Road Bike Racing - Full Carbon Bikes

I am considering buying a new bike and I was thinking about getting a carbon frame, a Kestrel to be precise. Though I've seen them at the triathlons I've raced in I don't think I've seen any in bike races. And, I know that no team in last year's Tour rode them either. What is it about these bikes? Are they no good? Are carbon frames no good? I know the Posties ride carbon frames so I guess carbon frames must be good in some ways. I know carbon is supposed to dampen the vibrations of the road, but does it then also take away some of the energy from the pedals to the wheels? Does the carbon start off stiff and then eventually soften up? If so, how long does a carbon frame last? How often do the Posties get new frames? Is there anyone out there that can give me some help on this issue? Thanks in advance.

I have heard that the kestrels, especially, the smaller framed models are really harsh-riding. just what I've heard, I've never ridden one. the trek that I rode was pretty nice, a very quiet ride.

Posties get new frames every year. As for not seeing Kestrels in the TdF (this applies to any frame, actually): you may very well have seen one painted with another company's logo. The teams have sponsors and have to ride that company's bike, or one painted to look like it. Same goes for other gear. Lance's TT helmet is actually a proprietary design owned by him. However, it says Giro since Giro is his helmet sponsor.

Once rode carbon Giants, Lotto-Domo rode carbon Merckx, the Posties were on carbon Treks, I assume there were other teams riding carbon bikes also during this season. The bikes last fine, they will outlast the rider. If they are good enough for the Pro's they will be good enough for everyone else. Buy one, ride it and enjoy it!
I have a carbon Giant from 96' and it still rides like new, I also have a 03 carbon Giant that I have raced all year and that is also excellent and will last forever. They are strong bikes.

CHEERS.

Mark

I am considering buying a new bike and I was thinking about getting a carbon frame, a Kestrel to be precise. Though I've seen them at the triathlons I've raced in I don't think I've seen any in bike races. And, I know that no team in last year's Tour rode them either. What is it about these bikes? Are they no good? Are carbon frames no good? I know the Posties ride carbon frames so I guess carbon frames must be good in some ways. I know carbon is supposed to dampen the vibrations of the road, but does it then also take away some of the energy from the pedals to the wheels? Does the carbon start off stiff and then eventually soften up? If so, how long does a carbon frame last? How often do the Posties get new frames? Is there anyone out there that can give me some help on this issue? Thanks in advance.


Carbon is stiff. Really stiff. It also retains it's tensile strength, it does not get a "memory" per se. One of the properties of carbon, is that it does not "soften".
However, carbon, if it breaks means that the frame is toast. I've never seen one just "break" but if you wreck the bike and break it, that's it for the frame. Aluminum is more apt to dent, where carbon does not dent.

To me, carbon feels "dead" in that I cannot tell what it's going to do. I ride an Optimo Cannondale R3000 with Dura Ace 2004, very stiff and light and when I corner the bike I can tell exactly what's going on.

Pros ride what they are given from the team.

Of all the carbon frames I have ridden, I think Look's are the best. Their frame felt better. Their new bike, the new frame replacing the 381i is tremendous. But the frame, alone, is like $2,300. But it's worth it in my opinion.

Carbon can be laid up to be whatever you want. Soft, stiff, whatever. There is no limit to molding shapes and thickness variations. It isn't "soft" or flexy at the pedals and carbon will last indefinitely. It is worthy of it's price and reputation.

Kestrel makes great bikes. Not being in the pro peloton doesn't mean alot. Its just exposure. CERVELO is a perfect example of it. No one took them seriously until they entered the pro peloton. Does that mean they were not very good before? Litespeed sponsored Lotto/Domo but now they don't. Does that mean they aren't as good? It's all just advertising and politics.

Do research and test stuff out but what shows up in advertising and magazines just shows you who is spending the most on marketing. You miss guys like Parlee, Serotta, or Kestrel.
Test it out and if you like it, you should get it without worrying about who is riding what in the tour.

However, carbon, if it breaks means that the frame is toast. I've never seen one just "break" but if you wreck the bike and break it, that's it for the frame. Aluminum is more apt to dent, where carbon does not dent.



This is misleading. The reason you will see an aluminum tube dent is because the tubes are drawn so thin, they will dent very easily with impact stress (like a soda can).
Carbon tubes are a laminate. They don't dent because they are a resin impregnated lamiate. Very hard to break but once it gets a large enough impact, it will shatter (look at a Formula 1 car crash and you can see this).

STEEL is the most flexible and apt to dent but can be easily repaired.

A monocoque carbon frame cannot be repaired (like GIANT) but lugged carbon can be theoretically repaired (like TREK, LOOK). It might be too expensive and frame replacement in the case of an accident would be easier, but carbon isn't necessaraly a "throw-away".

Aluminum is just that- if it breaks, it cannot be repaired. For the sake of "real world", carbon is the same. if it breaks it's done.

arghh i deleted it. it was early.

"and, I know that no team in last year's Tour rode them either"

Did the posties not ride in the tour???????????
I think he means Kestrel bikes, not carbon bikes in general. I wish I could remember the site, but there was a test done on some carbon, steel, and aluminum bikes to test for longevity and I believe the Trek, Cannondale, and one other frame managed to make it through without any breaking point, whereas a lot of the other steel and aluminum bikes failed. I wouldn’t worry too much about the durability of carbon as it’s proven to be pretty study since it’s introduction.

yes you are probably right. whoops.

I never heard of "Kestrel".
Other manufacturers of carbon frames are e.g. (not listed above)
Look and Colnago (excellent, but expensive)

I have ridden carbon for about 12 years. Started on the first Specialized Epic then to a Kestrel 200 sci and finally to a Kuota Khsano. All three bikes never failed in any way with some minor crashes on the Epic and the Kestrel. As you can se I am biased towards carbon and the pros seem to be going steadily in that direction as well. IMO the "dead" misnomer means you no longer feel your balls rattle over every bump. However I also think every material ( steel, titanium, aluminum, carbon ) are utilized in frames that exceed or match the needs of ANY rider. I also really like the carbon/alloy combinations

Carbon is stiff. Really stiff. It also retains it's tensile strength, it does not get a "memory" per se. One of the properties of carbon, is that it does not "soften".
However, carbon, if it breaks means that the frame is toast. I've never seen one just "break" but if you wreck the bike and break it, that's it for the frame. Aluminum is more apt to dent, where carbon does not dent.

To me, carbon feels "dead" in that I cannot tell what it's going to do. I ride an Optimo Cannondale R3000 with Dura Ace 2004, very stiff and light and when I corner the bike I can tell exactly what's going on.

Pros ride what they are given from the team.

Of all the carbon frames I have ridden, I think Look's are the best. Their frame felt better. Their new bike, the new frame replacing the 381i is tremendous. But the frame, alone, is like $2,300. But it's worth it in my opinion.
I bet you know whats going on with your R3000,every single thing,for every single ride of every mile.