Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

Quoted post said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

I ride a Specialized E5 S-Works, which is an all Al frame.
On century rides on less than pristine pavement, one does tend to
notice the bumps over time as compared with my other bike, which is a
Specialized Roubaix (all carbon frame).

This bike has the best of both worlds, stiffness where needed,
compliance where it helps and is barely legal light:

S-Works Tarmac SL
http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=22245

Find a good bike store and test ride one.

-bdbafh

Quoted message said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

Geometry and common-sense design are probably bigger factors in comfort than
the material a frame is made of. A short-wheelbase carbon frame designed to
take nothing larger than 23c tires is going to knock you around in a way
that an outrageously-stiff oversized-tubing aluminum frame with a longer
wheelbase and 28 or even 25c tires will not.

Best bet is to find a good bike shop and try a couple to see what *you*
like. You might find this article on our website useful-
www.ChainReaction.com/roadbiketestrides.htm. It's both brand & material
"neutral" but will help you figure out how the bike should be set up and
what you should be looking for.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

Quoted message said:

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

Geometry and common-sense design are probably bigger factors in comfort than
the material a frame is made of. A short-wheelbase carbon frame designed to
take nothing larger than 23c tires is going to knock you around in a way
that an outrageously-stiff oversized-tubing aluminum frame with a longer
wheelbase and 28 or even 25c tires will not.

Best bet is to find a good bike shop and try a couple to see what *you*
like. You might find this article on our website useful-www.ChainReaction.com/roadbiketestrides.htm. It's both brand & material
"neutral" but will help you figure out how the bike should be set up and
what you should be looking for.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

I agree 100%, but as I understand it carbon lacks resonation in ways
some other common materials do not. This allegedly is what helps limit
the road-buzz on carbon frames and is I suppose the theory behind
carbon forks and chainstays. Tires do have a huge effect on comfort,
but all other things being equal, IMO a carbon frame will be more
comfortable, and not because it is flexible (which it might be on some
frames, but that isn't the issue), but becaue it absorbs some of the
buzz.

Joseph

Quoted post said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

If you have century rides as one of your primary goals then you may
want to lean toward aluminum, titanium, or steel frames since these
allow you to mount a rear rack regardless of whether the frame has
mount points. I know of no carbon frame that has rack mounts and I
would not want to use P-clips to attach a rack to a carbon frame or
the currently en vogue aluminum frame with carbon stays. The seatpost
mounted racks are problematic at best and essentially restrict you to
carrying a limited amount of weight in a trunk bag.

Your experience with the Fuji may not be entirely applicable to what
is available today. There is a lot of conventional "wisdom" about
aluminum being harsh that really isn't supported by reality. Early
aluminum frames were built with the same tube dimensions as steel
frames and were found to be too flexible. Cannondale "revolutionized"
aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and making frames that were
considered to be exceedingly stiff. Somewhere in between these
extremes is a happy medium that balances the positives with the
negatives. If your Fuji was on the cheaper end of the spectrum then
its tubing wouldn't be as thin-walled as that used on a better
aluminum frame which may provide a ride you find perfectly
comfortable.

You can get good, affordable (105 and Ultegra level) stock aluminum
road bikes in the range of 19-20 lbs. Good stock carbon framed bikes
are going to be 17-19 lbs. Some of the cheap carbon bikes are so
overbuilt (to avoid lawsuits) that they can weigh in at over 22 lbs,
so don't just buy any old carbon bike for the sake of having carbon.
Obviously, you can go even lighter if you splurge on more expensive
componentry or find a builder that uses smaller/thinner tubes than
usual (someone still building scandium frames).

Quoted message said:

If you have century rides as one of your primary goals then you may
want to lean toward aluminum, titanium, or steel frames since these
allow you to mount a rear rack regardless of whether the frame has
mount points. I know of no carbon frame that has rack mounts and I
would not want to use P-clips to attach a rack to a carbon frame or
the currently en vogue aluminum frame with carbon stays. The seatpost
mounted racks are problematic at best and essentially restrict you to
carrying a limited amount of weight in a trunk bag.

