I'm asking because i'm trying to justify the cost, and i don't know if it necessarily equates. I could be wrong, but the weight of the frame seems less important, the difference of the rider weighing 170 or 175 lbs. I feel like the wheels and drivetrain are more important because performance can be more improved through the weight reductions of those components. am i looking at this incorrectly? obviously, at the top tier of racing, you want the lightest frame and every possible technical advantage, but will the more-active-than-average rider really be hindered?

it is not an advantage or disadvantage.

CF is just another material, but it adds to your 'cool' factor... as long as it isn't a Cervelo.

Yes. If you had one you would have been riding a mile ahead of these two on their silly steel frames.

fit > material

https://sprinterdellacasa.blogspot.co...-material.html

I went from all alum to all carbon to half carbon + half aluminum (systemsix) back to all alum. At least I'm betting on my own philosophy.

cdr

No.

Hindered by what? You didn't specify.

The more-active-than-average rider sucks. Just look at me. I am hindered.

Going from a CAAD 4 Aluminum frame to my CF Look frame...Yes, there was a difference. I don't ride any faster because of it, but the ride is much more comfortable.

Who's cheap?

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?

i have a madone already.

For performance, specifically, speed, your engine is the biggest factor (power to weight). You can only optimize this, you can't really upgrade this component.

I would say wheels, tires, tubes make a marginal difference in speed (.5 mph) but help you sustain higher speeds for longer.

The rest is just conversation.

as far as going faster is concerned. unless you're on the very very top echelon of competitive riders, chances are you won't get any advantage at all with respect to that. i used to ride a cf frame and it was a bit harsh, especially on less than ideal roads. when i made the switch to ti, i noticed the difference IMMEDIATELY. I've ridden (more than 500 miles) aluminum, cf, and ti. my personal preference is in ti. extremely comfortable ride, without hindering my ability to go fast or for looooooong periods of time.

Position/flexibility is also important, however. It can also make a marginal difference, like wheels.

sorry, i'll take fault for again being unable to explain myself. by "speed," i meant not a top-speed (where, yes, power-to-weigh ratio is the factor), but faster times in a race for instance. i don't know the term, but my understanding is that rotational mass is the biggest enemy. i suppose what i'm asking for is someone to tell me, "yes, spend your money on a nice wheel-set, the frame is less important (but not irrelevant)," or if i'm wrong, an explanation as to why. cf wheels: $2500. cf frame: $2500. which?

Short answer, focus on your engine.

if you've ever seen monster ball, i'm Halle Berry's son. my engine, well, yes.. i know it's important. however, of two relatively-comparable riders, the rider with the technical advantage will usually win. so just where is my money better spent?

Go enter a Cat-5 crit. If you are off the front the whole time and you lap some of the fodder that is OTB, you have potential.

Otherwise, it really doesn't matter.

Makes for good conversation though.

Actually, I think the biggest performance benefit from carbon comes from a feature that many associate with comfort. The ride in a good carbon frame absorbs bumps incredibly well. On my steel bike (which I used to think rode really nice), if I'm descending at 40-50mph through a sweeping turn, the washboard would skitter me out about an inch or two off my line. Disconcerting, and it slowed me down.

On my first ride on carbon, I was amazed at how it just absorbed the same bumps, and at higher speeds. Cornered on rails. Huge difference. Huge.

That said, I had just as many wins (4) on steel in 2008 as I did on carbon in 2009.

Why oh why do you morons continue to think that there is only an "advantage" if there is a huge speed difference proportional to the cost. There may be many advantages to a carbon frame, but "speed" is not one of them.

Once again, no, having a frame made from carbon fiber will not make you go faster. We're trying our hardest to spell this out for you.

Your understanding is wrong.

As for the cost of wheels vs frame, the people who spend $2500 on wheels probably spend more than $2500 on a frame. Also a wheel is pretty complex compared to a frame.

That is a good point WR. In addition on longer rides, even ones as short as 20 miles, I think vibrations will take its toll on your power output.

Have you tried riding one yet? If not then do it and you will feel the difference.

having a cf frame will lower your overall weight. your power-to-weight ratio will therefore increase, as will your "speed."
no, dude. you misunderstand, my friend, that's precisely the assertion i was trying to make. more closer to it being cost-effective though.

anyways, thanks everyone for your responses. i appreciate every one.

You have to be clear about what advantage you are talking about. Speed? Comfort? Longevity?

The key here is that everything in cycling is a case of diminishing returns. Beyond a level of cost (somewhere around $700-$1500), things provide small, tiny benefits for a lot of money.

The only case where these small, tiny benefits are rationally worth the high expense is in racing.

No, for normal people, it never is "cost effective" to spend more than about $1200 on the total bike. Keep in mind that the overwhelming issue at "high speeds" is aerodynamics, not weight, not "efficiency". Overall weight becomes more of an issue when climbing long/steep hills.