Carbon Faster than Aluminium ???

richa

I recently rode/finished the Etape. Next year I'd like a shot at Silver.

I have an Aluminium bike (Specialized Allez) and am considering spending some cash if it would help me go faster. So, would a carbon bike (such as Specialized Roubaix or Planet-X Pro Carbon) be faster than my Aluminium bike. Why?

I gather that it would offer a more comfortable ride, but as I'm not that uncomfortable at the moment, this wouldn't be enough for me to purchase a new bike.

Many thanks.

ps I expect to get most of my improvements from better training. However, I want to consider everything else (legal) that can also lead to faster times.

cougie

If you are happy with the bike - then theres no need to go carbon.

Some carbon bikes are more comfortable, but then again - others are a harsh ride.

Some flash wheels may be of more benefit, but I think unless you're good at training by yourself - a coach who you can get on with may be a better investment.

richa

50 reads and just 3 votes !!! Come on guys.

No one upgraded to Carbon? You go quicker? Or not?

Ben_H

Don't have an alu frame, but instead I bought a Ti frame from XACD http://www.xacd.com.cn and built the bike up. Frame cost about £160 couple of years ago. Its an excellent climber, light and nimble. Probably ideal for Etape ride. The pic on left is me on the Fred Whitton on Ti frame.
Ben

ps. didn't really answer your question !

redddraggon

I've voted on a carbon bike being faster than an Al one.

(I'm only having that opinion because I'm sure a carbon bike will go faster than my cheap Al road bike.)

simbil1

I recently changed from Aluminium to Carbon and can confirm that it is not faster or slower if the overall frame weighs the same. Carbon frames can be a shade lighter than Alu so may have a tiny up hill advantage. Carbon is definately in fashion, to the point where it is being used badly - bars and seat posts are not necessarily best suited to carbon.
Tyres and wheels seem to make the most difference in terms of equipment in my opinion.
As said, a coach makes a massive difference - I have 1-2 sessions a week and have never been better set up on the bike, fitter or as skillful - and its only £80 a month.

fenlandplodder

I am not even its a question with a binary answer. I recently moved from an Aluminium Litespeed with carbon seat stays to a Cervelo R3 carbon fibre engineering marvel.

I can ride the Ceverlo faster over all terrain. It is lighter and very very much stiffer yet probably more comfortable to ride. The reason for the change was the discovery that the back end of the Litespeed was as stiff as block of jelly. The carbon seat stays are so flexible I can squeeze them together with one hand. No other frame I have tried this on was that flexible. Even old steel frame (renolds 531 tubes) was stiffer than that.

My cheap and cheerful Guess RB1 training bike is all aluminium and stiffer than the Litespeed,weighs a lot but I can ride it nearly as quickly as the Cervelo on the flat. Up a mountain it'd be different though :-)

pigman

RichA wrote:

50 reads and just 3 votes !!! Come on guys.

thats cos its not about which bike goes faster - its about you and how you feel. an amateur on a different bike won't make a pro!

richa

I took 9 hrs 54 to cover the 198km of L'Etape. The slowest Pros came home in the grupetto in 6 hrs 10. I am under no illusions about a carbon bike making me ride like a pro.

But while we're on the subject, do the pros ride carbon bikes so they go faster? If so, why can't I ride carbon.

I am looking for a year-on-year improvement of 15%. I hope to achieve approx. 10% of this from training. The other 5% needs to come from elsewhere. Will carbon help?

guyward

I would forget a new bike for the moment and concentrate on training. I am a keen amateur and whilst I dream of buying a flsh bike, I know that losing my beer belly will produce better results than changing bikes to saving 200g or whatever.

nicklouse

Material does not matter.

As we all know Red bikes are faster. :oops:

(sorry standard mtber's reply).


on a serious note thou.

power transfer and weight. it does not matter what the material is if the back end flexes it will not be doing its job of getting the power down. And that all comes down to design. A well designed Alloy. frame will be better than a poor carbon on.

in the MTB world i often see cheap carbon frames that people rave about. just because they are carbon and cheap. Guess what a good alloy or steel frame will be a better ride.

