Originally Posted by
Rowan
As always, an entertaining read, with some really good input, and some really bad.
One factor that has not been touched on in all these comparisons is that... it's impossible to make any comparisons between frame materials unless the angles and dimensions for each bike under scrutiny are identical, and the wheels and tyres are identical.
The reason why a carbon bike may ride better than a steel or aluminium bike is that the wheelbase or the headtube angle or the chainstay length may be different. And unless someone has ridden bikes for years over considerable distances... then there are severe limitations on their ability to make comparisons.
The beauty of carbon in its most modern iterations, as I see it, is that it produces a monocoque frame/chassis, and that means the frame from the headtube to the rear dropouts is acting as one "tuned" component, rather than a series of separate and joined bits. It also enables designers to draft new shapes that may or may not be technical advancements, but sure produce some attractive looking products.
I have steel, titanium and carbon road bikes. The carbon bike is an older Merlin, with lugs and tubes. It is quite a stiff frame, and frankly is harsher than the steel Shogun 400 (old lugged steel frame) that is my fixie; the 25mm tyres compared with the 23mm on the Merlin may be a contributing factor, but not significantly).
My choice out of all of them is my titanium Hasa/Saga with a CF fork. The more I ride this bike, the more I enjoy it for its smoothness. But again, the longer chainstays on this bike compared with the Merlin may be a contributing factor to my preference. It does flex a little bit, but not enough to cause me issues on long hard climbs; the Merlin on the other hand, is as stiff as a board, and shows it on rougher roads. I can ride longer distances in comfort on the Ti bike than the CF one.
However, I am getting more interested in acquiring a monocoque CF frame to see what the difference is between the two generations of the Cf construction. It's now a matter of saving the money and to see what's available.
Agree here, and to add that frame stiffness or lack of it is more from design than material. I have a Lemond carbon bike that is designed to provide vertical give, but is very stiff laterally. So when going over bumps it takes out some of the harshness from an otherwise very stiff frame. As Rowan very eloquently stated, you can't just compare the material.