BMC Frames... yay or nay?

mattbass789
mattbass789 Posts: 355
edited July 2010 in Road beginners
Just looknig at a few BMCs in my LBS and the prices are pretty dam good. Last years models though. I've always loved their aesthetic and design.

But on further investigation, what is the deal with them making frames from carbon bonded to aluminium how does this offer benefits over going for just one material?
Everyone I've spoken to seems to love their BMC and clearly they have pedigree with the world champ being on one, and hincapie stating his joy in riding one.

Cheers.
Matt.
“If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

@mattbeedham

Comments

  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    The sales pitch is that the ally parts of the frame gives more strength where it's needed, and the carbon segments add lightness & comfort. IIRC. Whatever, the upshot is a light strong bike that has a greater degree of stiffness where it matters, esp around the transmission area. It is stiffer, noticeably so.

    Whatever the theory, the facts back it up. I love mine, last year's SLX01 Racemaster. Well worth the money.
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    some of the built up bikes had about 700quid off! Sram force, i think a racemaster slx01. for 1600 instead of over 2200. brings it right into my price range.

    SO do they say that alu is stiffer than carbon as they make the bottom half of the frame out of it? or is it they can use more alu because of the reduced weight because of the carbon being used in its upper? It seems they have no trouble getting complete bikes to 7kilos.
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    Mine came with Ultegra kit on it but I've seen them with different g/sets offered, and different wheel & tyre combos, but yeah - mine was 'reduced' from £2399 by £500. Can't say I've ever seen it on sale at the full price though. It's a bike that's worth about < £2k to me, others may differ in their valuation.

    The bottom (ally) half is quite substantial with thick tubes down there and square section chain stays; tbh I've never gone to deeply into the ins & outs and whys & wherefores of it all. I took mine for a decent test ride before buying and was won over by the whole package - frame. g/s, wheels, price; it ticked all the boxes. Compare it to buying a pair of decent speakers for your hi-fi - if they sound right and look the part in your living room, there's not a great need to delve into what they're made of and how they're constructed.

    BMC bikes work, full stop. Enjoy.
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    Yes, I will see if i can get a test ride sometime. There was one in there with microshift kit on aswell. Very interesting to see.

    Good description. Everyones ears are slightly different, so is everyones perception of comfort stiffness and looks!

    Still open to more BMC based stories.
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • SLX01
    SLX01 Posts: 338
    I have a BMC and love it, the only criticism is cosmetic and that is where the carbon is left bare on the top tube and seat post it looks a bit 'plasticy' the seat post actually looks like it is plastic rather than previous woven carbon posts I've had which looked like quality items.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Sounds like you're going for looks / bling. In which case I think it's up to you as to whether
    YOU like the frame or not.
    I don't think you'll hear much about whether BMC makes a good frame or not. I'm sure they do. With questions like this it seems that most people chime in with looks / bling
    related comments and if they happen to own one they will tell you it's a great ride / love it.
    Other than that I doubt you're going to get any so called real info(whatever real info there is or even what it is). I think quality is there with most brands, so it's up to you as to what bling / brand name you want.
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    SLX01 wrote:
    I have a BMC and love it, the only criticism is cosmetic and that is where the carbon is left bare on the top tube and seat post it looks a bit 'plasticy' the seat post actually looks like it is plastic rather than previous woven carbon posts I've had which looked like quality items.
    Good point re seat post. It's not the looks; I reckon it's fine, same for the top tube. BMC do have their own way though for seat posts with a ¼ turn lock and a eliptical post / tube arrangement. It's good, simple and the seat is never off centre, but you'd be well advised to take the post out every week or two otherwise you'll find that it sticks and becomes jammed. Unlike normal seat posts you can't twist them to release them.

    Apart from that, no probs. Lovely bikes.
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    dennisn wrote:
    Sounds like you're going for looks / bling. In which case I think it's up to you as to whether
    YOU like the frame or not.
    I don't think you'll hear much about whether BMC makes a good frame or not. I'm sure they do. With questions like this it seems that most people chime in with looks / bling
    related comments and if they happen to own one they will tell you it's a great ride / love it.
    Other than that I doubt you're going to get any so called real info(whatever real info there is or even what it is). I think quality is there with most brands, so it's up to you as to what bling / brand name you want.

