what are the advantages of an all carbon bike vs all aluminum vs alluminum frame and carbon (forks)? other than cost!!!

life expectancy? performance? road conditions?

Carbon is generally more forgiving of road vibrations and is typically lighter. Aluminum is generally an all around "stiffer" ride. Note that in both cases, the word "generally" was used.

If you can afford it, Id probably say go carbon, just for the vibration dampening and weight.

I would disagree with sailor. I have had a carbon bike and recently moved to an all aluminum bicycle. The all aluminum bicycle was lighter than the carbon. Same size bicycle. Aluminum is a comfortable ride especially if you have a carbon post, stem and handlebar. Also if you want maximum output with pedaling go aluminum. At my LBS a science major did the stiffness of carbon and aluminum. You lose power when you pedal with aluminum because that's exactly what it does... It takes up vibration so it naturally takes up your power. I say aluminum but ride both. My 2 cents.

Did you mean to put "carbon" in there?

If you can afford carbon... I'm a fan! But if you can't.. aluminum with carbon fork and carbon seat stays is nice! I couldn't afford a full carbon, so I'm half and half.. it's a nice ride!

I just test road a Cannondale R1000, aluminum frame carbon fork. Nice ride...felt Cadilac smooth. I've been riding a 04 Bianchi Pista (steel). Which is great for what it is....but not close to the Cannondale. It felt great to hammer down a hill again. I'm begging my girlfriend to let me get it....without her throwing me out. Very tricky situation, but well worth it. (I hope?)

Hey cutters. Was that R1000 an 04 with a CAAD7 from or and 05 with a CAAD8? (Not that I think there's a huge difference between them).

What kind of road did you test ride you R1000 on? Just smooth roads, or some stuff with bumps and a coarse road surface? I'm looking at an 04 R1000 but I'm a bit concerned the rough roads around here might be to much for it.

sorry that your original questions weren't answered yet....

1) in terms of life expectancy, Al will have a longer life than carbon. Depending on your weight and type of riding (are you a stomper, do you race, etc) >> then carbon has a rather limited life. Most of the terrible things about carbon frames have been corrected. the trek OCLV for example used to have terrible frame problems early in their lives. Al will still last much longer. carbon can lose its already soft feel over time. Al keeps its ride characteristics well over time.

2) performance. i've never raced on either material much more than a few times, but both frames are toublesome if you crash. yes, with Al you will need your accessories (seatpost, fork, stem) to dampen road chatter. unless you ride on perfect roads, it will be harder to get a smooth ride (harder, not impossible)
When you stand and really get after it, an Al bike feels like its using all your powerstrokes>>over time Al will stand up to this test.

3) road conditions. see #2.

The weight differences are negligible.
Longevitiy issues are next up. I see a lot of Al bikes on ebay. they have good resale value. i am always leary of used carbon. i am leary of the change in joint strength over time.

its funny, because i had the same questions recently, but was asking the differences between steel and titanium. now that's a thread!!

I wouldnt put Cadilac,smooth and Aluminum in the same statement. Switch Aluminum for carbon and that works.

I would disagree with your premise completely. Aluminum bikes are way overbuilt because aluminum will fail after so many load cycles. Carbon has no such problem. Almost all carbon frame failures were at joints. These issues have been corrected for some time.

Carbon can be built as stiff as the designer wishes. Carbon and titanium have basically taken over the high-end market. Aluminum....is for beer cans.

Sheldon Brown explodes some common misconceptions about frame material at:

Sheldon Brown Frame Materials Link

In a nutshell, he explains that the materials in and of themselves do not create the various ride characteristics, but rather the engineering does. Different materials have different properties, such as strength-to-weight, stifness vs. cross-section, etc. Thus, how you engineer frames to account for the properties of their materials determines how they will perform.

