Are entry level carbons any good?

cojones

Can anyone quash or substantiate the rumours that I have heard that entry level carbon bikes (c. £1000) are not very good?!

I have heard that they are not very strong or robust and that if they suffer a crash there is no way of knowing if there are cracks internally.

I’m guessing that carbons would be fine on our appalling UK roads and it would take a pretty hefty collision to damage them, is that right? I live in Oxfordshire and the roads are terrible. Apart from the unevenness causing major vibration (one reason for considering a carbon), there are numerous, deep and wide pot holes.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Matt

dennisn

cojones wrote:

Can anyone quash or substantiate the rumours that I have heard that entry level carbon bikes (c. £1000) are not very good?!

Matt

You say "...I have heard....". i think you should be asking WHO you have heard this from and do THEY have a clue what they are talking about? Buy the bike you can afford be it "entry level", which is just a selling point, or one of the mega dollar "must have" machines that dealers and manufactureres claim you can't ride without. It's been my experience that nothing is a good as the brochure claims. Still, plenty of races are won by guys and girls on less that top line bikes and parts.

cojones

Yeah, I appreciate that the rumour mongers may not be qualified, hence me opening it up for discussion. One guy rides a £3K carbon Bianchi, so i assume he's done his homework!

ride_whenever

you need to be more specific, there are good cheap carbon frames and expensive ones. Personally I've gone for a very good aluminium frame over a cheap carbon one, based in oxfordshire as well.

Personally I'd go have a chat with some of the guys in bike shops, there are loads in oxford. PM me if you want some recommendations.

danowat

cojones wrote:

that if they suffer a crash there is no way of knowing if there are cracks internally.

This is true of any carbon frame, regardless of cost.

You've go tto bear in mind that there is a fair bit of snobbery with people who buy high end kit.

dennisn

cojones wrote:

Yeah, I appreciate that the rumour mongers may not be qualified, hence me opening it up for discussion. One guy rides a £3K carbon Bianchi, so i assume he's done his homework!

I understand what you're saying but because someone rides a mega money machine doesn't mean he knows anything about bikes. He just has more disposible income than the next guy and would never admit that any bike or frame that costs less than his is as good his. I've been involved in bike racing for years and have seen plenty of people with
the highest of the high end in bikes, wheels, and components LOSE PLENTY of races.

bompington

cojones wrote:

Yeah, I appreciate that the rumour mongers may not be qualified, hence me opening it up for discussion. One guy rides a £3K carbon Bianchi, so he needs to justify why he spent so much money.

fixed that for you

Chip \'oyler

bompington wrote:

cojones wrote:

Yeah, I appreciate that the rumour mongers may not be qualified, hence me opening it up for discussion. One guy rides a £3K carbon Bianchi, so he needs to justify why he spent so much money.

fixed that for you

Perhaps he spent £3k cos he could and he wanted to

cojones

Ok, so in your opinion are there brands to avoid?

Seconds out, round two!

Bar Shaker

cojones wrote:

Yeah, I appreciate that the rumour mongers may not be qualified, hence me opening it up for discussion. One guy rides a £3K carbon Bianchi, so i assume he's done his homework!

It is normally people who spent lots of money on a carbon bike who say you shouldn't buy a £1000 one. If they didn't say this, they may look like they were ripped off.

You will break a wheel in a pothole, before you damage a frame but no lightweight frame (of any material) is resistant to a huge impact.

In a crash, carbon doesn't crack on the inside, it has very thin walls and it just cracks. If you fall off your bike and slide across the road into the scenery, it will not matter whether you spent £1k or £5k, you will be lucky not to break a carbon bike. - I never ride on frosty mornings. But then you may well also bend a steel or ali bike in such a crash as the walls of their tubes are paper thin.

Owners of expensive carbon bikes often say the cheap frames are bendy but this just isn't the case. The reviews of my own bike describe it as stiff and I would agree. You can make sections and headset/bottom bracket connections/junction shapes that just aren't possible in ali or steel. Look for a good one piece monocoque, with decent sized bottom bracket, headset and chain stays.

The road buzz is absorbed by the resin that binds the fibres together. It is very good at dulling high frequency harmonics especially in the tubes that are in tension, such as the down tube and bottom chainstays.

The properties of carbon are well known and the material has over taken all other frame materials used in motorsport, aviation and military applications.