    ?? Try reading the original question and the subsequent discussion on stiffness, quality etc, then come back and diss it all as 'looks / bling'.
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    ^^ Yeah, i said I like their aesthetic. But was concerned about the mix of carbon and alu over one or the other.

    Would carbon... Titanium be too expensive?
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    ^^ Yeah, i said I like their aesthetic. But was concerned about the mix of carbon and alu over one or the other.

    Would carbon... Titanium be too expensive?
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • rake
    rake Posts: 3,204
    lego inside the chainstays.
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    Haha. I built some pretty tough structures with lego when I was a kid. I wouldn't doubt it. and PLus cheap to rebuild.
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    CiB wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Sounds like you're going for looks / bling. In which case I think it's up to you as to whether
    YOU like the frame or not.
    I don't think you'll hear much about whether BMC makes a good frame or not. I'm sure they do. With questions like this it seems that most people chime in with looks / bling
    related comments and if they happen to own one they will tell you it's a great ride / love it.
    Other than that I doubt you're going to get any so called real info(whatever real info there is or even what it is). I think quality is there with most brands, so it's up to you as to what bling / brand name you want.

    ?? Try reading the original question and the subsequent discussion on stiffness, quality etc, then come back and diss it all as 'looks / bling'.

    Quote the OP "...I've always loved their aesthetic and design." Sounds like he's sold on BMC's looks(or bling value if you will). Every one out there buys their bikes because they like the way they look first and foremost. I know I did. Second is probably price. Way down the list, if on it at all, are things like the axial stiffness of the bottom bracket as compared to the lateral flex of the seat tube, while pedaling at 90 RPM and seated.
  • Rudd
    Rudd Posts: 264
    I have a BMC team machine and find it an excellent ride. The only caution I would raise is that given the bottom bracket area is so wide if you drop the chain there is a very real risk it can get jammed between the BB and inner ring or the chain stay and inner ring. I have taken small chunks out of the frame as a result! Best solution is to fully wrap all exposed areas in good quality frame protecting film.
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    dennisn wrote:
    CiB wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Sounds like you're going for looks / bling. In which case I think it's up to you as to whether
    YOU like the frame or not.
    I don't think you'll hear much about whether BMC makes a good frame or not. I'm sure they do. With questions like this it seems that most people chime in with looks / bling
    related comments and if they happen to own one they will tell you it's a great ride / love it.
    Other than that I doubt you're going to get any so called real info(whatever real info there is or even what it is). I think quality is there with most brands, so it's up to you as to what bling / brand name you want.

    ?? Try reading the original question and the subsequent discussion on stiffness, quality etc, then come back and diss it all as 'looks / bling'.

    Quote the OP "...I've always loved their aesthetic and design." Sounds like he's sold on BMC's looks(or bling value if you will). Every one out there buys their bikes because they like the way they look first and foremost. I know I did. Second is probably price. Way down the list, if on it at all, are things like the axial stiffness of the bottom bracket as compared to the lateral flex of the seat tube, while pedaling at 90 RPM and seated.

    Au contraire. The first line makes mention of the aesthetics. The question that OP then goes onto ask concerns BMC's unusual technique of bonding alloy to carbon, and what's the benefit of this. My own view is that it's a good well built bike but that ultimately I neither know nor care what the benefit is re the construction methods, but that if he's keen on buying one he should with confidence as the whole shebang is a good one.

    I've got nothing against buying bikes with looks / bling as a factor, but that's a bit further down the list than weight, g/s, wheels, price etc. Despite your dismissal of stiffness as a contributory factor, I'd put it up there with the others. My test ride swayed me on that, and it continues to do so whenever I'm out of the saddle hauling it up a decent climb. I may spend time cruuising at 97 cadence on the flat enjoying every yard, but there are just as many occasions when torsional stiffness is welcome.

