Carbon frames - just lighter or more comfortable?

PaulRoubaix

Hi,

Please bear in mind Im a roadie!

In the road world carbon frams are lighter, and also (usually) have better vibration damping than alu frames.

Does this trnslate into the MTB world too? Obviously the lightness would but what about the comfort side as I would have thought the vibration would have been taken care of by big tyres and the suspension.

So the question...

Carbon MTB frames - Just lighter than alu, or lighter AND more comfortable?

cooldad

Maybe, maybe not, sometimes. But not necessarily.

PaulRoubaix

Cheers!

That really illuminated the dark areas in my curiosity.

cooldad

PaulRoubaix wrote:

Cheers!

That really illuminated the dark areas in my curiosity.

The question:

PaulRoubaix wrote:

So the question...

Carbon MTB frames - Just lighter than alu, or lighter AND more comfortable?

The answer:

cooldad wrote:

Maybe, maybe not, sometimes. But not necessarily.

Some might be, some might not, depends on the design and intended use as much as the material used.

YeehaaMcgee

PaulRoubaix wrote:

Hi,

Please bear in mind Im a roadie!

In the road world carbon frams are lighter, and also (usually) have better vibration damping than alu frames.

Does this trnslate into the MTB world too? Obviously the lightness would

Not always so.
GT's carbon DH bike weighs just the same as their aluminium one, it's just much stiffer.
There's a lot of myths about carbon, best to just forget them all really.

dan man

lighter and more comfortable for me

cat_with_no_tail

dan man wrote:

lighter and more comfortable for me

What is lighter and more comfortable than what?

"A carbon frame" is not necessarily either, as stated already.

VWsurfbum

both mine are carbon, but really its only because i'm a tart and i like the way it looks, but the rigid is much more comftable than an ally version

cooldad

VWsurfbum wrote:

both mine are carbon, but really its only because i'm a tart and i like the way it looks, but the rigid is much more comftable than an ally version

I dare you to post using tart, rigid, comfortable and alley in Crudcatcher.

dan man

Cat With No Tail wrote:

dan man wrote:

lighter and more comfortable for me

What is lighter and more comfortable than what?

"A carbon frame" is not necessarily either, as stated already.

i said for me it is .and most carbon not all carbon is lighter then most alloy s

cooldad

I think he meant what carbon frame is more comfortable for you than what non carbon frame, specifically.

cat_with_no_tail

cooldad wrote:

I think he meant what carbon frame is more comfortable for you than what non carbon frame, specifically.

Indeed he did.

mattbarnes

Having spent a lot of my time riding alloy framed bikes, I recently made the change to a carbon framed number at the beginning of this year. I swapped all of the components from my Scandium Kona Kula frame to a Focus Raven and couldn't believe the difference. Where the Scandium frame soaked up a lot of the trail buzz and had a lot more 'give' in it, the carbon Focus has all the flex of a concrete paving slab and is a lot less comfortable. It is considerably lighter and faster though.
Please note: this is purely my own experience and findings using two specific frames from different manufacturers. While I accept there are a number of variables and no scientific applications have been used, this is my own opinion given my experiences of the the two materials outlined. Thanks.

Anonymous

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

There's a lot of myths about carbon, best to just forget them all really.

+1

Got a Carbon 456. It's not much lighter and not more comfortable (than what? let's say an ali or steel hard tail). It's not harsh though as the Bike Radar review claims, but it's not soft and flexi like *some* other hard tails or a bouncy full sus. It seems to ride fast and feels light to ride in that it will spring off things with easy. A lot of the flex though really comes down to the wheels, and I find lower tyre pressures make the thing comfy.

It's just different basically. It's also fun to some people.

I built mine purely out of interest and as a project to use up spare bits to build a hard tail. Even though the full sus is very plush and comfortable and love it, every time I ride the C456 I end up thinking I really love this bike. Though in part it's simplicity of a hard tail.

And no, carbon doesn't snap any easier than other materials, doesn't melt in the rain, it's no real issue if it gets scratched, you won't crush it tightening up that seat clamp or things on the bars.

cat_with_no_tail

I think the main point to take from all this is that carbon is not inherently lighter nor more comfortable than alloy. Either material can really be built either way. It mostly depends what the manufacturer is going for.

chez_m356

Cat With No Tail wrote:

It mostly depends what the manufacturer is going for.

usually a substantial wad from your wallet

andy_welch

Even on a road bike, with 23mm tyres running at 100psi I can't tell any difference in comfort between steel, alu and carbon frames. Maybe I'm just not that sensitive, although I can easily detect the difference if I drop the tyre pressure to 90psi or if I switch wheels between the bikes. So, whatever flex there may be in my frames it is much less than the fiex in the tyres and wheels. Given that experience I find it hard to believe that I'd notice any difference on a mountain bike, with >2 inch tyres running at 30psi and suspension at one, or both, ends.

On the road bikes I can feel the flex in the bottom bracket on the steel frame when I stand up and try to give it some welly. But even that would presumably be dwarfed by any flex in rear suspension pivots.

