Anyone using BST Carbon Fiber wheels?

There was a year the Speed Triple R came with them. 2012 or 2013 ?

 

I find it amusing about the 60' drop of the bicycle with carbon frame/wheels. It isn't like they jumped off a 6 story parking garage and landed on a flat concrete pad below. It's more like the Evel Knievel jumps, with steeply angled ramps to land on, which minimizes the impact loading on the frame/wheels. (or the ski jumpers that take off on that long high ramp, but land on the angled landing zone) And comparing frames to wheels is apples to oranges anyways.

Do these carbon bicycle wheels have spokes like normal bike wheels? Is it just the rim that is carbon, and they are laced up with spokes in tension? Or are they solid carbon? The spoked wheels have a lot more "give" and ability to absorb sharp impacts. While carbon can be strong, it can also be brittle, as has been mentioned already. Depending on the type of riding being done, I would trust a carbon rim with spokes in tension a lot more than a full carbon wheel.

If I was that gentleman with the BMW, I'd have a chat with the US DOT regarding FMVSS, and show them what is going on. At least that will get the ball rolling at that end.

This isn't about parts failing in general, it's about parts being suitable for the purpose they were designed for, for the lifetime of the vehicle. And I would guess that BMW (or their supplier) self certified these wheels as opposed to them actually sending samples to the DOT for approval. I think that eventually the US DOT will recall these things, if they are already being replaced in other countries. (if these are non-US street legal vehicles, all bets are off)

 

Here's something that just popped into my head. It may have popped in there sooner but I'm pretty mindful about using chemicals and cleaning them up should there be any "spillage". So, "unknown accidental" appearances of chemicals aren't something I would normally think of occurring in my world.

First, let's consider a couple of carbon's shortcomings, or advantages, as structural components...

1. It doesn't like fire. When it's used as bodywork, on a vehicle that's on fire, it's as easily removed as if it were wet cardboard. Just rip it off. Mostly a good point.
2. It doesn't like fire. When it's used as a strut, like the mast of a sailboat, and gets struck by lightning, it all comes crashing down like a horrible construction accident whose previous support has suddenly liquified. Mostly a bad point, but people still insist on it for its strength to weight advantage.

Seems to me, any application that exposes carbon to extreme heat during use is a bad thing if that heat causes the demise of the component...it's not always the case.

Enter NASA and carbon/carbon. Not the same thing, but it sheds light on carbon's properties. Near ZERO coefficient of thermal expansion AND self-lubricating properties! Sounds like it would be ideal for the internal workings of a combustion engine. Funny you should think that...
Decades ago, NASA took a Briggs&Stratton type engine and replaced the cylinder with a tube of carbon/carbon. Then they installed a piston formed of carbon/carbon and fired up the engine. No rings, virtually no cylinder-to-piston clearance and only the air cooling provided for the base engine. They ran it wide open for 24 hrs. Tore it down and observed no wear to the piston or cylinder. They ran it for a week wide open and tore it down, again, no wear to the piston or cylinder. This went on for years with increasingly long intervals of checks...and no wear. (I'm not privy to any final findings).

What does any of this have to do with wheels of carbon fiber? Only that the base ingredient seems to be impervious to heat while also being quite slippery to itself. Sounds like you need some pretty smart people with some pretty technical resources to put that ingredient to any practical use. But what would be the point? Strength and weight, so long as it's properly engineered.

Conclusion? It's the other stuff in the carbon fiber material that makes it or breaks it, along with the structural engineering.

Is BST doing it differently than the Thyssen Group? Probably not so much different than that of the forged aluminum and magnesium wheel manufacturers differ from one another.

Research is your friend...and so is the Beeb. It's full of anecdotal evidence that can point you in the proper direction. Go against the grain and you may as well try reinventing the wheel.
For example, OZ Racing wheels...didn't they start by making wheels for 125s? If so, at some point did someone say "Hey, we can make them bigger and sell them to a larger market!" Apparently, based on sweatypants' pic, they lacked the experience, know how or under-estimated the need for an exponentially stronger product...unless that failure was caused by some other catalyst. Same can be said about that carbon fiber wheel that failed exiting a corner in a race...was it a design flaw or had that wheel been subjected to some other influence?

Getting back to the point of this post, chemicals make up the resins that bind the carbon fibers together. What post-production chemicals react with those pre-production chemicals to compromise the structural integrity of the product? Does brake fluid fuck with it? What about WD40? Maybe just some good ol' sunshine and H2O? Perhaps it's brake dust, in combination with any kind of fluid(s)? Wheel polish? Who knows? Is this unknown the whole reason for the bias? Could be. Because it's an unknown, imo, it's not to be trusted...at least not in this particular dynamic application specific to motorcycles.
Just sayin'.

 

This doesn't really mean anything maybe he doesn't like the look, the styling of carbon car wheels isn't that great.

 

I'm pretty sure this Murray guy is the function-over-form type. If it's the best application of the material, aesthetic appearances are a distant secondary consideration.

 

If that's what he meant in the video I watched, he misspoke like a motherfucker when he explained why he doesn't trust them structurally.

 

There's a video,do you have a link, when was video made.

 

Yes, no*, 2021.

* I can give you three links, and I think it's going to be one of the three. But I'm not watching 90 minutes of video just to prove you wrong. I already know that you are.

 

Still doesn't mean anything just because one engineer doesn't like carbon wheels, plenty of doctors don't trust the vaccine.

 

I didn't say it was the gospel brought down by Jesus. I'm just saying until there is someone on the BBS who matches his credentials, I'm going with his opinion.

p.s. I'm saying you are wrong on what he might have meant. I am not claiming his opinion is an unassailable fact.

 

Logical conclusion? And here I thought you were a venerable veteran of the Beeb.

 

Meanwhile the OP already bought the bike, and sold the wheels. Where he go, this thread probably bored him to death.

 

To my knowledge no OEM bike ever came with CF wheels until the latest iteration of the Ducati Superleggeria and the BMW M-model. The Beemer had some known issues with those wheels falling apart, hadn't heard anything about the Ducati's OEM CF wheels.

 

Italians have carbon fiber in their diet. They could take a dump and leave a masterpiece.

 

Those were aluminum marvics I believe.

 

There was a year that came with carbon wheels, I'm positive.

 

Even Columbia couldn't take a piece of foam against carbon / carbon...

 

I don't get the inference.
?

 

Saw this on Sunday and thought….. that looks like an expensive parking fuck up waiting to happen.