Carbon: All, some or none?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Carbon: All, some or none?
Looking ahead to my next bike, I am undecided on this question. Partially because I don't know the dynamics of all carbon, some or none. Currently I ride a Marin Argenta (Tiagra components) and am looking to upgrade. While trying to stay within the $1500 or less category (give or take) I have looked at Trek and Specialized. Both are 105 and or Ultegra components. I'm also very open to any other ideas as I'm still in the looking stage.
I think this would be a natural step up. But I am looking for opinions from those who have more experience with either. I put on about 100 miles a week right now.
Lastly the TREK dealer claims to have to best in modern day carbon fiber. Is there that much difference or is this just a sales pitch? Thanks for any insight on this one.
I think this would be a natural step up. But I am looking for opinions from those who have more experience with either. I put on about 100 miles a week right now.
Lastly the TREK dealer claims to have to best in modern day carbon fiber. Is there that much difference or is this just a sales pitch? Thanks for any insight on this one.
#4
Senior Member
Scary in what way, Siu? I've never been on anything with carbon.
__________________
Some people are like a Slinky ... not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.
Some people are like a Slinky ... not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.
#5
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Upland Ca
Posts: 19,895
Bikes: Lemond Chambery/Cannondale R-900/Trek 8000 MTB/Burley Duet tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Nermal
Scary in what way, Siu? I've never been on anything with carbon.
I gotta hear this!
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North shore of Mass.
Posts: 2,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
Carbon is used in planes, cars, boats and motorcycles. When people state that it isn't safe and they won't use it on thier bikes I wonder if they avoid flying too.
#7
At War With Myself
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 142
Bikes: Trek 1200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I really want a carbon ride as well. Did you look at the Giant OCR line? I think they have a good deal on a carbon frame.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 642 Times
in
363 Posts
The question that answer's itself. At under $1,500 are you going to be able to find a full carbon bike?
As for the "Is carbon safe?" question, that's just a variation on the "Aluminum bikes self destruct" issue. I laugh when I listen to the "Steel is real" folks who are all-too-willing to risk their fate on an aluminum or carbon fiber handlebar.
As for the "Is carbon safe?" question, that's just a variation on the "Aluminum bikes self destruct" issue. I laugh when I listen to the "Steel is real" folks who are all-too-willing to risk their fate on an aluminum or carbon fiber handlebar.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: PDX
Posts: 641
Bikes: Trek 1200, Kona Honky Inc, PX Stealth
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Check out the Fuji bikes also. 2 friends of mine just picked up full carbon bikes for under $1500 each. One had 105 components all around and I think was $1250. The other had ultegra components and went for around $1400.
#10
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There are a few examples of bikes by a manufacturer with a range of material options within a single model, e.g., all aluminum at the bottom of the line--maybe with some elastomer feature--or, steel with CF stays and fork, etc., with all CF at the top of the line. By "top" I mean most expensive frame material option. If someone likes the less expensive bike, because it isn't all CF, then their opinion saves some money. Mostly what I've observed is that some riders thet take sides against CF as a frame or fork material insinuate that you risk your life by using it, which is about as smart as saying you should only drive on steel tires rather than risk you life on a thin layer of rubber that depends on air under high pressure for its strength. Bad example but I just felt like starting an argument this morning.
Last edited by wagathon; 06-25-06 at 11:06 AM.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Well, there are really two things you need to think about when you buy a bike:
1) What kind of frame does it have?
2) What level components does it have?
For the first question, frame material does have a big effect on how the bike feels, but design also has a big effect. You don't mention what kind of riding you do (or think you might do), and that does have an effect on your bike. If you want to put a rack on it, or commute in the rain, some bikes will let you do that, others won't
The second question is also important. Not only is there a difference between product lines (105 vs ultegra), you will also get different wheels and shifters, which also have an effect on how the bike responds.
I think all the high-end carbon bikes are pretty good. Companies with names to protect need to not build crap. But there are a number of lower-end carbon frames made in asia which haven't really been around long enough to be fully tested. My *guess* is that they are going to be fine, and if you get one of those from a name manufacturer, I wouldn't worry about (though it's good to ask what their frame guarantee is).
You're looking in a price range where there will be a tradeoffs on frame materials, component group, etc. What you should really do is find out what your local shops carry, tell them how much you want to spend, and then take some test rides.
I knew within 5 minutes of riding my Madone that I would buy it, so for me, full carbon is a wonderful material. But I had to spend a fair amount to get both full carbon and full ultegra.
Hope that helps.
1) What kind of frame does it have?
2) What level components does it have?
For the first question, frame material does have a big effect on how the bike feels, but design also has a big effect. You don't mention what kind of riding you do (or think you might do), and that does have an effect on your bike. If you want to put a rack on it, or commute in the rain, some bikes will let you do that, others won't
The second question is also important. Not only is there a difference between product lines (105 vs ultegra), you will also get different wheels and shifters, which also have an effect on how the bike responds.
