Pro's use alloy NOT carbon
Comments
-
Never really noticed this one? If they are it's probably the UCI wieght limit as the Pro's will have the lightest frames and wheelsets. So the bikes nowadays will be under the 6.8 limit so they'll add the odd gram or to buy using alloy bars etc instead off adding wieght to rotational mass such as wheels.
0 -
Probably due to the fact that if (when?) they crash, they can continue on the same bike. If they use carbon bars, any damage may not be visible.0
-
A gram added to the bars = a pound off the wheels :P
Seriously though, there is probably much in what pinarellodude says, the bikes are so light there is no point trying to shave a few grams off the bars if that would put you under 6.8kg.
I imagine the crash issues plays a major part though too; almost all the bikes in Paris-Roubaix would be well over the 6.8kg limit but would use alloy bars.
The man that won it even rode an alloy frame :shock:0 -
-
Sorry, I was confused- Boonen was on an aluminium bike in 2007 (when he didn't win) as he needed a custom geometry whipped up quick.redddraggon wrote:blorg wrote:The man that won it even rode an alloy frame :shock:
Roubaix? Not this year or the 2 before, who do you mean?0 -
Carbon stems are heavier than alu stems.
They don't use carbon bars largely because of the crash issue - you can carry on with a bent alu one, and if it's not bent you can be confident it won't come apart on you when sprinting.0 -
- Alloy bars and stems are stiffer for sprinting
- It's harder for mechanics to overtorque an alloy stem and break or damage it (which is handy when you're building up ten or twenty bikes)
- They don't have to worry about crashing if they break (stems - carbon stem failure can be sudden and dramatic)
And as has been said already,
- They don't have to worry about breaking if they crash (bars)
- The weight impact of carbon bars is negligible - 30-40g saving - and most have trouble hitting 6.8kg anyway0 -
z000m wrote:if a team has a lower budget that must restrict what they can and cant have, i always assumed this was why teams like skil shimano still ride alloy frames.
I doubt cost is the issue. Plenty of really expensive alloy frames out there. And I
am not covinced that carbon fiber frames are "better" (whatever that means) than
the other options.
Dennis Noward0 -
z000m wrote:if a team has a lower budget that must restrict what they can and cant have, i always assumed this was why teams like skil shimano still ride alloy frames.
Fabian Cancellera rides a cheapo alloy FSA Gossamer chainset, and it's not because it's cheaper, it'd because it's stiffer.
Only a few years a go top professionals were choosing Al Alloy frames over their suppliers carbon fibre framesets (like DDL)
For Cipo's less than magnificent comeback, he could have choosen whatever bike/brand/material he wanted and he choose an alloy frame.
Carbon Fibre isn't really the wonder material that every one makes out it is.0 -
-
I think it comes down to that there are some places that carbon makes a lot of sense (frames and forks come to mind) and other places where it doesn't really have much advantage and is more about the bling.0
-
When companies like Scott or Cervelo can make complete bikes that weigh about a kilo less than the limit than the pros can choose heavier stuff if they find it better/more confortable.
Like Boonens or Mcewans big 15 year old San Marco saddles instead of the modern carbon fibre ones that weigh about 70g.0 -
I can't see that it is fear after a crash, as surely they would be just as worried about the frame.0
-
IME carbon bars are stiffer than the majority of alloy ones - and thinwall alloy bars aren't very crash-resistant either. I think it just comes down to personal preference and what the teams/sponsors provide. Teams/mechanics wouldn't tolerate poor components, regardless of thei sponsors if it jeapordised their chance of winning - the reason that Liquigas ditched Bianchi was because they kept breaking bikes, and the same would go for the choice of bars or stems. To say that carbons bars and stems are unsafe when 100% of riders are using carbon forks is just forum-bull.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
powenb wrote:I can't see that it is fear after a crash, as surely they would be just as worried about the frame.
frames are somewhat beefier than bars ...& with bars they are covered up by tape/computer mounts etc so you cant see whats going on ....
0 -
Carbon bars are largely driven by fashion and margins.
If they sell alloy bars for £30 - then theres less profit.
If they can flog carbon bars for £90 - then theres far more.
Pros will replace the parts on their bike far more than we do - they crash more and cant take the chances that we can with our parts.
Carbon usually isnt any lighter than alloy. It can be stiffer - but lots of those guys are built like sparrows - so why would they need it.0 -
So do I, for exactly the same reason....redddraggon wrote:Fabian Cancellera rides a cheapo alloy FSA Gossamer chainset, and it's not because it's cheaper, it'd because it's stiffer.
*cough*0 -
The reason being that he's heavier than the average pro cyclist - so what are you admitting to, Nuggs? :P0
-
A lot of it is just tradition from what I've heard. Riders are perhaps more cautious about these things than many.0
-
crashing and ease of maintenance as others have said.
just to be clear, carbon bars are lighter than alloy bars. not all, but that isn't the point. lightest carbon bar is down around 160g now. lightest alloy bar is about 200g. that's 20% lighter which is about in line with lightest carbon fibre frames compared to lightest allloy frames.
that said it's a small weight saving in absolute terms.
carbon bars are continuing to get lighter and stiffer and my guess is that in 5 years this thread will look pretty dated ... i.e. with 130g stiff carbon bars available.
I use both.0