It would be possible to make a poor quality carbon frame but the Far Eastern factories that are making these frames, for all major bike brands, are very, very good at what they do. Who makes frames for who are very closely guarded secrets but there are only a few manufacturers and I suspect you could find a Trek, Spesh or Planet X coming down a production, on any one day.

I am sure you can play a good game of tennis with a wooden racket, but a carbon one is much better. Some people say TDF riders don't ride ali bikes because the sponsors want to sell carbon. That argument fails because sponsors want to win and the brand name will sell the whole range of bikes.

It's the Aussie grand prix this weekend. Have a look out for the steel and aluminium cars.

dodgy

At that price range, most of the frames will come from the same suppliers in the far east, and there's nothing wrong with the quality (google 'cheap chinese frames').

Paying more gets you more exclusivity, maybe a tiny performance margin (mainly with wheels) but they all rely on the engine.

I haven't seen any evidence that says cheaper frames have a higher failure rate.

Headhuunter

I've got a Focus Cayo which is full carbon monocoque but at the cheaper end of the market. It's served me well. Has been through a couple of crashes, beent hit with a hammer (don't ask...) and various other maltreatments and is still going strong.

There are higher quality carbon frames out there though, they tend to be "high modulus carbon", I don't know the exact science behind it but high modulus carbon is stiffer I think

http://www.calfeedesign.com/tech-papers ... bon-fiber/

rake

you can limit the risk by going with a known brand who intends to be a long term player in the bike market. too much rests on their reputation to be pulling a fast one. they would soon hit sales trouble if this was the case. im not saying less known brands are no good, but i view the risk to be greater. there are a a lot of very good 1k ish carbon bikes areound, generally the whole bike scene is getting more expensive. t700 is sometimes called cheap carbon but its actually and aircraft grade material. it depends much more on the actual build of the frame, the type of fibre has less impact. pretty much why larger tubes are suited to alu because it can be made thicker because its lighter, better than aluminium large tube thin wall steel bikes that are lighter could be made in theory but in practise it would dent too easily and be too thin to weld effectively.

Wheelie Bin

cojones wrote:

One guy rides a £3K carbon Bianchi, so i assume he's done his homework!

Maybe he's the sort of person who thinks £1000.00 bikes are c**p, which of course they are not.

(Just to qualify that, I also ride a £3k Bianchi.)

Chip \'oyler

Bar Shaker wrote:

cojones wrote:

Yeah, I appreciate that the rumour mongers may not be qualified, hence me opening it up for discussion. One guy rides a £3K carbon Bianchi, so i assume he's done his homework!

It is normally people who spent lots of money on a carbon bike who say you shouldn't buy a £1000 one. If they didn't say this, they may look like they were ripped off.

Could you explain why someone who has paid more than £1k for a carbon frame have been ripped off?

rake

diminishing returns and the fact that the cant be that significantly different to be massively better.

colsoop

Happy with the £400 i spent on my winter ride - planet x sl pro.

springtide9

I don't think the person who buys a £3k bike is being ripped off, just getting less value for money.

As above... it's the rule of diminishing returns. I own a cheap carbon bike and also own a Tag Heuer watch. When I spent £1k on that watch, I wasn't looking for VFM.

Another good example is HiFi. Does a £250 CD Player sound a good as one costing £750? Does a £750 CD Player sound as good as one costing £2500? The more you spend usually the better it gets... but the cost is not linear with the performance increases.

There are lots of items I own where my investment is not aligned with my ability, but I get great enjoyment in their use, which justifies the cost.

luv2ride

Having decided to go carbon, but only able to go "entry level" I decided to go for a big brand who have a good reputation in sorting problems for their customers, as referred to by a previous poster (rake). The lifetime frame warranty was also persuasive. I was a little put off by the 2 yr frame warranties offered by Boardman and Verenti. I've also lost count of the number of bike shop staff who have said very uncomplimentary things about frames by Ribble, Planet X and Boardman which I put down to sour grapes given the low prices they're able to roll bikes out at, but it must have subliminaly influenced my final choice! :oops:

cojones

Thanks Guys, there's some really useful (and dare I say it 'intelligent') comment there. You've given me a really good insight into carbon frames.

