carbon vs. aluminum - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpr95 

"...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.

+1. Chrome moly is a superb material for a bicycle but you can't beat a well built titanium frame.  The ride is hard to put into words. The bike seems to have a life of its own that I have never felt on any other bicycle made of any other material. I recommend CrMo if you are on a budget, but if you have the resources, titanium is the way to go. Its light and durable.
 

Carbon vs AL????  Stiff vs Pogo stick.  Buy the best you can afford.  Do you see any Al bikes in the Tour?  There is a reason for that, beyond light, they are stiff.  Stiff equals better power transfer.  Flex equals more comfort over long rides.  I ride a carbon bike and ride over 100 miles a week.  I'm 6'4, 240 and wanted the most effecent bike I could.  I spend $3300 on my bike and have loved every moment of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallKYcyclist  Do you see any Al bikes in the Tour?

The Mavic neutral support bikes. After 2 carbon bikes since 2007, I'm thinking if I had to do it over I'd probably do it on a Cannondale CAAD10.

If you're looking for hallmark characteristics of materials, forget it.  How a bike rides is a function of design, QA, construction, fit, and material a distant 5th.  Some will say that aluminum is harsh.  Maybe in the old days when aluminum was the hot material and new to the block, but a lot has changed since then.  There are aluminum "comfort" bikes and a lot of reviews (i.e., subjective reports) of aluminum frames that say comfort was/is superb.  Steel is supposed to be real, but of my last three frames (custom Waterford/Paramount OS, Moots Compact,and Look 595), the steel frame (Paramount) had the harshest ride.  Does that mean steel then is harsh?  No, that was just the sum of the design, construction, and etc. coupled with fit and my perception.  It's a toss whether the Moots was or the Look is the most comfortable (i.e. not harsh, compliant) on the road, but the fit between the two is not exactly the same.  

So is carbon necessarily stiff?  Absolutely not.  Does aluminum necessarily ride like a pogo stick?  Absolutely not.

Have you tried test riding both bikes?  Go with the one that 'feels' better.  When I bought my first bike, I rode both carbon and aluminum and liked the lively 'feel' of aluminum better than the dead feeling of the entry level carbon ride.  Then again, I ended up buying a higher end carbon Pinarello and haven't looked back since.  In my opinion bikes are like shoes, you have to find the right fit! 

At the end of the day it's about how a given bike rides. It's more than just materials as you have to factor in things equally as important to ride quality like geometry and weight distribution of the ride on the bike, frame construction methods, wheel width and tire pressures. Even things like saddle and bar/stem length, width and materials play a huge factor in the overall ride quality.

People look too much into generalizations rather than seeking out the real scoop when it comes to unknowns.

If you want to know what "brand x" bike rides like? See if a friends has one or go down to the nearest bike store that has one in and ride it...

+1, but I still like CF especially the current CF and most likely the future CF  :-)

I've currently own a steel, two aluminum and a carbon bike. Carbon is not actually a better material. First off, it's not the same carbon used in aircraft so if anyone says that, they are blowing air. Carbon bikes are carbon/plastic mix, whereas carbon airplane parts are 100% carbon. Big difference. Anyway, material has little to do with quality. An entry level carbon bike will not ride like a $5000+ carbon bike. High end aluminum will trump entry-level carbon anyday of the week. Certain models use higher quality material on their entry level carbon bikes (ala Felt F5) but most don't. Take a CAAD 10 for example. An aluminum CAAD10 Dura ace can be had for around $3000 and it will kill pretty much any $3000 carbon bike in terms of performance and comfort. It even rivals $5000+ carbon bikes in those areas. If a person thinks that a carbon bike will be always be better, it's because they bought into marketing. Most manufacturers have dinged aluminum and made it entry-level by marketing carbon bikes as higher level bikes by loading them with higher level equipment. Don't believe me? Look around and see how many manufacturers offer aluminum framed bikes with anything above 105/Rival. I only know of two- Tsunami and Cannondale. Tour riders ride carbon because the highest level bikes are made of carbon and that's what they are paid to ride. Just 5-6 years ago, they were riding aluminum. Don't buy into the " look at what the Pro Tour riders are riding" because most don't have much choice since it's what pays their salaries. If they were riding $350 GMC Denali bikes, a lot of riders would be buying their bikes from Walmart. Funny thing is, those riders could still destoy most of us on Denali bikes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by terbennett 

