gone in a different direction had it been defined otherwise. .
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  92. #92
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Awesome thread!

    A few notes on Davide's comments:
    We have a friend who has been hitting all kinds of drops, jumps and stunts on his turner 5-spot for over 3 years with no failures. This includes 2 seasons at whistler bike park and mulptiple trips to the northshore. The big GLC drop is an example of the type of abuse this bike has taken with nary a whimper. not bad for a 6lb aluminum "all mountain" frame.

    Just because Carbon works well for windsurfing doesn't mean squat for MTB's. The stresses these sports put on equipment are totally different. MTB = sharp impcats, either from suspension, rider or even terrain. There are no rocks out on the water.


    Many years ago I pro-dealed a new pair of scott carbon bars, with a life-time guarantee. They rep guaranteed they would not break, based on lab tests... and they broke on the first ride. What I heard, was that the lab tests did not take into consideration the effect of UV rays on the bonding agent. Point is they broke and that was close to a decade ago. Scott certainly has plenty of experience with carbon, if they don't have i right after 10 years then maybe it will never happen.

    Glad everything is working out OK, good call on the intense! Materials aside, you won't have to worry about getting that propietary shock replaced or overhauled down the road..

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by FM



    Glad everything is working out OK, good call on the intense! Materials aside, you won't have to worry about getting that propietary shock replaced or overhauled down the road..
    i loved that shock...but that was one of my concerns. you can't just hop on the ebay and bid on one of those puppies. absolutley killer shock though...where some bikes can do it all in one bike...the ransom was like having three dialed bikes along on the same ride to whip out at a flick of the thumb. i wish i could have that same option on the rest of my bikes...i'm going to miss it.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    i loved that shock...but that was one of my concerns. you can't just hop on the ebay and bid on one of those puppies. absolutley killer shock though...where some bikes can do it all in one bike...the ransom was like having three dialed bikes along on the same ride to whip out at a flick of the thumb. i wish i could have that same option on the rest of my bikes...i'm going to miss it.

    yep, thats one of the great things about the Ransom. I really love that set up. I do find the middle setting a little bouncy though if you hit some decent bumps with it. The rebound damping is a bit overwhelmed I think when its on the one chamber only. Great stuff though. More shocks need to offer that. I think the platform stuff is a gimmick and a compromise.

  95. #95

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4

    tuggysbuddy strugglesworth in the house

    So far, the only time I've actually seen bikes break is when they are ridden for far too many years, or the rider is an "extreme bro"...

    I aggree that would be a frustrating situation. I have a hard time believing this person is not abusing the hell out of those. Three frames in three months??? I happen to have a Ransom 10 and the thing rules. It's the lightest, radest, most *****in mountain bike I have ever had. It climbs great, and I have had no issues with busting the occasional whip off a lipped out jump or 3 foot drop here and there. My impression was the bike was a long travel, XCish all mountain bike.

    Are you sure you werent trying things that should be done on a DH bike?
    I have wadded it up on my Ransom too... It came out unscathed, much like my old heavy, prehistoric aluminium bikes did.

    When I bought my bike, the bike shop informed me that the carbon bikes actually test stronger the the alumium versions. It makes sense. Every manufacturer out there aggree's that carbon road bikes are stronger than aluminium or titanium road models.
    Basic physics would prove the same for mountain bikes...

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by strugglesworth
    When I bought my bike, the bike shop informed me that the carbon bikes actually test stronger the the alumium versions.
    wow your local bike shop told you that huh? probably around the same time you were considering a carbon bike purchase? amazing coincidence...

    Quote Originally Posted by strugglesworth
    Every manufacturer out there aggree's that carbon road bikes are stronger than aluminium or titanium road models.
    Basic physics would prove the same for mountain bikes...
    yea, in fact, you can just take your carbon road frame, slap some knobbies on it, and hit the downhill trails. carbon really is that strong!

  97. #97

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4

    read up son...

    Salimoneos,

    You rebut as though you are an expert. What bike do you ride and what is your occupation?

    I love gapping jumps on my carbon road bike, its sick bra...

    Homey--Here is some homework for you:
    (this may take a while to read, but it should get you up to speed)

    http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm

    Proven:
    Carbon has 3 times the fatigue life of aluminium
    significantly lighter, yet stronger
    the material can be manipulated to a much higher degree in manufacturing for greater strength characteristics and rigidity

    Yes, the bike salesman gave me that speil, but you have to wonder why Specialized, Cannondale, Lemond, to name a few have all copied SCOTT's manufacturing method in the past two years. Which is known as carbon welding and is regarded as industry leading... More so than OCLV and monocoque designs.

    the "Strugglesworth"

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by strugglesworth
    Salimoneos,

    You rebut as though you are an expert. What bike do you ride and what is your occupation?

    I love gapping jumps on my carbon road bike, its sick bra...

    Homey--Here is some homework for you:
    (this may take a while to read, but it should get you up to speed)

    http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm

    Proven:
    Carbon has 3 times the fatigue life of aluminium
    significantly lighter, yet stronger
    the material can be manipulated to a much higher degree in manufacturing for greater strength characteristics and rigidity

    Yes, the bike salesman gave me that speil, but you have to wonder why Specialized, Cannondale, Lemond, to name a few have all copied SCOTT's manufacturing method in the past two years. Which is known as carbon welding and is regarded as industry leading... More so than OCLV and monocoque designs.

    the "Strugglesworth"
    those aren't facts, that's just generic and misleading marketing babble you hear from sales people. as usual you don't get the whole story, just the parts they want you to hear.

    here are some facts that actually mean something: carbon fiber has great tensile strength but NOT shear strength. carbon fiber is also quite brittle.

    why would anyone want to use a brittle material on a part that might be taking hard impacts from sharp objects? i just don't get the reasoning here.

    maybe it's great for road bikes and XC race bikes, but for a trail bike no way

  99. #99
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    those aren't facts, that's just generic and misleading marketing babble you hear from sales people. as usual you don't get the whole story, just the parts they want you to hear.
    I agree completely. That wasn't a technical whitepaper- that was blinkered marketing drivel with 2 or 3 simplistic bar graphs thrown in.

    A website that sells carbon fiber bikes is hardly an impartial source on materials science.

  100. #100

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10

    "What is your occupation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by strugglesworth
    Salimoneos,

    You rebut as though you are an expert. What bike do you ride and what is your occupation?

    I love gapping jumps on my carbon road bike, its sick bra...

    Homey--Here is some homework for you:
    (this may take a while to read, but it should get you up to speed)

    http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper1.htm

    Proven:
    Carbon has 3 times the fatigue life of aluminium
    significantly lighter, yet stronger
    the material can be manipulated to a much higher degree in manufacturing for greater strength characteristics and rigidity

    Yes, the bike salesman gave me that speil, but you have to wonder why Specialized, Cannondale, Lemond, to name a few have all copied SCOTT's manufacturing method in the past two years. Which is known as carbon welding and is regarded as industry leading... More so than OCLV and monocoque designs.

    the "Strugglesworth"
    Like Ben C's post, this is a little fishy. Another Scott employee?!..or someone that has been brain washed by one.

    Scott may very well have some great manufactring method, but untill they add a little more material they will continue to have problems like the Scale and CR1 road bikes have had with breakage. Oh no, they would't want to do that because their key cometitors (they think are Specialized and Trek) might actually have the much overrated "lightest frame".

  101. #101

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4
    Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

    Before such a spendy purchase I chose to do some research on the product and the material. I have a carbon road bike, but had never owned a carbon mtb.

    Go ahead and suggest "Calfee's" info is a biased conspiracy to push this new unproven material... But really, the proof is available to back their statements.

    One thing I discovered is the bike is not completely "High Modulous" carbon. (which is the brittle strand of carbon that can break and has little flexibility). They use a mixture of "standard modulous" carbon on the frames as well. "Standard Modulous" is flexible, and plyable in comparison. They use those strands where it is neccesary.

    My bike was a big nut up$$$. I wanted to get some details before I spent that much.
    I feel good about my bike too. I have rallied the s_ _ _ _ out of it and its holding up well.

    So back to my original point. This person went through three frames in three months. I think there was some mis use of some way going down.

    What are you guys riding? Just curious for comparison, not for bashing.

    Strugglesworth

  102. #102
    Takw/agranofsalt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    i loved that shock...but that was one of my concerns. you can't just hop on the ebay and bid on one of those puppies. absolutley killer shock though...where some bikes can do it all in one bike...the ransom was like having three dialed bikes along on the same ride to whip out at a flick of the thumb. i wish i could have that same option on the rest of my bikes...i'm going to miss it.
    well, what about trying the alu version of the ranson? same shock and it might be better suited to your style of riding.

  103. #103

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1
    I have a ridden my Ransom all over the U.S. and Canada, I'm no pro but will say that the bike can take some abuse. The reality is that all bikes will break no matter the material. If you abuse your bike or neglect regular maintenance then you are bound to run into a failure on some level no matter what.

  104. #104

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1
    I like this one... What is everyone else riding?

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by strugglesworth
    .

    So back to my original point. This person went through three frames in three months. I think there was some mis use of some way going down.
    ok...i'm starting to get a little miffed here...did you read the post? i bunny hopped one in half bro...and only two failed by way of breaking at the downtube...one was a error in assembly where they forgot to loc-tite a shock bolt which tore a whole in the carbon.

    i again state...if scott wants proof from an experienced rider (no hack here bro) fly over here and watch me break one in the parking lot of the airport.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  106. #106
    jun
    jun is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    35
    Sorry, if I'm beating a dead horse or repeating something that is already said, but Davec113 (he indicated the same thing in an earlier post), I believe you are correct. I'm not an expert (I only took a 2-day composites class at my last place of work 4yrs ago), but carbon fiber composite construction is like glass. It is fairly strong, but once you scratch it (the epoxy lamina... the stuff holding together the fibers), it is bound to fail... fail badly and w/o warning (aluminum & steel will at least bend first before failing completely).

    Unidirectional carbon fiber (CF) is actually stronger in tension than steel, but once it is layed up in multiple angles & layers (for torsional benefits) it becomes a quasi-isotropic structure, so then the strength is rated at half the strength of steel (composites gurus, correct me if I'm wrong).

    Regardless of how strong carbon fiber (CF) is, how or where it is manufactured, what process/es used, I think that once you get a scratch penetrating the lamina, it will fail. That is why you see the newer CF bars w/ reinforced w/ alum ends to prevent scratches which kills the CF structure.

