why carbon ?

Smokin Joe

No one is saying that a lugged frame is bad design, but in pure engineering terms a monocoque is structurally stronger. Any joint is a potential weakspot, be it in wood, metal, carbon or any other material.

giant_man

Having had a lugged carbon frame for the past four years and my next bike will be a monocoque carbon frame, I think any carbon frame you choose you will be very pleased with.

Titanium and steel over carbon is another thread, this one is about carbon, and I know the feeling I get when i hit some very smooth tarmac on my carbon bike and the thing just flies, that is the feeling i always wanted when choosing a carbon frame, and that is what you get with carbon fibre.

JamesB

I`d worry more about overclamping and crushing issues on components (h`bars and seatposts) than integrity of a frame; as has already been said 100 000s of teh frames are out and being used (not by me though on Ti.with carbon seatpost) and although there may be failkures in terms of % of them probably very small.

If full suspoension MTBs are now coming out in carbon (ie Giant Anthems / Trances) I guess it has now been made pretty tough indeed; anyone remember the early worries with Alan Al frames?? similar situation I guess of technolgy meeting problems (but not very good on climate change / environmental problems, those require a mindset change of attitudes and expectations!!!)

aracer

JamesBwmb wrote:

If full suspoension MTBs are now coming out in carbon

I don't know about "now coming out" - I've been riding a carbon full-sus for 4 years. Given this gets a lot more hits on the downtube (not just road grit but big stones and lumps of rock) without showing any sign of damage beyond the superficial, I really don't think there's a lot to worry about on that score. Also been running carbon cranks on my MTB for just as long, and whilst they now look rather scruffy, there's nothing wrong with them, so I'd suggest that in the much more benign road environment there's little to worry about with them either.

All very well being highly rated - my current ride is a "highly rated" Time lugged carbon - but I'm totally convinced that my new monocoque frame which doesn't seem to be rated at all on here, since it's too cheap, will be better (it's certainly a lot lighter). Personally I'd describe one of those mentioned by NILAND as "over-rated" :twisted:

mattdavies

Just adding my 2 pence worth about lugged V monocoque. With a lugged construction you can have a frame built to a custom geometry of your choice (see Parlee). With a monocoque built bike this would be prohibitively expensive, so you’ll be relying on an off the shelf frame built to a standard spec.

cougie

If you want carbon for the comfort - make sure you either ride it first, or at least read some reviews. Some carbon bikes are built ultra stiff and ride quite harshly.

My Giant TCR rides really well, and isn't bad value. But the Planet X bikes are tempting too.

nick hanson

mattdavies wrote:

Just adding my 2 pence worth about lugged V monocoque. With a lugged construction you can have a frame built to a custom geometry of your choice (see Parlee). With a monocoque built bike this would be prohibitively expensive, so you’ll be relying on an off the shelf frame built to a standard spec.

Why a standard spec?.If buying an off the shelf frame,you spec whatever components you want,surely?

mattdavies

Hi Nick, probably didn't explain myself to well. With a lugged construction you can have a custom built frame just for you, with a monocoque this isn't possible without building a mold especially for that customer which is extremely expensive and i don't know of any company that offers this (i'm sure someone will correct me though ).

Of course you're right about components etc, you could build a monocoque or a lugged with whatever you fancied.

aracer

The question then is how beneficial a custom frame is. Certainly the vast majority of cyclists you see look perfectly well fitted to their bikes with standard frames and parts. You have to have quite an unusual body shape or other fit requirements if you can't get a good fit on a standard frame with a normal length stem / seatpost.

cougie

I've had custom frames before and to be honest, I didnt notice much difference from the standard. They were very nice frames though, but off the peg is sooo much cheaper.

dennisn

I agree. Why carbon? I've been riding for many years now, on lugged steel, and just
recently bought a new steel "Gios Compact Pro" with a chromed steel fork. Love the thing.
Rides as well as any bike I've ever had. Has a beautiful cobalt blue paint job(very pimped
looking). It's kind of strange though, because people I meet on the road comment more
about my bike than my friends high dollar carbon and titanium machines. A lot of younger
people appear to have never seen a lugged steel bike. They marvel at how thin the fork is
and can't believe it's chromed. Sure it's a bit heavier than todays big sellers, then again I
haven't raced in years. Added bonus is that it cost 800 dollars(frame & fork) as opposed to some
high end bikes, that you're supposed to be riding these days, that sell way into the many
thousands of dollars. As another added bonus, unlike carbon, if my "Gios" gets a scratch
on it I don't have to give it a second thought. I have the money for high end bikes, but I
just don't see the value in them. Of course, you gotta remember that I'm old and obviously
don't know what I'm talking about and my memory is probably going south also.
Ride safely. Don't street race. If you want to race, go to the races.


