BrodyBruce

So I'm new to posting on the forum but have reviewed a lot of information about bikes that I'm interested in, members' stances on aluminum vs carbon, stiffness vs. weight and longevity, etc. So...I've been riding about 9 months now, did my first group ride today and everything went well. I'm currently riding a 54cm 2013 Scott Speedster 50. I bought it mostly due to the great deal I got but I have no complaints; this bike has been great. I would like to get my groupset to 105's and drop a bit of weight, but I also think I would benefit from a 56cm (I am 5'11" with a short torso but long arms, long legs and I find myself resting at the top of my hoods to keep my arms comfortable. I know I could get a larger stem but I do actually feel a bit crowded on this frame).

So, where I was set on getting an "entry-level" carbon frame, I have read a lot about higher-end aluminum and have been more interested in this lately. I was at the LBS today and discussed with them my concerns of losing stiffness by going with a carbon frame in my price range ($1500-$2000). The guy there told me that is a legitimate concern, though I should also consider that aluminum "has a lifetime" of about a year for a pro rider, or more like 4 to 5 years for a rider such as myself; that the bike would of course be ride-able after this, but would not retain the same stiffness.

My questions are: because I am enjoying seeing my ability to maintain higher speeds and ride at a more competitive level, I doubt I'll be doing any serious racing. But that being said, I'd really like to avoid feeling a noticeable lag in acceleration by going with an "entry" carbon frame, which makes me lean toward a nice aluminum frame (which is less costly for similar components), but putting a limit on functionality as the LBS suggested makes it less appealing. Are these concerns founded?

Specifically, I'm looking at Cannondale CAAD 10 5 or a Giant TCR SL 2 for aluminum frames, or probably a Scott CR1 for a carbon frame, as I've been very happy with my Scott so far. But..I'm in no way attached to any of these, just leaning toward one specifically. And no, have not ridden any of them, and I would agree that this is most important.

Any feedback greatly appreciated. Thanks!

FBinNY 

people overwork concepts like stiffness when discussing frames. The reality is that stiffness is good, but the most stiffness isn't best. Don't be so focused on carbon vs. aluminum, and instead ride the various bikes on the short list, and buy the one that feels best to you.

I know test rides are problematic in that they're so short, so maybe once you're down to two you might arrange to borrow one, or arrange some kind of pre-buy rental so you can take it out over a decent number of hilly miles and decide.

greenlight149

dont buy a bike just cause its carbon or aluminum.

and its non sense to say an aluminum frame will only last a few years for someone like you. and the loss in speed as a result of lack of stiffness is not an issue for you because first of all you arent gonna lose 5mph from stiffness ( you can get plenty stiff bikes in both carbon and aluminum for 2k), second of all you arent racing, so really dont be concerned about how much stiffer a frame is and how long it will last.

its true that aluminum will fatigue, but in the span of a few years you shouldnt have a problem.

wphamilton

Aluminum frame has a lifetime of less than 5 years? I've never heard that before.

nastystang

Lots of really old aluminum bikes out there still performing as they did new. I would say a lot of this is maintenance and riding the bike as intended. I have heard the life cycle of carbon to be about 5 years also. I plan on riding my carbon a lot longer than that. Buy the bike that makes you want to ride, fit should be part of that equation that makes it stand out. $1500 -$2000 is a great price point and lots of choices. Aluminum is not the harsh ride it used to be, with hydro forming and better frame building it can be as good as some carbon out there. Named some good bikes, so go ride a few and see what you like. Have fun with it and don't rush it.

cale

Don't buy into the "class society" nonsense that makes riders behave badly when they "review" someone's bike. 105 is great. No worries, never have been. But while 105 has been the big overachiever, it is easy to forget that Tiagra is 10-speeds, has the brifters, has the SLR brakes, has great front shifting and, for a modest weight penalty, shaves $100-200 off the price of a bike. That might not seem like much but it will pay for a new helmet and gloves. It will get you well on your way if you don't have a floor pump, cycle computer, or heart rate monitor. The bike is really the tip of the iceberg where expense is concerned. Haha.

Anyway, lots of good advice here. Buy the bike you plan to ride!

Lazyass

The guy there is an idiot. Aluminum doesn't degrade. My 18 year old Raleigh with Easton Elan 3 tubing rides the same way it did new. Any of these new hydroformed alu frames would be sweet and they actually ride very smooth. Here's an article on aluminum:

Call It a Comeback | Bicycling

bbattle

Get a fitting so you know your size frame, then test ride bikes in your price range. Narrow it down to the ones you liked best in terms of ride quality, then choose from that list.
Buying from a good bike shop that has great service is important.
105 brakes versus Tektro brakes not so important.
Tiagra has improved a lot recently; a coworker has it on her aluminum Trek and she has no troubles.
I wouldn't worry too much about the stock wheels. For most bikes, they are the weakest link. Just ride them while you save up for a new wheelset and then you keep the old ones as spares.
Don't worry about the stock saddle. If it works, that's a lucky surprise. Most folks swap them out.

The bikes you mentioned are nice but I would be very reluctant to do business with a shop that tells me aluminum frames don't last very long. That's complete BS.

PiLigand

You're worried about getting an entry level FRAME for $2000? Jeepers. Well, might as well:
Product: Fuji Transonic SL Road Bike Frame - 2015
You can get better than an entry level whole bike for that money.

