Cayman

I'm just writing to see what experienced riders think the real advantage Carbon has over Aluminum? I'm a newbie, and have been hearing different things about the advantages such as reduced road vibrations, decrease in weight etc. But is that a difference a non-competitor rider can realize? Is is something that has a place outside of racing where every tenth of a second counts?

I'm asking this to get to my next concern - Which is does this supposed advantage trump the fact that Carbon is brittle, and once there's a crash there could be major structural damage eventhough the "actual" physical damage may seem minor. I'm wondering all of this because the bikes with the carbon components are much more expensive than the bikes without, and was wondering if the hype was worth it?

Vinokurtov

You've got a bike with a carbon fork, seat stay, and seat post. You tell us.

Snicklefritz

I've got 4 bikes: Cro-mo MTB , steel road bike, Al crit bike with carbon seat stay, full CF bike for road racing.

The full CF has by far the most comfortable feel. I like it not just for the light weight, but for vibration damping.


When I first started riding, I was pretty naive about bikes. However, I did get to ride a lot of different ones when generous friends let me test ride their stuff. The full CF hit me right away as something super-comfortable. At the time I don't think I would have appreciated the lightess however. I was still getting used to training and wasn't super fast. Now that I'm more experienced and have done some races, I can definitely see where weight can play a critical role (ie for hilly stuff)

ggg300

you can get the same vibration dampining feels on an AL bike by using bigger tiers and a low psi...and save yourself a lot of money...if your not racing...there is nothing more to say...

badkarma

A magazine did a feature a few years ago (I forget which one), where they covered up all the tubing in the frames, so you couldn't determine the frame material by looking at the bike. They had a bunch of experienced riders test the bikes out, and after riding them, almost everyone said things about the frames that were counter-intuitive to what people typically think of that material.

Moral of the story, frame comfort/performance really depends on frame geometry. If you're serious about buying a bike, test ride all the frames in your price point and you decide which one feels best for YOU.

Cayman

What about Carbon's durability. I know it's tough stuff, but it doesn't bend like metal, but will break off and crumble. Is that a reasonable concern in the event of a crash. The whole thing could fail...?

Exeye

any chance of someone being able to dig up that article?

maximum01

I have an aluminium audax bike with carbon fork and a performance road bike with carbon fork AND carbon stays. The difference in terms of smoothness and comfort is very noticable. I really noted this when I had my recent knee injury... the carbon stays on the performance racer really helped take the buzz away from my knee's tendon when coasting.

One day I hope to get a full carbon road bike....unfortunately my bank balance has final say.

DocRay

Yes, and don't listen to the BF myths like aluminum is harsh, CF is dead, Steel is whatever. The idea that just frame material dictates the properties of every frame made from that material is just stupid, by the same mentality, all frames made of any one material should be identical.

The reason why pros ride CF frames is because they are told to, they are told to by frame manufacturers because it is currently easier to justify $4000 for a carbon frame than for a aluminum frame. But as recently as 18 months ago, most of the pro field was on aluminum.

wagathon

Here's the deal: for "experienced riders" as you say who have ridden many bikes over many years--day rides, tours, off road, in groups, alone, on trainers--it's fun to keep things interesting and after owning 3, 4, 7 or whatever number of bikes over a lifetime, owning something a little different--special--might seem like a good idea. For someone like that, carbon really has no flaws. You might not want it, but concerns about strength, longevity, brittleness, whatever . . . is just NO part of the equation. If it is for you, be happy that a CF bike really is not required and that the other options are cheaper too (maybe a 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper). My CF bike is a fantastic machine but I still appreciate (love) my steely; morever, I spend a lot of time using my Scandium Salsa because it's the one that I like the best on the trainer. I am coming around to the view that if anyone starts questioning the safety of a CF bike, they should forget it. It's like someone questioning the safety of a small watercraft on a busy lake. If they're worried about it, they probably should consider something else. Just a thought.

StanSeven

Man, this is boring. All the replies are completely objective, logical, and makes sense. Where's all the exaggerated statements about CF is best, Al jars your fillings out, Ti rides as smooth as butter, and steel is for old people that get posters going?

furiousferret

I find that a little hard to believe, for cycling, Carbon is a better solution than Aluminum. It dampens better and is lighter. If you have a frame with the same dimensions and properties, there is no way someone would go with aluminum over CF. For pros it's just a better solution than aluminum.

