I've beein seeing more and more of these carbon frames going for very reasonable prices. Like this Tsunami, and this Prolite, and this Pedal Force. I know FMW built up the Pedal Force frame, and from his feedback so far, the frame is great. I've also seen some OCR3 composites go for $1K or so on Ebay...for the complete bike.

I suppose it's like Plasma TV's or most other technologies... demand, economies of scale and so forth begin to apply, and you see the prices fall.

So are we going to eventually see carbon frames on bikes with Sora components selling for $600-$700 at the LBS soon? Given the properties of the carbon manufacturing process and the ability of the manufacturer to manipulate the properties of the material, tube by tube, is the frame on that $600 bike going to be as good as the $6000 bike?

Materials and Mfg Engineers, Physicists...I HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THIS CARBON THING IS GOING- I'M WRITING A BOOK

Supply and demand. No matter how great the frame is if the buyer has 50 to pick from that are all similar......it will kill the prices.

Here's a very good discussion about where carbon frames are made, designed, badged, etc.
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/ph...pic.php?t=5277

I think Gizmomeister makes a pretty good point with this:
Those frames you listed are probably all very fine frames, but likely based on borrowed technology without any innovation. I'm sure we'll see carbon frames on cheaper bikes soon, but I doubt we'll see those frames being equivalent to the more expensive ones.

I think it's great that you asked this question. And it's also great that you made an analogy to plasma TVs. Plasma TVs are very expensive, blurry and unreliable, but everyone wants one.

In this month's Velonews, there is a great quote, " the unfortunate truth about carbon components is that they are no lighter or stronger than aluminum". I think this is the start of backlash against carbon. I have carbon components, an aero seatpost and ergo bars and stem that use the properties of carbon in ways that cannot be done with metals. But they are no stronger, and no lighter, than ally at 1/4 cost. I'm seeing investments in aluminum finishing technology so that they look cool, and can always be lighter and stiffer than carbon.

There are a lot of very expensive carbon cranksets that cannot be described as better than ally. As for frames, I have no doubt carbon will get much cheaper, in part due to expiring patents and limited suppliers of the actual carbon fibres increasing. But when it does get cheaper, the cool factor is gone and there will be a negative feedback loop. Theoretically, the layup and molding of CF can be automated, and may be easier than metal frames.
Remember, it wasn't that long ago that aluminum was considered a fad material and difficult to work with. Now robots weld these laser perfect.

For high end bikes, the future is likely newer alloys, like stainless, magnesium, etc. And it will likely continue that the trend will be to different materials for different components, and composite frames (Serotta).

I think Gizmo is a little naive, Taiwan has been hiring engineering consultants from Europe and the US for years. There is a lot of expertise in those companies, and often better than most. There are very good reasons why the highest stress component on a bike frame, the fork, is now almost 100% carbon across the industry, and most of those forks are quietly sourced in Asia. I know that if you want to build 100 components reliably, do it locally, but if you need to build 1000+ components with the same quality, head to Asia.

I don't see the aluminum frame of the GMC Denali giving the aluminum frame of the Orbeas a bad name.

There are many different types of carbon fiber material used in making bicycle frames. Orbea uses three types on their bikes. The Opal is the stiffest, then the Onix and Orca but the last two have differing blends and tube designs. Boron is showing up in the carbon mix; wouldn't be surprised to see aluminum, silicon and a whole bunch of other materials thrown in for stiffness, flexiness, vibration control, stability, price, etc.

Time to start attending materials science conferences and reading the journals because what's going on in research now may well end up on the road in ten years.

Do you own a plasma TV. Have you looked at the picture of an HD plasma TV with an HD signal? Have you looked at the prices of Plasma TVs recently? You can get a 42" plasma TV for less than $2,000, a price which is well below a mediocre projection TV of jsut a few years ago.
I'll grant you that the picture quality of a convential CRT television is slightly better than a Plasma TV picture. (A difference so slight however, very few would even note).However, you can't hang a 50" CRT on the wall.

As for relaibilty, I 've had no problems with a plasma TV in 2years use. The first generation plasma TVs have a lifespan of 20,000 hours, with newer Plasma TV's being rated for 30,000 to 60,000 hours. Even at 20,000 hours, it should be a reliable TV for me for the next 30 years.

So the analogy would be people want Plasma TV's because there are real advantages to them. As more people buy them the price drops. People want CF bikes because there are real advantages to them. As more people buy them the price drops.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially the part in bold. Carbon just won't be as cool when it's not as "rare" and expensive like it was a few years ago. Look at aluminum- it's light and stiff, but people hate on it because it's cheap. You can say it has a harsh ride, but as long as it has a carbon fork how much of that is real and how much is perception based on the feeling that it's "cheap"? I'm not saying carbon doesn't have its advantages over aluminum (every material has its advantages and disadvantages, after all), but if aluminum was expensive I think people would talk more about it.