Dennis Noward

Toledo, Ohio

thebikeliker

Does anyone else get the feeling that if carbon framed bikes had been around before steel ones then the same people who say that there is no advantage to carbon would be saying the same about how there is no reason to buy steel? It rusts, is heavier, isn't as stiff etc. Sure it's cheaper but with all its disadvantages , no wonder it's cheaper.

I'm not suggesting that steel is rubbish. My own bike is a lugged steel frame. It's just that some of the posts remind me of the articles I've read in the historical cycling magazines about the introduction of dérailleur gears, cyclists climbing hills out of the saddle, the merits of Reynolds 753 tubing and so on.

dennisn

thebikeliker wrote:

Does anyone else get the feeling that if carbon framed bikes had been around before steel ones then the same people who say that there is no advantage to carbon would be saying the same about how there is no reason to buy steel? It rusts, is heavier, isn't as stiff etc. Sure it's cheaper but with all its disadvantages , no wonder it's cheaper.

I'm not suggesting that steel is rubbish. My own bike is a lugged steel frame. It's just that some of the posts remind me of the articles I've read in the historical cycling magazines about the introduction of dérailleur gears, cyclists climbing hills out of the saddle, the merits of Reynolds 753 tubing and so on.

I'm not against new things or even carbon fiber in particular. The new shifting systems
are way, way better than the old downtube type. Integrated bottom bracket cranks are
much easier to work on than than the old style crank arms and bottom brackets. And
that little adjustment screw on dual pivot brakes(the one that lets you center the pads
on the rim) is just the greatest thing since sliced bread. Lest I forget, I also love "Tufo"
tubular-clinchers, "Tufo" tubies and their gluing tape.
I guess I just don't see any advantage to mega expensive frames over steel lugged ones.
OK, if you're a pro rider, maybe the small weight difference and the "claimed" ride and
stiffness factors will have some small effect. I just don't believe that for the average
rider like you and I (you know, carrying a few extra pounds, not a "Pro", and maybe doing
some local races) that the real high end stuff will help us at all. Even in the bling and pimp world I don't think you'll find a better looking frame than one with chromed lugs,
really good paint, and a chromed steel fork. Both titanium and carbon bikes look pretty
bland to me and if they are all they claim to be, then show me the science and the peer
reviews of this science. Not just bike mag hype or manufacturer claims.

Dennis Noward

Toledo, Ohio

pliptrot

And that's the point, isn't it - there is absolutely no way to determine how to buy a carbon frame, is there? We have weight, and we have price, and this latter point is all some people seem to think of. There is no objective testing, no detailed data, just hype. That is evidently enough to sell expensive frames. There is much anecdotal evidence about the lack of durability and delicacy of carbon frames and components, and very little data on true failure rates and so on. Carbon frames have been around long enough to gather this, but I don't know of any source.

the biggest user of composites is of course the aerospace industry, who go to some lengths to test their carbon fibre bits and pieces on a regular basis, with sophisticated techniques. That would be the best way of determining just how durable these materials are. Can anyone offer some insight into this?

cougie

I do remember one of the German mags testing frames to destruction. I think the Alu ones failed first (or most of them) and I theeeenk that carbon fared very well.

My carbon frame is a much better ride than my 653 frame - it just damps the road buzz out wonderfully. But I still love my steel fixy !

bike_the_planet

the biggest user of composites is of course the aerospace industry, who go to some lengths to test their carbon fibre bits and pieces on a regular basis, with sophisticated techniques. That would be the best way of determining just how durable these materials are. Can anyone offer some insight into this?

Although my training is in engineering, it's not aerospace engineering.

Talking to those who are involved in that sphere makes you realise that there is still quite a bit of angst in the aerospace industry about the use of composistes.

The problem is detecting failure. It can be done with UV light apparently, but certain laminates can effect UV dispersion as well as flaws in a carbon weave. So how does one interpret test results??? The laminate itself or the beginnings of de-lamination?

Ironically, catastrophic failure isn't such a concern to aerospace engineers. Designing aircraft is a highly technical business, and the stresses a component undergoes is carefully predicted and tested. If a part is pushed into the failure region, then the results are going to quite possibly be catastrophic to the aircraft in other ways, anyway.

But on a component such as a bicycle fork, how much testing and prediction has been done?

My personal feeling is that I will wait another few years before buying a carbon bike.

