Carbon Framed Bike? Please answer some questions.

cougie

Or a myth ?

geordieindevon

MrChuck wrote:

Soni wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Soni wrote:

OK guys, went into Evans Cycles today and spoke to a really hardcore roadie....

He said as 'i'm' a heavy rider 'he' wouldn't 'personally' recommend a Cannondale frame to 'me', as he has witnessed a few Cannondale Carbon fibre frames being returned due to breaking.....they may be ok for most people, but he wouldn't recommend them to a heavy rider.....

He said he would recommend me a Trek Madone....4 series.....which is the same price as the Cannondales.....

Whilst i was there i spotted the Specialised Tarmac, what a beautiful looking bike it was......this is the bike that i've always told myself i don't personally like that curved top tube, but i fell in love with the look of the bike and even arranged to have a test ride whilst i was there, it rode really nicely too....

So, i'm still in a bit of a decision making scenario at the moment...

They had one steel bike there, a Genesis, looked a little old and not to my taste, but it had 105 and was in my size and up for £999.99, he said steel will give a much better ride than Carbon Fibre or Aluminium.....

WTF??

He's talking BS...

Steel doesn't give a much better ride than CF or Aluminium. Just slightly different. Not as stiff.

Might be my fault in translation, i think he said more 'comfortable' ride...

To be fair he might be on to something with that Genesis:
http://road.cc/content/review/15437-genesis-equilibrium

But ND is right in that just saying steel bikes are more comfortable than carbon just because they're steel is rubbish.

As others have said, try a few and get the one you like the most whatever it's made of.

Soni I was looking at the genesis bike and was quite taken by it until I spoke to a good mate of mine who informed me that the wheels were not all that good and also the steel used (Reynolds 520) is the bottom end of the market....the bike weighs in at 28lbs!
You could go for it and then upgrade the wheels? Its a shame that the previous years model was made out of 853 steel and I believe was better specced...

Instead I went second hand and got a decent Columbus framed bike with campag and open pro wheels.

On the subject of steel/carbon/alu/titanium have a read of this article...steel biased but makes a lot of sense of the frame material argument:
http://www.rivbike.com/article/bicycle_ ... _materials

Aapje

on-yer-bike wrote:

An exracer of steel frames and frame builder told me. I have heard it elsewhere too but can't remember. I guess it's metal fatigue.

He doesn't know what he is talking about. Metal fatigue doesn't result in a progressively more noodly frame, the frame will just crack when the limit is reached. However, both steel and titanium have a load threshold (endurance limit) under which there is no metal fatigue. So a frame made of these materials can last a thousand years if the tubing is thick enough and the frame is properly cared for.

Aluminium and Carbon effectively do no have an endurance limit. This means that they will fatigue every time you ride them. Carbon doesn't fatigue as quickly as aluminium though. Depending on the engineering and how hard is it ridden it can last a very long time.

MrChuck

geordieindevon wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

Soni wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Soni wrote:

OK guys, went into Evans Cycles today and spoke to a really hardcore roadie....

He said as 'i'm' a heavy rider 'he' wouldn't 'personally' recommend a Cannondale frame to 'me', as he has witnessed a few Cannondale Carbon fibre frames being returned due to breaking.....they may be ok for most people, but he wouldn't recommend them to a heavy rider.....

He said he would recommend me a Trek Madone....4 series.....which is the same price as the Cannondales.....

Whilst i was there i spotted the Specialised Tarmac, what a beautiful looking bike it was......this is the bike that i've always told myself i don't personally like that curved top tube, but i fell in love with the look of the bike and even arranged to have a test ride whilst i was there, it rode really nicely too....

So, i'm still in a bit of a decision making scenario at the moment...

They had one steel bike there, a Genesis, looked a little old and not to my taste, but it had 105 and was in my size and up for £999.99, he said steel will give a much better ride than Carbon Fibre or Aluminium.....

WTF??

He's talking BS...

Steel doesn't give a much better ride than CF or Aluminium. Just slightly different. Not as stiff.

Might be my fault in translation, i think he said more 'comfortable' ride...