I think all the high-end carbon bikes are pretty good. Companies with names to protect need to not build crap. But there are a number of lower-end carbon frames made in asia which haven't really been around long enough to be fully tested. My *guess* is that they are going to be fine, and if you get one of those from a name manufacturer, I wouldn't worry about (though it's good to ask what their frame guarantee is).
You're looking in a price range where there will be a tradeoffs on frame materials, component group, etc. What you should really do is find out what your local shops carry, tell them how much you want to spend, and then take some test rides.
I knew within 5 minutes of riding my Madone that I would buy it, so for me, full carbon is a wonderful material. But I had to spend a fair amount to get both full carbon and full ultegra.
Hope that helps.
__________________
Eric
2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)
Read my cycling blog at https://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
Like climbing? Goto https://www.bicycleclimbs.com
Eric
2005 Trek 5.2 Madone, Red with Yellow Flames (Beauty)
199x Lemond Tourmalet, Yellow with fenders (Beast)
Read my cycling blog at https://riderx.info/blogs/riderx
Like climbing? Goto https://www.bicycleclimbs.com
#13
Senior Curmudgeon
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Posts: 3,856
Bikes: Varies by day
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by jwbnyc
How much do you weigh?
These numbers are arbitrary - selected by me with the input of my LBS' personnel. Many makers don't specify maximum weights for their carbon components. IMHO, this borders on criminal behavior!
Your life, your choice...
#14
Señor Wences
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Well that's it, isn't it?
I weigh 135-140lb, give or take, depending on my hydration level. By the end of a week's commute I may possibly be down around 130lb. IOW, I can get away with Carbon whatever. I just don't stress the bike much at all even barreling into potholes or dropping off curbs, so I ride Carbon with very few qualms. That Carbon fork still freaks me out sometimes, though. It's the failure mode: yikes. If I weighed much more: I'd be riding something else.
I was told recently, by a guy at the LBS, that 185lb is the Carbon warranty cut off for Trek.
I weigh 135-140lb, give or take, depending on my hydration level. By the end of a week's commute I may possibly be down around 130lb. IOW, I can get away with Carbon whatever. I just don't stress the bike much at all even barreling into potholes or dropping off curbs, so I ride Carbon with very few qualms. That Carbon fork still freaks me out sometimes, though. It's the failure mode: yikes. If I weighed much more: I'd be riding something else.
I was told recently, by a guy at the LBS, that 185lb is the Carbon warranty cut off for Trek.
#15
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwbnyc
Well that's it, isn't it? . . . I was told recently, by a guy at the LBS, that 185lb is the Carbon warranty cut off for Trek.
Trek does make a specific--and expensive--bike with a CF frame that purposefully is engineered for a lighter rider. That's how close you came to knowing what you're actually talking about.
#16
Señor Wences
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Hey, the guy is in the business: he said that 185lb is Trek's upper limit on Carbon for riders. He had a frame fail. He lied about his weight in order to get a new frame. I was relating what he said, not vouching for it.
If you are talking about the upper range SSL bikes as being engineered for lighter riders: what's the weight cut off there?
Trek has spent a great deal of money in the last year getting the word out to owners of their Carbon frames and components to make sure that they properly inspect their equipment. why? Because Carbon can fail suddenly if damaged.
I happen to ride Carbon. I'm comfortable with it: a Pilot 5.2 as it happens.
Are you saying that rider weight is not an issue in the decision process of whether or not to ride Carbon?
If so, someone needs to get the word out to the people who sell the stuff because weight comes up over and over again when talking to LBS personnel.
If you are talking about the upper range SSL bikes as being engineered for lighter riders: what's the weight cut off there?
Trek has spent a great deal of money in the last year getting the word out to owners of their Carbon frames and components to make sure that they properly inspect their equipment. why? Because Carbon can fail suddenly if damaged.
I happen to ride Carbon. I'm comfortable with it: a Pilot 5.2 as it happens.
Are you saying that rider weight is not an issue in the decision process of whether or not to ride Carbon?
If so, someone needs to get the word out to the people who sell the stuff because weight comes up over and over again when talking to LBS personnel.
Last edited by jwbnyc; 06-25-06 at 08:15 PM.
#17
Senior Curmudgeon
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Posts: 3,856
Bikes: Varies by day
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by wagathon
Ignorance PLUS erroneous information is a far more deadly combination than using CF to make bike frames and forks. It's because people like you are on juries that CF bike frames actually are over-engineered...
#19
Homey
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,519
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2424 Post(s)
Liked 1,392 Times
in
891 Posts
Originally Posted by Nermal
Scary in what way, Siu? I've never been on anything with carbon.
Maybe I'm a big chicken, but I just can't fathom taking a full carbon biking riding through rocks, roots and through real rough terrain. I'd be afraid to scratch it let alone crash it. This guy at work claims to have a full carbon mtn bike but I don't pay enough attention to him to find out what he actually has.
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Very interesting comments here, thanks. I am 200 lbs. Dropping, yes, but no way will I drop below 190 regardless. I do most of my riding on city streets on a road bike. I am not too concerned about shaving off grams or seconds.