Cheers

cougie

I've seen more alloy failures than I have carbon.

wildmoustache

there are some good points and some BS in this thread as you'd expect.

one of the points that continually crops up, that is plain BS, is why spend money on a frame that weighs say 300/500g less and is stiffer when you're not a pro and you could lose 5lbs from your hips. This argument is just complete BS.

Ok, does the fact that I don't buy the high end frame free up time to loose the weight? Will my diet change because i don't buy the high end frame? What about losing the weight AND buying the frame? In fact, what about the idea that the great frame might make me enjoy the sport more and help me loose the weight?

Whatever level you're at, a light, stiff, well-made frame will make a difference, and you'll enjoy it. Sure you don't have to spend £2k to get this. Choose carefully and you can get it for well under a grand. Sure, maybe a coach will give more bangs for your buck, but perhaps less satisfaction, perhaps it's too time consuming to organise a coach etc., perhaps the person just doesn't feel ready for that.

I think the people who make this argument haven't raced. The difference between being dropped and not being dropped in a race is often tiny. And in those situations a light, effeciient bike DOES make a difference.

dennisn

I still say that a carbon frame won't make you faster, won't make you a better rider,
won't turn you into a pro overnight, and won't look any better than a steel bike. What carbon will do is drain your wallet. That kind of money would be better spent on coaching
and a good squat rack and barbell.

Dennis Noward

Toledo, Ohio

redddraggon

dennisn wrote:

won't look any better than a steel bike

Dennis Noward

Toledo, Ohio

Well steel rusts doesn't it? Carbon doesn't

(I know that if you look after it, it shouldn't rust, but I bet mine would In the wet North Wales weather)

wildmoustache

dennisn wrote:

I still say that a carbon frame won't make you faster, won't make you a better rider,
won't turn you into a pro overnight, and won't look any better than a steel bike. What carbon will do is drain your wallet. That kind of money would be better spent on coaching
and a good squat rack and barbell.

Dennis Noward

Toledo, Ohio

I agre on carbon not turning people into pros overnight.

On making you faster, depends what you're comparing it to. Compared to a 4lb plus entry level alu frame and fork? Sure, a light, stiff carbon frame will make you faster. No doubt about that.

Whatver level you're at, road racing is about small margins ... otherwise you're at the wrong level. I think that's the point that lots of guys who don't race but do forum just don't get. It's the same with the lightweight wheel acceleration/momentum arguments ... yeah, but road racing is all about rapid changes in pace, not beingn dropped and small margins of victory.

90% of it's in training for sure, but the bike does make a difference.

Barney 2

The way I see it is that I am prepared to replace a frame or bike every 5 years or so, I
dont want a "bike for life" but I dont want to have to replace a frame every time I take a fall, I read a thread were some one came off thier bike and the carbon frame was damaged because the bar hit the top tube.

eh

frame was damaged because the bar hit the top tube.


You could apply that to any frame and it is not a good reason to chose one frame material over another. In fact both my steel and aluminium mtbs have dented top tubes from crashes and yes I do keep an eye on them to make sure they aren't growing.

wildmoustache makes a very valid point in that road races are won and lost on very small margins and so having a light, well handling bike is definitely an advantage and one that carbon offers. Which is why the AG2R riders pushed Decathlon hard to get them better bikes, because until recently theirs were easily the worst (slowest) in the pro peleton.

Ultimatly you have to buy the bike that fits your criteria and so if for instance touring around the world on a budget of £1000 for the bike is your thing, then I'd suggest you don't look at carbon. If however, you are a Premier calander rider then carbon is probalby top of your list.

cougie

I see an awful lot of non racers on some very bling bikes. Thats their choice though.
I'd think that most of the carbon bikes go to non-racers.

dod 1

dod 1 wrote:

thanks for all the info but what i really want to know is what is the best value for a cyclist like me who does not race but goes out with his club twice a week and wants a bike that is light can climb and gives a bit of comfort.

this post has sure opened up a big debate but can i have some more suggestions to which bikes are the best for my needs.

thebikeliker

thanks for all the info but what i really want to know is what is the best value for a cyclist like me who does not race but goes out with his club twice a week and wants a bike that is light can climb and gives a bit of comfort.

What do the other club members ride? Have you tried their bikes?

Surely, that is one of the reasons of joining a club.

Actually seeing and riding other people's bikes is going to be much better than getting opinions from a forum. The other club members know you, know the type of riding you will do and have their own experience to draw on.

It's like sitting in a restaurant with your friends and phoning strangers to ask what the food is like.

Sorry about that. I'm sure you have asked and are just wanting some more opinions. Well, you've certainly got some.

cougie

OK - my carbon TCR is very comfy and climbs well. But that may be my legs. I'd buy one of those.