    I haven't worked in an industry with composites in a few years (I used to be a design engineer in several industries), so I could be completely off w/ all of this theory.

  107. #107

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4
    Hey, apologies. Im sure that's a frustrating situation.

    I have had the opposite experience so I felt compelled to display my opinion on hte matter.

    Peace.

  108. #108

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    173
    Like Jun said, CF is much like glass, in the way it breaks: it's all or nothing, it shatters on impact and there will be no sign of impending failure. There is no such thing as CF bending or giving in, it either cracks or shatters. Personally, I like the insurance of aluminum as it gives signs of impending failure and you may save yourself a broken bike by inspecting it at home before riding.

  109. #109
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    There seems to be a lot of intelligent debate, as well as 'bashing' going on in this thread.
    Salimoneos - you seem to intensely dislike CF for a MTB frame. Others, like myself have elected to "give the technology a chance". I think that it will hold up fine. Jun, your analysis is correct - though the laminate binder material (epoxy - a plastic) hold the fibers together, a layer of composite has to be damaged before the ply fails, if all that I learned was true. A scratch in the polished outer layer will not necessarily cause a failure
    in the component or frame. I have worked on dozens of frames from the big makers (nearly all aluminum) that were being warranted - in almost every case it was a crack/break in the frame that started near a weld or dropout. In that last five years or so, since Carbon Fiber frames started to really fly out the doors, I have worked on 3 road frames that have had warranty issues - 2 were the aluminum dropouts coming unglued from the frame, one was a delaminating chainstay (non-drive-side, so it was not chain related). One other bike was a frame replacement after being hit by a car, and it (Specialized Roubaix) had a crack in the downtube, but the frame had not failed. If it had been a steel frame it would have crumpled, and I am sure that Aluminum would have broken or cracked catastrophically after being put into the side of a car at 25+ mph from an illegal left-turner. In the years since CF mountain frames have started to appear (Trek's been doing this for some time now...) I have seen no CF frame failures. Some of them come in to be worked on and they are pretty scratched up too! This doesn't mean that there have not been any - I just have not seen any in the last 5 years. Instead of bashing any material technology, new or older, just vote with your wallet. Buy aluminum, ti or steel or whatever floats your boat. That could keep you from being needled mercilessly by others years later when you make a blanket statement about something that turned out to be wrong! My personal experiences with CF over the last 17 years or so with handlebars seatposts, and cranks, road frames and now mountain frames have been really good.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    Salimoneos - you seem to intensely dislike CF for a MTB frame.
    ...
    not true as per my previous comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    maybe it's great for road bikes and XC race bikes, but for a trail bike no way
    i think it's a great material with many applications, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily best at everything. that surely won't stop people from trying though.


    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    ...
    . If it had been a steel frame it would have crumpled, and I am sure that Aluminum would have broken or cracked catastrophically
    ...
    are you qualified to make these assumptions? i don't think even an engineer could make these claims without doing extensive testing under controlled conditions. how do you know that the steel wouldn't have just flexed and maybe not taken any damage at all? the fact is you don't, and you aren't qualified to say one way or another.

    and who cares about how a MOUNTAIN bike frame reacts to being hit by a car? i do however care how my frame reacts to crashing into a boulder, or how it deflects sharp rocks being thrown at the downtube.

    i mean seriously, body panels and bumpers dent to absorb the energy, do boulders? no, rocks chip and crack, because they are brittle, just like carbon fiber.
    Last edited by salimoneus; 11-17-2006 at 01:19 PM.

  111. #111

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    DT's new SSD has a 100% cf air can. I'm looking real close on this one.

  112. #112
    jun
    jun is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    35

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    There seems to be a lot of intelligent debate, as well as 'bashing' going on in this thread.
    Salimoneos - you seem to intensely dislike CF for a MTB frame. Others, like myself have elected to "give the technology a chance". I think that it will hold up fine. Jun, your analysis is correct - though the laminate binder material (epoxy - a plastic) hold the fibers together, a layer of composite has to be damaged before the ply fails, if all that I learned was true. A scratch in the polished outer layer will not necessarily cause a failure
    in the component or frame. I have worked on dozens of frames from the big makers (nearly all aluminum) that were being warranted - in almost every case it was a crack/break in the frame that started near a weld or dropout. In that last five years or so, since Carbon Fiber frames started to really fly out the doors, I have worked on 3 road frames that have had warranty issues - 2 were the aluminum dropouts coming unglued from the frame, one was a delaminating chainstay (non-drive-side, so it was not chain related). One other bike was a frame replacement after being hit by a car, and it (Specialized Roubaix) had a crack in the downtube, but the frame had not failed. If it had been a steel frame it would have crumpled, and I am sure that Aluminum would have broken or cracked catastrophically after being put into the side of a car at 25+ mph from an illegal left-turner. In the years since CF mountain frames have started to appear (Trek's been doing this for some time now...) I have seen no CF frame failures. Some of them come in to be worked on and they are pretty scratched up too! This doesn't mean that there have not been any - I just have not seen any in the last 5 years. Instead of bashing any material technology, new or older, just vote with your wallet. Buy aluminum, ti or steel or whatever floats your boat. That could keep you from being needled mercilessly by others years later when you make a blanket statement about something that turned out to be wrong! My personal experiences with CF over the last 17 years or so with handlebars seatposts, and cranks, road frames and now mountain frames have been really good.
    I didn't mean to rattle your cage... sorry... I'm all for CF because of its comparable strength to Ti, can be made lighter, and better damping qualities than Ti & Steel when layed up correctly. When I meant scratch, I meant penetration of the epoxy lamina layer (I'm sure most CF mfrs already add another layer over that which you are seeing).

    Yes, most failures on Al and Steel frames will be at the welds (we used to have to cut the Ultimate Tensile Strength in half when designing structures w/ welds for our calcs), but your statement about the these materials "crumbling" is confusing? Steel has a very high modulus, so it will more than likely bend, then break depending on the load. CF will shatter without any warning like Steel/Al/Ti bending.

    I'm definitely not bashing CF because Trek & Specialized are both customers of ours. The composites technology is still growing...

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Besides the prototype that broke at Sea Otter (supposedly it was a pretty brutal crash into the face of a jump, did anyone see it?), Trail Header is supposedly the only guy in the US to break a frame according to Scott.

    Anyone else seen one break? Ive hit some fairly hard stuff on mine, but havent had it very long...

    And to be fair, the second frame he broke was not a structural issue, but a mechanical error that could have damaged any frame.

    So, lets hear of any other stories of broken ransoms.
    Last edited by Fillet-brazed; 11-17-2006 at 05:15 PM.

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,622
    i love it, Scott simply writes the price tag of the bike on thier adverts too, $6599
    "He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger." M. Dowd, NY Times, 19 July 2006

  115. #115
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by jun
    I didn't mean to rattle your cage... sorry...
    I'm definitely not bashing CF because Trek & Specialized are both customers of ours. The composites technology is still growing...
    Jun, no rattling occurred! No apology required, you have been providing good info for the debate on this thread - the only part of my response that was aimed your way was the one bit about the fiber layer requiring damage before failures would begin! Jun, you also pointed out a bit that I don't think was mentioned anywhere on the thread: Many CF frames and parts have a clear layer of fiberglass on the outer layer, to give the item better impact strength. You also point out that composites will only continue to get better and more capable in the years to come (unless of course, we run out of the petroleum products that we use to make the stuff...) which has to happen as technology advances in methods and raw materials.

    Most of this was a response to some that seem to make blanket statements that CF is not for General-purpose Mt Bikes - and with the exception of bikes that are getting ridden in a severe, large-sharp-rocky environment all the time, I disagree with that philosphy! But like I said before - if you don't like something, vote with your wallet and don't buy it. Let others be happy with their decision. Trail_head came on with this post as a "this happened to me..." topic, and said that the manufacturer took care of him. I doubt he'll break the Intense - but if he does it will be interesting to see how they handle the downtime as well as a replacement... A lot of other people have jumped in talking about how the media material that the mfr came out with was "marketing drivel" etc... To all of you: Have you researched the material and construction techniques Scott uses to come up with where their methods are inferior to other manufacturers? If you manage to break your aluminum frame next Spring on a "god it feels frickin' great to get on my bike again" huck for joy, will you swear off aluminum? What will you go to?

    salimoneus, after almost 30 years in and around the bike industry in one means or another (much of it as a mechanic) as well as going to college to get a degree in Mechanical Engineering, I would consider myself a bit of an expert on the subject. You have made a point out of questioning people's qualifications, yet you never did answer Strugglesworth's question regarding your background/occupation... We're waiting... While I am not a "professional analyst of frame damage" I have probably worked on more bent and broken frames than the majority of people will see, and the conditions which they were brought in have varied from a "I was JRA" to the police bringing it in to the shop after the owner was taken to the hospital by ambulance. I've seen steel & aluminum frames, bent to different degrees, from mild to the tube splitting length-wise (usually really light-gauge Cro-Mo) from impacts with autos and walls, etc... Usually the owner tells us the details a few days/weeks later when he/she can come into the shop to see if their beloved steed can be repaired and reclaimed. The couple of Cannondales that I have seen in these impacts were not broken, but had a single, sharp bend in the DT, and one a split under the top tube behind the headtube. I think that says well of them that they did not come apart under the impact. Steel frames and forks tend to bend, and harder impacts crumple (not CRUMBLE) the metal. What always amazes me is that usually the CF forks have no visible damage - unless they had an Alum steerer, which usually bends.... (Wasn't George Hincapie's steerer that failed at Paris-Roubaix this spring an aluminum steerer?) If the impact was straight-on the front wheels usually hold-up pretty good too. I would probably not ride ANY fork after that sort of impact, but the CF ones appear to be fine. The Roubaix that was hit had tiny cracks - the owner wanted to keep it, but Specialized gave him a smoking deal on a new frame to replace it and we told him not to ride it after that impact - I imagine that SBC wanted to study his bike knowing the details from the police report and pictures. (The car took considerable damage - bent front quarter panel, broken windshield, etc...) I thought that was a nice gesture from them, as they could have said - "You broke it".