To be fair he might be on to something with that Genesis:
http://road.cc/content/review/15437-genesis-equilibrium

But ND is right in that just saying steel bikes are more comfortable than carbon just because they're steel is rubbish.

As others have said, try a few and get the one you like the most whatever it's made of.

....the bike weighs in at 28lbs!

According to that review it's 20.5lbs, although granted that is still a bit on the heavy side.

jgsi

He said as 'i'm' a heavy rider 'he' wouldn't 'personally' recommend a Cannondale frame to 'me', as he has witnessed a few Cannondale Carbon fibre frames being returned due to breaking..

Anyone who breaks a frame in a crash is likely to say that as they try to claim off warranty..give over about fretting so much about it all.. if you dont want a Cannondale carbon, go spends a grand on a Ribble/PlantX and have done with it.. I wouldnt even bother with your C2W voucher

I am still adoring my Synapse and it will be raced next Sunday.

stokepa31

18.5 st
Scott CR1
3 months
no problems
stiff as a board
easton ea 70 wheels - bomb proof no weight limit

i work on the basis that i will change the bike after two years anyhow because im a mug and like spending money on shiny bike porn

Just do it - you wont regret it and the frame has a two year warranty for failure (non crash related)

Soni

JGSI wrote:

He said as 'i'm' a heavy rider 'he' wouldn't 'personally' recommend a Cannondale frame to 'me', as he has witnessed a few Cannondale Carbon fibre frames being returned due to breaking..

Anyone who breaks a frame in a crash is likely to say that as they try to claim off warranty..give over about fretting so much about it all.. if you dont want a Cannondale carbon, go spends a grand on a Ribble/PlantX and have done with it.. I wouldnt even bother with your C2W voucher

I am still adoring my Synapse and it will be raced next Sunday.

I will be saving 41% on 1K of the cost, so therefore that is over a £400.00 saving!

I will definetely be bothering about the voucher!

The Synapse is the one i was going to go for, however i noticed on the Newfeed page the other day that the Cannondale Six has won the best bike out of £1500-2500 price range, so also thinking about that.

I tested the Specialised Tarmac and that felt nice and was £200.00 cheaper than the Cannondales....

I will be phoning around specific cycle insurance companies tomorrow and see if they will cover Carbon if its broken in a crash or dropped on a step, they mention on their website that they cover against accidental damage so i would assume they will pay out...

If they will, then it will be a carbon which i shall go for, if they won't, then it will definetely be either Aluminium or the Steel Genesis (although don't like the look that much to be honest)...

Aapje

MrChuck wrote:

Soni wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

WTF??

He's talking BS...

Steel doesn't give a much better ride than CF or Aluminium. Just slightly different. Not as stiff.

Might be my fault in translation, i think he said more 'comfortable' ride...

To be fair he might be on to something with that Genesis:
http://road.cc/content/review/15437-genesis-equilibrium

But ND is right in that just saying steel bikes are more comfortable than carbon just because they're steel is rubbish.

As others have said, try a few and get the one you like the most whatever it's made of.

Ride quality and comfort are both very subjective. Besides, frames of the same material can be hugely different depending on their geometry and tubing thickness. You can have steel frames that are as stiff as any carbon frame (they won't be just as light) and you can have noodly aluminium and carbon. Similarly, racing-quality steel is completely different from low-level steel using in a budget bike and butted aluminium with special alloys can be quite different from cheap aluminium.

However, there are some basic differences in material that affect the ride:
- Composites like carbon tend to be good at damping vibration (relative to their stiffness). The result is that carbon frames can be very comfortable on relatively good roads. However, this damping also isolates you from the road, which some people don't like. They call it a 'dead feeling'.
- Steel is better at absorbing shocks, so on potholed roads or cobbles, steel tends to be a bit more comfortable (bigger tires will make a bigger difference though). However, it is not that good at damping vibration, so for long rides on good roads, a carbon frame with similar geometry and stiffness will probably be more comfortable.
- Titanium is a lot like steel, but a bit better at damping vibration. This puts it somewhere between carbon and steel.

