Honestly, which is better Carbon frame or aluminum for a road bike???? - Page 3

Honestly, which is better? Coke or Pepsi?

Send me a link. I should have a raise by then. Financing available?

Of course, by 2008, lightsaber technology may have finally come back into mainstream science's radar (after a long, long time), so there may be some interesting gram-saving options out there employing focused, self-terminating shafts of really destructive colored light.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

I realise that most of you are concerned about weight, but does anyone care about durability and realiability. Warranties are great, but when (not if) the frame or forks break, no warranty is worth a pinch of goat crap if this happens during a race or if you are 100km from the nearest help. EVERY person I have known with a Carbon or Alluminium frame has had to have it replaced, due to breakage, at some time. I am not a light weight myself, weighing in at 88kg (194lb) I do put reasonable stress on any frame, add to this the fact that I am a track sprinter, means that I am relatively rough on my road bike. Yet with this I have never had to have any steel frame replaced in 34 years of racing and my current frame is only about 1kg (2.2046lb) heavier than the better composites. Live on steel.

Almost every person I know is riding (if not racing) carbon or aluminum. Just as it's a myth that all steel is bound to be worthlessly heavy, it's a myth that all carbon, and to a greater extent, all aluminum, is likely to be built too thin, too prone to cracks, or failing welds, warping and death.

I was a Cannondale dealer for years and sold hundreds of thier Mt. bikes and road bikes. During this time I only had one bike (which was over 10 years old) come in with a small frame stress line it didnt even qualify as a crack. The customer I always used as an example when customers had concerns about the durability of the light frames was a 6 foot 2, 245lb guy that rode a R3000 but could also bench press 300lb. He never had frame or wheel ( ksyrium sl ) problem. I understand that everyone has different experiences with bikes they own but since I knew so many that did purchase aluminum I thought it might be good to share.

Ti is noticeably more comfortable than steel, but I found carbon (TREK 5200) to be a quantum leap in comfort. I suspect that carbon frames, especially as the price drops, will make Ti frames much less attractive.

Certainly agree durability is important, and that us consumers need to look at this factor along with, or perhaps ahead of weight. Most any bike made today will break if used hard enough. Not sure what kind of steel you're riding, but if you try a 3 lb UltraFoco frameset, I bet you could break it too in a couple of years.


Note that most warranties today do not cover fatique damage, or "wear and tear". Cannondale warranty specifically excludes fatique, which I think is being upfront. Can't expect any 2.4 lb frameset, steel or AL to last forever.

I'm a bit concerned that the manufacturers are pushing to the ultralights for regular riders, without clearly informing us of the trade-offs. I know it's what sells.....we all want to be racers, and the light bikes feel good on test rides. Maybe they are betting that the average guy buying Trek or C'dale isn't going to ride more than 1000 easy miles a year.

I want to keep my next bike 10 years, like my current steel one (which is now starting to rust). That means I will not pick the lightest frame out there. If it's steel, I'll go with Foco rather than Ultra. AL would be Zonal, or one of the "heavier" butted tubesets. Agree that an extra 1/2 or l pound in the frame will give a lot more durability without compromising the ride...a great trade off for us non-racers.

Dan

That's a lie.

Yeah, I have to agree with you. I think the salesman was, shall we say, a little too optimistic on the delivery date.
LOL

__________________
"It's a dog eat dog world Sammy, and I'm wearing milkbone underwear." - Norm Peterson

Does the carbon nanotube frame comes with ultrastiff airweight hubs and bottom bracket? If it does, could you count me in? Gee, I wonder how will that dream frame dissipate the road vibrations.

I currently have a Douglas Fusion (Colorado Cyclist house brand) that has a carbon seat stay and carbon fork. It's really a great bike but it a bit harsh for me so I began to look at different frame materials with vibration dampening and smooth ride as my top selection criteria.

I rode a Litespeed Siena (carbon stays) and several Carbon bikes.

I found all carbon bikes to be much better than Ti/Carbon combos at vibration dampening. The litespeed was much more comfortable than my Al/Carbon bike but all carbon was in a class by itself.

I compared Trek carbons to Look and found that they felt totally different. To me the Looks felt quicker and livelier.

I'm so sold on Carbon as a vibration eating material I'm considering the Topolino wheels (carbon/kevlar spokes) to go on my new Look KG 386i.

All of this is just my opinion...

I suggest carbon with the liveliness of aluminum. For me, the Giant TCR was a perfect choice. My OCLV is of at least equal quality, but nowhere near as fun to ride. Both do dampen road vibration beautifully. From another point of view though, Trek is a lifetime warranty. And they honored it for me, giving me a new frame for a minor problem they could have fixed at the factory within the scope of the warranty. TCR is only 5 years.
In technical terms, I believe a monocoque construction process aids in lively feel, in addition to other factors. Maybe someone else will chime in with a more accurate explanation.
My riding companion says his C40 feels more like steel than his aluminum Colnago Dream.
If money is available, titanium. Or titanium and carbon. Lemond Tete de Course was my first choice, but at more than double the TCR carbon, I couldn't justify it. If money is no object, use the Merlin Cielo as a reference point. Absolutely beautiful.
Summary is aluminum is very different feeling than carbon. On the trail for a couple of hours I might go with aluminum (maybe), cause you're gonna get bounced around no matter what and aluminum is a lively (fun) material, but on the road for 4-5 hours, not a chance. My aluminum road bike is permanently on my Tacx I-magic trainer. I don't have enough time on Titanium to offer any useful suggestions.

I suggest carbon with the liveliness of aluminum. For me, the Giant TCR was a perfect choice. My OCLV is of at least equal quality, but nowhere near as fun to ride. Both do dampen road vibration beautifully. From another point of view though, Trek is a lifetime warranty. And they honored it for me, giving me a new frame for a minor problem they could have fixed at the factory within the scope of the warranty. TCR is only 5 years.
In technical terms, I believe a monocoque construction process aids in lively feel, in addition to other factors. Maybe someone else will chime in with a more accurate explanation.
My riding companion says his C40 feels more like steel than his aluminum Colnago Dream.
If money is available, titanium. Or titanium and carbon. Lemond Tete de Course was my first choice, but at more than double the TCR carbon, I couldn't justify it. If money is no object, use the Merlin Cielo as a reference point. Absolutely beautiful.
Summary is aluminum is very different feeling than carbon. On the trail for a couple of hours I might go with aluminum (maybe), cause you're gonna get bounced around no matter what and aluminum is a lively (fun) material, but on the road for 4-5 hours, not a chance. My aluminum road bike is permanently on my Tacx I-magic trainer. I don't have enough time on Titanium to offer any useful suggestions.

How about high-temperature superconductor magnetically suspended frictionless hubs? That ride should feel like it's hovering -- of course, it literally would be. Mag-lev bikes would be all the rage!

Plus, the hubs would have the added benefit of being able to generate any electricty your lighting system would need. Throw away your batteries and dynamos.