squirtdad

I am not a carbon hater, and neither is BSNYC, but i agree with a lot of this in terms of day to day use.

get the popcorn out


https://www.outsideonline.com/cultur...a-carbon-bike/

Koyote

You're late to the party.

Atlas Shrugged

The lure is already in the water. Got a few good bites but pool is mostly fished out.

Mtracer

I'll bite.
While I don't disagree with the most of the facts, or maybe any in that article, I disagree with the conclusions. The word "need" is pointless. I don't even "need" a bike, and a pro doesn't need a bike either, they can flip burgers for a living. That of course is an extreme position, but so is the use of the word "need."

More realistically, the author seems to have the opinion that the only thing needed on a bike, beyond the basics, is what is needed to be competitive in bike races. I "need" a carbon frame because this increases my enjoyment of my bike and that is the reason I ride.

My carbon bike is more comfortable, aero and lighter. I like comfort and I like being lighter. While being a few pounds lighter only has a minimal effect on speed while climbing, the bike feels better to me. As for aero, I enjoy going as fast as I can. All of this adds to my enjoyment.

Oh, in the case of my two carbon bikes, a Trek Domane and Trek Checkpoint, both have down-tube storage which I don't think any metal frame bike has or could reasonably have without being extremely heavy. I really like being able to keep all my roadside repair stuff tucked away in the frame storage.

Clearly if carbon didn't exist, I would still enjoy cycling. Likely there is some future, yet to be discovered material, that will be lighter and stronger than carbon. That doesn't diminish my enjoyment of carbon, yet.

Aside from the expense of the carbon, there is no other downside that I have encountered. I'll accept a carbon frame is more fragile in some ways, that's why I don't use a typical clamp it in my repair stand and use a Silca Hirobel frame clamp. I also think the author is overstating how fragile carbon frames are. Carbon is popular for MTB's and many riders essentially crash their bikes every time they use them. Of course, I know an MTB is built differently, but I haven't crashed, tipped over, anything on my road bike in several years (knock on wood). And if I did, it's far from certain that the bike would be damaged.

And concerning damage, carbon frames can be repaired.

base2 

He's right about lots. I even had my fancy carbon bike repaired whereas an even more fun 10 year old aluminum frame with less miles hangs from the rafters with an unrepairable crack.

I agree. The sticking point is on need. Nobody needs anything except for perhaps Mazlows hierarchy. All my bikes are steel except 1 aluminum and the above mentioned carbon. But want is a pretty strong factor. I want the funnest most suitable bike for a given task. For some tasks, wünderbike is best in a way steel isn't and will never be.

As always, keep it classy, Eben.

Base2

Koyote

As I wrote in the other thread on this topic, there is no way to differentiate "needs" from "wants" when talking about individual products. It's best to just not even use the word "need."

icemilkcoffee 

Every material has its own idiosyncrasies. But the most forgiving bike material is probably aluminum. For some reasons paint seems to stick to aluminum frames really well whereas it chips off of steel frames if you look at it too hard. The funny thing is- on cars, it is the opposite. Just look at any old Land Rover. Aluminum frames are also a lot less prone to small dents and dings as steel frame. And to state the obvious- aluminum doesn't rust and steel does.
The most worrisome material is probably a carbon-aluminum glue jointed frame. The thoughts of galvanic corrosion, glue failure, headtube overtightening and aluminum lug cracking are never far from your mind.

smd4

I have no problem if someone wants to own and experience a world-class racing bike--no matter what it's made out of, and no matter what the rider's weight, riding style or mechanical skill-level. Being able to experience something high-end is its own reward.

terrymorse 

1. Of the many features I look for in a frame, how well paint sticks to it is way, way down the list.
2. Al frames don't dent easily because they are thick. They need to be to provide the same strength as steel (Edit: or Ti, settle down).
3. Al doesn't rust, but it does corrode. Badly, in some situations.

indyfabz

I loves me a good frame material thread.

But in the end, we all know Ti is the best, even if some of you can’t admit it.

tomato coupe

Anyone that has ever owned a frame made from flax will disagree. Both of them ...

