I think you wore it out last year anyway. lol

Keep it, The 2011 and 2012 are similar except for the head tube height.

If I read this correct, this means that anyone, no matter how much they weigh, can benefit from a lighter bike. Or course that's presuming their goal is performance related.

Thanks, another validation for N+1!

Good wheels are far more important for handling, ride, etc, etc, than frame material.

well, I have some bikes that probably weigh about as much as this one.

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.

If we think about it by the time we get to this forum many of us have tried almost all of the frame materials and know the good and bad part of them. Early steel was heavy but still had a pretty good ride. In a search to address the weight they came out with high tensel steel like 4010 and 531. And address the weight it did to a degree but as Rowan mentioned there was the dread flex if they got too light. Flex may or may not be a problem but it was something bike shops and bike magazines were always talking about. Ti dealt even more with the weight issue but still there was talk of the dreaded "flex" real or imagined. Aluminum dealt with the weight and had far less flex. But it wasn't the solution everyone wanted because sometimes it could be rather harsh. CF offered a solution to the two perceived problems with steel, Ti and Aluminum. They talk about the same thing with custom wheels in relation to flex, but i am not taking sides on the issue.

Many of us have an advantage now that we didn't have back when we had only one or two bikes to pick from. Many of us are able to participate in the N+1 game. I have had steel, Aluminum and now CF and in my case distance rides are more comfortable on my CF bike and climbing is as well. Coffee shop and weekend rides jumping on the Aluminum bikes works well. anywhere I have to lock uo my bike and leave it for any time then steel fits the bill. I also never went with Ti because the cost was so close to CF I couldn't see the advantage. Doesn't mean I don't like Ti however.

One thing about carbon fiber construction is that it can be engineered to have just about whatever characteristics the designers want. For most of the last 30 years I have worked around engineers working with airplane parts made from unidirectional graphite tape (aka carbon fiber). Over the years, the design software has become more and more sophisticated. It is amazing to watch them playing around with various ply patterns and analyzing the resulting strength, rigidity, flexibility etc. We are in a manufacturing rather than design environment, but still I have had some exposure to the design process and it is quite impressive. The demands for supersonic military aircraft and commercial aircraft carrying countless passengers are in most ways far beyond what is needed for bicycle frames, but there are similarities. The stuff is not nearly as fragile as some would have you believe.

Whew! that was close

"Are u sure u didn't just want a new bike?"

Ah, yeah Icy...guilty. i lusted in my heart. fell victim to bike porn. (have u seen those new colnagos? Hot!) well at least partly. like another post said in my defense with the price of a decent bike why take a chance on a non cf bike if comfort is the main issue.

There is much discussion from time to time on the Road forum about the merits of CF, similar to this one, but they have one very distinct advantage -- the involvement of Bob Dopolina in the discussions.

Bob is at the coalface of cycling product development in Taiwan, and his posts (subject to certain constraints imposed by commercial considerations) are fascinating to read and appear factual. It is worth doing a search on threads or posts to do with CF and his name to get a great insight.

In regard to the computer programming for designers, I would suppose that those programs or similar have been bought by various bike companies and are used extensively to design frames to ensure the stresses and forces are channelled in the right directions.

There is, of course, some doubt about whether the same care in design is paid by the manufacturers of cheap frames in China. Again, Dopolina's posts on this give great insight as to the risks of buying cheap or knock-off.

I tend to read most of the posts in the Road forum where Bob gets involved and after doing some research on him find your statement to be very true. I always enjoy reading his posts and find it humorous to hear some of the responses from those that may have read an article or post somewhere and want to argue with him.

+100.

They used to call aluminum frames flimsy until they started using large diameter tubing.

The shape of the seatstays probably has a lot to do with good ride.

A bike with carbon stays I had felt almost like it had rear suspension but maybe if you got the Tiagra version with aluminum stays of the same curved, bendable shape, it would ride about as well.

Does anyone have any experience with such a comparison?

A recent magazine article stated Cannondale has incorporated technology gained in carbon development to improve their aluminum bikes. I couldn't find the article online but found the following.
https://www.cannondale.com/innovation/Save_Technology/

I've done a test ride with a Cervelo S1 and S2 (aluminum and carbon fiber respectively) using the same wheels over familiar rough roads. The S1 is a great bike but it transmits the vibrations much much more. They're both light, fast with great cornering, but I'm glad I get to ride the S2 now. It's hard for me to imagine a better bike.

You nailed it Crazyb! As someone posted a while back, the fit of rider to bike and also the geometry of the tubes matter more than the frame material. A really good set of handbuilt wheels with even spoke tension will transform a bike.

As a confirmed retrogrouch who started cycling seriously in the early 1970's I love steel but I also love my Madone. CF absorbs the smaller impacts better but steel will absorb the larger bumps better than CF.

If you want the ultimate wheels go with a high quality tubular wheelset. The rims can still be alloy as Mavic, Velocity and HED makes wonderful rims out of metal.

Then how did carbon fiber become so mainstream? It's got to be more then fancy shapes and snazzy colors.

Could this be it....carbon fiber revolutionized frame tube geometry?

Part of it is marketing, part of it is it's what the pros use, but most people who buy higher end bikes are weight obsessed, and cf frames are generally the lightest.

How would anyone know why most people buy CF without asking the owners why they bought it. From most of the posts in these forums many have listed the weight as one consideration but many are also impressed with the ride and responsiveness. From reading most of the posts on Steel I could jump to the conclusion that people that prefer steel are ludites, (notice I only am using this as an example). They, people who prefer steel, talk about things like longevity, soft ride and dismiss flex and weight as not a consideration. In truth do all steel bikes last longer and ride smoother? Are they all heavier? No they were marketed just as CF and Aluminum are. Flax and Bamboo have their own marketing, being green. So marketing can pull people in differnt directions. And I am not saying CF doesn't have marketing going for it. Yes what the pros ride helps CF but why do the pros ride CF? Yes there are many reasons but in the auto industry there used to be a saying, win races on Sunday sell cars on monday. To a degree that is true with bicycles.

All frame materials still have a place in the industry it but it just may be the CF fills the place it was designed for "better" than other material. That gives Cf another advantage, it has a lot more room for R&D to dial in what people ask for in the place CF fills. It is too easy to say most people buy CF, Steel or Aluminum because that feel the same way. IMHO

I bought a cf bike because the lbs gave me a killer deal on it.