Just stating Carbon is too wide.

it might help but it will be maginal. there could well be other areas of the bike that an upgrade will have a greater effect.

Again one other consideration. the pros are paid to ride carbon.

cougie

The speed doesnt come from the material.

Merckx went pretty fast on a steel bike. OK - the carbon bike may be slightly lighter - but how heavy are you ? Is it noticeable with the combined weight ? Probably not.

Bike position and training is far more important.

As Lance said - 'Its NOT about the Bike'.

Get one if you want to, but dont kid yourself the bike will make you faster in itself.

richa

I would forget a new bike for the moment and concentrate on training. I am a keen amateur and whilst I dream of buying a flsh bike, I know that losing my beer belly will produce better results than changing bikes to saving 200g or whatever.

If I said: "In order to improve for next year I am goint to either focus on either training OR nutrition" I think I would get a lot of people saying why not do both.

I intend to "concentrate on training". But my ambitious nature says why stop at that? Why not also consider, strategy, nutrition, equipments, etc...

I know that training is the No.1 priority. But why sell myself short and not consider the bike also.

mossycp

If you want a new bike and can afford it, go and get one! Don't try to justify it but thinking you will immediately go faster because you won't. Carbon in itself isn't faster than aluminium, titanium, steel, magnesium or wood! A carbon bike will most likely be lighter by a few pounds which will make you go faster but 5%? I doubt it.

A 15% improvement is quite a jump, it means going from 18mph average to 20.7mph average. Training and nutrition would quite conceivably give you that improvement. A new carbon bike will give you motivation to be faster.

The pros only ride carbon because they are paid to. Put one of them on an alu or titanium bike and they will be just as fast.

You say you want to get 15% faster which is a good target to have but you need to know what that 15% is measured against. 15% faster in a TT? 15% faster over a set course? 15% faster over next years Etape course (more difficult to measure as it's a different course, different weather etc..) I don't believe you could say that you hope to gain 10% from training and 5% from elsewhere, it's the whole package that will get you the improvement with training and nutrition being by far the most important.

andyp

RichA wrote:

But while we're on the subject, do the pros ride carbon bikes so they go faster? If so, why can't I ride carbon.

I am looking for a year-on-year improvement of 15%. I hope to achieve approx. 10% of this from training. The other 5% needs to come from elsewhere. Will carbon help?

The pros ride carbon bikes because they are contracted to. They are not a good yardstick because they don't buy their bikes and it doesn't matter if they damage them. They'll also go for stiffness in a frame ahead of anything else, which is why you see Marcel Wust eulogising over stiff bikes month in, month out in Procycling.

Simply put, a carbon bike will not give you a 5% performance improvement. You could make a number of equipment changes but even combined I'd doubt they'll improve your performance by that much. Effective, focused training might though. So if I were you I'd invest my time and effort there.

But you should also buy a Colnago. Every cyclist should own a Colnago at one point in their cycling life.

richa

Over this years Etape course I missed Silver this year by 15%.

My time of 9:54 (20.0kph) was 88 mins (14.8%) slower than the Silver standard 8:26 (23.5kph). I have assumed that next years event will have an "equivalent" standard.

The 15% gains is to come from a number of areas (including, training, diet, nutrition, strategy, bike, please feel free to name anything i have missed, etc). For a start my 'ride time' was 9:20 hence I was stopped at feed stations for 34 mins. I reckon I could have got this down by perhaps 18 minutes to 16 minutes (this would equate to 3% of the 15% alone).

Am I trying to justify the purchase of a carbon bike? Maybe. But maybe more fair to say I wish to understand why so many aspires to one. I like to know what i am getting. If i am going to pay £1k for a new bike I'd like to know if this will effect performance ? Or if it will just look prettier?