    My description of "crumpling" (not "Crumbling") does not mean breaking - it means sharp, folded bending or deformation. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1999/crumpling.html is a good brief article on the topic.
    Frontal impacts tend to crumple (the downtube behind the headtube, especially) when the impact exceeds a certain level of the material's malleability. Usually steel will not fracture unless it is heat-treated to a high degree, and heavier-walled tubing will bend less dramatically. Unfortunately, "nicer" bikes tend to be built with thin-wall, heat-treated tubing to achieve light-weight and still be strong, and they tend to fail (or at least bend to the point of permanent deformation) when they get stopped suddenly by a large object! Since most CF frames have multiple layers of unidirectional fiber running at an angle, the deformation pretty much has to exceed the tensile strength of the fiber before the frame will crack. Front-wheel-into-car-side has to be very hard to do this on it's own. Almost every full-suspension Mt Bike that has broken - that I have seen - was aluminum, and failed at or near a weld - highlighting one of aluminum's weaknesses. Every material has something going for or against it. Durability vs weight, strength, malleability, brittleness, etc... Has anyone else here had experience with CF mountain frames failing, besides this post? Any pics or descriptions of how/when/where on the frame, etc...?

    I did not witness the crash at Sea Otter, but I talked with a guy who did, and he said the pilot was going for a triple and nose-dived it into the oncoming face of the 3rd jump. THAT was an ouch no matter what you were on - broken frame or not. It was interesting that the headtube split, and the DT appears to be fine... Somebody had a photo on the web:
    http://img46.imageshack.us/my.php?image=13tc.jpg (Also interesting - the Fox 36 looks to be in good shape!) That was supposedly a prototype - though it was only a few weeks before I got my frame... This thread brought up the first incident of a production Ransom that I had heard of breaking - it would be interesting to hear if anyone else has managed to do it (with pictures please - bike and scars!).

  116. #116
    w3rd.
    Reputation: Purple Liquid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    315

    my .02

    I know this is a debate about CF or ALU. frame strength... but here's a few things:

    -every frame breaks. period. No matter if it's alu or Ti or some exo-grid prefect ride... they all break.

    -every rider is different. The way rider A might land after a jump might be by putting all of his weight down on the seat, then the pedals... where rider B might land witha ll of his weight on the pedal's, then the seat.

    ^that is why some people have Ransoms that have lasted them awhile, and some that have only lasted three days.

    sorry for thread jacking.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    ...
    salimoneus, after almost 30 years in and around the bike industry in one means or another (much of it as a mechanic) as well as going to college to get a degree in Mechanical Engineering, I would consider myself a bit of an expert on the subject. You have made a point out of questioning people's qualifications, yet you never did answer Strugglesworth's question regarding your background/occupation... We're waiting...
    my background should be irrelevant, as is yours, because neither of us is a bicycle frame engineer, so all we have is our opinions.

    i can respect your prior experience in dealing with broken frames, but there are so many variables at work it's pretty hard to make any assumptions based off of that. for instance, how many high end carbon MTB frames have you actually sold through your store? i would guess that is not a very big number, so your sample set is quite small and it's just difficult to make any claims about the materials soley based upon second hand stories and police reports.

    also consider this: besides the fact that there are not a lot of carbon MTB frames out there, which would keep the number of incidents low to begin with, i would suggest that many people buying a carbon frame are probably not riding them as hard as the average experienced rider does on a metal frame, dropping the number of incidents even farther. now im not saying that people that ride a carbon MTB ride like pansies, i'm just saying that those bikes are most likely relagated to lighter duty work (such as XC racing) than what a typical trail bike would see.

    what we have here is a case where someone is actually pushing the bike just as he would any other bike, and weaknesses are being exposed.

  118. #118
    jun
    jun is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    My description of "crumpling" (not "Crumbling") does not mean breaking - it means sharp, folded bending or deformation. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1999/crumpling.html is a good brief article on the topic.
    Frontal impacts tend to crumple (the downtube behind the headtube, especially) when the impact exceeds a certain level of the material's malleability. Usually steel will not fracture unless it is heat-treated to a high degree, and heavier-walled tubing will bend less dramatically. Unfortunately, "nicer" bikes tend to be built with thin-wall, heat-treated tubing to achieve light-weight and still be strong, and they tend to fail (or at least bend to the point of permanent deformation) when they get stopped suddenly by a large object! Since most CF frames have multiple layers of unidirectional fiber running at an angle, the deformation pretty much has to exceed the tensile strength of the fiber before the frame will crack. Front-wheel-into-car-side has to be very hard to do this on it's own. Almost every full-suspension Mt Bike that has broken - that I have seen - was aluminum, and failed at or near a weld - highlighting one of aluminum's weaknesses. Every material has something going for or against it. Durability vs weight, strength, malleability, brittleness, etc... Has anyone else here had experience with CF mountain frames failing, besides this post? Any pics or descriptions of how/when/where on the frame, etc...?
    Again, my apologies, for one - I need reading glasses because I misread the "p" (actually reading while working, so my bad) and two - sorry for not being a good engineer and not realizing that "crumpling" was what you meant... Good call... I need to read up more before jumping to conclusions

    I thought that once you started laying up fibers in different angles that the strength decreases (but still much higher than 6061 Al, especially welded... Al UTS = 24ksi when welded? about 50ksi as machined billet). I vaguely remember that unidirectional fibers are multiple times higher in tensile strength than steel until it is layed up in angles & layers (quasi-isotropic), although achieving more torsional/lateral/bending rigidity in doing so, but nowhere near the unidirectional strength in tension of the fiber itself. I could be completely wrong...I guess I should dig up some old notes or Google to validate my ramblings, but I'm too lazy (the doc just gave me Valium for some back spasms).

    Yeah, each material has it's pros & cons: Al is about 1/3 the density of Steel, so it can be made into larger dia tubes to achieve a stiffer ride yet still be very light, but like you've seen tends to be more brittle especially near welded joints. "Steel is real" and much stronger than Al (although Al 7050 & Al 7075 is much stronger than the common Al 6061 stuff), so the tubes' diameters are much more narrow to achieve comparable weight to an Al frame, but since Steel has a higher modulus (bend, but not break under normal conditions) it has a good "dampening" quality. But... Steel will still fail at welds too and rusts. Ti fits in between Steel & Al (just like CF), but is very expensive. It has the "bling" thing going for it though.

    Good stuff that you have provided us... looks like you have experience in both the design & testing/warranty end of things. Are you a Testing, Sustaining, or Reliability Engineer?... makes me miss the "ole" design days (I'm a CFD guy now, but not much non-newtonian stuff like epoxy polymers in CF... yet)...... keep us in the loop if you start seeing any interesting frame failures.

    Composites technology may seem new, but it really started w/ the Pyramids of Egypt when they used straw in bricks.

  119. #119

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8
    I really feel bad for you guys these Scott bikes cost about 5000$. I hope you all get your money back. I havent had such a problem with a carbon frame but with an actual dirt jumping frame made out of aluminium. The whole frame snapped. Check it out:
    http://rivierariders.blogspot.com/
    Also look at the PICTURES, VIDEOS, and TRICK TIPS i have posted on it

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    man alive...i'm learing a lot in this thread. to answer a couple of the questions that have been addressed my way...

    ATBScott: If you manage to break your aluminum frame next Spring on a "god it feels frickin' great to get on my bike again" huck for joy, will you swear off aluminum? What will you go to?

    i think at that point, i would eat my saddle as promissed (with video) and continue to ride aluminum...i have never broken an aluminum frame in my life and would write a broken intense off as another casualty in a long line of bad luck. i ride with some pretty aggressive guys sometimes and have seen all of them take the same lines i do...all on aluminum frames. if i have a catasrophic failure on an aluminum frame, i'll look into a free-ride rig, though i believe that to be overkill for my style.

    one thing that i think has been missed in this discusion is what a scott dealer told me, scott is bonding pieces of the frames together very near where mine broke both times...you can actually see the line in the frame where they butted the peices together (forgive my less than technical termonology)...i was under the impression that they were single piece molded frames, but apparently they aren't. maybe more material is needed in that area.

    thanks to all of you for your input on this thread...i feel like i am learing a lot. and as soon as i get my intense...i will take a buddy with me to the second failure spot and post some pics of the same jump at the same speed, distance, and height...maybe that will clear up some of the notions that i am abusive to bikes. really...it wasn't that big of a jump...just a normal trail water bar with some pre-load for a little lift off the lip to a slightly slopped landing...i do it all the time. i literally have been hitting that very same water bar for 7+ years on 4" aluminum XC frames.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  121. #121
    R.I.P. DogFriend
    Reputation: jeffj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtails Are Better
    I know this is OT, but why the hell does that Banshee have a telescoping seatpost? The seat tube isn't interupted.
    It looks like the rocker pivot bolt may extend straight through the seat tube.

  122. #122
    mojo mofo
    Reputation: talkshow-host's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143

    frame material primer

    Check out some info from the IBIS site.

    http://www.ibiscycles.com/tech/materials_101/

    Might be helpful and it seems to be free from marketing hype. It's quite a bit of reading but I found it worthwhile, I'm sure if you've gotten this far in the post, you have the time.

    As noted, it was written a while back, and material handling has come a long way since, but there haven't been any earth shattering advancements (at least no real ones, marketing spin aside) so relevancy arguments should be kept to a minimum.

    The carbon in question on that Ransom 20 does look incredibly thin for an AM rig.

  123. #123

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2
    Very interesting thread guys.
    I thought I'd throw one in on the Al vs CF debate. My brothers' Al Ransom 30 had the swing-arm snap on a weld today, (the reason for my searching for Ransom frame failures and finding this thread.)
    I have not yet seen the damage as I wasn't with him and he took it straight back to the LBS who are sending it away for investigation, but it is very worrying as I have the same bike!
    For what it is worth, the failure occurred on a very similar sounding jump (not huge by any means) as the one Trail Header described, he is also a similar sounding type of rider.
    (He was riding at Ae forest in Scotland UK for those interested.)
    Will post an update on the outcome from Scott/LBS.

  124. #124

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Is this the first year they have been in production?

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    i have been on some pretty craptastic aluminum frames in my time and have never broken a single one, same riding, same place. that's why i'm going back to aluminum ... .
    ... the fact that you have not broken an aluminum frame does not mean that they do not break. They do: a lot just look around these pages.