As for the Al vs C discussion:
Yes, aluminum will lose stiffness over that time period. It's really only "significant" in a statistical perspective. I would seriously doubt that you or any of us would notice the difference. But hey, carbon is fun and it looks really fast. =D

Edit: Warning. Your shop does know what it's talking about. Please don't avoid them over a BF member's preference for a particular type of frame material. It's a strength of materials thing. I've studied this in-depth.

BrodyBruce

Thank you to everyone for all the info; it's actually very reassuring. My plan now is to maybe entertain 1-2 other bikes as well as those in my list and find out which one feels the best on the road. I'm just glad I can do this knowing I don't have to worry that I've made some kind of mistake regarding material, even if it feels great. Very helpful.

dvdslw

From the models you listed above you can't go wrong, all nice bikes, all will last you many years of service. If you're like many of us around here, you'll probably get the upgrade bug again in a couple years if not sooner anyway once your fitness/performance levels increase so don't think of it as a permanent decision. I opted for the Caad10 myself based mostly on the first ride, I just knew it was for me. Go ride all of the bikes you can get your hands on and I believe one will speak to you, that's the one to buy.

Modern Aluminum framed bikes have a life expectancy? Really? At least they're expected to survive a crash!

Lazyass

Aluminum does not lose stiffness and a bike shop that claims an aluminum frame has a lifetime of 4-5 years is not a shop that knows what it's talking about.

PiLigand

Oh yeah it does. It's metal fatigue. It's a very well-understood concept in materials engineering. But note that that's significant only in that it's measurable (and we have very good measurement tools). I highly doubt it would make much/any real-world difference in a bicycle frame. Especially not to anyone anywhere between the OP and myself in experience.

chaadster

In addition to saying metal fatigue is a non-issue in a frame's service life (unless, maybe, it is made to be an ultra-shaved race frame), I'll reiterate the idea that it's not the frame material that's most important, but the ride characteristics, fit, and equipment level.

Some bikes are sportier and more responsive than others, due primarily to their geometry and how they position you aboard it. It sounds to me like you'll appreciate a responsive bike that you can ride aggressively, so take a look at the numbers, test ride, and try to understand how they fit. I find the current crop of 'endurance' bikes to be way too tall in the front, something I despise for the way it feels. For fast, aggressive riding, especially with long arms, lower up front is better.

Additionally, look at measures like wheelbase and head tube angle, and try to get some rides on bikes with varied geometry, so you can get a sense of how it impacts handling. You don't want a luxo-barge, so beware that getting the reach you want may also start to pull your center of balance on the bike forward and up; you don't want that. You want a reactive bike that steers from the hips, so keep the weight bias towards the back (e.g. short chainstays). You'll enjoy more precise cornering and better out-of-the-saddle efforts by keeping that rear wheel tucked underneath you.

Lastly, with regard to component spec, be aware that weight savings between full gruppos is small, and it takes a pretty big step up the hierarchy to get substantial savings. Further, non-gruppo items, like seat, post, stem and bars can swing the scale one way or the other quickly. I don't know what the relative weights are between Tiagra and 105, but pay attention to the full spec and don't be shy about asking the shop to throw the bikes on a scale for comparison. A couple hundred bucks in aftermarket upgrades could net only a 100gm in savings, so I thinks it's usually best to buy the savings up front, rather than planning to shave it afterwards; that gets expensive quickly, but if you want a personalized bike, has value in that way, too.

G'luck.

greenlight149

But the shop is suggesting that this measurable difference in stiffness will make the bike unusable within 4 to 5 years, which is nonsense as many people have bikes well over that age and still rides perfectly.

wphamilton

This I have heard, but I don't believe it either. The elasticity will not change, until it breaks.

chaadster

That is not what the shop said. They said it would, of course, be ridable, just give up some stiffness. I don't know that I necessarily believe that is accurate either, but it is nonetheless vastly different from what you stated.

chaadster

I just looked at the specs/geo on the CAAD X 5 and TCR 2 SL, and for the sake of sporting fun, I'm going to guess the OP prefers the Giant after test rides!

greenlight149

The shop said, and I quote from OP's original post, that the shop said aluminum has a life span of 4-5 years for someone like him. Life span to me means at the end of a products lifespan, it either becomes unusable, or that it's no longer safe to use.

The point is that aluminum will fatique, but not to the point that in 4-5 years you would notice a significant difference just by riding it.

PiLigand

+1. It's worth stating that aluminum fatigues while carbon doesn't just to avoid the easy misconception that carbon is a timebomb.

Both should be rideable long after the normal rider decides he/she just HAS to upgrade (so about 20 min). I wouldn't expect to feel any decline in performance from the frame. I assumed that the shop meant "lifespan" in teh sense of "peak quantitative performance," but not end-of-life. I see now that the latter makes more sense and would be more convincing to most.

TL;DR: Word. Aluminum is fine. So is carbon. Probably close to equal at this point.

spdracr39

After you have determined the style of bike you want. Priorities in order of importance are ...
1. Fit
2. Color
3. Value
4. Groupset
5. Frame Material

chaadster

You said, in your earlier post, that the shop suggested the bike would be unridable, which was absolutely incorrect, as they explicitly stated the opposite.

If you have a point to make about metal fatigue, get the facts right, and state your case clearly.

dtrain

Color is icing on the cake. Not more important (IMO) than 3-5.

Loveless4577

As a newer rider I have to agree. Find saving where you can.

rms13

OP, visit the C&V forum and see how many people are riding 30 year old CAAD and other aluminum frames. The lifespan of an aluminum frame is greatly overstated. But you are getting advice from an LBS that is counting on you as a repeat customer that will upgrade in 1-5 years