How much differnece does a carbon frame make?

peanut1978

currently on a Trek 1.7

would a carbon frame make a huge difference?

John.T

No. It may be a little lighter and more comfortable but a huge difference, no.
IMO it is essential to test ride Carbon bikes, and not just up the road, as they vary in characteristics much more than alu or steel.

dennisn

peanut1978 wrote:

currently on a Trek 1.7

would a carbon frame make a huge difference?

Not sure what you mean or expect when you say huge. But, and I'm sort of quoting an old phrase of mine, if you're expecting some kind of REVOLUTION IN RIDING / SPEED I think you'll find that even though they are nice and blingy bikes and may weigh a bit less than your current ride, that they are still bicycles that won't move an inch without some legs to push them. They don't come with a bigger engine. All they have is you. So using my definition of the word "huge" I would vote NO.

cheehee

peanut1978 wrote:

currently on a Trek 1.7

would a carbon frame make a huge difference?

I've just gone from aluminium to carbon and it has made a HUGE difference































To my bank balance

ride_whenever

depends on the carbon frame

peanut1978

Ok

Just trying to get opinions

Current cyclescheme ends soon and was looking at either a carbon bike or a single speed as a second bike/winter commuter to my current aluminium one.

Currently averaging about 18mph on 40-50 mile rides and feel that the power transfer is pretty good when sprinting too.

ilm_zero7

carbon carbon carbon - love it! no going back. I used to have what a believed was a nice metal bike but carbon frames were a revolution for me..... the Wilier handles beautifully, it suits me, and looks good, but as someone said test ride some, especially the Giant - if there was such a thing as the perfect bike, they would only make one, and we would all ride it!

Stone Glider

I am aspiring to a carbon frame. It had better make a HUGE difference or all the grief I am getting from Mrs SG is not worth it :?

rake

very nice to ride but not huge performance difference unless you go from a crude heavy aluminun frame then slight grades will be noticeable

fungus_the_muffin_man

My carbon frame bikes looks nicer, rides nicer, is more comfortable, is lighter than my trek 1.5, but then it will be better as it cost over twice as much as the Trek and has better quality spec.

My avg speeds on both are a similar speed.

So if your looking to go faster then Carbon isn't going to help you.
If you want something comfier, lighter and with that something extra then Carbon is what you need.

Carbon isn't everything though. I really want a nice steel bike now :roll:

merlinghnd

I agree, there is not a huge difference between the two but it is nice to have a carbon bike. The only problem I feel with carbon is that you feel you really want to look after it and are more worried about scratches or chips than you would be with any metal bike. You are much more aware of finding a good safe place to leave/lock it if you need to.

I have a carbon bike (Focus Cayo) on the C2W and wanted a winter commuting bike and went for a Boardman SC single speed plus mud guards and found it brilliant for commuting. It also had the bonus of being relatively cheap ( this is my third C2W bike) and you just feel it is indistructable regardless of the weather and noi gears to adjust/set up.

However if you can get a carbon bike and another, why not, it is a good excuse ( if you need one)

Team Banana Spokesman

carbon is not more comfy :roll:

if you think it is comfier, youve got a sh1te flexy frame.

AGB

Not as much as a few kilos in weight lost but it does take out a lot of road vibration, especially on fast descents and every spring it'll put a smile on your face when you switch from your winter bike and feel your pace pick up. It's half in your head and half in your legs.

ALaPlage

Team Banana Spokesman wrote:

carbon is not more comfy :roll:

if you think it is comfier, youve got a sh1te flexy frame.

Comfy probably not the right word but Carbon does dampen some road vibration which for some people transfers to being more comfy. Depends on what you want in your ride - my friend went from Alloy to part carbon/alloy as his test rides on full carbon bikes he said left him cold - there was no feel to the ride. Went part carbon to soften the vibrations. Thats his opinion.

I am on a full carbon bike and I love it - lighter by 1.6kg than my old Alloy bike - which is noticable particularly on a climb. Also when I push on - accelerate - the bike reacts and you feel the energy transfer into motion instantly.

Go and test ride a carbon bike and see what difference you notice. In some respects for me there was a "HUGE" noticable difference in weight and the feel of acceleration but overall the difference isnt huge. It has brought my times down though which I feel is in part due to the reduced weight.

AidanR

The geometry, design and execution of the frame makes more difference than the material. Go and test ride.

As an aside, it's not "alloy" it's aluminium. An alloy is a mixture of metals, and as such any metal bike frame will be "alloy". Its use to describe aluminium probably stems from the colloquial abbreviation "ally", but frankly that's no excuse

sampras38

peanut1978 wrote:

currently on a Trek 1.7

would a carbon frame make a huge difference?

A friend of mine did the Wales Dragon last year on a 1.7, having only had it a couple of weeks, and did it in 7.30. It was his 1st sportive ever too.

sampras38

Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:

My carbon frame bikes looks nicer, rides nicer, is more comfortable, is lighter than my trek 1.5, but then it will be better as it cost over twice as much as the Trek and has better quality spec.

My avg speeds on both are a similar speed.

So if your looking to go faster then Carbon isn't going to help you.
If you want something comfier, lighter and with that something extra then Carbon is what you need.

Carbon isn't everything though. I really want a nice steel bike now :roll:

Pretty much sums up my experiences, although I think I can go around 1mph average quicker on the carbon, with less effort.

Pork Sword

I have carbon, steel and titanium road bikes. I have also ridden aluminium frames in the past. For my money, Carbon is lighter and accelerates faster than titanium, is far more forgiving of road buzz than aluminium and is stiffer and less flexy than steel. However, I wouldn't exactly call it a significantly better ride than anything else out there as you still have to muscle it to go fast - if I was just able to have one bike.... I'd choose the titanium Airborne Lancer I've got every time.

kingrollo

I went from an Alu pinarello - to a sportive type carbon.

My initial reaction wasn't favourable - I missed the stiffness and accleration of the pinarello - however I now love my carbon - it is so smmoth and comfy - and whilst it doesn't have the accleration - my average speeds are quite a bit faster on the carbon - although I reckon this is due to the fitting and the fact I am more suited to an upright position - and of course the pro race 3's

balthazar

AidanR wrote:

As an aside, it's not "alloy" it's aluminium. An alloy is a mixture of metals, and as such any metal bike frame will be "alloy". Its use to describe aluminium probably stems from the colloquial abbreviation "ally", but frankly that's no excuse

I think it's a straightforward contraction of "aluminium alloy", there being no distinct name for that material (eg., we say "steel", not "iron alloy"). In discussions about bikes, I think nobody is left in doubt that "alloy" refers to aluminium alloys, not iron or titanium alloys.

Now I've read and written "alloy" so much it's starting to sound weird.