I've currently own a steel, two aluminum and a carbon bike. Carbon is not actually a better material. First off, it's not the same carbon used in aircraft so if anyone says that, they are blowing air. Carbon bikes are carbon/plastic mix, whereas carbon airplane parts are 100% carbon. Big difference. Anyway, material has little to do with quality. An entry level carbon bike will not ride like a $5000+ carbon bike. High end aluminum will trump entry-level carbon anyday of the week. Certain models use higher quality material on their entry level carbon bikes (ala Felt F5) but most don't. Take a CAAD 10 for example. An aluminum CAAD10 Dura ace can be had for around $3000 and it will kill pretty much any $3000 carbon bike in terms of performance and comfort. It even rivals $5000+ carbon bikes in those areas. If a person thinks that a carbon bike will be always be better, it's because they bought into marketing. Most manufacturers have dinged aluminum and made it entry-level by marketing carbon bikes as higher level bikes by loading them with higher level equipment. Don't believe me? Look around and see how many manufacturers offer aluminum framed bikes with anything above 105/Rival. I only know of two- Tsunami and Cannondale. Tour riders ride carbon because the highest level bikes are made of carbon and that's what they are paid to ride. Just 5-6 years ago, they were riding aluminum. Don't buy into the " look at what the Pro Tour riders are riding" because most don't have much choice since it's what pays their salaries. If they were riding $350 GMC Denali bikes, a lot of riders would be buying their bikes from Walmart. Funny thing is, those riders could still destoy most of us on Denali bikes.

Almost none of what you say is true.  CF in use in aerospace is not 100% carbon.  It's carbon fiber either woven or arranged in a mat that's infused with a resin.  Carbon fiber composites are also plastics.  What's in the vast majority of carbon fiber bicycle frames?  carbon fiber either woven or arranged in a mat that's infused with a resin.  Your statement about "higher quality" CF is questionable, at best.  Certainly, some frames use CF with a higher modulus, but that is not the same as saying that such frames are made with a higher quality CF.  You've oversimplified the entire design and engineering process and completely excluded the fact that CF choice is function of design needs: stiffness, compliance, and etc.

The statement that a CAAD 10 will pretty much kill any $3000 frame is patently wrong and is absolutely ill-posed.  First it presumes there is some absolute standard by which one frame is judged better than another.  Sorry, that standard does not exist.  Second it presumes that expense is an absolute measure of frame quality.  Sorry, that isn't the case.

Whether one frame is better than another is entirely up to what properties a rider is looking for in a frame or values, how the frame fits the rider, and how the rider's brain interprets the data from his or her unique sensory system while riding the bike.  That's all there is to that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by m0b00st 

I think you should do carbon so that you dont regret it later, because you know that you will.  And if you have the money to be in the 105 price range, I think that you should opt for a bike with SRAM Rival groupo, it offers 105 performance or better and weighs less than Ultegra.

 

I myself was very suprised when I tried out the SRAM groupo.  I honestly did not think that I would find them to be all that different, but I personally liked the ergonomics and the operation of the SRAM much better than I did the Shimano.  Not to mention the SRAM that I tried out was Apex.  But like I said, for the same cost as 105, almost every bike I've seen can be equiped with SRAM Rival instead.

 

Something to consider is all.  At least ride one with it if you havent already.

Actually, Contador used a SRAM Apex RD with an 11-32T cassette on one of the stages in the Tour of Italy   :-)

Not sure that you could use an 11-32T cassette with the 105 RD ...
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by alienator 

Almost none of what you say is true.  CF in use in aerospace is not 100% carbon.  It's carbon fiber either woven or arranged in a mat that's infused with a resin.  Carbon fiber composites are also plastics.  What's in the vast majority of carbon fiber bicycle frames?  carbon fiber either woven or arranged in a mat that's infused with a resin.  Your statement about "higher quality" CF is questionable, at best.  Certainly, some frames use CF with a higher modulus, but that is not the same as saying that such frames are made with a higher quality CF.  You've oversimplified the entire design and engineering process and completely excluded the fact that CF choice is function of design needs: stiffness, compliance, and etc.

