alu v carbon question

elderone

hi,im looking at a new bike upto £1.5k and have a post on this but what i,d like advice on is the aluminium v carbon bike at this price.doing some research ive read that a good alu bike is proberly better than a carbon at same price point.From what i,ve read this seems to be at the £1000 mark.
As an example would the defy1(1k) be as good as the defy composite 2(1.5k).Also the defy1 against a carbon ribble bike at same price.
All very confusing. :?

Sprool

good carbon frames are much more expensive than good aluminium frames, so it stands to reason that a £1500 Alu frame bike will probably be much higher quality than a £1500 carbon frame bike, given the same groupset specs.
If I could afford £2k+ I'd go for a carbon frame.

smidsy

but if you get one of the 2012 bikes you can get a £2000 carbon bike for closer to £1300. e.g Cannondale Supersix 105 from Westbrook

Neale1978

No matter who makes the alu frames it its still aluminium which is not the perfect material. Some sub £2k carbon bikes are cheaper not because of lack of quality frame wise but just because the brand thats putting its name to it do not own the moulds etc and so save money on production although they do oversee how its made (layup ect) plus the cheaper components to finish the bikes off.

Alu frames can ride great but carbon fibre is lighter and does feel better so go with a brand with some pedigree and find a reduced carbon bike with their name on and just upgrade parts after you have got it

rolf_f

Sprool wrote:

good carbon frames are much more expensive than good aluminium frames.....

But carbon frames are probably cheaper to make than aluminium ones which means that the greater cost of the carbon frame will be more down to perceived value than production cost. And since the likes of Planet X, Ribble and others are effectively not charging much premium on a carbon frame, then the justification to not go carbon seems marginal.

alihisgreat

Sprool wrote:

good carbon frames are much more expensive than good aluminium frames, so it stands to reason that a £1500 Alu frame bike will probably be much higher quality than a £1500 carbon frame bike, given the same groupset specs.
If I could afford £2k+ I'd go for a carbon frame.

That's a load of crap.

elderone wrote:

hi,im looking at a new bike upto £1.5k and have a post on this but what i,d like advice on is the aluminium v carbon bike at this price.doing some research ive read that a good alu bike is proberly better than a carbon at same price point.From what i,ve read this seems to be at the £1000 mark.
As an example would the defy1(1k) be as good as the defy composite 2(1.5k).Also the defy1 against a carbon ribble bike at same price.
All very confusing. :?

You seem to have the right idea... Its very hard to generalise though and it depends what you want from a bike.

If you can get over the whole stigma surrounding aluminium as a budget/cheap frame material then there are some fantastic aluminium bikes out there. (eg. Giant Defy 1, Boardman Road Team, Specialized Allez, Canyon Ultimate AL, Cannondale Caad8/10).

here are some good example of Alu bikes:
http://road.cc/content/review/56176-canyon-ultimate-al-90-di2 an Alu bike competing at £2k.
http://road.cc/content/review/49175-cannondale-caad10-ultegra ditto
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/road/product/review-giant-defy-1-12-45849 "the best riding bike we know of for this price"
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/category/bikes/road/product/review-boardman-team-12-46201 "one of the very best bikes available for this price"

etc.

So don't discount aluminium.

(especially when there are horrible lumps of carbon like this in your price range: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/tech/bikes/129311/8/1000-bike-test-2012.html)

Gizmodo

In my opinion, the problem with sub £1k carbon bikes is the poor level of equipment fitted (wheels, BB etc). £1500 is a grey area between carbon and ali. As smidsy said, your £1500 budget at this time of year is worth £2k if not more if you buy a 21012 bike. Go for Carbon I say.

TakeTurns

With that price range, you can get a carbon bike which would easily compete with a high end alloy bike. However, the spec won't be as good as you might find on an alloy bike around the same price range. Simply because carbon is more expensive to manufacture.