Finally, there is the reality that steel bike manufacturers tend to focus more on comfort, audax riding and 'commutability' than carbon bike builders. Different geometry, saddle, tires and handlebar tape can change the comfort of a bike quite a bit, as well as panniers so you don't need a backpack. Ultimately every choice you make is a compromise.

guilliano

The Genesis is stunning to look at! I'd be tempted at £1k if I had the cash to spend on a commuter/fun bike

Soni

Aapje,

I understand from one of the previous posts that the Genesis is made out of the cheaper steel.......

And on further research on the net i've also determined that the Genesis frame cand be purchased on its own for only just over £200.00! :shock: :shock:

Aapje

Soni wrote:

Aapje,

I understand from one of the previous posts that the Genesis is made out of the cheaper steel.......

And on further research on the net i've also determined that the Genesis frame can be purchased on its own for only just over £200.00! :shock: :shock:

It is made out of Reynolds 520, which is basic cold-worked steel. It's half to 3/4 the strength of heat-treated Reynolds 853, which means that the frame will need to have thicker tubes and thus weighs a little more. It is also a bit more resistant to dings. The differences in steel do not significantly affect the ride quality (unless you are climbing). You can have a bike that rides very well with 'only' 520 tubing.

Even with fairly basic components you can have a sub-10 kg Genesis Equilibrium build-up, which is quite reasonable (except for pure climbers, but if you were one, you wouldn't be considering steel anyway).

geordieindevon

Soni
Apologies for misleading you on the weight..it was a while back when I looked at the weight but I have found this link to the bike which states the weight as 26.5lbs..have a look down the bottom of the spec list:

http://www.cycle-world.co.uk/products.p ... 105s6p9074

Now I do not know who has got the weight correct...this site or the review in the earlier post? Does it matter too much to you?

Also this video maybe worth looking at, its the guy from genesis talking about the equilibrium and other bikes in their range:

http://road.cc/content/video/9525-genes ... quilibrium

I do agree, its a great looking bike!

sloxam

i am the same weight as you,
i ride a cannondale synapse,
the frame is fine,
my rear wheel cracked on the rim at the weekend, ordered px model c's to replace,
my fsa carbon seat post (supplied with bike) sheared off a couple of months back, replaced with easton alloy.
the SI carbon crankset broke twice and took ages for cannondale to repair under warranty, its now an ultegra alloy crankset.
so, components which
a. touch the road
b. touch me
c. take the most stress (handle bars excluded)
have all broken and the frame is still fine!

by the way i bought it from evans in the sale and the manager of the store has been great, cannondale after sales are cr*p though, based in holland and speak double dutch i hear.

mamba80

78kg
3yrs
rides jus as good as the day i got it and that was at least 15k road miles and loads of turbo sessions, big pot holes and a daily ride along a rough farm track, BMW and others make road car bodies out of the stuff, as do Boeing and Airbus, planes an cars are designed to last 20 -30 yrs
household insurance through M&S insures any single item up to £4k(including bikes), away from home, accident etc but not racing.

Soni

Hi Geordie, not worried about weight mate.

Sloxam, thats exactly what i've heard about Cannondale.....

Mamba, tried to get a quote from M&S and in the process stumbled accross another insurer offering insurance for a little over a 10er per month for an £1800.00 bike which can't be bad....

Went to Evans again the other day, if i want an Aluminium Ultegra group then my choices are severely limited, and they don't presently have anything in stock in a 58cm (apart from a BMC) but are expecting the following in towards mid - end May:- :shock:

Cannondale CAAD9 Ultegra
Trek 2.5 Ultegra
Scott Speedster S10

I'm reluctant to have another Trek, so that basically just leaves the Scott or the Cannondale, the Cannondale is £200.00 more expensive than the Scott for the same gruppo.....

However, i've spotted another bike which seems quite a nice looking bike and they have this in my size, however don't know much about the manufacturer - are they any good? Anybody have any experience with them?

Its the BMC 2010 Street Racer and here is the link:-

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/bmc ... e-ec021965

SteveR_100Milers

aluminium and steel, in fact all polycrystalline materials will fatigue under critical loading. The actual load value for a structure such a bicycle will depend upon the design of the frame and tube wall thickness. It is arguable that a frame that is on its way to failure will indeed start to feel "noodly" as the load bearing material thickness reduces as the crack propagates will deform elastically to higher strain values (simple Hookean response).