    I personally could not care less about the debate carbon vs aluminum: I never broke anything in my life (well besides a windsurfing aluminum boom that snapped neatly and left me in the middle of a nice swell 1 mile offshore ... ). I have a 3 years old aluminum frame, a 14 years old steel, and a 10 years old carbon: I will buy my next bike in either carbon or aluminum ... steel is pretty much out and there is no need to debate its uses for full suspension MTB. But besides a useless discussion about materials, to be honest, and with all good intentions of not questioning the original post, it is a bit hard to see how one can break any frame (twice) just by "hopping around" in a parking lot
    Last edited by Davide; 11-18-2006 at 06:25 PM.

  126. #126

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    steel is pretty much out and there is no need to debate its uses for full suspension MTB.
    I have to disagree, look at SWD Racing bikes and check them out, they are made out of steel and despite being not-so-good-looking they are very capable bikes, with competitive weights for AM and downhill. Their Crazy 8 bike won the 2004 National Downhill Class Championship... SWD Racing

    The Crazy 8


    The 6 Gun

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    man alive...i'm learing a lot in this thread. to answer a couple of the questions that have been addressed my way...

    ATBScott: If you manage to break your aluminum frame next Spring on a "god it feels frickin' great to get on my bike again" huck for joy, will you swear off aluminum? What will you go to?

    i think at that point, i would eat my saddle as promissed (with video) and continue to ride aluminum...i have never broken an aluminum frame in my life and would write a broken intense off as another casualty in a long line of bad luck. i ride with some pretty aggressive guys sometimes and have seen all of them take the same lines i do...all on aluminum frames. if i have a catasrophic failure on an aluminum frame, i'll look into a free-ride rig, though i believe that to be overkill for my style.

    one thing that i think has been missed in this discusion is what a scott dealer told me, scott is bonding pieces of the frames together very near where mine broke both times...you can actually see the line in the frame where they butted the peices together (forgive my less than technical termonology)...i was under the impression that they were single piece molded frames, but apparently they aren't. maybe more material is needed in that area.

    thanks to all of you for your input on this thread...i feel like i am learing a lot. and as soon as i get my intense...i will take a buddy with me to the second failure spot and post some pics of the same jump at the same speed, distance, and height...maybe that will clear up some of the notions that i am abusive to bikes. really...it wasn't that big of a jump...just a normal trail water bar with some pre-load for a little lift off the lip to a slightly slopped landing...i do it all the time. i literally have been hitting that very same water bar for 7+ years on 4" aluminum XC frames.
    Maybe this is a stupid question, but do you have a car rack that clamps the bike on the downtube right before the bottom bracket? If yes you maybe cracked yor frames during the transport on a bumpy road and the final breaking then happend on the ride. Just an idea!

  128. #128
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by iRider
    Maybe this is a stupid question, but do you have a car rack that clamps the bike on the downtube right before the bottom bracket? If yes you maybe cracked yor frames during the transport on a bumpy road and the final breaking then happend on the ride. Just an idea!
    That is not a stupid question at all - very real possibility! Even though most people do not use that style of rack, it is possible...

    Quote Originally Posted by sanmusa
    I have to disagree, look at SWD Racing bikes and check them out, they are made out of steel and despite being not-so-good-looking they are very capable bikes, with competitive weights for AM and downhill. Their Crazy 8 bike won the 2004 National Downhill Class Championship...
    That bike is not particularly bad-looking - but I have to make a correction to this: A RIDER on a Crazy 8 bike won that race. The bike probably didn't matter that much, as long as whomever was on it felt comfortable and had the suspension set-up to his/her liking with a good tire selection for the course. Steel/Alum/CF or Ti, it's the rider that wins the race.

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by sanmusa
    I have to disagree, look at SWD Racing bikes and check them out, they are made out of steel and despite being not-so-good-looking they are very capable bikes, with competitive weights for AM and downhill. Their Crazy 8 bike won the 2004 National Downhill Class Championship... SWD Racing
    There you go! you are absolutely right: especially for a privateer a downhill steel rig might be the way to go!

    And now that I think about: Sycip http://www.sycip.com/bikes_fsmtn.html builds a beautiful "version" of the Ventana in steel! The more the merrier
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • File Type: jpg l1.jpg (111.0 KB, 3980 views)
    • File Type: jpg l3.jpg (105.1 KB, 4079 views)
    • File Type: jpg l5.jpg (208.4 KB, 4030 views)
    Last edited by Davide; 11-18-2006 at 10:26 PM.

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Is this the first year they have been in production?
    according to the april 2006 issue of MTB it is. the quote was in the buyers guide section under the scott ransom 20 "But Not If: you never buy anything in its first year of production."
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    ... the fact that you have not broken an aluminum frame does not mean that they do not break. They do: a lot just look around these pages.
    ...
    i dont think he ever claimed aluminum never breaks, where did you get that from? all he said was he never broke an aluminum frame riding over the same trails riding the same way, but the carbon burned him twice in only a short time on that same section of trail. granted it's not the most scientific comparison, but it's a real life example of the product actually being used first hand like it was meant to be used, unlike the supposed extensive "laboratory testing" being done behind the scenes

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    according to the april 2006 issue of MTB it is. the quote was in the buyers guide section under the scott ransom 20 "But Not If: you never buy anything in its first year of production."
    Trail_Header, can you please give some insight if you use a downtube clamping rack or not? Would help all to avoid problems if this is the case. Thanks.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    oh sorry...no i don't, i have a pick-up.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wayneosdias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839
    Just curious and not poking fun, why go w/SCOTT? Ive ridden the last 15 years and have never seen another rider on a SCOTT. The only SCOTTs ive seen are pics on the weight weenie sights. Their known more for for being on scales than dirt in my opion, not that my opion means much. You seem like a real rider, per your riding freq and duration, seems like youd be capable of a heartier bike, so why SCOTT?

    Better luck in the future
    Wayne
    89 Univega HT -???-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -stolen-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    94 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    97 Klien Mantra -sold-
    01 Specd enduro FSR
    02 Specd enduro FSR -sold-
    04 Specd stumpjumper FSR
    05 Specd enduro FSR Sworks

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneosdias
    Just curious and not poking fun, why go w/SCOTT? Ive ridden the last 15 years and have never seen another rider on a SCOTT. The only SCOTTs ive seen are pics on the weight weenie sights. Their known more for for being on scales than dirt in my opion, not that my opion means much. You seem like a real rider, per your riding freq and duration, seems like youd be capable of a heartier bike, so why SCOTT?

    Better luck in the future
    Wayne
    why ask why?

    someone needs to be giving new models a good solid workout, otherwise we would have no information about how the products perform and hold up, only marketing jargon. just be happy that there are people out there with big enough balls to be doing this sort of thing, so the rest of us can sit in our comfort zone and just read the reports

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wayneosdias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    why ask why?

    just be happy that there are people out there with big enough balls to be doing this sort of thing, so the rest of us can sit in our comfort zone and just read the reports
    Why not ask why? Im asking why because Im curious. Has SCOTT produced a light trail ready rig as of late? I havnt been around for a couple years, and wondered if something has changed.

    As far being happy over the size of someones balls, I have to admit, Im indifferent.

    Again Im not poking fun, just curious.

    wayne
    89 Univega HT -???-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -stolen-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    94 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    97 Klien Mantra -sold-
    01 Specd enduro FSR
    02 Specd enduro FSR -sold-
    04 Specd stumpjumper FSR
    05 Specd enduro FSR Sworks

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wayneosdias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    why ask why?

    someone needs to be giving new models a good solid workout, otherwise we would have no information about how the products perform and hold up, only marketing jargon. just be happy that there are people out there with big enough balls to be doing this sort of thing, so the rest of us can sit in our comfort zone and just read the reports
    I just checked the scott site, looks capable, kinda funky shock though. By apperances I wouldnt have thought that frame would fail.

    wayne
    89 Univega HT -???-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -stolen-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    94 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    97 Klien Mantra -sold-
    01 Specd enduro FSR
    02 Specd enduro FSR -sold-
    04 Specd stumpjumper FSR
    05 Specd enduro FSR Sworks

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneosdias
    Just curious and not poking fun, why go w/SCOTT? Ive ridden the last 15 years and have never seen another rider on a SCOTT. The only SCOTTs ive seen are pics on the weight weenie sights. Their known more for for being on scales than dirt in my opion, not that my opion means much. You seem like a real rider, per your riding freq and duration, seems like youd be capable of a heartier bike, so why SCOTT?

    Better luck in the future
    Wayne
    to be honest...i simply liked the scott the best of all the bikes i got a chance to demo. the intense 6.6 was a very close second, so that's what i'm going with now, but ride one if you get a chance...they feel really good.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wayneosdias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    to be honest...i simply liked the scott the best of all the bikes i got a chance to demo...they feel really good.
    Thats what its all about, it looks pretty sweet to boot. So are you gonna cont w/SCOTT? <- ignore just reread your post

    Seriously, hope your luck swings the other way, as Im sure it will.

    wayne
    89 Univega HT -???-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -stolen-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    94 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    97 Klien Mantra -sold-
    01 Specd enduro FSR
    02 Specd enduro FSR -sold-
    04 Specd stumpjumper FSR
    05 Specd enduro FSR Sworks

  140. #140
    except change 29er's
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    87
    I have a scott rasom and I agree I have rode alot of bikes and none have the feel of the ransom it climbs like a hard tail and handles like a cross country bike and eats up the small large and in between. I have not found one that has the all around package until I got this bike but I had it for two weeks and broke the lower chain stay on the non drive side clean through. but they overnighted it and was back on track the next day! Awsome service. Now we will see the how it holds up?

  141. #141
    Yummy
    Reputation: K'Endo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtails Are Better
    I know this is OT, but why the hell does that Banshee have a telescoping seatpost? The seat tube isn't interupted.
    Because the bolt for the pivot goes through the seatpost.

    Kn.
    I used to be with it. Then, they changed what "it" is, and now what I'm with is no longer "it". And whatever "it" is, is strange and confusing.

  142. #142

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    226
    hmmm... to me there are only 2 significant points to the original post:


    1. you are ok and not injured.. good for you
    2. Scott's customer service was exemplary, beyond question



    As for the pictures of the broken frame, *shrugs* we've all seen tons of pictures of broken frames whether aluminium, scandium, titanium etc... so what... theres nothing manmade in existence that won't break under certain conditions. Its just that when you see a carbon break everyone seems to infer all sorts of stuff from it. And whats more there are thousands of ransoms out there that have performed just fine and are still going strong.