Just like all new technology, the excitement of carbon is going to wear off, prices will drop, and people will start looking for the next new thing (perhaps magnesium as you mentioned). Actually, if you think about it, this has already started happening.

What about titanium, though? It doesn't seem to lose its appeal. Is it the durability, or the fact that titanium is still expensive? You decide.

True, but the best stiffness to weight ratio is with carbon cranksets like the Stronglight Pulsion at 430g compared to Campag record alloy at 670g.

Carbon is just plastic with some fibres in it. I bet back in the old days plastic was this ultra expensive high-end product.

Actually, I have a carbon bike and an aluminum bike, and when I built up the alu bike (recently) I'd forgotten all about the whole ride quality issue. That is, until the first ride. It does have a carbon fork, and the fork probably helps a little, but it rides nothing like my carbon bike. On smoother roads it's fine, and in fact I did the MS-150 on it with no problems, but most of our riding is on chip seal roads that are very rough, and it's very easy to determine ride quality of a bike.

If I like the way something rides, I'm going to buy it. It doesn't matter if the material is "in" or if it's "cheap".

carbon-fibre will evolve into MMC with a metal binder instead of a non-structural resin. At that point, it will be the high-end material while the carbon we know today will join alloy, and steel as the low-end introductory materials with titanium holding the middle ground.

I suggest interviewing shop-owners and asking them for trends in their sales of carbon bikes and components vs. other materials. Just like steel and alloy, you can have well-engineered and optimized carbon components like the cranks EURO pointed out. However, there's a lot of crap as well, just like with other materials. Personally I think the design and manufacturing factors makes a much bigger difference than materials selection itself.

Talk to industy analyst from Interbike, CABDA and BRAIN magazines. They do research on industry-wide trends and will have compiled data from thousands of shops.

Here's a three yr. old article where they tested some carbon and aluminum cranks for stiffness. The difference in weight and stiffness between them all was negligible. Best bang for the buck; Ultegra. Best carbon bling for the buck, Ritchey Pro.

Things have probably changed but I suspect not much.

https://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/crank.shtml

I did. $5600. I returned it. Got another, returned it. It's crap in HD. I can tell the difference. Aside from the bizarre obsession with hanging it on a wall (a good wall, with $500++ in brackets), I was embarassed I ever bought it. It's like $14,000 stereo speakers that give ranges only dogs can hear. I bought a good rear projection three lamp and the HD is stunning. The only thing worse is DLP and LCD-blurry.

"Ride quality" is a tenous thing. If you just want a comfy ride, get a whippy frame. And while you compare carbon and ally, did you use the same wheels? tires? they make a huge difference. My concept of ride quality is different, I want as much energy as possible transfered to the rear wheel. My issue with carbon is road feel at high speeds, I prefer to know exactly what's going on the road at 50-60 km/h. Ally frames can be dramatically different from manufacturer to manufacturer. That's why it's impossible to generalize on frame material. Comparing my ally soloist to the CD R1000 was night and day.

At CSC this year, several riders opted for the ally Solist over the Carbon, including Jullich and Voight. The external bearing hollow axle cranks are a good example of ally tech still ahead of carbon. I had a one-day tester of the carbon soloist with money in pocket -didn't like it, was very dissapointed (although a gorgeous bike).

I disagree. I think the ride quality of the CF bikes really is better than aluminum with equal stiffness. And, yes I've tested them on the same routes with the same wheels and tires. The major problem with CF is that it is expensive in small unit quantities because of the mold and tooling costs. Get the volume up and the price will get pretty reasonable.

Keep an eye on Giant. They make their own carbon fiber and their own molds. They are completely vertically integrated. I think they can probably make a CF frame for less than they make an aluminum frame. They don't need to price them lower so they don't. I think CR will become inexpensive as soon as it needs to become so.

Here's the Pedal Force based bike mentioned above. It is now pretty much all CF including the bar, stem, cranks, pedals, seat post, bottle cages - pretty much everything other than the wheels. Super nice ride.

but what do you exactly mean by "ride quality"? given all the variables of a bike frame, including geometry, fit and position, how can you make any conclusions about the frame material?

Sorry, but this is all apples and oranges.

That frame is f-ing pretty.

Yes. At the time I built up the alu bike, I only had one wheelset, so it got swapped between the two bikes. In fact, the saddle and pedals got swapped at first too, until I finally threw an old saddle from my mtb on the alu bike.

I didn't just start riding last year or something. I've put a lot of miles on a lot of different bikes. In fact the only thing I've not ridden extensively is high quality steel. Before my carbon road bike, I had a Cannondale, and when I made that switch, no one ever mentioned anything about the ride differences, and the first thing I noticed was how much smoother the carbon bike was on bumpy roads. Sure, maybe it was a little less stiff, but the current alu bike is not stiff at all, and there's still a difference.

