Frame quality versus component quality?

[Pottsie]

I'm purchasing my first road bike. I'll most likely ride about 100 miles per week. Is it more important to have a full carbon frame or a carbon fork and stay with an aluminum frame?

 

[Pottsie]

I'm purchasing my first road bike. I'll most likely ride about 100 miles per week. Is it more important to have a full carbon frame or a carbon fork and stay with an aluminum frame?

 

[Scotty_Dog]

Neither of your options is more important. Quality frames can be made of aluminum, carbon, steel, titanium, or other exotic material.

What's most important is frame size, and you like the way it feels. My advice is to try different frame materials and then determine the one you like best.

 

[Bikelyst]

My advice for you, get alu frame with carbon forks and seatstays. It's probably the most popular combo, and not very expensive.

The nice thing is you get the shock absorbency of the carbon, where it is needed most, and you have the stiffness and reliability of relatively inexpensive aluminum IMHO.

 

[Pottsie]

My advice for you, get alu frame with carbon forks and seatstays. It's probably the most popular combo, and not very expensive.

The nice thing is you get the shock absorbency of the carbon, where it is needed most, and you have the stiffness and reliability of relatively inexpensive aluminum IMHO.

I was also told not to get a bike with anything less than 105 components? Opinion?

 

[vadiver]

Neither of your options is more important. Quality frames can be made of aluminum, carbon, steel, titanium, or other exotic material.

What's most important is frame size, and you like the way it feels. My advice is to try different frame materials and then determine the one you like best.

Why people never listen to this excelent advice is beyond me.

If the bike does not fit right, it will be uncomfrotable to ride and you will subsequently not ride. Regardless of frame material.

 

[benkoostra]

I was also told not to get a bike with anything less than 105 components? Opinion?

That depends. I think the reason that 'lesser' groups get bad reputations is because they recieve no maintenance, so they start misbehaving soon after purchase. The fact is that if you keep things clean and lubed, they work just fine for casual riding. I have a mountain bike I bought in 1994 with LX, and it still works great because I took care of it. I've never had to replace anything because it wore out either.
You can make Dura Ace ride like **** if you neglect it (ask my ex wife about her bike).

 

[artemidorus]

It is a myth that composites provide ANY shock absorbance beyond the attenuation, to a degree, of high-frequency buzzes and hums and beyond the shock absorbance inherent in the frame design, which will be achieved with any material designed the correct way.
Composites are used extensively on bicycle frames because that is what the market wants, not because of clear inherent superiority. And because you can make them into weird shapes more cheaply, again something that the market seems to want.They are considered pretty.
Carbon stays ride pretty much the same as Al, steel or Ti stays.
Firstly, get the frame that fits. For the best value, get Al frame and 105/Veloce components. Spend your savings on nice, deep profile wheels if you're going to race or you like to cruise fast, or else bank'em.

 

[sogood]

deep profile wheels if you're going to race or you like to cruise fast

Lightweight wheels = Expensive. Aero + lightweight wheels = Super expensive.

 

[artemidorus]

Lightweight wheels = Expensive. Aero + lightweight wheels = Super expensive.

They don't have to be lightweight. The important point is that, of all the blingy **** you can bolt to your frame, or make your frame with, nothing else approaches the gains to be made from deep profile wheels.

 

[FreeHueco]

They need to be lightweight if you want some sort of advantage going up hills, or in accelerating quickly...

I say make the bike cool the way you want to. Don't let the market determine what works for you. that's why I ride a steel frame with a carbon fork and plenty of carbon and titanium bits... I like the look!

 

[Mish]

They don't have to be lightweight. The important point is that, of all the blingy **** you can bolt to your frame, or make your frame with, nothing else approaches the gains to be made from deep profile wheels.

I will need new wheels within a year. Can you quantify the gains? How deep is deep? I also ride hills. What wheels do you recommend?

