Is a cf frame THAT much of an advantage?
12-17-09 | 06:01 PM
#51
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
From: Joliet, IL
I went from a Miyata fixed gear conversion to a aluminum/carbon fiber Fuji professional with 9 speed Ultegra and I was still finishing my commute in the same amount of time... Only difference was that it cost $500 to fix after I crashed it instead of $0..
12-17-09 | 06:17 PM
#52
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: Newport News, VA
Bikes: 2007 Giant OCR C3, 1991 Specialized Sirrus Triple & 2002 Diamondback Response
Can you improve comfort by going to a larger width tire, 23mm to 25mm tire? A larger quality tire wouldn't slow you down would it? I noticed someone talk about stiffness of the frame, why?
12-17-09 | 06:41 PM
#53
ka maté ka maté ka ora
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,423
Likes: 4
From: wessex
Bikes: breezer venturi - red novo bosberg - red, pedal force cg1 - red, neuvation f-100 - da, devinci phantom - xt, miele piste - miche/campy, bianchi reparto corse sbx, concorde squadra tsx - da, miele team issue sl - ultegra
I have one of the lightest carbon frames on the market, yet my bike still comes in at over 17 lbs. My frame is about a pound lighter than a comparable Madone, but I also frequently take craps bigger than 1 pound.
Power-to-weight is better realized in the rider than the bike. Shaving bike weight becomes a priority when you can no longer increase power or lose wieght off your body. Until then, buy what you can afford, what you can afford to replace and most importantly, what you will actually ride.
Power-to-weight is better realized in the rider than the bike. Shaving bike weight becomes a priority when you can no longer increase power or lose wieght off your body. Until then, buy what you can afford, what you can afford to replace and most importantly, what you will actually ride.
big advantage 
12-17-09 | 09:15 PM
#57
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 1
From: Lexington, SC
Bikes: Lynskey R240, 2013 CAAD10
... almost the size of a BS
12-17-09 | 09:17 PM
#58
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 1
From: Lexington, SC
Bikes: Lynskey R240, 2013 CAAD10
12-17-09 | 09:49 PM
#59
Legs; OK! Lungs; not!
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,096
Likes: 10
From: Coral Springs, FL
Bikes: ''09 Motobecane Immortal Pro (Yellow), '02 Diamondback Hybrid, '09 Lamborghini Viaggio, ''11 Cervelo P2
Had and Alu frame. Jolted my teeth out on washboard roads. Got CF. Much more comfortable. Love it.
My performance increase is more attributed to hard work and development, none the less, I have to believe that weight equal, a CF frame absorbs some of the vertical movement from bumps. Therefore, just as a slightly softer tire is a little faster than a rock hard one, I believe that a CF frame is slightly more efficient, hence faster, than an "identical" alu frame.
The physics is simple. On a smooth track, all the rolling energy is in the forward vector. With a hard tire (or frame) when you hit a bump,some of the forward energy is transfered to vertical movement. With a softer tire or "vertically compliant" frame, a little energy is absorbed by the tire or frame, but most of it remains in the forward vector. At least that's how it was explained to me.
Along the same idea, frame flex, particularly in the BB area, wastes energy. Carbon and Alu tend to me more rigid than steel or TI, hence more of the pedal stroke energy is applied to the crank.
Given these concepts CF delivers on both fronts, hence it has an advantage over the other frame materials. But there is the cost. :^(
Don't know about a CF/Alu hybrid. That may just be the sweet spot for a lot of folks.
My performance increase is more attributed to hard work and development, none the less, I have to believe that weight equal, a CF frame absorbs some of the vertical movement from bumps. Therefore, just as a slightly softer tire is a little faster than a rock hard one, I believe that a CF frame is slightly more efficient, hence faster, than an "identical" alu frame.
The physics is simple. On a smooth track, all the rolling energy is in the forward vector. With a hard tire (or frame) when you hit a bump,some of the forward energy is transfered to vertical movement. With a softer tire or "vertically compliant" frame, a little energy is absorbed by the tire or frame, but most of it remains in the forward vector. At least that's how it was explained to me.
Along the same idea, frame flex, particularly in the BB area, wastes energy. Carbon and Alu tend to me more rigid than steel or TI, hence more of the pedal stroke energy is applied to the crank.
Given these concepts CF delivers on both fronts, hence it has an advantage over the other frame materials. But there is the cost. :^(
Don't know about a CF/Alu hybrid. That may just be the sweet spot for a lot of folks.
12-17-09 | 09:50 PM
#60
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
in performance, sorry. the ability to go faster. i don't really care about comfort. i'm going to assemble a new bike, and speed is what i'm looking at. my point is, is spending multi-thousands on a cf frame (someone antagonized cervelo's, but i think they are incredibly sexy) worth it? or is the money better spent on wheels and drivetrain?
Your mind is justifying the cost, so to be honest it's not worth it.
