Road Cycling - Not much alu at the World Track Championships

There was hardly an aluminium bike to be seen at the World Track Championships here in Melbourne, especially amongst the elite riders and the bigger riders, most bikes seems to be carbon......why?

Does carbon have a much better strength, and stiffness to weight ratio?

Do the big guys think they can bust aluminium?

Is it because carbon is easier to make aero?

Or is aluminium just cheap crap that we've all been suckered into buying?

There was hardly an aluminium bike to be seen at the World Track Championships here in Melbourne, especially amongst the elite riders and the bigger riders, most bikes seems to be carbon......why?

Does carbon have a much better strength, and stiffness to weight ratio?

Do the big guys think they can bust aluminium?

Is it because carbon is easier to make aero?

Or is aluminium just cheap crap that we've all been suckered into buying?

perhaps carbon tends to be lighter than alum bikes? the fuji super lite (carbon) is only 15"s for the whole bike.

Aluminium has a finite fatigue life. One more cycle you subject it to is one less cycle it has in its lifespan. Track sprinters are basically weightlifters on wheels. When you combine those two factors, it would be hard for a top track cyclist to get a season out of an Al bike before it snapped. Probably catastrophically.

Having said that, I think there was more aluminium there than you realise, but yeah, carbon is easier to make aero than say steel, and I'd say that's the main reason. Also, Look as a lot of sponsorship dollars sunk into track, so that's why you see a lot of those big ugly Looks. Also, there's a lot of the Aussie Superbikes there, which debunks the whole 'lightness' theory - those things weight a tonne.

There was quite a few steel bikes in the Madison though.

There was hardly an aluminium bike to be seen at the World Track Championships here in Melbourne, especially amongst the elite riders and the bigger riders, most bikes seems to be carbon......why?

Does carbon have a much better strength, and stiffness to weight ratio?

Do the big guys think they can bust aluminium?

Is it because carbon is easier to make aero?

Or is aluminium just cheap crap that we've all been suckered into buying?

Yes - it is no secret that carbon fibre has better strength to weight ratio. No the big guys don't think they can bust a good alum frame (they used to ride them as a norm). I would guess the ease to shape contributes....

alum isn't cheap crap that you've been suckered into buying - it is a good material for good bicycles. The only concern is as frames get increasingly lighter, the limit for alum seems to have been reached by the 1kilo range. Tubing gets thinner and becomes too fragile. Make the diameter of the tubing too thin and alum becomes noodle and flexes too much (which also means the frame will die sooner because of the fatigue characteristics of alum).

perhaps carbon tends to be lighter than alum bikes? the fuji super lite (carbon) is only 15"s for the whole bike.

Are you sure the fuji super lite is a carbon frame? The specs at the Fuji website indicate only the fork being carbon.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

fuji does not make a production bike that is full carbon. the cosest they come is a carbon fork and seat stays.

Aluminium has a finite fatigue life. One more cycle you subject it to is one less cycle it has in its lifespan. Track sprinters are basically weightlifters on wheels. When you combine those two factors, it would be hard for a top track cyclist to get a season out of an Al bike before it snapped. Probably catastrophically.

Having said that, I think there was more aluminium there than you realise, but yeah, carbon is easier to make aero than say steel, and I'd say that's the main reason. Also, Look as a lot of sponsorship dollars sunk into track, so that's why you see a lot of those big ugly Looks. Also, there's a lot of the Aussie Superbikes there, which debunks the whole 'lightness' theory - those things weight a tonne.

There was quite a few steel bikes in the Madison though.

I have read many places that Carbon also has a finite fatigue life, it does not flex, and when it breaks it breaks without bending first... so it could be disastrous for a recreational rider who doesn't have a team of mechanics constantly maintaining the bikes and a number of bikes to use (like a pro racer).

Racers love carbon because it is the lightest material out there for bikes.

I have read many places that Carbon also has a finite fatigue life, it does not flex, and when it breaks it breaks without bending first... so it could be disastrous for a recreational rider who doesn't have a team of mechanics constantly maintaining the bikes and a number of bikes to use (like a pro racer).