 

The statement that a CAAD 10 will pretty much kill any $3000 frame is patently wrong and is absolutely ill-posed.  First it presumes there is some absolute standard by which one frame is judged better than another.  Sorry, that standard does not exist.  Second it presumes that expense is an absolute measure of frame quality.  Sorry, that isn't the case.

 

Whether one frame is better than another is entirely up to what properties a rider is looking for in a frame or values, how the frame fits the rider, and how the rider's brain interprets the data from his or her unique sensory system while riding the bike.  That's all there is to that.

 

 

 

+1

I was looking for some information to post about carbon fiber grades and came across this link.  I never heard of the company but apparently they repair carbon fiber frames. Anyone ever hear of them or use their service?  Figured I share it on this thread because one of the common arguments against carbon has been you cant repair a broken frame.

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calfeedesign.com%2Ftech-papers%2Fgrades-of-carbon-fiber%2F&ei=NCNxTp6vM87Fswb8p40G&usg=AFQjCNFq2JhjjT7CRk1zHJLakzCn-tgUdA 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by davereo 

+1

I was looking for some information to post about carbon fiber grades and came across this link.  I never heard of the company but apparently they repair carbon fiber frames. Anyone ever hear of them or use their service?  Figured I share it on this thread because one of the common arguments against carbon has been you cant repair a broken frame.

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calfeedesign.com%2Ftech-papers%2Fgrades-of-carbon-fiber%2F&ei=NCNxTp6vM87Fswb8p40G&usg=AFQjCNFq2JhjjT7CRk1zHJLakzCn-tgUdA 
 

 

Calfee is at the top of the CF repair game, and Calfee's experience using CF in bicycles is as extensive, if not more so, as that of anyone in the business.  In fact, the first full CF frame used in the TdF was a Calfee (ridden by LeMond on Team Z).
 

Every frame material has its advantages and disadvantages.  Depends what you are going to do with it.  Im not a pro, and dont have a bottomless bank account. But for me the best bike material, after owning just about all of it over the years has been titanium.  Does everything I want it to do and it is maintenance free.  Not even any paint to scratch.  Ive owned carbon frames from the beginning.  and aluminum. and steel.  They are all better now than they were 20 years ago.  the only frame failure I ever had was a trek made of 531 reynolds tubing.  the frame broke where the dropout was welded in on the drive side.  Carbon frames Ive owned from my Look Kg66 to my new Alero Guerciotti have performed with no problems after thousands of miles.  I think todays frames are so well made that it just becomes a matter of personal preference.  Its still the "motor" that counts the most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark George 

Every frame material has its advantages and disadvantages.  Depends what you are going to do with it.  Im not a pro, and dont have a bottomless bank account. But for me the best bike material, after owning just about all of it over the years has been titanium.  Does everything I want it to do and it is maintenance free.  Not even any paint to scratch.  Ive owned carbon frames from the beginning.  and aluminum. and steel.  They are all better now than they were 20 years ago.  the only frame failure I ever had was a trek made of 531 reynolds tubing.  the frame broke where the dropout was welded in on the drive side.  Carbon frames Ive owned from my Look Kg66 to my new Alero Guerciotti have performed with no problems after thousands of miles.  I think todays frames are so well made that it just becomes a matter of personal preference.  Its still the "motor" that counts the most.

It's pretty much impossible to compare the ride and performance characteristics of a frame material without considering frame design, components (especially wheels), tires, inflation pressures.......  In the end all of you done is compared bikes.

I rank my bikes by how they've performed.  I could care less what material they're made of, and I'm comfortable in the knowledge that what a person feels on the road is the sum of many things, possibly the least of which is material.