or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Bike buying advice › carbon vs. aluminum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

carbon vs. aluminum - Page 3

post #31 of 71

Lol... since we brought this thread back from the dead, does anyone have a clue what he bought? Especially since after reading all of these posts and looking at all of the bikes mentioned, I'm ready to go shopping!

post #32 of 71

generally speaking, the biggest difference is HT length... for similar sizes and TT lengths....say 56cm, there is about a 20mm difference in HT. If you want the SAME position, you'll have to get a higher rise stem....

post #33 of 71



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraig View Post

Lol... since we brought this thread back from the dead, does anyone have a clue what he bought? Especially since after reading all of these posts and looking at all of the bikes mentioned, I'm ready to go shopping!


http://www.cyclingforums.com/forum/newestpost/483426 

I believe this was the last time he posted about buying his bike.  Chc out the thread.
 

 

post #34 of 71

I am sitting here thinking about my bicycling over the past few months. I see a lot of riders. I cannot tell you what frame material or component group any of them have. But I can tell you which ones are good by looking at their legs.

 

I ride a low end aluminum frame (under $300). My previous frame was carbon fiber Orbea (more expensive than your budget) - it died in a horrible car/bike accident that almost did me in. The components are Campy - I wanted hidden brake and shifter cables). The cassettes are Shimano - makes all my wheels interchangeable.. My other bike (from the 80's) has a mix of components.

 

If you have the legs, any bike will serve you well. If you don't have the legs, no bike will make you look good.

post #35 of 71

I am new here and am a little confused on what "BB" means.  Can you (or anyone who responds) clarify what that means?  If possible, direct me to a page that has all the abbreviations laid out and explained.  Thank you so much!

 
post #36 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVNDSN View Post

I am new here and am a little confused on what "BB" means.  Can you (or anyone who responds) clarify what that means?  If possible, direct me to a page that has all the abbreviations laid out and explained.  Thank you so much!

 


Bottom Bracket

if you hang out here for a while you will learn quite a bit !
 

 

post #37 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVNDSN View Post

I am new here and am a little confused on what "BB" means.  Can you (or anyone who responds) clarify what that means?  If possible, direct me to a page that has all the abbreviations laid out and explained.  Thank you so much!

 


http://sheldonbrown.com/glossary.html

 

AASHTA  (As Always, Sheldon Has The Answer), even though he is no longer biking in the earthly plane...

 

Jason

post #38 of 71

he is a legend,

post #39 of 71

Yes, I don't think anyone in the world will dispute the statement that Sheldon is the greatest help in the history of cycling.

He never failed to take time to reply to any email. I know that he helped me on a couple of occasions, and I was and am a nobody.

He always had a kind word and his website, alive today via his friends and family, show his wonders of organized thought and logic and good humor.

 

He got me enthused enough to make a beginner's tutorial, and it happens to be about the old school B.B. or bottom bracket,

not what you roadies use, but, it worked in 1900, and hundreds of millions of bikes still grind them today.  I thought of Sheldon when talking,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVWBEI1rvjk

post #40 of 71

For ride quality I love the carbon fibre (and yeah, the bikesdirect CF Motobecane probably falls in low end even though it's monocoque)

For acceleration you can't beat the stiff CF bottom bracket.

That said: IF it goes down you're looking at a new frame and fork.

If I were going with non CF I'd go with a triple butted steel alloy from reynolds or columbus. At the end of a metric or centruy your body will thank you.

post #41 of 71
In my opinion I would go carbon. I used to have a 2.3 trek and have now moved to a trek madone 6.2 and have raced with both and the carbon makes a huge difference in speed. Also I have laid down my carbon hard many times and have had no problem with it breaking.
post #42 of 71

go with carbon the quality of ride is beyond comparison! I have had both high end aluminum and carbon bikes and I can assure you that even the modest priced carbon are so superior to aluminum that there is really no comparing the two. Resale value of carbon will be much higher than alu as well

post #43 of 71

Unless you are into high end racing.....go steel!  I rode a bunch of bikes and I have never once regretting going with Reynolds 631.  It's a magic carpet ride.  Buy whatever will keep you on your bike riding it though.  For the money and the ride, steel is a great choice.

post #44 of 71

hi FLY 1296,

 

i hope i got that right

ok the question is what do you want to do with the bike?

 

but if the frame material is the question here nothing beats cromolly

i have an old cromo frame made by Clamont and love riding it rather than my alloy or the carbon fibre i sold.

Carbon is dangerouse look at the vuelta a couple of days ago another carbon just cracked.

now if you are touring go for three chain rings i have 52-42-32 and 7 at the back start with 11 go to 28 at least it simply make climbing easy.

 

wanna know more email me.

 

 

post #45 of 71

"...nothing beats cromoly..."

 

Except titanium, especially if it's built right.  My Ti frame is light years ahead of my steel frame in comfort, even with thinner, higher-pressure tires.

 

It's not cheap, but it's a lifetime frame.  It won't fatigue like Al, won't break like CF and won't rust like CrMo.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Bike buying advice
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Bike buying advice › carbon vs. aluminum