I have a bashed up alu winter bike, and am planning on using the carbon only in no-chance-of-rain days. I'll keep the alu bike for bad weather commuting and practicing my currently non-existent maintenance skills. Hopefully the carbon will last a while. Although fast becoming a bike geek I am still only planning to do it for fitness, fun and the social side of things.

I love SRAM and am hoping to find a £1K carbon with Apex groupset. So far my shortlist is

Ribble
Planet x
Dolan

in that order of preference, but given what's been said here I may have to re-think.

luv2ride

After admitting to whimping out of the decison to go for either a Ribble or Planet X, I've noticed a load of 10/10 reviews for the Ribble sportive bikes recently, specifically praising their frames. And you might even get SRAM Rival on them at a decent price using their bike builder website 8)

mattshrops

dont know your exact budget but ive bought the ribble gran fondo, its a looker with ultegra groupset, comfy fast frame. you cannot get better value. (ooh thats torn it ,ive gone and put my head over the parapet)

Bar Shaker

I didn't mean to imply that spending £3k on a bike means you have been ripped off, just that some people think they have. Especially when they get dropped by fitter blokes on 'cheap' bikes.

I used to work in car tuning. The last 25% of the performance costs 75% of the budget. It applies to cycling too.

With regard to frame warranties, they are against manufacturer defects, not against you breaking the frame. No one warranties a frame against you hitting a huge hole and ripping off your headset.

If the frame lasts 6 months of regular riding, it is fault free and the length of warranty is irrelevant.

Chip \'oyler

springtide9 wrote:

I don't think the person who buys a £3k bike is being ripped off, just getting less value for money.

As above... it's the rule of diminishing returns. I own a cheap carbon bike and also own a Tag Heuer watch. When I spent £1k on that watch, I wasn't looking for VFM.

Another good example is HiFi. Does a £250 CD Player sound a good as one costing £750? Does a £750 CD Player sound as good as one costing £2500? The more you spend usually the better it gets... but the cost is not linear with the performance increases.

There are lots of items I own where my investment is not aligned with my ability, but I get great enjoyment in their use, which justifies the cost.

You could argue that the Tag Heur is good value for money. For instance my wife bought a pair of Prada boots that cost quite a bit 5 years ago. Because of their build quality and design, she is still wearing them now and they look like new. If you worked out cost per wear then she is in negative figures! Now that to me is value for money!

Value isn't another word for cheap. Your TAG will end up being better value (as in cost per wear) than a cheap Sekonda that breaks after a couple of years.

My Viner frame cost over £3k. It came with a 5 year warranty and it's build quality is superb. I will still be using it in the years to come, when no doubt some £1k and chinese frames have been chucked into landfill! Cost per ride will mean it is better value.

Anonymous

I've had my Tag Heuer for nearly 18 years and have worn it EVERY day.

desweller

I've had my £20 Lorus for 10 years and have worn it every day. It's been through the washing machine three times and it still works perfectly. Just sayin'.

bails87

DesWeller wrote:

I've had my £20 Lorus for 10 years and have worn it every day. It's been through the washing machine three times and it still works perfectly. Just sayin'.

That's impossible, it's cheap and therefore must have broken. Maybe the date on it is wrong, so "10 years" is actually only a few weeks?

bompington

Chip \'oyler wrote:

bompington wrote:

cojones wrote:

Yeah, I appreciate that the rumour mongers may not be qualified, hence me opening it up for discussion. One guy rides a £3K carbon Bianchi, so he needs to justify why he spent so much money.

fixed that for you

Perhaps he spent £3k cos he could and he wanted to

Absolutely, I'm not saying he was wrong to spend the money, I'm just saying that his satisfaction with his purchase does not say anything at all about whether a 1K bike is much lower quality, slightly lower quality our not lower quality at all. But I will say that post-purchase justification has been shown to be a powerful influence on thinking - which obviously works just as well when people say how pleased they are with their bargains.
Some things are more expensive because they are better, some because they can just get away with it.

PS I estimate that my lifetime spend on cheap digital watches (accurate ones with features that are useful to me like alarm and stopwatch) will come to under £200. Most get junked because the strap breaks, not the watch. And funnily enough I note that a Tag Heuer strap costs about...

P_Tucker

Chip \'oyler wrote:

If you worked out cost per wear then she is in negative figures!

Please show your workings.

bam49

Tag's are seen as a bit ' chavvy ' by watch geeks ...

Bozman

You tend to live up to your means and the more you spend the higher the expectation.