  143. #143
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,579

    Sure

    Quote Originally Posted by jackal2513
    hmmm... to me there are only 2 significant points to the original post:


    1. you are ok and not injured.. good for you
    2. Scott's customer service was exemplary, beyond question



    As for the pictures of the broken frame, *shrugs* we've all seen tons of pictures of broken frames whether aluminium, scandium, titanium etc... so what... theres nothing manmade in existence that won't break under certain conditions. Its just that when you see a carbon break everyone seems to infer all sorts of stuff from it. And whats more there are thousands of ransoms out there that have performed just fine and are still going strong.
    So telling him that the cracks he noticed in the frame were just cracks in the finish, without the Scott rep even inspecting it firsthand, and telling him to go out and ride on it, which did put him in considerable danger, was exemplary? Wow, you live in a different world than I do.
    Fall is here. Woo-hoo!

  144. #144
    except change 29er's
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    87
    I have a ransom 20 and after two weeks I snapped the chain stay right in half on the non drive side no where near the welds? the only alum. part on the whole bike! shop called monday and had back on tuesday. No company has responded like scott has I hope the frame holds up love the bike like no other.

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by DLd
    So telling him that the cracks he noticed in the frame were just cracks in the finish, without the Scott rep even inspecting it firsthand, and telling him to go out and ride on it, which did put him in considerable danger, was exemplary? Wow, you live in a different world than I do.

    Bike shops arent known for having a brightest of employees. Sometimes its quite entertaining to listen to them talk tech or sales while you get rung up for a couple tubes.

    Not to put down bike shops and the people who work at them, its just that you have to be really careful who you listen to because, sadly enough, getting accurate info in a bike shop is a rare occurence in my experience.

    Scott the company I think went out of their way (as they should have) to make everything cool.

    Reminds me of a friend who told me Toyota cars suck because the dealer screws him and never has the car ready when they say it will be.

  146. #146

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    226
    reported information on the internet is a subject in its own right

    me personally, I am stuggling to believe that a Scott representative saw those cracks and told him to carry on riding. It may have happened but there might have been a bit more to that story than that, maybe a certain context or a whole lot more conversation that has been omitted from this thread. As seen so often in the press, the way certain things are written causes an immediate oversimplified image in your head of what exactly happened.... in truth, the reliality is often far more 3 dimensional, 2-sided, fuzzy & complex.

    Of course, the way this sub plot has been told may be exactly how it happened. As in the scott rep. picked the frame up in his hands, saw these cracks and then immediately looked at our protagonist in the face and told him that the frame is ok and to carry on riding. Thats the way you IMAGINE it happened from reading the post and if it did happen that way then yes, we have a very unfortunate experience of an employee who is clearly a bad seed in an otherwise great company. If it did happen that way then I will be more than happy to eat my words. And if this is true then this person clearly lacks proper knowledge of his craft & should naturally be dealt with accordingly.... but it still would not change the fact that Scott as a company responded very very well in this situation and were extremely helpful.

    Is that really how it happened though ? Did the Scott rep actually see the frame with his own eyes ? Perhaps the cracks were explained to him in an email or over a telephone conversation ? How were the cracks explained ? How accurate was the description ? Was our protagonist trying to half convince the rep. that the cracks were ok because a part of him didn't want to have to stop riding ? Did he underplay the physical description ? What language was used ? Under what emotional conditions did the conversation take place ? Was there any personal subtext in play ? Was the protagonist hostile or rude in any way ? Was he difficult ? Is there a backstory between our protagonist and this Scott representative ? Do they know eachother ? Has our protagonist any history with the bike dealer ? Is he a repetitive whinger or a pest that any sane dealer would like to see the back of ? Does the expression cry wolf belong here .... etc etc..

    Now don't get me wrong, I am not casting any actual asusmptions here about our poster. I am just blowing everything apart and demonstrating that a simple reported statement like "A told B to do C" is never as simple as it sounds. Think of the wider picture !
    Last edited by jackal2513; 11-29-2006 at 03:40 AM.

  147. #147

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    I wonder if that Scott rep still has a job, considering if he did his, there wouldn't be this negative publicity.

  148. #148
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    I wonder if the Scott rep actually saw the bike, or if the shop made an ad-hoc decision to say "Oh yeah - the rep said it was OK". Unfortunately that type of thing does happen. Or, the shop could have followed procedure 100% and there is a rep out there who SHOULD be looking for a new job. Too bad that there aren't any photos of the cracks pre-failure.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    I wonder if the Scott rep actually saw the bike, or if the shop made an ad-hoc decision to say "Oh yeah - the rep said it was OK". Unfortunately that type of thing does happen. Or, the shop could have followed procedure 100% and there is a rep out there who SHOULD be looking for a new job. Too bad that there aren't any photos of the cracks pre-failure.
    the rep told me over the phone (without seeing the bike or pictures of the bike) that the cacks were on the surface only, were superficial, and that i should ride with confidence. i was skeptical, but assumed that they knew what they were talking about. the dealer that said the cracks were on the surface only, did so without contacting the rep...the more i think about it, there were some pretty negligent decisions made throughout the whole process.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  150. #150

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    226
    did the dealer see the cracks ? How could he say anything about the cracks, whether they be superficial of whatever, without actually seeing the bike ? maybe the dealer has misinformed the rep. and provided an erroneous analysis. Or are you saying that no one apart from yourself actually SAW the cracks ?

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wayneosdias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    the rep told me over the phone (without seeing the bike or pictures of the bike) that the cacks were on the surface only, were superficial, and that i should ride with confidence. i was skeptical, but assumed that they knew what they were talking about. the dealer that said the cracks were on the surface only, did so without contacting the rep...the more i think about it, there were some pretty negligent decisions made throughout the whole process.
    Dude that is crap. You must feel a little silly, as Im sure most of have, when someone more or less tells you something you want to hear so you dont give it a second thoght. Ive done his several times just to reflect back and think to myself I knew somthing was up, why didnt I follow my gut.

    It seems odd that the rep would say everything is cool when it sounds from the feedback here that these frames experience a high failure rate. Not only the high failure rate, but scott seems to not blink, immediatley replacing the broken item when there is a failure. This leads me to believe the position of scott is the frame is a high dollar, light frame that does experience failures so replace whatever needs replaceing w/o question. If this is so the rep is either new or totally out of the loop and should be thankful you didnt really hurt yourself.

    Wayne
    89 Univega HT -???-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -stolen-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    94 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    97 Klien Mantra -sold-
    01 Specd enduro FSR
    02 Specd enduro FSR -sold-
    04 Specd stumpjumper FSR
    05 Specd enduro FSR Sworks

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by jackal2513
    reported information on the internet is a subject in its own right

    me personally, I am stuggling to believe that a Scott representative saw those cracks and told him to carry on riding. It may have happened but there might have been a bit more to that story than that, maybe a certain context or a whole lot more conversation that has been omitted from this thread. As seen so often in the press, the way certain things are written causes an immediate oversimplified image in your head of what exactly happened.... in truth, the reliality is often far more 3 dimensional, 2-sided, fuzzy & complex.

    Of course, the way this sub plot has been told may be exactly how it happened. As in the scott rep. picked the frame up in his hands, saw these cracks and then immediately looked at our protagonist in the face and told him that the frame is ok and to carry on riding. Thats the way you IMAGINE it happened from reading the post and if it did happen that way then yes, we have a very unfortunate experience of an employee who is clearly a bad seed in an otherwise great company. If it did happen that way then I will be more than happy to eat my words. And if this is true then this person clearly lacks proper knowledge of his craft & should naturally be dealt with accordingly.... but it still would not change the fact that Scott as a company responded very very well in this situation and were extremely helpful.

    Is that really how it happened though ? Did the Scott rep actually see the frame with his own eyes ? Perhaps the cracks were explained to him in an email or over a telephone conversation ? How were the cracks explained ? How accurate was the description ? Was our protagonist trying to half convince the rep. that the cracks were ok because a part of him didn't want to have to stop riding ? Did he underplay the physical description ? What language was used ? Under what emotional conditions did the conversation take place ? Was there any personal subtext in play ? Was the protagonist hostile or rude in any way ? Was he difficult ? Is there a backstory between our protagonist and this Scott representative ? Do they know eachother ? Has our protagonist any history with the bike dealer ? Is he a repetitive whinger or a pest that any sane dealer would like to see the back of ? Does the expression cry wolf belong here .... etc etc..

    Now don't get me wrong, I am not casting any actual asusmptions here about our poster. I am just blowing everything apart and demonstrating that a simple reported statement like "A told B to do C" is never as simple as it sounds. Think of the wider picture !

    i understand your skeptisism, but i tried to explain the situation to the rep and dealer as acurately as possible. then when the third frame snapped in half...there really wasn't much to say. they didn't question me to anywhere near the degree that you are, which leads me to believe they know they have a problem with the frame. i was pissed, sure, wouldn't you be? but i surprised even myself with the restraint i used in dealing with the situation.

    you can believe me or not...i don't really care, that's your deision to make. the important thing is that an honest and accurate depiction of the situation is now available for others to read. i'm a rider...that's all i think about, that's all i want to do every minute. i just wanted to get my story out there so that other people like me could use the information to help them make their own decision. i take my place in mountain bike culture very seriously, and the last people i would want to mislead in any way are other riders.

    i'll try to answer each of your questions individually, if not to help you with my credibility, then to provide a little more information to anyone interested.


    Is that really how it happened though ?
    yes...i have descibed the situation accurately. i'm sure the scott employees that have seen/posted in this thread would chime in if they were being misrepresented. they told me they are well aware of this thread.

    Did the Scott rep actually see the frame with his own eyes ? no, not until it broke...he was at interbike.

    Perhaps the cracks were explained to him in an email or over a telephone conversation ? i explained the cracks to him personally over the phone.


    How were the cracks explained ? How accurate was the description ?
    i explained them in as much detail as i could.i don't know a whole lot about carbon, so the language i used was admittedly less than technical, but he seemed to understand me just fine.

    Was our protagonist trying to half convince the rep. that the cracks were ok because a part of him didn't want to have to stop riding ?
    this one perplexes me...i have another bike and that would just be asking for it...if anything, i wanted to leave the bike till the rep saw it, but they didn't seem to find that necessary.


    Did he underplay the physical description ? What language was used ?
    again...i was as accurate as possible using my less than technical knowledge of carbon and it properties.

    Under what emotional conditions did the conversation take place ? both myself, and the scott rep were calm and professional.

    Was there any personal subtext in play ? not at all...

    Was the protagonist hostile or rude in any way ? Was he difficult ? no, they actually thanked me for being so understanding and easy to work with.