    Actually MatBas789, just buy one anyway. The yellow & black colour scheme makes it look like a bee in full flight. That's all you need to worry about obviously, and clearly all the rest of us do in the end.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    CiB wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    CiB wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Sounds like you're going for looks / bling. In which case I think it's up to you as to whether
    YOU like the frame or not.
    I don't think you'll hear much about whether BMC makes a good frame or not. I'm sure they do. With questions like this it seems that most people chime in with looks / bling
    related comments and if they happen to own one they will tell you it's a great ride / love it.
    Other than that I doubt you're going to get any so called real info(whatever real info there is or even what it is). I think quality is there with most brands, so it's up to you as to what bling / brand name you want.

    ?? Try reading the original question and the subsequent discussion on stiffness, quality etc, then come back and diss it all as 'looks / bling'.

    Quote the OP "...I've always loved their aesthetic and design." Sounds like he's sold on BMC's looks(or bling value if you will). Every one out there buys their bikes because they like the way they look first and foremost. I know I did. Second is probably price. Way down the list, if on it at all, are things like the axial stiffness of the bottom bracket as compared to the lateral flex of the seat tube, while pedaling at 90 RPM and seated.

    Au contraire. The first line makes mention of the aesthetics. The question that OP then goes onto ask concerns BMC's unusual technique of bonding alloy to carbon, and what's the benefit of this. My own view is that it's a good well built bike but that ultimately I neither know nor care what the benefit is re the construction methods, but that if he's keen on buying one he should with confidence as the whole shebang is a good one.

    I've got nothing against buying bikes with looks / bling as a factor, but that's a bit further down the list than weight, g/s, wheels, price etc. Despite your dismissal of stiffness as a contributory factor, I'd put it up there with the others. My test ride swayed me on that, and it continues to do so whenever I'm out of the saddle hauling it up a decent climb. I may spend time cruuising at 97 cadence on the flat enjoying every yard, but there are just as many occasions when torsional stiffness is welcome.

    Actually MatBas789, just buy one anyway. The yellow & black colour scheme makes it look like a bee in full flight. That's all you need to worry about obviously, and clearly all the rest of us do in the end.

    The first line doesn't "make mention of the aesthetics" it says.... "I've always LOVED the aesthetics and design". This is someone who is going to buy a bike pretty much on looks alone. Which is fine. My point is that it's what most people do. He appears to favor the looks / bling of this frame over all others and I doubt that anyone will convince him that he should buy a Colnago because the torsional rigidity of the seat tube is blah, blah, blah,....... He wants one because George Hincapie says they are great and he likes their looks. Exactly what the manufacturer and advertising guys wanted him to do.
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    dennisn wrote:
    CiB wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    CiB wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Sounds like you're going for looks / bling. In which case I think it's up to you as to whether
    YOU like the frame or not.
    I don't think you'll hear much about whether BMC makes a good frame or not. I'm sure they do. With questions like this it seems that most people chime in with looks / bling
    related comments and if they happen to own one they will tell you it's a great ride / love it.
    Other than that I doubt you're going to get any so called real info(whatever real info there is or even what it is). I think quality is there with most brands, so it's up to you as to what bling / brand name you want.

    ?? Try reading the original question and the subsequent discussion on stiffness, quality etc, then come back and diss it all as 'looks / bling'.

    Quote the OP "...I've always loved their aesthetic and design." Sounds like he's sold on BMC's looks(or bling value if you will). Every one out there buys their bikes because they like the way they look first and foremost. I know I did. Second is probably price. Way down the list, if on it at all, are things like the axial stiffness of the bottom bracket as compared to the lateral flex of the seat tube, while pedaling at 90 RPM and seated.

    Au contraire. The first line makes mention of the aesthetics. The question that OP then goes onto ask concerns BMC's unusual technique of bonding alloy to carbon, and what's the benefit of this. My own view is that it's a good well built bike but that ultimately I neither know nor care what the benefit is re the construction methods, but that if he's keen on buying one he should with confidence as the whole shebang is a good one.

    I've got nothing against buying bikes with looks / bling as a factor, but that's a bit further down the list than weight, g/s, wheels, price etc. Despite your dismissal of stiffness as a contributory factor, I'd put it up there with the others. My test ride swayed me on that, and it continues to do so whenever I'm out of the saddle hauling it up a decent climb. I may spend time cruuising at 97 cadence on the flat enjoying every yard, but there are just as many occasions when torsional stiffness is welcome.