Although I agree in theory that frame characteristics cannot be solely determined by the properties of the raw materials used, and that you can engineer the frame tubes and construction to accomodate the materials, in practice my guess is the way most companies happen to engineer their frames will generally lead to the stereotyped characterists, e.g. that an all-aluminum frame will tend to be relatively harsh.

Yeah... Sorry about that. Should have been carbon. The only thing that is bad about Aluminum is yes they do "lose it" after about 5 years.(Or so I've heard) The bad thing about carbon is that if you crash... You could totally crack the frame. (sometimes without even knowing) But that could be any bicycle. Aluminum you can usually tell off the bat. Oh well both have many strong qualities and weaknesses.

I can only give recommendation on what I have ridden in the past and what I am currently riding now. Past - Cannondale 3.0 frame ('86). Very stiff feel most rode anomolies, but still a good ride. After about 15 yrs on that bike I've gotten 2 new ones. Both Cervelo's (P2K and R2.5) The P2K is alu. with carbon fork and carbon seat post. Smoother ride than I had on the Cannondale. Very stiff frame, I feel as if every ounce of stength is going into forward motion. R2.5 all carbon (butted frame) feels like riding on melted butter to me, as in soft. Frame still is very stiff but it feels like your riding on good roads most of the time. I like them both. For most rides though I take the R2.5 but that is also because it's a road frame not a tt/tri frame. I would recommend getting carbon if possible. Very nice.

I've been riding an aluminum frame carbon fork Cannondale R600 (CADD5) for a few months and the bike rides really well. I don't have any complaints so far. It has held up well and has been a very enjoyable bike.

I've never seen so much BS in one thread and this is just a part of it.

Why don't you send Lance this hot tip. AFWIW, the LBS 'science major' is an idiot.

0?0?adsac]Hey cutters. Was that R1000 an 04 with a CAAD7 from or and 05 with a CAAD8? (Not that I think there's a huge difference between them).

What kind of road did you test ride you R1000 on? Just smooth roads, or some stuff with bumps and a coarse road surface? I'm looking at an 04 R1000 but I'm a bit concerned the rough roads around here might be to much for it.[/QUOTE]

It was an 04 CAAD 7. The roads were fairly smooth, except for a stretch of residential roads that were a little choppy. I also didn't see a little pothole that got the best of me, but it still held it's line and didn't knock me around any. My ride was short, maybe 2 miles, but it felt super smooth and begged to go farther. I put some money down right after I rode it. Can't wait to get it. You could throw on carbon bars, stem and a seat post. Then it could tackle any road you throw at it, just like butter.

I've got 5 bikes I ride on a regular basis, made of aluminum, carbon, ti, and steel. Honestly, I can't attribute ride quality or handling characteristics to the frame material, as there are too many other variables. I think most of the lore associated with different materials is mostly marketing hype. My small tube aluminum '99 Lemond Malliot Jaune is as comfortable as my ti Merlin Cyrene, which is just as comfortable as my '04 Lemond Zurich/Malliot Jaune. The Klein Quantum Race handles as well as the Look KG-156. Etc. They feel different, sure, but they all share characteristics that preclude being able to draw conclusions based on the frame material. The biggest variable I find is which wheelset I'm using (to some degree), and how much air I put in the tires.

that sheldon brown does it again...
article agreed with some of the notions i have about frames/materials/geometry. it's not just what your frame is made from, it's how. was interesting to see the raw data about Specific Gravity, modulus, etc. although perhaps he is biased since i think everyone would agree he's got pretty old-school sensibilities about bikes. but really, is he reluctant to change, or realistic about new materials? you be the judge.

What you need to do is RIDE BOTH BIKES!!! You'll have your answer after that...

not really...you would still be pretty unsure as to durability, and unless you rode them on several different road conditions (good luck getting your LBS to let you take a bike onto some pave') you probably wouldn't be able to tell about that either.

He's old.

Do you really think a few rides would give any clue as to the durability of each bike?

well, 'durability' is just a stinky fish anyway.

I wonder if he has actually really ridden anythig but old steel?