    Is there a backstory between our protagonist and this Scott representative ? Do they know eachother ? no and no.

    Has our protagonist any history with the bike dealer ? this was the first major purchase i have made at this particular bike shop. they are not my LBS...i went there for a better deal than i was finding locally.

    Is he a repetitive whinger or a pest that any sane dealer would like to see the back of ? not at all...i think some of them actually liked me by the time it was all over...i'm pretty easy-going.

    Does the expression cry wolf belong here okay...that just doesn't make any sense...the bike actually was cracked, then broke, then had a hole torn in it, then broke again. in that situation, how can you cry wolf? they are going to ask for the frame back...

    feel free to ask anything else...i have posted the information in an accurate format, i tried to keep it simple and not make it too complex, because i wanted people to read it. but, if you or anyone else would like any further details about the situation, fire away...i check this thread all the time. or, if you are a scott employee or rep and would like more information...pm me and i will call you.
    Last edited by Trail_Header; 11-30-2006 at 09:51 AM.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by jackal2513
    did the dealer see the cracks ? How could he say anything about the cracks, whether they be superficial of whatever, without actually seeing the bike ? maybe the dealer has misinformed the rep. and provided an erroneous analysis. Or are you saying that no one apart from yourself actually SAW the cracks ?
    see my above response to you post...my local scott DEALER and the scott DEALER where i bought the bike, saw the cracks on the first failed frame. the rep was at interbike and said it was fine over the phone...i don't know if the scott dealer descibed them any diferently than i did as i remember the rep telling me he had spoken with the dealer. i tried to be as clear about that i as could.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneosdias
    Dude that is crap. You must feel a little silly, as Im sure most of have, when someone more or less tells you something you want to hear so you dont give it a second thoght. Ive done his several times just to reflect back and think to myself I knew somthing was up, why didnt I follow my gut.

    It seems odd that the rep would say everything is cool when it sounds from the feedback here that these frames experience a high failure rate. Not only the high failure rate, but scott seems to not blink, immediatley replacing the broken item when there is a failure. This leads me to believe the position of scott is the frame is a high dollar, light frame that does experience failures so replace whatever needs replaceing w/o question. If this is so the rep is either new or totally out of the loop and should be thankful you didnt really hurt yourself.

    Wayne
    hindsight is 20/20. i guess if i look at it now, i should have demanded the rep actually look at the frame, and not riden it until they did. if it was aluminum, there is no doubt i wouldn't have riden it. but it did appear that the crack could have been just in the finish, and since i didn't know that it wasn't clear coated or something...i took their word for it, i mean...it is their job to know what they are talking about.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I wonder if that Scott rep still has a job, considering if he did his, there wouldn't be this negative publicity.
    funny that you said that...i don't know about his job...but the "care package" they were going to send me never showed up . i'm not really surprised since they are probably upset that this information was made public. but, it kind of makes me wonder if there ARE other failures out there, and scott has just tried to smooth them over with quick frame replacements and gift packages. as popular as this site is, and i would never make a major purchase without using the internet...not everyone that owns a scott ransom knows about or posts on this site.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    i dont think he ever claimed aluminum never breaks, where did you get that from? all he said was he never broke an aluminum frame riding over the same trails riding the same way, but the carbon burned him twice in only a short time on that same section of trail. granted it's not the most scientific comparison, but it's a real life example of the product actually being used first hand like it was meant to be used, unlike the supposed extensive "laboratory testing" being done behind the scenes
    that's right...i have never had an aluminum frame fail under me personally.

    davide...i'm almost positive that our riding styles and profiles are diferent...the ransom just didn't hold up for me, i don't know what else to tell you. debate what is stronger in the lab all you want...it broke while i was riding it, that's all i know and that's all i care about.
    if you have to get off your bike, you're doing it wrong.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wayneosdias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    i'm not really surprised since they are probably upset that this information was made public.
    Had the same experience w/a brake manufacturer couple of years ago. I repeatedly got poor results from their product which I posted here in an attempt to get the product to work to par. Eventually I recd an upgraded brake and was TOLD not ASKED to keep my negative comments re their product off the board.

    I did as I usually do, reported how he company handled the situation -poorly- and how the replacement product worked -adequatley-. Fact is MTBR is a consumer board and as such I would hope that any manufacturer hoping to have a future would at least be aware of and attempt to remedy reoccuring problems w/a product.

    I think youve handled the situation w/patience and undersanding. I mean come on, after the 2nd failure Id be asking for my money back.

    Wayne
    89 Univega HT -???-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -stolen-
    92 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    94 Specd SJ HT M2 -sold-
    97 Klien Mantra -sold-
    01 Specd enduro FSR
    02 Specd enduro FSR -sold-
    04 Specd stumpjumper FSR
    05 Specd enduro FSR Sworks

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nintense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    112

    This is the price of the fashion...

    When the line between AM and FR become so close, don't trust on the travel, you can find a totally different 6" frames, one for real FR and other for XC.
    Nobody realy needs 6" XC bikes, but the tough competition of who's making the lightest 6" bike, force the companies to make a XC bikes that "look like" AM bike.
    Be smart, stay away from sub 30LB AM bike.

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    76
    what bike shop was it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    no...LBS and local Scott dealer saw the bike...Scott rep said surface cracks without seeing the bike.

  160. #160
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneosdias
    ...It seems odd that the rep would say everything is cool when it sounds from the feedback here that these frames experience a high failure rate. Not only the high failure rate, but scott seems to not blink, immediatley replacing the broken item when there is a failure...
    Other than the Sea Otter prototype and the frames mentioned here - these are the only Ransoms that I have heard of having the carbon fail... There was one other a week or so ago on this board where the aluminum chainstay failed - correct? We've seen no failures on any Scott carbon frames - having sold a ton of the CR-1 road bikes and a few Ransoms. Accessories that have had a problem, gloves with bad stitching, etc... have been promptly handled from what I see. The NorCal rep is good. That makes a big difference also.

    I think that Scott, coming back into the US market after years of absence is making a big effort to make sure that any warranty issues are covered asap. Good Customer Service can make a company KING - in any industry. It doesn't take long to get known for bad customer service, and it can take years to recover from it. We are the largest single market for product in the world. Scott realizes that, I think, and is making the effort to handle any issues asap. Whether this incident is the sign of a weak frame design, a rider hitting it too big, or two needles in a haystack, the company stepped up and has handled the warranty claims quickly and in a manner that many companies won't or can't. I've been on Specialized bikes for years because I like their designs and I know the company stands behind what they make. My Ransom is the first non- "Big-S" bike I have owned in some time. I love the way it rides too. Hopefully I'll never have a need to find out their warranty response firsthand, but I am encouraged to hear that they have been there when needed.

  161. #161

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    51
    We need to step back one second here:

    Facts:
    1. 3 Frames Failed
    2. Trailheader received good customer service from Scott.
    3. Problem Fixed.

    I do believe the original intent of this thread was to show the rest of us what happened and how the manufacturer resolved the issue. Sadly, we've been somewhere else since the beginning of page 2.


    What do they say about arguing on the internet...

    Even if you're right you're still retarded?

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    I don't think anyone ever questioned whether Scott takes care of their customers post-purchase, the OP was pretty clear from the start that they were happy to replace the broken frames. Props to them on that.

    The only thing that should be questioned (in my mind) are Scott's current designs on their carbon MTB frames, and perhaps reconsidering going carbon alltogether on anything more than a race bike. I just don't know if the technology is there yet, be it in the design area or perhaps being able to consistently manufacture the stuff to strict enough tolerances for this type of use.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    I don't think anyone ever questioned whether Scott takes care of their customers post-purchase, the OP was pretty clear from the start that they were happy to replace the broken frames. Props to them on that.

    The only thing that should be questioned (in my mind) are Scott's current designs on their carbon MTB frames, and perhaps reconsidering going carbon alltogether on anything more than a race bike. I just don't know if the technology is there yet, be it in the design area or perhaps being able to consistently manufacture the stuff to strict enough tolerances for this type of use.
    Hard to say from one guy posting an issue. Just a few hours ago actually I saw a Santa Cruz Heckler ripped in half at almost the same spot as the ransom. The down tube was broken clean off. You could see the swingarm axle in there. You can break anything. Lots of aluminum bikes fail. Lots.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by ThaFurnace
    We need to step back one second here:

    Facts:
    1. 3 Frames Failed
    2. Trailheader received good customer service from Scott.
    3. Problem Fixed.

    I do believe the original intent of this thread was to show the rest of us what happened and how the manufacturer resolved the issue. Sadly, we've been somewhere else since the beginning of page 2.


    What do they say about arguing on the internet...

    Even if you're right you're still retarded?

    2 frames failed. The other was mechanical error. Not a structural issue.

    Thats still not good, but the third one is something that really shouldnt have been mentioned...

  165. #165

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Fillet-brazed
    2 frames failed. The other was mechanical error. Not a structural issue.

    Thats still not good, but the third one is something that really shouldnt have been mentioned...

    Again, three failed. The third shouldn't have passed QA.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by ThaFurnace
    Again, three failed. The third shouldn't have passed QA.
    oh boy.


    It wasnt a structural issue. Which is what we're talking about here.

    Who knows who put that one thing together. Besides, I wouldnt call that a frame failure, but thats just me.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    100
    Exotic bikes, regardless if they are made of CF, Ti, Aluminum, Steel or what have you are priced at a very high premium, it probably cost less than 1/4 of the price that you and I paid for the cost of the material and labour to build such bikes. There are, of course some sunken cost such as R&D... which means that for every bike that was sold, the bike company could afford to replace the bikes two to three times and still would not make a loss.

    For the few folks who went extreme, the bike companies may not make any single cents from these extreme riders. Scott is probably happier to give you an full refund now that you have broken 3 frames or they will start losing money on your deal if they continue to give you replacement.

    Majority buyers might not put the bikes into extreme test like the few of you do, so the bike companies continue to make tons of money from us, as we happily handed over our hard earned cash, in exchange for those flashy bikes that will never be subject to similar abuse that you gave them.

  168. #168

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Holy fawk!!!!!!
    Last edited by mmmm...kona; 04-06-2007 at 05:11 PM.

  169. #169
    College Boy
    Reputation: Timeless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    772
    see to me this tread just makes me not want to get CF for a bike frame and shows a good reason why. From an engineering point of view CF has a huge huge weakness in it and that is it has not give and it is a very brittle material.