I didn't think that CF fatigued, but about 18 months ago there was a lengthy thread about it, and in fact it does. The fibres under stress cycling (no pun) will eventually lose their adhesion to the resin matrix. However, my understanding is that the stress levels at which this would happen to lead to catastrophic failure are in practical terms is highly unlikely even with ham fisted frame design and abnormally heavy riders.

To the OP,

I am 98 kgs, smash my road bike and my MTB into potholes, jump it over rocks and generally ride it like my life depended on it, even sprint on a turbo. My focus cayo expert is now 5 yrs old, is scratched, dented and crashed but if you have ever tried to break or even cut a CF matrix tube you will quickly realise its not delicate. What scares people is seeing frames snap in accidents, which is entirely expected since the material has little plastic strain, whereas metals tend to have a large plastic deformation before failure (so bend rather than snap). The fact is that a CF frame probably has a higher strength than a steel frame, let alone an aluminium one.

If you want one, get one and don't let anyone scare you with pseudo science. There are plenty of Time CF frames kicking about that ride as well today as the day they were made. Their strength and stiffness to weight is their advantage, coupled wth a pleasant ride because oif the much higher internal damping or Q factor.

Aapje

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

aluminium and steel, in fact all polycrystalline materials will fatigue under critical loading.

Riding a bike doesn't have to be critical loading. Except for ultra-light steel bikes, a basic steel bike should not fatigue during normal use, since the load will be below the endurance limit. That is not the case with aluminium, since the endurance limit of that material is far lower.

The actual load value for a structure such a bicycle will depend upon the design of the frame and tube wall thickness. It is arguable that a frame that is on its way to failure will indeed start to feel "noodly" as the load bearing material thickness reduces as the crack propagates will deform elastically to higher strain values (simple Hookean response).

Sure, but that doesn't mean that old steel frames will necessarily get noodly. Depending on frame design, they can remain just as stiff for centuries.

If you want one, get one and don't let anyone scare you with pseudo science. There are plenty of Time CF frames kicking about that ride as well today as the day they were made. Their strength and stiffness to weight is their advantage, coupled wth a pleasant ride because of the much higher internal damping or Q factor.

Carbon bikes do not have a Q factor advantage.

balthazar

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

aluminium and steel, in fact all polycrystalline materials will fatigue under critical loading. The actual load value for a structure such a bicycle will depend upon the design of the frame and tube wall thickness. It is arguable that a frame that is on its way to failure will indeed start to feel "noodly" as the load bearing material thickness reduces as the crack propagates will deform elastically to higher strain values (simple Hookean response).

Please be minded that you're writing for a general audience here: terms and concepts like Hookean response are specialist and, to my mind, alienating rather than informative. I'm sure you're not intending to "blind with science" but that's what it could look like.

Either way, this is deep into "devil's advocate" territory: the flexible frame you're talking about is broken, with a crack partially through it, making it unroadworthy. The myth that "steel frames go soft" is about unbroken frames, and imagines some change in the material characteristics. You don't need to go far to find adequate reasons for this sort of woolly thinking: the desire to justify a new bike needs only the flimsiest of premises.

SteveR_100Milers

Aapje wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

aluminium and steel, in fact all polycrystalline materials will fatigue under critical loading.

Riding a bike doesn't have to be critical loading. Except for ultra-light steel bikes, a basic steel bike should not fatigue during normal use, since the load will be below the endurance limit. That is not the case with aluminium, since the endurance limit of that material is far lower.

The actual load value for a structure such a bicycle will depend upon the design of the frame and tube wall thickness. It is arguable that a frame that is on its way to failure will indeed start to feel "noodly" as the load bearing material thickness reduces as the crack propagates will deform elastically to higher strain values (simple Hookean response).

Sure, but that doesn't mean that old steel frames will necessarily get noodly. Depending of frame design, they can remain just as stiff for centuries.