My carbon bike was a little more than your budget, prior to my purchase, I found out that it was lighter than any alloy frame I could find. The drawback was that It came with 105 and a few Tiagra bits. Having upgraded overtime, it's now a top notch bike. The point is, you can get a good carbon bike for that price. But you need to do your homework first.

simon_masterson

I would rather buy a used 753 frame and fork from t'eighties, some used Shimano 600 bits and a pair of handbuilt wheels than a 'nice' aluminium bike or a 'cheap' carbon fibre bike.

elderone

thanks for replies guys and varied they are.now to simplify it in my mind lets say...
defy 1..now this is the one i,d buy in aluminium for £999.
defy comp2...carbon version of above(similar 105 spec)£1499
now as a newish rider looking to do a 100mile sportive would the carbon one be better for what i want a bike for.

forget shopping around etc now,just an opinion on wether £500 extra for carbon will be worth it or is just paying extra to have carbon.

Gabbo

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

alihisgreat

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

Worst advice ever.

Buy the best bike you can afford.. by your reasoning we'd all be riding carrera TdFs and eating 200 calories a day.

LegendLust

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

Did he?

http://felixwong.com/2010/11/tour-de-fr ... e-weights/

http://www.chainreaction.com/oclvhistory.htm

stueys

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

The difference between my carbon bike (Canyon) and Alu (Spesh) isn't really weight (it's considerable but the majority of that is due to component/wheel difference) it's the way the Canyon puts the power down. I'm not a expert but I suspect that's down to the geo (which can be replicated in an Alu bike) and the big difference in bottom bracket size (which I haven't seen replicated in Alu).

If you think you'll get serious I would get a decent frame and upgrade components over time as they wear. Having said that if you're going to get serious you'll probably ed up with more than one bike....

stickman

If you're spending a nice chunk of money it's a golden opportunity to get a 953 bike.

Gabbo

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

Worst advice ever.

Buy the best bike you can afford.. by your reasoning we'd all be riding carrera TdFs and eating 200 calories a day.

Oh really?

Well by your reasoning we'd all be, umm, I'm not actually sure. You've failed to give a reason as to why my advice is bad and you've also failed to reason as to why you should purchase the best affordable bike.

And no, I'm not suggesting we should all be riding carrera tdf's and eating 200 calories a day. I own a £1500 carbon road bike and looking back, I would have just purchased a £700 Allez and waited until I could afford a higher end carbon road bike. The difference isn't huge. Also the advantage of owning a fairly decent alu bike is that you can use it as a winter bike once you've purchased a new carbon road bike.

elderone

Gabbo wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

Worst advice ever.

Buy the best bike you can afford.. by your reasoning we'd all be riding carrera TdFs and eating 200 calories a day.

Oh really?

Well by your reasoning we'd all be, umm, I'm not actually sure. You've failed to give a reason as to why my advice is bad and you've also failed to reason as to why you should purchase the best affordable bike.

And no, I'm not suggesting we should all be riding carrera tdf's and eating 200 calories a day. I own a £1500 carbon road bike and looking back, I would have just purchased a £700 Allez and waited until I could afford a higher end carbon road bike. The difference isn't huge. Also the advantage of owning a fairly decent alu bike is that you can use it as a winter bike once you've purchased a new carbon road bike.

In a roundabout way thats answered my question..^^^^

Gabbo

Stueys wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

The difference between my carbon bike (Canyon) and Alu (Spesh) isn't really weight (it's considerable but the majority of that is due to component/wheel difference) it's the way the Canyon puts the power down. I'm not a expert but I suspect that's down to the geo (which can be replicated in an Alu bike) and the big difference in bottom bracket size (which I haven't seen replicated in Alu).

If you think you'll get serious I would get a decent frame and upgrade components over time as they wear. Having said that if you're going to get serious you'll probably ed up with more than one bike....

Hence why I suggested purchasing a fairly decent alu bike opposed to a carbon bike. Then purchase a carbon road bike worth purchasing. If you're serious about competing you'll only want to upgrade anyway. A decent alu bike would be advantageous throughout the British winter period.

turbo1191

You can get a 2012 defy comp 2 with sram apex for 1050-1150 depending on size.. that would be my choice.

http://www.dalescycles.com/2012-giant-d ... 2-ml-p2376


http://www.mcconveycycles.com/store/pro ... 012-LARGE/

Or a 2012 defy comp 1 with ultegra for 1499..

http://www.dalescycles.com/2012-giant-d ... 1-ml-p2382

http://www.pedalon.co.uk/acatalog/giant ... ite-1.html

alihisgreat

Gabbo wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

Worst advice ever.

Buy the best bike you can afford.. by your reasoning we'd all be riding carrera TdFs and eating 200 calories a day.