I had thought that many carbon-philes would have come on here explaining that...
- A Planet X Pro Carbon would be (say) 1kg lighter and therefore quicker uphill...
- That Carbon absorbs the bumps better and that over 9 hours of riding I would tire less...

But No. Mostly people saying I should train. I know that. I already train plenty and plan to train plenty more. With this thread - It IS all about the bike...

timoid.

andyp wrote:

RichA wrote:

But while we're on the subject, do the pros ride carbon bikes so they go faster? If so, why can't I ride carbon.

I am looking for a year-on-year improvement of 15%. I hope to achieve approx. 10% of this from training. The other 5% needs to come from elsewhere. Will carbon help?

The pros ride carbon bikes because they are contracted to. They are not a good yardstick because they don't buy their bikes and it doesn't matter if they damage them. They'll also go for stiffness in a frame ahead of anything else, which is why you see Marcel Wust eulogising over stiff bikes month in, month out in Procycling.

Simply put, a carbon bike will not give you a 5% performance improvement. You could make a number of equipment changes but even combined I'd doubt they'll improve your performance by that much. Effective, focused training might though. So if I were you I'd invest my time and effort there.

But you should also buy a Colnago. Every cyclist should own a Colnago at one point in their cycling life.

Most pros that ride a Colnago keep one even after switching teams.

But I'd settle for a Time or Pinarello, I'm not picky

On topic. A lardarse on a C50 will get beaten by a fit rider on a Halfords own brand. The most important thing is to get yourself fit and of course some nice wheels.

woody-som

I don't think the material makes a huge difference. I have an Alu Giant OCR that weights about 10kg, and a Ti VN at about 8.1Kg's, and I would say the Giant was faster, or it certainly feels that way. But the spedo say the VN is faster, not by much though, so material and weight arn't so important, it's the rider that makes the difference.

richa

Timoid. wrote:

On topic. A lardarse on a C50 will get beaten by a fit rider on a Halfords own brand. The most important thing is to get yourself fit and of course some nice wheels.

Sure you are trying to help. But this kind of post winds me up... :evil:

I am not a lardarse on a C50 or a fit bloke on a halfords own brand.

I am me. On either a Specialized Allez or a Planet X Pro Carbon.

Would ME on a a Specialized Allez get beaten by ME on a Planet X Pro Carbon???

I am fit, and intend to get fitter. I have some nice wheels

timoid.

RichA wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

On topic. A lardarse on a C50 will get beaten by a fit rider on a Halfords own brand. The most important thing is to get yourself fit and of course some nice wheels.

Sure you are trying to help. But this kind of post winds me up... :evil:

I am not a lardarse on a C50 or a fit bloke on a halfords own brand.

I am me. On either a Specialized Allez or a Planet X Pro Carbon.

Would ME on a a Specialized Allez get beaten by ME on a Planet X Pro Carbon???

I am fit, and intend to get fitter. I have some nice wheels

Who are you the Tyler Hamilton twins?

No offence intended. I just think people rely too much on shelling out dosh on gear and not enough time on training.

A carbon frame will not make you go significantly faster than an aluminium one. The main difference (in a well made Carbon bike) is one of comfort. If you can afford a good carbon bike, then by all means get one, but the difference in your times might be down to the fact that training is more pleasureable as the ride is more comfortable and so you put more miles in and get fitter.

Also a carbon bike with poxy wheels will go slower than an alu with good uns.

pliptrot

The difference between the "best" carbon frame and a good steel frame will be (weightwise) 1.5 lbs - less than 1% of the combined weight of the rider and bike. All discussions over which is fastest is pretty much moot. It's possible to make the most amazingly light aluminium frames, but as aluminium has such a limited fatigue life such frames would last as much time as fruit does in your fridge. We have, as cyclists, been victims of an industry which has shaped our opinions and emptied our wallets by their rules, not ours. Undoubtedly the latest carbon wonder (usually from Taiwan, as it happens) won't slow you down, which is why the pros will accept them, but if you pay for your equipment you'd be hard pressed to justify the latest trick kit. If you could get Armstrong to ride square wheels, you'd be paying $2,000 a pair for them, and there'd be a shortage.