I do find it strange that people spend so much time discussing the almost insignificant differences between frame materials but hardly any time talking about the huge effects that tiny changes in geometry can make to the way a bike rides. On the road, where geometry has been pretty standard for a while, there is a chance that you can change a frame and see if you can tell the difference between materials (I can't). But with mountain bikes if you change the frame then chances are that you'll change the geometry as well, which will have a far bigger effect than any change in frame material.

Cheers

Andy

mrmonkfinger

I concur with Andy. The bendy rubber bits are so much more bendy than the stiff metal/plastic bits, that its impossible for most people to actually notice the things they think they notice about the metal or plastic bits.

You get the same sort of crap with audio gear, people pretending they can hear the difference between brands of cable.

njee20

Night and day difference between my alu (Allez) and carbon (Madone) road bikes. The Allez is horrible, it manages to be both harsh and flexy (at the BB notably) at the same time, whilst weighing more than my FS MTB. :?

Agree on the myths around carbon though, not that clear cut.

Anonymous

mrmonkfinger wrote:

You get the same sort of crap with audio gear, people pretending they can hear the difference between brands of cable.

Don't even go down that road! It'll be the wire oriented in one direction makes the electrons flow better that makes a difference and next they'll be banging on about jitter on CDs.

Though they're great at "proving" it with a graph showing minute differences beyond the range of human hearing.

YeehaaMcgee

deadkenny wrote:

Though they're great at "proving" it with a graph showing minute differences beyond the range of human hearing.

Not even that - audiophiles don't spout any logic at all, there's no charts or graphs that will actually represent their claims, so they make them up.

VWsurfbum

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

deadkenny wrote:

Though they're great at "proving" it with a graph showing minute differences beyond the range of human hearing.

Not even that - audiophiles don't spout any logic at all, there's no charts or graphs that will actually represent their claims, so they make them up.

and then have a set of Dre Beats

jairaj

njee20 wrote:

Night and day difference between my alu (Allez) and carbon (Madone) road bikes. The Allez is horrible, it manages to be both harsh and flexy (at the BB notably) at the same time, whilst weighing more than my FS MTB. :?

Agree on the myths around carbon though, not that clear cut.

I don't know what an Allez or a Madone are but I would guess they are different bikes not the same frame but made from different material?

That's not really a fair comparison. Different bikes will always feel different regardless of what material its made out of.

To the OP I would say Carbon only gives the designer a bit more freedom in their design. The designer has the possibility to make a frame stiffer/lighter/better etc. It doesn't necessarily make it lighter, better, stronger etc the designer has to design the frame to be stiffer it won't magically be stiffer just because they changed the material.

I'd say just make a short-list of bikes that fit your requirements regardless of material and go try them out.

jairaj

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Not even that - audiophiles don't spout any logic at all ... .

+ a whole potato farm!

I got caught up in the audiophile world when I was younger. Thankfully I realised it was all rubbish well before I got to the level of directional cables. They go on about how the holy grail is a pure, unadulterated sound. Then they say vinyl sounds better than CD's! Yes only because its coloured the sound in a nice warm cuddly way. :?

cooldad

jairaj wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Not even that - audiophiles don't spout any logic at all ... .

+ a whole potato farm!

I got caught up in the audiophile world when I was younger. Thankfully I realised it was all rubbish well before I got to the level of directional cables. They go on about how the holy grail is a pure, unadulterated sound. Then they say vinyl sounds better than CD's! Yes only because its coloured the sound in a nice warm cuddly way. :?

Vinyl does sound better. Anyone who disagrees is probably an XYZ Factor fan.

jairaj

oh I'm not arguing vinyl sounds better it certainly does, but the sound produced is hardly pure and unadulterated which what "good" sounds is all about apparently.

cooldad

It is pure. Digital sound is processed twice before it hits your ears.

But I can sell you some cables that will reanologue the digitally synthesiesed sound. Cash or kidneys accepted.

Anonymous

A certain boss at the time involved with an audio offshoot from a certain F1 company told us working there that the best thing is they can take the same relatively cheap cables they use to wire up the cars and flog them for 10 times as much or more to audiophiles, yet they're the same grade as the cheap audio cables.

Chunkers1980

Why so cloak and dagger?

Pound shop HDMI cable in same setup vs £100 one = no difference in quality.

mrmonkfinger

Sometimes the pound shop cables aren't very well screened and simply don't work = approx 100% quality loss

VWSurfBum wrote:

and then have a set of Dre Beats

I looked that up the other day.

Words fail me.

Anonymous

HDMI gets complicated by the fact there are numerous standards and different versions of the cables (not all to standard). Quality isn't affected but functionality might be if your kit demands the latest.

There's confusion too between the HDMI 'standards' and HDMI cables. A 1.3 cable for example supports all the features of 1.4 HDMI with the exception of Ethernet down the wire which most people don't need. But a shop will be happy to tell you that you need their £100 1.4 spec cable to get 3D (part of the HDMI 1.4 'standard', but probably works fine even on 1.2).