Maybe some people on some bikes cannot notice much of a difference between the materials on the roads they ride on. But I can, and I will continue to base MY purchase decisions on MY experience and not something written on the Internet by someone who has preferences and opinions that might not match mine. Just as I don't expect anyone else to base their purchasing decision on my opinions and preferences.

As sydney would say, "Your Mileage May Vary".

The optimal compromise between quality (some combination of efficiency, comfort, "cool" factor, whatever) and cost will continue to change as technology evolves. You know, there was a time when aluminum was far more precious than gold. There was a time when the properties of carbon fiber were unthinkable. Carbon almost certainly will have its role in the future. What role exactly, I don't dare speculate.

And there's certainly nothing wrong with multiple materials competing for dominance. It forces proponents of each material to make the best they can in order to be competitive, which in the long term means better and cheaper bikes for all of us.

So, do you think that all the F1 teams and NASA use Carbon Fibre because its COOL?
Oh boy.... I am constantly amazed at the preposterous statements made
about technology of bikes and goods in general. If the MAJORITY of buyers are purchasing CF for its cool factor...

Then that would lead us to believe that every buyer who 'buys' high tech components that are
sometimes hard to get, sometimes limited, and often more expensive, are doing it because its cool!?

Uh, yes, that must be it. It couldn't be that the majority of buyers are looking for something better,
something more technologically advanced, and usually more durable. No, that couldn't be it!
Because that would just make logical sense.

Also, Carbon Fibre is ABSOLUTELY lighter, stronger, and more durable than Aluminum.
Unbelievable. I mean, I am just stunned at the lack of investigation, and truth.
I suggest that those who are under the assumption of the above stated theory..
should enroll in a engineering and physics course at your college.

Remember that when disc brake came out, ALL the major manufacturers said that they were death-traps and Porsche and Ferrari refused to have them on their cars. Only getting their *sses handed to them by smaller, more nimble and innovative outfits caused them to change their minds... slowly...

People are just resistant to change that's all. A lot of tooling, time and emotion tied up in older technology. It takes a dramatic shift, such as major benefits, cost/weight, strength/weight, etc. before something's fully adopted.

How about some proof for any of these arrogant statements genius? Sure NASA uses carbon fibre, for heat shielding on re-entry. F1 is not cycling, they have completely different parameters of design, and they have a lifespan of 400 miles for parts. Try a book.

Look to reality and pro bike racers, CF is not as common as you might think, and they are not budget conscious.

People have no idea where things are going.

If they did, Schwinn would still be the main producer of bicycles in the U.S., General Motors would still own 61% of the car market in the U.S., Zenith and Philco would still be huge producers of television sets in the U.S., Apple would own the computer markets, and WordPerfect would be the main word processor.

Los Angeles wouldn't have jammed freeways, New Orleans would have avoided a broken levee and hundreds of deaths, major U.S. Airlines wouldn't have gone bankrupt, Japan wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, cable operators would have kept their prices lower.. and

Again, because someone may have an unlimited budget...that is the reason to use/buy a
high end material?! Your statements are astounding to me!

Yes, in fact that is the only reason NASA uses CF/Composites. Not because its a lighter material
not because of its superior physical properties, i.e. resilient against compression, stretching, flexing,
not because of longevity/durability/tensil strength
under stress, stability, shearing properties, etc...no, definitly not for those reasons. What was I thinking?

Hmm, proof...its called research of physics, understanding engineering and reading texts written by engineers, NOT bloggers, shop owners, cycle rag journalists...UHG...please, stop, because your killin me.

C'mon guys! It would be nice if this thread didn't turn into another flamewar like all the other materials threads do.

I'm loving my 2006 Cannondale Six13- a very interesting and effective combination of aluminum AND carbon fiber. I think THAT's where CF is going - towards being used by innovative bicycle designers in conjunction with other materials. That way you get a reasonably light frame that ALSO doesn't ride like a big condom - which is the problem I perceive with many all-CF frames. The C'dale is awesome. Just ride one. I'm blown away after 1200 miles or so on this bike after 15 YEARS on all Ti bikes. And if a CF design can make a Ti guy happy, it's responsive. And the stiffest BB on the damn planet. I'm the happiest bicycle camper on this whole website and I NEVER thought I'd go to a Cannondale as my primary ride.

Carbon Fiber does some things well - and other things not so well. Just like every other frame building material. Which is why Cannondale, Serotta and a bunch of other bicycle designers have the right idea by incorporating CF into bikes that combine it with titanium/aluminum/other materials.

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (which is the proper name for what many of us call "carbon fiber") is capable of being made into a *stiffer* end product than nearly any other material commonly available. It is *not* stronger than aluminum or steel, it is *stiffer*, and even then only against strains running along the fibers. One of the major advantages that CF has is the fact that it's a plastic, and so is more easily molded into bizarre shapes.

For a fantastic read on applied materials science, grab a copy of Carrol Smith's "Engineer to Win". It's about auto racing car engineering, but a good chunk of the book is on metallurgy and materials properties.