Oh really?

Well by your reasoning we'd all be, umm, I'm not actually sure. You've failed to give a reason as to why my advice is bad and you've also failed to reason as to why you should purchase the best affordable bike.

And no, I'm not suggesting we should all be riding carrera tdf's and eating 200 calories a day. I own a £1500 carbon road bike and looking back, I would have just purchased a £700 Allez and waited until I could afford a higher end carbon road bike. The difference isn't huge. Also the advantage of owning a fairly decent alu bike is that you can use it as a winter bike once you've purchased a new carbon road bike.

Just out of interest which £1500 carbon road bike did you buy?

and yes if you take your argument to its logical extreme we would all be riding TdFs and eating 200 calories a day because that's what you've said right?

Loosing body weight has a much bigger impact than the marginal gains from more expensive bikes? isn't that true?

night_porter

The original question is only relevant if you ride both bikes and then decide which bike you like the best.

If you cannot differentiate (by riding) between the 2 frame materials then it would make sense to buy the cheaper one.

If you think the extra is worth it for the carbon bike then buy it, only you can decide as it is your money and it will be your butt on the bike.

Gabbo

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

Worst advice ever.

Buy the best bike you can afford.. by your reasoning we'd all be riding carrera TdFs and eating 200 calories a day.

Oh really?

Well by your reasoning we'd all be, umm, I'm not actually sure. You've failed to give a reason as to why my advice is bad and you've also failed to reason as to why you should purchase the best affordable bike.

And no, I'm not suggesting we should all be riding carrera tdf's and eating 200 calories a day. I own a £1500 carbon road bike and looking back, I would have just purchased a £700 Allez and waited until I could afford a higher end carbon road bike. The difference isn't huge. Also the advantage of owning a fairly decent alu bike is that you can use it as a winter bike once you've purchased a new carbon road bike.

Just out of interest which £1500 carbon road bike did you buy?

and yes if you take your argument to its logical extreme we would all be riding TdFs and eating 200 calories a day because that's what you've said right?

Loosing body weight has a much bigger impact than the marginal gains from more expensive bikes? isn't that true?

Absolutely not. And I'm not sure how the "200 calories a day" statement works. You lose weight by training hard, not by starving yourself. And also I don't know how my argument to it's logical extreme suggests we should all be riding TdF's. I didn't imply that. I said buy the alu bike, referring to the defy 1

I didn't say buy a crap alu bike, and I didn't say there was no difference between alu and carbon.

TakeTurns

I don't agree with the comment that you should only buy a carbon bike if you intend to compete. Carbon has many advantages over alu, it's not only about being lighter.

Aluminum frames posses the shortest fatigue life. Some alloy frames only have warranties up to 10 years. Carbon frames have lifetime warranties. An alloy frame may be slightly stiffer than carbon, however a carbon frame would be considerably more comfortable by dampening road vibrations. Whereas an alu would transfer road vibrations directly to the rider.

alihisgreat

Gabbo wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Gabbo wrote:

Unless you're looking to compete at a decent level or have intentions to, buy the alu bike. For example, a top end alu bike is equipped with shimano 105 groupset but a top end carbon would be equipped with dura ace. Yes, the carbon will be lighter but the best way to improve performance is not to purchase a marginally lighter bike, but to lose the weight off your body. Ok, Armstrong was a disgraceful cheat but he won his tours on metal framed bikes.

Worst advice ever.

Buy the best bike you can afford.. by your reasoning we'd all be riding carrera TdFs and eating 200 calories a day.

Oh really?

Well by your reasoning we'd all be, umm, I'm not actually sure. You've failed to give a reason as to why my advice is bad and you've also failed to reason as to why you should purchase the best affordable bike.

And no, I'm not suggesting we should all be riding carrera tdf's and eating 200 calories a day. I own a £1500 carbon road bike and looking back, I would have just purchased a £700 Allez and waited until I could afford a higher end carbon road bike. The difference isn't huge. Also the advantage of owning a fairly decent alu bike is that you can use it as a winter bike once you've purchased a new carbon road bike.

Just out of interest which £1500 carbon road bike did you buy?

and yes if you take your argument to its logical extreme we would all be riding TdFs and eating 200 calories a day because that's what you've said right?