It's not about the bike.

simbil1

Race frames seem to vary from around 950g upto 1250g (and upto 1700g for unbutted aluminium audax type frames).
A carbon frame may well be around 1kg compared to your Allez at 1400g or so?
400g is not much - its a nearly full small water bottle.
Weigh your Allez and compare it to a target bike and then look at the percentage change of rider plus bike to give an indication of potential gains.

If you are riding a mountain stage the weight will make a little difference ( probably less than 1%), but it will make very little difference on flatter stages. The overall stiffness of the frame makes for efficient power transfer at the cost of some comfort. A bad frame may sap energy by being inefficient (Aluminium is rumoured to have a shortish performance life before it starts to tail off).

Not having seen you ride, it is not easy to guess how you can get the 15% increase, but probably along these lines:

First year:
Technique including riding position (coach) - 7%
Fitness including nutrition (coach) - 7%
Equipment - 1% (wheels, tyres, tyre pressure!)

Subsequent years:
Fitness - x% up to your full potential

You could probably reach your full potential in 2-3 years, depends on how far off you are right now.

One bonus of buying new equipment is that it commits you to the plan. When you have low points, the fact that you have shelled out so much money may help keep you going.

Personally, I have only had increases in the region of 15% when going from unfit (like after a year away from exercise) to fit. If you are already fit, your increases will be more modest - I increase by around 10% from mid-winter to the end of the summer and see very small year on year improvements. I would have to quit my job and train much more to push my performance up further.

nmcgann

To be perfectly blunt Ritch if you are really serious about doing better in next year's etape I think you'd be better off losing a bit more weight to gain performance. Reverse engineering your weight (12st 10lb) and BMI (25.6) gets about 5ft 11in - I think you could be comfortably down into the 11st - 11.5st range and not look excessively skinny. A carbon bike may be a thing of beauty and a psychological boost, but shifting 17lb+ will be the thing that gets you really flying up the hills.

A nice bike is always a good thing though - I'm considering replacing my Ally/Carbon frame with Ti for various reasons, but I wouldn't expect it to make me any faster.

Neil

richa

Bluntness is good.

However, I realise that weightloss is important. That is why I went from >15st (BMI >31.5) to 12st11 (BMI 25.4) for this years Etape.

My aim is to get to 12st (23.9) for next year. I wouldn't want to go much below 12st next year as I reckon would styart to get quite thin (for me, I'm big boned).

Honestly, I know that weightloss & training are my primary ways of gaining performance. Really I do.

What i am considering is secondary ways of achieving performance gains. I had thought that a carbon bike might offer some. It appears I was wrong. Makes me wonder why everyone aspires to carbon bikes.

alanmcn1

I'm reading this with interest, but also a bit confused. I have always ridden aluminium, as it's cheaper and I don't ride enough to justify buying a carbon bike. However am i correct in thinking here that alu is not very durable? So therefore it's more economical to buy carbon?? Also, I was under the impression carbon was much LESS comfortable, not more?

simbil1

alanmcn1 wrote:

I'm reading this with interest, but also a bit confused. I have always ridden aluminium, as it's cheaper and I don't ride enough to justify buying a carbon bike. However am i correct in thinking here that alu is not very durable? So therefore it's more economical to buy carbon?? Also, I was under the impression carbon was much LESS comfortable, not more?

Carbon has some high frequency absorption characteristics that can reduce road buzz. The design of the frame is more important for the stiffness vs comfort equation - time trial bikes are generally the stiffest and most uncomfortable with race geometry road bikes taking a bit of comfort into account. Stiffness provides efficient power transfer so is good.
Aluminium alloys that road bikes are made from are very stiff and offer no absorption characteristics.
Apparently, Aluminium alloys can loose there stiffness over a few years but I can't say I've ever noticed a performance drop in my 10 year old Aluminium MTB. Aluminium alloys are 'age hardened' in manufacture and suffer 'age softening' over time which results in a frame that will deform more easily the older it gets.

kaffenback

I Love this site and forum, no marketing bullsh*t, just honest real riders telling you like it is. I like the comment about Armstrong and square wheels, and how true it is. I think we all fall into the trap at some time or another re advertising and wanting to get the latest gizzmoes and worring abot a few grammes here and there on the bike. But this forum soon puts you staright. and tells it like it is. Keep it up.