Some carbon frames *do* have rack fittings in the rear dropouts (including
the Trek Pilot series). For the upper mount, if you don't wish to use the
brake mounting configuration, you can replace the seat collar with one that
doesn't have a recess for the bolts and attach the fittings there.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

IMO, if you can easily afford to go CF, then do it. I wouldn't have
believed a road bike could be so comfortable until I bought my Giant OCR
C1. I suspect a serious racer might find it a little too flexy, but
this is the kind of bike you should consider given your description of
how you will use it. A similar bike that springs to mind is the
Specialized Roubaix, although the Roubaix might be somewhat racier.
Most of the major brands probably have something similar.

If you start looking at the design of CF frames, you will start to see
that it isn't just the material that makes them different, but what they
can do with it. CF can be molded into compound curves and shapes that
just aren't practical with metal.

I may eat my words one day if the frame starts going south on me, but
for now I think my CF frame is the smartest bike purchase I have ever
made. If you have perfect roads everywhere you go, then a stiff
aluminum frame is just as good. If patched roads and chip seal are part
of the mix, then do yourself a favor and buy a bike that is designed for
it.

"amakyonin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On May 30, 11:39 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Cannondale "revolutionized" aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and
making frames that were
considered to be exceedingly stiff.

Egads! Gary Klein is rolling over in his grave. Wait, he's not dead. He's
rolling over on his sofa! Where is Gary these days, anyway? -- Jay Beattie.

Barnard Frederick said:

...
IMO, if you can easily afford to go CF, then do it. I wouldn't have
believed a road bike could be so comfortable until I bought my Giant OCR
C1. I suspect a serious racer might find it a little too flexy, but
this is the kind of bike you should consider given your description of
how you will use it. A similar bike that springs to mind is the
Specialized Roubaix, although the Roubaix might be somewhat racier.
Most of the major brands probably have something similar.
...

Locally, at least, there's a Roubaix that is aluminum. It is the lowest
priced Roubaix on the company website the last time I looked, but the
others are all carbon fibre, unless something else slipped in there at
the top.

Quoted message said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

I ride an E5 S-Works which is (in my year?) an Al frame. I don't think
it particularly harsh but I do have carbon bars and seat post. I used to
have a Thomson Al seatpost which I swapped for an Alien carbon one
noting absolutely no difference in ride. I did notice that the Alien is
a PITA to adjust where the Thomson was a pleasure.

I'm a beginner for sure, but my take is that the entire discussion about
road feel is a red herring as far as frame composition is concerned. My
guess is that the frame geometry is the key not the material of the frame.

-paul

amakyonin said:

If you have century rides as one of your primary goals then you may
want to lean toward aluminum, titanium, or steel frames since these
allow you to mount a rear rack regardless of whether the frame has
mount points. I know of no carbon frame that has rack mounts and I
would not want to use P-clips to attach a rack to a carbon frame or
the currently en vogue aluminum frame with carbon stays. The seatpost
mounted racks are problematic at best and essentially restrict you to
carrying a limited amount of weight in a trunk bag.

I do a lot of organized century rides and I'd wager <<1% of the bikes
have rear racks, and most of those don't have a trunk bag attached.

Jay Beattie said:

Egads! Gary Klein is rolling over in his grave. Wait, he's not dead. He's
rolling over on his sofa! Where is Gary these days, anyway? -- Jay Beattie.

Sold out to Trek.

On May 30, 7:04 pm, Paul Cassel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

Quoted message said:

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

I ride an E5 S-Works which is (in my year?) an Al frame. I don't think
it particularly harsh but I do have carbon bars and seat post. I used to
have a Thomson Al seatpost which I swapped for an Alien carbon one
noting absolutely no difference in ride. I did notice that the Alien is
a PITA to adjust where the Thomson was a pleasure.

I'm a beginner for sure, but my take is that the entire discussion about
road feel is a red herring as far as frame composition is concerned. My
guess is that the frame geometry is the key not the material of the frame.

-paul

your bike rocks.
really.
If you were to attempt a ride on a 61 cm Roubaix Elite, you would
likely say "This bike drifts out of the apex on a curve" etc.
I know that what I say.
plenty of variables out there. frame material is just one of them.

my roubaix has 28 mm tires on it now.

-bdbafh

Tires do have a huge effect on comfort,

Quoted message said:

but all other things being equal, IMO a carbon frame will be more
comfortable, and not because it is flexible (which it might be on some
frames, but that isn't the issue), but becaue it absorbs some of the
buzz.

Joseph

Joseph,

this is, I'm afraid, just rubbish.
With the frames covered up, "experts" cannot tell what they're riding,
as regards "comfort".