 

[vitamin s]

pottsie, im sure you will get a ton of arguements here. do a search on carbon vs. aluminum. there is a thread called re-evaluating aluminum i believe that does a good job of discussing aluminums strengths and weaknesses. ultimately, in regards to your question, if you are buying your first bike, you will want to consider much more than the frame material.

i JUST bought a roadbike after 2 months of looking at these boards. i decided on an aluminum frame, with a carbon fork with 105's. it is basically your entry level road bike that competes with the trek 1200, specialized roubaix, giant ocr1, etc. why i chose the one i did doesnt really pertain to you, because your circumstances are probably much different from mine.

think about whether you want a relaxed frame geometry, or a racing frame geometry. 105 is raceable equipment. if you are just riding occasionally for fun and fitness, tiagra, xenon, mirage and even sora will do you just fine if you take care of it and make sure it is all dialed in properly by a good mechanic.

also, do a search on chainrings. your choices will be most likely, triple, double, compact. depends on your terrain and ability. i chose a compact because i cant get onto open roads without going over some really steep hills first, so every single ride i do has some steep hills.

 

[LeDomestique]

pottsie, im sure you will get a ton of arguements here. do a search on carbon vs. aluminum. there is a thread called re-evaluating aluminum i believe that does a good job of discussing aluminums strengths and weaknesses.

I think the thread was called "re-thinking aluminum".

cheers

 

[Bikelyst]

It is a myth that composites provide ANY shock absorbance beyond the attenuation, to a degree, of high-frequency buzzes and hums and beyond the shock absorbance inherent in the frame design, which will be achieved with any material designed the correct way.
Composites are used extensively on bicycle frames because that is what the market wants, not because of clear inherent superiority. And because you can make them into weird shapes more cheaply, again something that the market seems to want.They are considered pretty.
Carbon stays ride pretty much the same as Al, steel or Ti stays.
Firstly, get the frame that fits. For the best value, get Al frame and 105/Veloce components. Spend your savings on nice, deep profile wheels if you're going to race or you like to cruise fast, or else bank'em.

Why do you think that almost all of the bikes you see usually have a carbon fork??? Because it is used in the place where it will be most effective w/ out jacking up the price. And obviously there is a clear inherent superiority, because that is what the MARKET wants.

And how do people consider it a MYTH. I can say first hand that riding carbon forks vs. alu forks provides a much better ride, smoother and less jarring. (Unless you have a very elite grade of alu.) Respectfully, people have there tastes in materials, but unless you use a high grade of any material, you almost always see, nowadays, the frame having a carbon fork.

Well I guess because people using ridiculous terms like "absorbance beyond the attentuation" always have to be right.

Accordingly, the "market" is us, yes all of us. You make it seem as though the market is immature in making decisions and that you of all people are always right.

I respect your opinion, but you make it seem that alu/ti/carbon/steel are somehow all equal. They all have many pros and cons. Meaning that carbon has a better shock absorbency but also lacks in lateral stiffness.

Granted, using the elite material of any material will probably be better than using the latter. But, I think we are talking about affordable bikes.

Anyway...in relevance to this disscusion, I admit that I was wrong in saying that alu/carbon was THE way to go. And I 100% agree that bike fit is the most important thing to a bike.

Cheers.

 

[janiejones]

I ride 7005 Al frame with carbon forks and find it very comfortable, nicer than the 6061 and cro-mo forks I used to have.

 

[artemidorus]

They need to be lightweight if you want some sort of advantage going up hills, or in accelerating quickly...

I say make the bike cool the way you want to. Don't let the market determine what works for you. that's why I ride a steel frame with a carbon fork and plenty of carbon and titanium bits... I like the look!

You're right about absolute weight for a rider doing a lot of climbing, but the maximum advantage is about what the average punter could lose dieting for a week.

Deep profile is more important than light weight for rapid acceleration:

http://analyticcycling.com/WheelsCritCorner_Page.html

Models on the same site will show you that a 500gm weight saving in wheels will have you 18cm ahead after 100m sprint - relevant for racers but noone else.

 

[artemidorus]

Why do you think that almost all of the bikes you see usually have a carbon fork??? Because it is used in the place where it will be most effective w/ out jacking up the price. And obviously there is a clear inherent superiority, because that is what the MARKET wants.