By the way I have an alu Principia, with a five year warranty that I bought brand new at less than half price because it was two years old. Its comfortable to ride and feels stiff in the transfer of power. Having read the latest cycling plus, I was tempted to go carbon, but this thread soon put me right, will be up grading my wheels instead.

mossycp

You on a Specialized Allez versus you on a carbon wonderlust, you will go faster on the carbon bike. There I guess that's what you want to here. You WILL go faster on a new carbon bike, not because the bike is faster, but because YOU are faster on a better bike. If you shave your legs (assuming you don't already), you WILL be faster because you will FEEL faster.

It's all in the mind. Sports physchology is a fascinating thing and does add up to a large amount of thet 15% performance gain you are after. Put the training in, buy the bike, eat the right stuff and you will know that you are at least 15% better. If you buy a new carbon bike I have absolutely no doubt that you will gain silver in next years Etape because the new bike will give you motivation and the belief to get out there and do the work.

wildmoustache

RichA
88 mins is a very big amount of time to make up to get a silver in the etape. Do-able but only with a very serious training and dietary regime to get your power to weight ration considerably improved. new bike will help a bit, but more like a few minutes rather than an hour and half!!

that said next year's standards could be completely different - this year;'s were harder than last year\'s by quite some way.

richa

wm,

Cheers for the comments. I totally agree that 88 mins is a lot of minutes to cut. I am assuming that the standards are the same as well I won't know otherwise until I do next years...

My outline plan to get knock off 88 minsis something like this...

Base Fitness & Endurance - This year was my first as a cyclist. I started in January 3 stone overweight and with very little fitness. I plan to continue the long-slow(ish) rides throughout the winter so that I start 2008 with a much higher base fitness to build from.

Functional Threshold Power (FTP) - This year my main focus was weight loss & endurance. Next year I need to commit more to interval training (2x20 mins) and one hour hard sessions to increase my power. I coped pretty well with all the ascents this year. next year i need to cope well at a faster pace.

Weight - This year I went from 100kg (BMI 31.5) to 81kg (25.4). Next year I aspire to dropping to 76kg (23.9). This should increase my power-to-weight ratio further.

Feeding - My 'stopped time' in this year's Etape was 34 minutes - all taken at the feed stations by being slow. Too much. Can't think where the time went. Needs to be halved.

Bike - I am eyeing up some Carbon. May well save another couple of kilos. And handle better. And get less road buzz. And it'll look the dogs tezzies

JustRidecp

pliptrot wrote:

The difference between the "best" carbon frame and a good steel frame will be (weightwise) 1.5 lbs - less than 1% of the combined weight of the rider and bike. All discussions over which is fastest is pretty much moot. It's possible to make the most amazingly light aluminium frames, but as aluminium has such a limited fatigue life such frames would last as much time as fruit does in your fridge. We have, as cyclists, been victims of an industry which has shaped our opinions and emptied our wallets by their rules, not ours. Undoubtedly the latest carbon wonder (usually from Taiwan, as it happens) won't slow you down, which is why the pros will accept them, but if you pay for your equipment you'd be hard pressed to justify the latest trick kit. If you could get Armstrong to ride square wheels, you'd be paying $2,000 a pair for them, and there'd be a shortage.

It's not about the bike.

I always thought the reason that carbon is so widely used nowadays isn't necessarily due to weight saving benefits but the fact that carbon can be manipulated in ways that metals can't. Just look TT bikes and wheels or the funky upcurving wingtips of the new boeing dreamliner!.