    Actually MatBas789, just buy one anyway. The yellow & black colour scheme makes it look like a bee in full flight. That's all you need to worry about obviously, and clearly all the rest of us do in the end.

    The first line doesn't "make mention of the aesthetics" it says.... "I've always LOVED the aesthetics and design". This is someone who is going to buy a bike pretty much on looks alone. Which is fine. My point is that it's what most people do. He appears to favor the looks / bling of this frame over all others and I doubt that anyone will convince him that he should buy a Colnago because the torsional rigidity of the seat tube is blah, blah, blah,....... He wants one because George Hincapie says they are great and he likes their looks. Exactly what the manufacturer and advertising guys wanted him to do.

    Humm... To draw attention to the last line, that is not why I want one... I study marketing and would like to think I'm more aware of the messages being placed upon me, and can operate in a logical manner. I currently ride a boardman, because forgetting the image they are great bikes, and cannot be beaten on value for money.

    I'm not going to buy the bike based on looks alone, yes the looks have a big part in the buying decision but for me first it is function. and that is the question I was asking. Why BMC decided on using alu/carbon mixes rather than one material. And what benefits this offers and if its all it has cracked up to be.
    I'd like to know the science and tech in my bike can be noticed. if it can't then its wasted money in my opinion.

    And for what its worth, all the pros rave about the bikes they ride. and how they're the best they have ever ridden. Its probably in their contract. Though I do like to think that the pros would state and appreciate performance to a given point.

    In the tour series rob hayles cracked a LOOK frame by landing on it, somehow, that's put me off the idea of ever buying one of those bikes.

    Thanks for the discussion though!
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • soveda
    soveda Posts: 306
    mattbass789 wrote:
    Just looknig at a few BMCs in my LBS and the prices are pretty dam good. Last years models though. I've always loved their aesthetic and design.

    But on further investigation, what is the deal with them making frames from carbon bonded to aluminium how does this offer benefits over going for just one material?
    Everyone I've spoken to seems to love their BMC and clearly they have pedigree with the world champ being on one, and hincapie stating his joy in riding one.

    Cheers.
    Matt.

    Price of manufacture? The Giant "alliance" frames are aluminium lower + carbon tops too IIRC (and far prettier).
  • Andrew N
    Andrew N Posts: 119
    I test rode a BMC Team Machine at the weekend and thought it was great.

    Super light and stiff. Held the road well going down hill.

    Not certain I liked the looks and am I wrong to be put off by Cadel riding one?
    www.goinggoingbike.com
    _____________________________
    online marketplace for all things bike
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    soveda wrote:
    mattbass789 wrote:
    Just looknig at a few BMCs in my LBS and the prices are pretty dam good. Last years models though. I've always loved their aesthetic and design.

    But on further investigation, what is the deal with them making frames from carbon bonded to aluminium how does this offer benefits over going for just one material?
    Everyone I've spoken to seems to love their BMC and clearly they have pedigree with the world champ being on one, and hincapie stating his joy in riding one.

    Cheers.
    Matt.

    Price of manufacture? The Giant "alliance" frames are aluminium lower + carbon tops too IIRC (and far prettier).

    Oh! I had no idea. These the current models you are talknig about?
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • soveda
    soveda Posts: 306
    Yep, here is the giant blurb:
    http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/technology/Alliance/29/

    And the TCR Alliance which I like the look of!
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    I've always adored giant bikes. My dad has one, My mountain bike is one. My sisters bike is one.

    It's almost a family tradition. :D
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • mattbass789
    mattbass789 Posts: 355
    soveda wrote:
    Yep, here is the giant blurb:
    http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/technology/Alliance/29/

    And the TCR Alliance which I like the look of!

    They don't shout about it in the same way BMC do. which is why i was led to think bmc are the only ones that do it.
    “If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on.”

    @mattbeedham
  • claash
    claash Posts: 145
    My BMC was my first road bike(2 years ago). she is the comfiest bike I have, she holds her line well, she isn't as twitchy as other bikes. I don't know about all the technology stuff but lets say she is the last bike I would swap.......and when we are out together I feel like a cycling goddess :lol:

Categories