    Yes it is stronger than alumium and may have a better fagtage life than Al. But at the same time since it has no ableitly to flex before it breaks the stress where an Al frame would flex are a lot greater since it has to absorble all the engergy with little movement. The other reason why I think CF is bad is there is no real warning on it failure. There is a reason why brittle materials are not used to build building and that is because there is no warning about failure.
    Steel and Al both have warning and you will see it bent and strech before it fails giving you warning and some time to get off the bike you will feel it give before it fails. CF you will not feel it give before failure.
    CF like fiber glass has another huge problem in it and it is the same problem in wood. That is it has a "grain" in it and if you try to break it along that "grain" it is going to snap very easily. Now this problem is minimized by layering crossing patterns but still it weaker in shear compared to it tensile strength.

    Speaking of engineering I have my transo class to bike off to.

  170. #170

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Timeless
    see to me this tread just makes me not want to get CF for a bike frame and shows a good reason why. From an engineering point of view CF has a huge huge weakness in it and that is it has not give and it is a very brittle material.

    Yes it is stronger than alumium and may have a better fagtage life than Al. But at the same time since it has no ableitly to flex before it breaks the stress where an Al frame would flex are a lot greater since it has to absorble all the engergy with little movement. The other reason why I think CF is bad is there is no real warning on it failure. There is a reason why brittle materials are not used to build building and that is because there is no warning about failure.
    Steel and Al both have warning and you will see it bent and strech before it fails giving you warning and some time to get off the bike you will feel it give before it fails. CF you will not feel it give before failure.
    CF like fiber glass has another huge problem in it and it is the same problem in wood. That is it has a "grain" in it and if you try to break it along that "grain" it is going to snap very easily. Now this problem is minimized by layering crossing patterns but still it weaker in shear compared to it tensile strength.

    Speaking of engineering I have my transo class to bike off to.
    Well...you may (or may not) be right, but I know one thing - nothing I've ridden (well, maybe my GF) feels as nice as my Ransom. And in my opinion, nothing is nearly as sexy (well, again, maybe my girlfriend - it's close though). So...until it breaks, I will enjoy it. And if it breaks, I will replace it - likely with aluminum. It's only $. It's better than spending my hard earned $ on crack or gambling. Luckily, I don't have too many other vices (except skiing). My only concern is that if it breaks, I don't want to kill myself in the process. Other than that, it's all good.

  171. #171
    College Boy
    Reputation: Timeless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by mmmm...kona
    Well...you may (or may not) be right, but I know one thing - nothing I've ridden (well, maybe my GF) feels as nice as my Ransom. And in my opinion, nothing is nearly as sexy (well, again, maybe my girlfriend - it's close though). So...until it breaks, I will enjoy it. And if it breaks, I will replace it - likely with aluminum. It's only $. It's better than spending my hard earned $ on crack or gambling. Luckily, I don't have too many other vices (except skiing). My only concern is that if it breaks, I don't want to kill myself in the process. Other than that, it's all good.

    see you last line is why I very leary of CF. When it breaks it breaks with out warning and it may be ex termly strong but that not going to do you any good if you are dead.

    Carbon fiber is great for strength but is weakness is the sudden no warning failure and that is why it is dangerous to use on a bike. In a single hard hit an Al and steel frame can take more total energy before they snap and a CF. Now the frame would be ruined at a weaker but if you take a hit that would cause CF to fail you will more likely come out in one piece on an Al frame because of its ability to stretch and bend which allows it to take more energy.

    The most aggressive riders should NOT be on CF because it snaps insteads of bends so it makes it more dangerous.

  172. #172

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Timeless
    see you last line is why I very leary of CF. When it breaks it breaks with out warning and it may be ex termly strong but that not going to do you any good if you are dead.

    Carbon fiber is great for strength but is weakness is the sudden no warning failure and that is why it is dangerous to use on a bike. In a single hard hit an Al and steel frame can take more total energy before they snap and a CF. Now the frame would be ruined at a weaker but if you take a hit that would cause CF to fail you will more likely come out in one piece on an Al frame because of its ability to stretch and bend which allows it to take more energy.

    The most aggressive riders should NOT be on CF because it snaps insteads of bends so it makes it more dangerous.
    Ok. Ok. I get your point. But I'm not sure if you get mine. Let me ask you this - how many 10 year olds at the hill crowd around your bike and say "Hey man - that is one dope ride"? Doesn't this count for anything?

    Ok. Seriously though. Until it breaks, it rawks. I'm pretty much a pu$$y on the trail (relative to other guys I ride with) and generally, I'm very gentle with things (eg. shoes). I could probably ride my road bike in the mountains and not bust it. So quit freaking me out. Mwahahaha!
    Last edited by mmmm...kona; 04-06-2007 at 05:13 PM.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    20
    8 years ago I had very similar experience with 1999 GT STS 1000 "DH"= (yeah right).......
    GT quickly replaced my cracked frame ......wery first ride new (seccond) frame broke in half and I had to hike 2 hours with dislocated shoulder draggin' two halfs of my "bike" behind me.....
    Lesson learned !
    Last edited by c'dale; 04-10-2007 at 10:29 PM.

  174. #174

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    You guys got me so freaked out that I went down into my basement and pulled my Ransom LTD off the ceiling hook to inspect the frame for any hairline fractures. As I dropped the front end onto the floor, I heard a loud crack, not unlike the sound of a shotgun. I thought I blew the front tire but then noticed that I had cracked my downtube right above the BB - obviously from dropping it onto the uncarpeted floor rather carelessly All I know is that this would never have happened with my old Kona frames. Pics will follow.

  175. #175
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Wow - I am going to be really careful about riding my Ransom LTD on uncarpeted floors....

    Good thing that I rode today on a carpet of pine needles, logs, rocks and dirt.

  176. #176

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by ATBScott
    Wow - I am going to be really careful about riding my Ransom LTD on uncarpeted floors....

    Good thing that I rode today on a carpet of pine needles, logs, rocks and dirt.
    Hey - I didn't want to bring up my conversation with the LBS I had today, but I suppose I should. According to them, they will not allow any more test rides on carbon framed Ransoms. They have already had 2 cracked frames from potential purchasers going way too big off the curbs on the streets around the LBS. I was advised to restrict the use of my Ransom to urban commuting, but only if there were no curbs to negotiate on the route, and only if I first go on a diet. WTF is up with that? How can they hold this out as "a bike that redefines all mountain"? I'm starting to get really pi$$ed now. I should have stuck with the tried and true Konas. I see guys dropping off curbs all the time with them

  177. #177
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,494
    the only frame i've broken was done at the rear brake side dropout when i tapped the rear brake cruising next to my buddy. I doubt that it was that brake that killed the frame, but damaged that had already occured and the braking was the proverbial feather. Similarly, i doubt you could break a new Scott in the parking lot.

    I bet ya kicked up a rock earlier and that did it... ahh well, enjoy the intense!
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by mmmm...kona
    You guys got me so freaked out that I went down into my basement and pulled my Ransom LTD off the ceiling hook to inspect the frame for any hairline fractures. As I dropped the front end onto the floor, I heard a loud crack, not unlike the sound of a shotgun. I thought I blew the front tire but then noticed that I had cracked my downtube right above the BB - obviously from dropping it onto the uncarpeted floor rather carelessly All I know is that this would never have happened with my old Kona frames. Pics will follow.
    It must have been cracked already, a frame breaking by just dropping the bike on the floor, without any rider weight on it, would just by ridicilous.

    Sorry to hear about your mishap, but it's almost funny: one moment you are a big advocate of this particular bike, the next...only conclusion: it is *that* unreliable.

  179. #179

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by djska
    It must have been cracked already, a frame breaking by just dropping the bike on the floor, without any rider weight on it, would just by ridicilous.

    Sorry to hear about your mishap, but it's almost funny: one moment you are a big advocate of this particular bike, the next...only conclusion: it is *that* unreliable.
    I was just joking

    As for being an advocate of the bike, yes, I like it. I also liked all the Konas I've owned. It's just a bike. Whatever. It's not my soulmate. It gets me into the mountains. It just happens to do it better than any other bike I've owned. But there are lots of bikes I'd be very happy to ride on. I'm not a one brand and that's it kind of guy. I like all bikes. It's all good.

    I guess I have to be much more precise in expressing myself.

  180. #180

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    That was not a good joke, considering manufacturers take this board seriously.

  181. #181

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    That was not a good joke, considering manufacturers take this board seriously.
    Are you referring to me? If so, are you joking about me joking? Surely you can't be referring to my comments about cracking my frame setting my bike on the uncarpeted floor. Or are you referring to people busting frames "launching" off curbs? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you're joking about me joking.

    OKAY - FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THAT I WAS SERIOUS - I'M NOT.

    I doubt my Ransom will ever break. I love it. I love all bikes. I love biking. It's not about the bike. It's about the biking.

    AND AGAIN - I'M JUST JOKING.
    Last edited by mmmm...kona; 04-07-2007 at 11:44 AM.

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by mmmm...kona
    Are you referring to me? If so, are you joking about me joking? Surely you can't be referring to my comments about cracking my frame setting my bike on the uncarpeted floor. Or are you referring to people busting frames "launching" off curbs? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you're joking about me joking.

    OKAY - FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THAT I WAS SERIOUS - I'M NOT.

    I doubt my Ransom will ever break. I love it. I love all bikes. I love biking. It's not about the bike. It's about the biking.

    AND AGAIN - I'M JUST JOKING.
    there is a big difference between "dropping" and "setting" your bike on the floor. your first post said "dropping" and did not come off as a joke to anyone (obviously)

    please no more jokes, it's just not working...

  183. #183
    utilikilted
    Reputation: Shuteye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    156
    I think we all would agree carbon fiber or aluminum can both be designed to be bullet proof, but at the cost of weight. Regarding marketing, look at the Turner Nitrous. If you check out the FAQ section on Turner's web site, no ifs ands or buts, plainly stated, Turner specifies the Nitrous for XC riders under 165 lb. I hear you well, Trail Header. A manufacturer has a responsibility to the consumer to specify what a product is designed for. You have one company that has made a reputation due to light weight and appears to be pursuing that end by making compromises (Scott road frames have also been criticised for being break prone). You have another (Turner Bikes) that offers a whole line up of frames for the consumer to choose from according to style and weight. Kona, Ventana and many others also subscribe to the same mentality. Buy from these guys.