Racers love carbon because it is the lightest material out there for bikes.


not really true - carbon fibre as far as a well designed frame goes, has better fatigue resistance than comparable frames of the same weight category. There are thousands of carbon fibre forks out there - they don't explode or break unexpectly on a open basis.

Are you sure the fuji super lite is a carbon frame? The specs at the Fuji website indicate only the fork being carbon.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

kramer, my bad.. ur right.. it's carbon fork and carbon rear triangle... but the rest is alum. but for 15" that's pretty light i'd say.

Do these guys really even buy there bikes or are they just givin a bike to ride by there sponsor's and thats that? ie do they have a choice in what to ride?

I have read many places that Carbon also has a finite fatigue life, it does not flex, and when it breaks it breaks without bending first... so it could be disastrous for a recreational rider who doesn't have a team of mechanics constantly maintaining the bikes and a number of bikes to use (like a pro racer).

Racers love carbon because it is the lightest material out there for bikes.

Well racers as in the TDF if given the choice would use Ti, not carbon.

you see as much carbon as you do because it's a lot easier to make a VERY stiff frame with carbon than it is aluminum, or any other material. not because it's light. trackies aren't obsessed with weight like roadies. sprinters commonly use a disc as their rear wheel. the lightest disc i've seen is still somewhere around 900g. yet rear road wheels can come in ~700g.

look at the bottom bracket area of sean eadie's bike (http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/may04/WTC04/day4/img_4640.jpg). there's simply no reasonable way to get that much material there with any sort of metal.

considering that a lot of these guys can make alessandro petacchi look like a local cat 5 racer, that stiffer they can make these bikes the better.

look at the bottom bracket area of sean eadie's bike (http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/may04/WTC04/day4/img_4640.jpg). there's simply no reasonable way to get that much material there with any sort of metal.

track riders > road riders

when was the last time you saw a rider in the pro peloton with facial hair like that!? bad. ****ing. ass.

he used to heave a full beard. he let someone he raced against (i can't remember their name.) shave it after a championship race. i forget if it was aussie nationals or worlds or what, maybe a world cup even. he raced for a while clean shaven, and now he's got the goatee goin. i was contemplating growing a beard in his honor, but after about a week i cant stand the itching. plus it wouldnt look nearly as intimidating on me as it does on him.

edit: little bit of research tells me: it was shaved off by Arnaud Tournant after Eadie's victory in Copenhagen.

bearded: http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2002/sep02/worldtrack/afp3/AFP-TEAM-69.jpg
clean: http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2002/nov02/munich02/LP/lp_eadie1.jpg

track riders > road riders

when was the last time you saw a rider in the pro peloton with facial hair like that!? bad. ****ing. ass.

I feel like he's going to throw a pair of carharrts and a nausea t-shirt on after the race and ask me for spare change for beer.

Studs.

Carbon for frames, but steel still seems to be the material of choice for many track bars.

not really true - carbon fibre as far as a well designed frame goes, has better fatigue resistance than comparable frames of the same weight category. There are thousands of carbon fibre forks out there - they don't explode or break unexpectly on a open basis.

No doubt. If anyone has ever broken a carbon anything they don't snap in two. They splinter and string apart. Not the perfect analogy, but similar to very green wood. You would be hard pressed to snap a carbon frame in half, shatter maybe, but clean break doubtful.

Carbon for frames, but steel still seems to be the material of choice for many track bars.

THANKYOU!! I thought I was going crazy! I couldn't work out why their alu bars were so shiny, then it dawned on me, but I was too embarrassed ask. "Surely they couldn't be using steel bars", I thought.

It must just be the sprinters, right?

I feel like he's going to throw a pair of carharrts and a nausea t-shirt on after the race and ask me for spare change for beer.

Well, he'd probably throw on some Hard Yakkas and an ACDC t-shirt and buy YOU a beer, but I know whatcha mean.

mmm...ACDC...

There was hardly an aluminium bike to be seen at the World Track Championships here in Melbourne, especially amongst the elite riders and the bigger riders, most bikes seems to be carbon......why?

Does carbon have a much better strength, and stiffness to weight ratio?

Do the big guys think they can bust aluminium?

Is it because carbon is easier to make aero?

Or is aluminium just cheap crap that we've all been suckered into buying?
.. any guys racing with magnesium alloy frames ???? just curious