This is just advertisement-industry bilge.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Geometry and common-sense design are probably bigger factors in comfort than
the material a frame is made of. A short-wheelbase carbon frame designed to
take nothing larger than 23c tires is going to knock you around in a way
that an outrageously-stiff oversized-tubing aluminum frame with a longer
wheelbase and 28 or even 25c tires will not.

That describes my two bikes (Giant OCR3 and TCR1) pretty exactly, except
that I was using 23c tyres on the OCR by the time I bought the TCR. Sorry,
but the TCR is far smoother at the same tube inflation pressure - compared
to the OCR, it feels as though I'm riding on a thin carpet.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Jay Beattie said:

"amakyonin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On May 30, 11:39 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Cannondale "revolutionized" aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and
making frames that were
considered to be exceedingly stiff.

Egads! Gary Klein is rolling over in his grave. Wait, he's not dead. He's
rolling over on his sofa! Where is Gary these days, anyway? -- Jay Beattie.

Exactly! Cannondale didn't "revolutionize" aluminum frame design, they
just ripped off Gary Klein.

Does anyone know what Mr. Klein is up to these days?

Garry Lee said:

Tires do have a huge effect on comfort,

Quoted message said:

but all other things being equal, IMO a carbon frame will be more
comfortable, and not because it is flexible (which it might be on some
frames, but that isn't the issue), but becaue it absorbs some of the
buzz.

Quoted message said:

Joseph

Joseph,

this is, I'm afraid, just rubbish.
With the frames covered up, "experts" cannot tell what they're riding,
as regards "comfort".

Well, this appearts to be the case with frames of the same dimensions
and materials. An example is the famous 'Blind Frame Test' which
appeared in "Bicycle Guide" in the 1980s.

It would be interesting, but difficult IMO, to conduct a blind test of
frames which take best advantage of different materials (i.e., steel
v. aluminum v. titanium v. CFRP).

I do think the differences, including the effects frame weight and
"comfort" would be alot less than some folks might think.

Quoted message said:

This is just advertisement-industry bilge.

There's alot of that going around these days.

Quoted post said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

Only 3 things are important, fit, fit and of course, fit. You don't
mention steel either. Well made, about the same weight as many
'blends, rides like a dream, looks great, lasts forever. No mention of
ti either, great material. Blend bikes are marketing 101, aluminum
'should' be cheap, the market is awash with carbon, the latest 'great'
thing and as some tell it, the 'last word' in frame material(of
course, not true).

So, just about any bike that fits you will work for you, ragardless of
material. Ride all 4 materials, to see what suits you, then get a fit
and get the one that fits you...did I mention fit??

Paul Cassel said:

Quoted message said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

I ride an E5 S-Works which is (in my year?) an Al frame. I don't think
it particularly harsh but I do have carbon bars and seat post. I used to
have a Thomson Al seatpost which I swapped for an Alien carbon one
noting absolutely no difference in ride. I did notice that the Alien is
a PITA to adjust where the Thomson was a pleasure.

Why did you swapped your Thomson seatpost?

Lou

--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted post said:

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

Only 3 things are important, fit, fit and of course, fit. You don't
mention steel either. Well made, about the same weight as many
'blends, rides like a dream, looks great, lasts forever. No mention of
ti either, great material. Blend bikes are marketing 101, aluminum
'should' be cheap, the market is awash with carbon, the latest 'great'
thing and as some tell it, the 'last word' in frame material(of
course, not true).

So, just about any bike that fits you will work for you, ragardless of
material. Ride all 4 materials, to see what suits you, then get a fit
and get the one that fits you...did I mention fit??

Does fit matter?

Being the bicycle guy at work, my co-workers (and most recently the wife of
a co-worker) ask me for bicycle recommendations and then regale me with
their stories of test riding bicycles. Sometimes the decision to buy one
frame material or another is based on whether a shift lever was sticky or a
derailleur was misadjusted on a test bike. It's also amazing that these
infrequent recreational riders are spending so much money on bikes. The
aforementioned wife stated a distinct preference for the feel of CF (versus
Al), but that could have been a preference implanted by the sales person.
The CF bike also sounded like it was a better fit. There are apparently a
lot of off the rack carbon bikes in the $2K range these days. -- Jay
Beattie.