View Single Post
Old 09-09-2013, 04:56 AM   #1506
Studly Adventurer
michael1968's Avatar
Joined: May 2009
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Oddometer: 885
Originally Posted by 640 Armageddon View Post
Just a word of caution there, CF parts look, (and are... ) really really sexy.
Their impact resistance though is not that good (I would say non existence but I am trying to be modest here... )

There is a specific reason that everybody so far goes to either aluminium or special plastics/thermoplastics and not fibers. KTM for example could have made the tower side plates from CF. Straight forward design. They did not. And there is a reason for that.

That part, on the head of the bike supports the whole tower. Damage it and your tower will be hanging like there is no tomorrow. Remember that you support:

Electrical equipment,
Emergensy kit
RB holder
Rally Computers

And God only knows what else. Even if you do not have all the above, still there are lots of parts that will not be in a good position if this, head part, breaks.

That is why KTM has this massive aluminium part there. Not that it cannot be done any other way. It can. But you need impact resistance due to the nature of the crashes that this part sees.

If I was stuck with CF I would make this part to break first upon impact. Then replace it with a new one (4 bolts) and off I go. It needs some thought but it is a good starting point.

Part looks really nice though
It's a bit of a myth that carbon has no impact resistance, especially when mixed with Kevlar (as I have done here). There have been huge advances in the base material, weave, processes and resins since carbon first came out in the 60's when there were some high profile failures.

KTM don't use carbon on their nav towers but the do on their bash/skid plates which should tell us something.

FYI, I've been running a carbon/kevlar nav tower for about a year now with no issues, this is just mk2.

michael1968 screwed with this post 09-09-2013 at 05:09 AM
michael1968 is offline   Reply With Quote