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,294
    Y'all need to get your sarcasm detectors fixed.

  185. #185

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    there is a big difference between "dropping" and "setting" your bike on the floor. your first post said "dropping" and did not come off as a joke to anyone (obviously)

    please no more jokes, it's just not working...
    Are you kidding me? In the words of [email protected], as quoted by Hardtails Are Better, "I have heard stupider things, but those involved people nailing their penis to a plank of wood".

    Tell you what - I'll meet you half way. I'll say whatever I want, but I'll give a blanket apology to those with an IQ in double digits who believe everything they read (and everything I say). Wow. Talk about a serious crowd. I think you should go ride. Or better yet, go get laid. You might see things a little differently.
    Last edited by mmmm...kona; 04-07-2007 at 06:38 PM.

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,294
    When you guys are done getting your sarcasm detectors checked out, I'd reccomend smoothing out your panties....

  187. #187
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by mmmm...kona
    Or better yet, go get laid. You might see things a little differently.
    wait, what?? I thought it was only masturbation could make you go blind!
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  188. #188

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail_Header
    if the carbn is beefier on the ltd, i wish they would have offered me one of those and a good deal on the difference between the two...i would have at least given it a shot. but by the looks of it...it would have to be a lot beefier.

    scott ransom 20 028.jpg

    check the wall thickness...just seems like it should be thicker than that, like a lot thicker.
    Carbon can be used in such a fashion that it is stronger in certain directions and against different forces than the Aluminum used to make our bike frames. Thats part of the point in using carbon. I'm not suprized it's thinner.

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    ahh the trolls are out in full force now i see.

    i will get my sarcasm detector fixed as soon as yall get your "this thread is deader than dead" detectors fixed.

  190. #190
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    Quote Originally Posted by mmmm...kona
    I was just joking
    I thought it was funny.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  191. #191

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    ahh the trolls are out in full force now i see.

    i will get my sarcasm detector fixed as soon as yall get your "this thread is deader than dead" detectors fixed.
    Hey Salamander - simmer the he11 down before someone lays an e-smackdown on you. Just be happy you don't have a carbon Ranson frame like me - I can't even use it to ride to 7-11 anymore for fear of it breaking. It's hanging in the basement on a ceiling hook. I expect that the weight of the bike will end up crumbling that frame any time now. WTF was I thinking when I bought that POS?

    For the intellectually challenged - I'm just kidding. I will soon be rawking that bad boy just as aggressively as I did last season. Smooth as buttah...

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dms1818's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    305

    What a Bummer

    Sorry to hear about your bad luck. NiTi for me

  193. #193
    Derailleurless
    Reputation: Speedub.Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,122
    I hate to admit it (I've been following this thread since day one), but I thought you were serious, kona.... full of sh&#105;t, but serious.

    ...although I'm probably just being thick.
    speedub.nate
    · MTBR Hiatus UFN ·

  194. #194

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedub.Nate
    I hate to admit it (I've been following this thread since day one), but I thought you were serious, kona.... full of ****, but serious.

    ...although I'm probably just being thick.
    Really? Okay. Point taken. Here's a little context for my comments...

    I hadn't been to this forum since last season (I was dialled into skiing all winter). My GF just bought a Spec FSR Comp. Before she bought it, I wandered onto this forum to do a little due diligence to make sure there weren't any known issues about it. Ironically, while I found nothing bad about the Spec, I stumbled onto this thread and learned that there appear to be potential issues with my Ransom LTD. Ouch. Talk about a curveball.

    I wasn't trying to make fun of the OP - I'm really grateful he posted this, and am very relieved that he didn't hurt himself through all the madness. And I have no reason to believe he is fabricating or exaggerating anything - those pics don't look like photochops to me.

    I just thought I'd try to add a little comic relief to the whole gong show. Apparently, there was a malfunction somewhere between intention and execution, in light of the reactions to my posts.

    I weigh 200 pounds without gear so I was a little concerned myself. Having said this, I'm a pretty conservative rider. I ride everything in site as fast as I can on typical Rocky Mountain trails (straight up, straight down, as steep and gnarly as you want, 10 to 60 kms a ride), but I don't search out big air when I'm riding and I try to ride as smooth as I can. I wouldn't think of doing any kind of North Shore stuff or shuttling with this bike.

    I had a personal best kind of season last year, which I owe largely to my Ransom.

    While this forum is a very valuable resource in terms of information, many posters seem to worship their bike to the point of defending it no matter what and slamming every other brand in the process. I have owned many bikes, and many different brands over the past 10 years, during the course of which I have been doing some pretty serious recreational riding. I have never missed a season. From June to October, I am in the mountains at least 2 times per week, and ride my cyclocross to work during the weekdays (30 kms of up and down hills). I find that most of the top bike companies generally produce excellent products. I'd be happy with one of about 25 or 30 bikes. I really do like all kinds of different bikes.

    Although I like admiring and drooling over nicely built and visually appealing bikes, I still try to treat them as a means only - to let me get into the mountains. I find that a lot here seem to treat their bikes as an end in themselves. They get so obsessed with the most minute of details. This can be fun and highly provocative intellectually, but often posters go overboard and an objective discussion deteriorates into a "my bike is the best and the rest of you fawkers have bikes that suck". I thought this thread was leaning in that direction at times. Rather than say that, I thought I'd just kinda go with the flow.

    Anyway, I have made the necessary inquiries and will find out what's up in terms of known failures for the carbon Ransom frame. I suspect that there will be no issue in the end and that I'll be riding my Ransom this season. If otherwise, I guess I'll have to get another (aluminum) frame and slap all my components on that. At least my Ranson LTD has nice components to transfer over
    Last edited by mmmm...kona; 04-08-2007 at 09:10 AM.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by mmmm...kona
    Hey Salamander - simmer the he11 down before someone lays an e-smackdown on you.
    ...
    at least you are smart enough to realize that this action is beyond your ability. good luck and enjoy your fake broken synthetic frame.

  196. #196

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    at least you are smart enough to realize that this action is beyond your ability. good luck and enjoy your fake broken synthetic frame.
    Thank you Salamander. You just keep on keepin on.

    By way of update, chapter 3 of the tragedy kinda went like this...I went for a little urban ride tonight with my GF so she could check out her new Spesh. As luck would have it, I launched off a curb and busted not only my carbon bar, but my carbon brake lever and carbon rear mech as well. Even the fake carbon spacers on my steerer tube shattered

    Well, I guess that's it for carbon for me.

    Over and out from fake synthetic broken frame central

  197. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,494

    Great post.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmmm...kona
    Really? Okay. Point taken. Here's a little context for my comments...

    I hadn't been to this forum since last season (I was dialled into skiing all winter). My GF just bought a Spec FSR Comp. Before she bought it, I wandered onto this forum to do a little due diligence to make sure there weren't any known issues about it. Ironically, while I found nothing bad about the Spec, I stumbled onto this thread and learned that there appear to be potential issues with my Ransom LTD. Ouch. Talk about a curveball.

    I wasn't trying to make fun of the OP - I'm really grateful he posted this, and am very relieved that he didn't hurt himself through all the madness. And I have no reason to believe he is fabricating or exaggerating anything - those pics don't look like photochops to me.

    I just thought I'd try to add a little comic relief to the whole gong show. Apparently, there was a malfunction somewhere between intention and execution, in light of the reactions to my posts.

    I weigh 200 pounds without gear so I was a little concerned myself. Having said this, I'm a pretty conservative rider. I ride everything in site as fast as I can on typical Rocky Mountain trails (straight up, straight down, as steep and gnarly as you want, 10 to 60 kms a ride), but I don't search out big air when I'm riding and I try to ride as smooth as I can. I wouldn't think of doing any kind of North Shore stuff or shuttling with this bike.

    I had a personal best kind of season last year, which I owe largely to my Ransom.

    While this forum is a very valuable resource in terms of information, many posters seem to worship their bike to the point of defending it no matter what and slamming every other brand in the process. I have owned many bikes, and many different brands over the past 10 years, during the course of which I have been doing some pretty serious recreational riding. I have never missed a season. From June to October, I am in the mountains at least 2 times per week, and ride my cyclocross to work during the weekdays (30 kms of up and down hills). I find that most of the top bike companies generally produce excellent products. I'd be happy with one of about 25 or 30 bikes. I really do like all kinds of different bikes.

    Although I like admiring and drooling over nicely built and visually appealing bikes, I still try to treat them as a means only - to let me get into the mountains. I find that a lot here seem to treat their bikes as an end in themselves. They get so obsessed with the most minute of details. This can be fun and highly provocative intellectually, but often posters go overboard and an objective discussion deteriorates into a "my bike is the best and the rest of you fawkers have bikes that suck". I thought this thread was leaning in that direction at times. Rather than say that, I thought I'd just kinda go with the flow.

    Anyway, I have made the necessary inquiries and will find out what's up in terms of known failures for the carbon Ransom frame. I suspect that there will be no issue in the end and that I'll be riding my Ransom this season. If otherwise, I guess I'll have to get another (aluminum) frame and slap all my components on that. At least my Ranson LTD has nice components to transfer over
    I agree with everything you have said here. Hopefully I don't shatter your Ransom when you let me take it down Cox Hill this summer Did you really break your bars, brake lever, and rear mech or are you feeding the trolls again?

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    Did you really break your bars, brake lever, and rear mech or are you feeding the trolls again?
    It's probably his weird sense of humor playing up again...

  199. #199

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    I agree with everything you have said here. Hopefully I don't shatter your Ransom when you let me take it down Cox Hill this summer Did you really break your bars, brake lever, and rear mech or are you feeding the trolls again?
    Hey Ronny - good to hear from you. We definitely need to meet up this summer. We can swap bikes for a bit (that is, if you dare hop on my fake, soon-to-be-broken synthetic frame). Mwahahaha! What are you riding? Nothing carbon I hope.

    I'm planning a trip to Moab next month. Woohoo! As I type I can hear the sweet sound of carbon snapping, resonating through the peaks on Porcupine Rim.

    By the way - during my extreme urban riding last night, I also broke my fake carbon spacers on the steerer tube. You forgot to put that in the list

    Carb on brother.

  200. #200

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by djska
    It's probably his weird sense of humor playing up again...
    At least you don't own a carbon death trap. Or do you? If you don't, and given that I apparently do, why is it that I'm joking and you're all pi$$ed/bummed/pouty? Come on DJ, turn that frown upside down

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.