If you want one, get one and don't let anyone scare you with pseudo science. There are plenty of Time CF frames kicking about that ride as well today as the day they were made. Their strength and stiffness to weight is their advantage, coupled wth a pleasant ride because of the much higher internal damping or Q factor.

Carbon bikes do not have a Q factor advantage.

The literature that I have on CF composites suggest otherwise. Try making a bell out of CF and see how well it rings.

SteveR_100Milers

balthazar wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

aluminium and steel, in fact all polycrystalline materials will fatigue under critical loading. The actual load value for a structure such a bicycle will depend upon the design of the frame and tube wall thickness. It is arguable that a frame that is on its way to failure will indeed start to feel "noodly" as the load bearing material thickness reduces as the crack propagates will deform elastically to higher strain values (simple Hookean response).

Please be minded that you're writing for a general audience here: terms and concepts like Hookean response are specialist and, to my mind, alienating rather than informative. I'm sure you're not intending to "blind with science" but that's what it could look like.

Either way, this is deep into "devil's advocate" territory: the flexible frame you're talking about is broken, with a crack partially through it, making it unroadworthy. The myth that "steel frames go soft" is about unbroken frames, and imagines some change in the material characteristics. You don't need to go far to find adequate reasons for this sort of woolly thinking: the desire to justify a new bike needs only the flimsiest of premises.

Fair comment, but if we were all worried about "blinding people with science" then mankind might not have progressed as far as he has. I make no apologies for using technical terms, and although I studied the subject for four years that was a long time ago, and I no longer work in an technical engineering role so am hardly the last word in accuracy! I assume that a fair proportion of people understand this level of science - if I did, then it can't be that hard to follow...;-)

Interestingly, I have heard metallurgists claim that Titanium frames "go soft" under normal use and ambient temperatures, but have not seen any evidence scientific or anecdotal to suggest otherwise.

kingrollo

None of those bikes are 'poor bikes' - it sounds to me like you want the tarmac - I can't think how this would be a bad bike for you - if its the one you want ....buy it.

You can't not buy the bike you like - for fear of crashing - yeah I was aprehensive when I rode my new bike - but one youve rode it a few times you will be fine - and crashing will be at the back of your mind.

I got myself in a similar tangle last year - when the bike I wanted was reviewed as being 'a bit of a porker' (heavy) - I then considered all sorts of other bikes - that I didn't like as much. Thankfully I did buy the porker (and found it wasn't heavy!) - haven't regretted it since.

Place the order for the bike you want - you will feel much better after it. In the grand scheme of life - it isn't really a life altering decision after all.

Aapje

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

The literature that I have on CF composites suggest otherwise. Try making a bell out of CF and see how well it rings.

I was confused. When talking about bikes, Q factor normally refers to the distance between the cranks.

Carbon does generally have better damping, although that effect is not always desired.

Soni

OK Guys, test rode the 2010 Cannondale CAAD9 Ultegra today in a 58cm....

The first guy was really moody, he said to me 'looking at me only' that i'm a 56 not a 58, i said to him well the Trek 1.5 2009 i had was a 59 so therefore would rather try a 58 first and then work back if i have to....

I stepped over it, and could easily stand on my feet (flat on the floor) and my balls wasn't touching the bat, probably had about 1 inch (not visible though cause of tracky bottoms) gap...

He still maintained that i'm a 56, however i said to him that my back seems to feel really hunched over even on the hoods.......i said that surely if i go for a 56 then it will make it worse?

In the end i spoke to the woman who ran the shop, she was a roddie and was a lot nicer than him and she knew a lot about bikes.....she said its what feels best for me, she said they can swap stems over and try a shorter or longer if required depending on what size i go for.....

Took the bike for a spin, and it didn't feel much different than the Specialised Tarmac 105 i tried last week to be honest, not that i could tell anyway.......

The saddle was reallly high and he reduced the hight slightly but it still had about 7 " of post available to be dropped and he said he wasn't prepared to drop the post anymore as otherwise it will show scratching.....

So, still non the wise on what to choose, i've got Evans to build up a 2.3 Trek 105 so i can see how that rides and feels, that will also be in a 58cm...