I will say though that Carbon frames are more expensive than they should be, but people are paying those prices for carbon so manufacturers wont drop the rates.

curt in denver

I hear what you are saying and I don't disagree, But frame materials do have a direct effect. Ride the exact frame in aluminum then in carbon and you notice a difference. Not saying one is better than the other but they will be different.

pinkrobe

It's more than just the frame material that determines how a bike will ride. Has anyone been on a skinny-tube Vitus lugged aluminum? That thing was a complete noodle, flexy like there's no tomorrow. It was like riding a frame made of foam rubber. On the other hand, my 80's Axis CX steel bike with 28C tires is completely unforgiving. A

fter 10 years on an aluminum road bike, I just couldn't take the stiffness anymore, and I went looking for something more comfy. I tried a Cervelo R2.5 Team and loved it. Same handling as my Al bike, but it just ate up the road cracks and rough pavement. It had carbon everything. I also tried other carbon bikes, plus some Al-carbon and steel-carbon bikes. The R2.5 Team was the best, but out of my price range. I went to another shop and tried the R2.5 Chorus. It was horrible - almost as bad as my current bike! I finally figured out that it was the wheels that made the difference. The Chorus had mid-deep aero section wheels that were very stiff, while the Team wheels were a much shallower and ultimately comfortable wheel. I tried the Chorus out with different wheels - sold!

On a personal note, I think the tunability of carbon frame construction means that it has the potential to be all things to all people. Is it 100% there yet? Nope. I also don't think that throwing carbon stays on a Ti or Al bike will turn it into a rolling Barcalounger. Carbon is only as good as the design and engineering, just like any other material. Go out and ride the bikes you're interested in. You may be surprised what feels the best.

Duke of Kent

Quite a few pros go with full aluminum, actually. For example, someone such as Danilo di Luca, ProTour champion, who can ride just about any Bianchi bike he wants, chose to ride an ALL ALUMINUM FG Lite frame.

Shown here: https://bianchiusa.com/

Why? Because aluminum CAN be made to be forgiving, but still make you feel like you've been shot out of a cannon when you put the power down.

My current bike is a CAAD8 R1000. I'm 5'7" and 140, and ride a 50cm frame; i.e not a lot of weight to smooth out the bumps, and a VERY stiff frame. AND I LOVE IT.

WD_40

What's the carbon advantage? The advantage is that it fails catasrophically and without prior warning, which will certainly result in your death. A frame made out of solid steel rods is the only way to go.

StanSeven

The main problem is you can't ride the same exact frame in different materials. Not many companies make frames from different materials in the same geormetry. Even with companies that do, most use completely different designs (Litespeed, Colnago, Pinarello, etc.) so each frameset is geared towards a different purpose and style. Furthermore even with the same material, ride properties differ based on the manufacturering process. The way fibers get laid in CF can make the ride vary from extremely soft and comfortable to very stiff. Al can be very stiff with large tubes to very comfy using smaller ones.

A skilled builder can make any material ride the way you want. That said, I think tires and wheels are a close second.

djtrackie

Oh yeah, well, one of the most demanding cyclists of all time... Lance Armstrong (u might of heard of him before) is in the carbon camp.

Therefore carbon > aluminum

djtrackie

generallyl speaking, MOST of the time Carbon will ride better than aluminum. Yeah, i guess if you use skinny aluminum tubes you can get it to ride better than a racing carbon frame. But then you're comprimising the strength in the aluminum.

2. If you compensate ride with tires, you are going to lose rolling effieciency. And that's BAD if you want to go fast.

Duke of Kent

Oh yeah...and pretty much all materials with take a beating if you crash them in the right way.

HOWEVER: let it be noted that carbon is actually remarkably resilient. I've seen some BRUTAL crashes in both local races and while watching the TdF, Giro, L-B-L, Paris-Nice, etc on tv/dvd, and I've never seen any of those guys have to get a new bike due to frame damage. The bikes almost always fare better than the riders. You will be far more likely to break a fork, wheel, or handlebar than to cause any damage to your frame.

DannoXYZ 

The last 5-years of the 10-years I was racing was on a carbon Allez Epic. I had totaled and pretzeled steel and alloy frames before that. Crash-rate was still the same, about 1 per year and it destroyed two forks on the Epic. Also went through a set of race wheels every two years. Have snapped stems, handlebars, cranks in sprints. The frame is still intact to this day. It does have a worn-out spot on the inside where the tyre's been rubbing when I've riddened on trashed wheels. But... after 10-years of retirement and gaining 100-lbs, I pulled it off the wall and jumped on. A perfect familiar fit like an old glove. Even with my extra weight and bunny-hopping kerbs and speed-bumps, the carbon Allez Epic just keeps on ticking! Also bent two rear-axles last year...

SpongeDad

And from this, there can be only one conclusion. Don't ride anywhere near Danno. Ever.

ggg300

lol...thats funny....^^^we should call him tylor h.

DocRay

Again, you make the mistake that assumes that all ally frames are the same. There are poor FC designs, and there are good ally designs. Some pros chose good ally over poor CF frames, there are still several riders on ally in the Pro Tour. There is a huge difference between aluminum frames of ten years ago versus today. I think few people could tell the difference between a CAAD8 frame and most carbon frames.

If you think all pros chose CF, talk to Magnus Backstedt, he was constantly breaking his CF Bianchis, so they had a custom Ti frame made for him.

DocRay

Maybe instead of investing in Cf you should invest in bike riding lessons.