Camilo

You give this way too much effort. The Bike Snob's article is ridiculous and irrelevant.

LarrySellerz

Recently “upgraded” to a full carbon fancy $3k bike, have to say the biggest changes are that I feel more upset at mechanical problems because of the cost of the bike, and am more paranoid about sudden catastrophic failures (had a carbon seatpost snap before.)

is it faster? Sure, but not by much, and I don’t like riding at the limit of my fitness on it because I don’t fully trust carbon yet, so it’s not even really faster except on climbs

rosefarts

There is no amount of logic that can be applied to consumers.

Does the 45 year old dad who rides one to two times a week when it’s warm need a 15lb carbon bike instead of an 18lb steel one?

Absolutely not. It’s a lost argument to try to state otherwise.

But that doesn’t mean that’s what he wants. There are a ton of consumers who’ve decided that they want carbon, and so, we have a market full of carbon. If the balding masses all wanted steel bikes, the market would reflect that.

I do pretty much agree with that article though. Of the 6 bikes in the garage between me and my wife, 5 are steel, one is aluminum, all have threaded bottom brackets, and aren’t likely to feel old anytime soon.

Can we start a new thread about how phenomenal carbon fiber is as a component material? Rims, forks, seatposts, cranks, handlebars, and shoes. Maybe especially shoes.

Atlas Shrugged

The same can be said about the extreme minority of active sporting cyclist who participate in these forums.

rosefarts

We really shouldn’t talk about logic and humanity in the same sentence actually.

john m flores 

Nobody needs a Rolex or a Ducati or a Leica either. Yet they exist. Oh the humanity!

Camilo

There's no amount of logic than can be applied to folks who think they know what others should value.

Maelochs

AsI see it the whole debate is artificial The whole debate over whether some riders “need” or “deserve” a bike of some specific frame material is a manufactured debate. The idea that one frame material is superior to another is a manufactured debate point.

I imagine proud pennyfarthing riders asking’ “Does that rider Deserve a safety bicycle?”

It is a bicycle. One does not “earn” the right to ride it based on mileage or speed. One earns the right to ride it by buying or otherwise acquiring it. No one needs it. Anyone who makes the effort can own it.

We can ridicule the author but so many posters actually seem to agree. Bike frame fascism is alive and well it seems

smd4

Wonder how many duffers in this group play with professional-level golf clubs?

indyfabz

Yet often “talked” about, and thus effective.

PeteHski

A lot of people choose bikes based on aesthetics. It's the same with cars and many other things once you get beyond basic needs. Beyond meeting functional requirements it's then all about how it looks and the cost.

smd4

Absolutely true.

On another thread I mention about the Cinelli Supercorsa and chrome. In the late 1980s, Cinelli's American importer brought in a newer Cinelli model based on the Supercorsa, cheaper, with different lugs, and no chrome. It was a disaster, because people enjoyed the aesthetics of the Supercorsa. Aesthetics mattered.

Koyote

When I see these discussions on bf, I always end up shaking my head.

There is no way of distinguishing between needs and wants; thus there are only wants. I spend my money how I want to, as I know my wants better than anyone else can.

These arguments arise from an inability to comprehend that.

Jughed

Insert any hobby into this discussion.

Not that there is anything wrong with it - but the internet has played a massive role in duffers using professional level gear. Go on any early golf based message board and there would be board golf "pro's" telling newbs that they need clubs suited for Tiger... or a bike suited for Lance... or fishing gear suited for the bass pro's...

I'm also a fisherman, and used to be a "professional" fisherman. I've literally cleaned 10's of thousands of fish, and helped people catch 10's of thousands of fish - the internet people would ask what's the " best" fillet knife - and the board experts would guide the newbs into $$$$ blades made of this or that material, with this or that handle type... meanwhile, the "pro's" used $15 fillet knives, and when this advice is offered up on the board - the board people would go nuts. You have to have the $$$$$ fillet knife, everything else is crap. Same for fishing rods, hooks, reels, boats... COOLERS!!!! Only a $500 yeti will keep ice cold!!