It's been 8-9 years since I've bought a new road bike so I'm looking for a bit of advice on composite vs all-carbon frames.
My understanding is that all-carbon frames absorb the shock better and give you a more comfortable ride, but the composite frames are a little quicker because they combine the stiffer alloys with carbon. Is this right?
One person I spoke suggested against composites because he reckoned the carbon displaced the shock onto non-carbon and wore the frame. Any truth in this?
At the price points I've been looking at, 2-3k, it seems you can get a composite frame with all-ultegra componentry or a carbon frame with a mix of ultegra/105 componentry.
I'm leaning towards a composite frame with all ultegra - but looking for a bit of advice on the relative merits of the two types of frame to assist in my decision.
The fact is, you are better to look at the specific bike model rather than just the material. The design and construction makes a huge difference to the end result.
The fact is, you are better to look at the specific bike model rather than just the material. The design and construction makes a huge difference to the end result.
maybe i'm using wrong/sloppy terminology - full carbon vs a mixture of carbon & alloy. Just one factor I'm considering but looking for views.
I'm considering Giant TCR, azzurri primo and a couple of trek bikes (5000, 1500, 2008 model 4.5 madone) in that 2-3k range.
any recommendations then on design and construction?
Quite a number of people don't like those alu-cf frames with CF rear triangle, on the basis of unnecessary increase in the complexity of the frame. Either full alu or full CF.
Forgot to mention that I was keen on the Trek 1500 but the Dura-ace option on the TCR just did it for me. The price was not that much more than the Trek.