And how do people consider it a MYTH. I can say first hand that riding carbon forks vs. alu forks provides a much better ride, smoother and less jarring. (Unless you have a very elite grade of alu.) Respectfully, people have there tastes in materials, but unless you use a high grade of any material, you almost always see, nowadays, the frame having a carbon fork.

Well I guess because people using ridiculous terms like "absorbance beyond the attentuation" always have to be right.

Accordingly, the "market" is us, yes all of us. You make it seem as though the market is immature in making decisions and that you of all people are always right.

I respect your opinion, but you make it seem that alu/ti/carbon/steel are somehow all equal. They all have many pros and cons. Meaning that carbon has a better shock absorbency but also lacks in lateral stiffness.

Granted, using the elite material of any material will probably be better than using the latter. But, I think we are talking about affordable bikes.

Anyway...in relevance to this disscusion, I admit that I was wrong in saying that alu/carbon was THE way to go. And I 100% agree that bike fit is the most important thing to a bike.

Cheers.

You're right about the fork, but for the wrong reason. Carbon forks are used because they can be made flexy but fatigue resistant, something that can't be done with Al. It can be done with steel, but at a weight penalty. It can be done with Ti, but at a cost penalty. If you make Al forks that are rigid enough to fatigue only slowly, then they will be bone-jarring and hence undesirable.
It is the design, not the inherent material properties, of carbon forks that make them more comfortable than Al.
Sorry, in my original post I didn't get on to talking about forks, but I would always recommend composite as I don't want the cost or weight penalty. That said, a high-quality steel fork wouldn't be much heavier and would be just as comfortable.
Sorry about the terminology, but if you don't want to get into that then you're condemned to buying composite or Ti "because carbon/Ti is best".
As to me seeming confident about my post, well, if I wasn't confident then I wouldn't post.
The market, like the law, is often an ass.
I don't agree with your comment about lateral stiffness. A composite frame can be made very stiff in any plane, if that is what the designer wants. There are differences between the materials, including the maximum useful tube width, the fatigue resistance, the mode of failure, the weight of a given tube width, the impact resistance, high frequency vibration attenuation and the cost. But the differences are less important than the way that the materials are used, ie the design.

 

[artemidorus]

I will need new wheels within a year. Can you quantify the gains? How deep is deep? I also ride hills. What wheels do you recommend?

Cut out the middleman and read this article:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-4934445.html

All those ratios are a load of claptrap. Lateral stiffness has not been shown to have a significant effect on efficiency, provide the wheel's not so floppy that it rubs your pads. Rotational inertia has been shown to have negligible effect.
The drag figures are useful, however.
Clearly Zipps, Cosmic Carbone, Shimano 50 and the listed Ritchey, HED, and Easton wheels are pretty good. Outside that study, the deep profile Reynolds carbon wheels look pretty good, too. Take your pick.

 

[Bikelyst]

You're right about the fork, but for the wrong reason. Carbon forks are used because they can be made flexy but fatigue resistant, something that can't be done with Al. It can be done with steel, but at a weight penalty. It can be done with Ti, but at a cost penalty. If you make Al forks that are rigid enough to fatigue only slowly, then they will be bone-jarring and hence undesirable.
It is the design, not the inherent material properties, of carbon forks that make them more comfortable than Al.
Sorry, in my original post I didn't get on to talking about forks, but I would always recommend composite as I don't want the cost or weight penalty. That said, a high-quality steel fork wouldn't be much heavier and would be just as comfortable.
Sorry about the terminology, but if you don't want to get into that then you're condemned to buying composite or Ti "because carbon/Ti is best".
As to me seeming confident about my post, well, if I wasn't confident then I wouldn't post.
The market, like the law, is often an ass.
I don't agree with your comment about lateral stiffness. A composite frame can be made very stiff in any plane, if that is what the designer wants. There are differences between the materials, including the maximum useful tube width, the fatigue resistance, the mode of failure, the weight of a given tube width, the impact resistance, high frequency vibration attenuation and the cost. But the differences are less important than the way that the materials are used, ie the design.

Alright, I see what you are saying in general, and tend to agree. You lost me though where you say "Sorry about the terminology, but if you don't want to get into that then you're condemned to buying composite or Ti "because carbon/Ti is best"."

Do us all a favor and clarify that for us.