I never really thought about a weight limit though. Funny the guy at the lbs didn't mention that when showing me the Specialized. Perhaps I will be better off looking more at going to 105 or Ultegra rather than the frame itself. It seems to me that most of the big names are pretty similar in comparison at this level.
I never really thought about a weight limit though. Funny the guy at the lbs didn't mention that when showing me the Specialized. Perhaps I will be better off looking more at going to 105 or Ultegra rather than the frame itself. It seems to me that most of the big names are pretty similar in comparison at this level.
#21
Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,000
Bikes: Tiemeyer Road Bike & Ridley Domicles
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
got both
steel waterford 2200 853
and a trek madone 5.5
no problem with either one and they both ride great
I weight 181 #
material of the frame is not as important in my opinion compared to fit, geometry and design
steel waterford 2200 853
and a trek madone 5.5
no problem with either one and they both ride great
I weight 181 #
material of the frame is not as important in my opinion compared to fit, geometry and design
#22
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FarHorizon
Bit of attitude, there, wagathon? OK, enlighten the ignorant masses - give us the correct information.
Surely it must be intuitive that getting a flat at an inopportune time must present a far greater risk than a CF frame going post toastie under a rider, and that if you fall under the wheels of a bus or go over the side of a mountain, it doesn't matter what kind of frame your bike has.
If you follow an alarmists' logic to to its final conclusion, you should be wearing a steel Bell to protect your head.
#23
Senior Curmudgeon
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Posts: 3,856
Bikes: Varies by day
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by wagathon
...Anyone who has ever seen an athlete running down the track and planting his CF pole for the purpose of hurtling over a bar more than 17' above the ground knows that this material can be constructed to serve as a bike frame...
You're completely correct - carbon fiber CAN be constructed to serve as just about anything. The PURPOSE of carbon fiber, insofar as it applies to bicycles, though, is to reduce weight. That being the case, manufacturers routinely cut safety margins as much as they can to achieve the low weight that will sell their bicycles.
The side effect of cutting safety margins is that at least some of the carbon fiber frames and parts on the market are unsuitable (or, at the very least, unwise) for even normal-weight riders.
What is a "normal weight rider?" Therein lies the rub... Using U.S. anthropometrics, I'd guess that the normal young male is closer to 200# than 150#. As age increases, so does mean (average) weight.
Since bike racers are typically 150# or less, I submit that the average "racing" frame (or other carbon-fiber bike part) is being used at or beyond its design and, sometimes, close to its safety limit by even "average" riders.
The fact that most carbon fiber parts don't fail indicates that there is still some safety margin in carbon-fiber construction. I won't use carbon fiber parts, though - they just aren't designed for me.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX 77095
Posts: 1,470
Bikes: Specialized Sequoia Elite, Schwinn Frontier FS MTB, Centurion LeMans (1986)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have a bike with carbon fork and seat stays... Specialized Sequoia... I find it to be a comfortable ride, which is why I bought the bike. But, Specialized customer support doesn't think that I should carry any loads on the bike, other than me... like racks, or trailers. So it's not useable as a touring bike.
#25
.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Rocket City, No'ala
Posts: 12,760
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 5.2, 1985 Pinarello Treviso, 1990 Gardin Shred, 2006 Bianchi San Jose
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 24 Times
in
11 Posts
p2000, ignore frame materials and just ride a good selection of bikes in your price range that suits your cycling needs. You may still end up with a carbon frame or you may take that Bianchi steel one home.
Carbon seatstays absorb some road vibration, as do carbon handlebars, carbon forks and carbon seatposts.
There are different types of carbon fiber and depending upon how they are laid up and/or mixed together, the frame will feel different.
For example, Orbea has three different carbon frames. Opal, Orca, Onix. The Opal is extremely stiff for maximum power transfer while the Orca is made to ride long distances(it's what Euskaltel-Euskadie races on ). The Onix is a more economical blend of carbon fibers that's stiffer than the Orca but less so than the Opal. Still a sweet ride, though.
For $1500, you aren't going to find a full carbon bike from a company like Giant, Trek, Orbea, etc.
For someone your size who isn't interested in racing, I'd consider some of the new steel frame bicycles. Perhaps the Bianchi Eros for $1300.
Carbon seatstays absorb some road vibration, as do carbon handlebars, carbon forks and carbon seatposts.
There are different types of carbon fiber and depending upon how they are laid up and/or mixed together, the frame will feel different.
For example, Orbea has three different carbon frames. Opal, Orca, Onix. The Opal is extremely stiff for maximum power transfer while the Orca is made to ride long distances(it's what Euskaltel-Euskadie races on ). The Onix is a more economical blend of carbon fibers that's stiffer than the Orca but less so than the Opal. Still a sweet ride, though.
For $1500, you aren't going to find a full carbon bike from a company like Giant, Trek, Orbea, etc.
For someone your size who isn't interested in racing, I'd consider some of the new steel frame bicycles. Perhaps the Bianchi Eros for $1300.
__________________