Loosing body weight has a much bigger impact than the marginal gains from more expensive bikes? isn't that true?

Absolutely not. And I'm not sure how the "200 calories a day" statement works. You lose weight by training hard, not by starving yourself. And also I don't know how my argument to it's logical extreme suggests we should all be riding TdF's. I didn't imply that. I said buy the alu bike, referring to the defy 1

I didn't say buy a crap alu bike, and I didn't say there was no difference between alu and carbon.

Yes and which bike do you ride?

LegendLust

TakeTurns wrote:

I don't agree with the comment that you should only buy a carbon bike if you intend to compete. Carbon has many advantages over alu, it's not only about being lighter.

Aluminum frames posses the shortest fatigue life. Some alloy frames only have warranties up to 10 years. Carbon frames have lifetime warranties. An alloy frame may be slightly stiffer than carbon, however a carbon frame would be considerably more comfortable by dampening road vibrations. Whereas an alu would transfer road vibrations directly to the rider.

Could you give some examples of these lifetime warranties?

TakeTurns

LegendLust wrote:

TakeTurns wrote:

I don't agree with the comment that you should only buy a carbon bike if you intend to compete. Carbon has many advantages over alu, it's not only about being lighter.

Aluminum frames posses the shortest fatigue life. Some alloy frames only have warranties up to 10 years. Carbon frames have lifetime warranties. An alloy frame may be slightly stiffer than carbon, however a carbon frame would be considerably more comfortable by dampening road vibrations. Whereas an alu would transfer road vibrations directly to the rider.

Could you give some examples of these lifetime warranties?

Fuji: http://www.fujibikes.com/support

Felt: http://www.2009.feltracing.com/09/conte ... pageid=375

Trek: http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/support/warranty

I'm sure you could find more.

elderone

TakeTurns wrote:

I don't agree with the comment that you should only buy a carbon bike if you intend to compete. Carbon has many advantages over alu, it's not only about being lighter.

Aluminum frames posses the shortest fatigue life. Some alloy frames only have warranties up to 10 years. Carbon frames have lifetime warranties. An alloy frame may be slightly stiffer than carbon, however a carbon frame would be considerably more comfortable by dampening road vibrations. Whereas an alu would transfer road vibrations directly to the rider.

this makes sense to me.

nolight

TakeTurns wrote:

I don't agree with the comment that you should only buy a carbon bike if you intend to compete. Carbon has many advantages over alu, it's not only about being lighter.

Aluminum frames posses the shortest fatigue life. Some alloy frames only have warranties up to 10 years. Carbon frames have lifetime warranties. An alloy frame may be slightly stiffer than carbon, however a carbon frame would be considerably more comfortable by dampening road vibrations. Whereas an alu would transfer road vibrations directly to the rider.

Also carbon fibre does not corrode but metal may.

stueys

TakeTurns wrote:

Aluminum frames posses the shortest fatigue life. Some alloy frames only have warranties up to 10 years. Carbon frames have lifetime warranties. An alloy frame may be slightly stiffer than carbon, however a carbon frame would be considerably more comfortable by dampening road vibrations. Whereas an alu would transfer road vibrations directly to the rider.

Be careful here, lots of carbon frames are warranted for five years only. I've seen manufacture recommendations about replacing after five years. Carbon has many advantages over other materials, not sure i would go with durability as being one of them though.

diy

Life time warranties are very hard to act on in UK consumer law and they often don't mean what you think. They are normally backed up with caveats and customer obligations that are very hard to comply with long term. Once you get beyond the timescales of consumer statutory rights it becomes hard to make any kind of claim for something that could be seen as wear and tear, or reasonable expectations.

Most lifetime warranties warrant against defects. They are not saying if you look after this product it will last a lifetime they are saying it will be defect free for as long as you own it. That does not mean to say it will not wear out.

I would say the carbon vs. alu premium is about 25-30%.

Camtheman

elderone wrote:

hi,im looking at a new bike upto £1.5k and have a post on this but what i,d like advice on is the aluminium v carbon bike at this price.doing some research ive read that a good alu bike is proberly better than a carbon at same price point.From what i,ve read this seems to be at the £1000 mark.
As an example would the defy1(1k) be as good as the defy composite 2(1.5k).Also the defy1 against a carbon ribble bike at same price.
All very confusing. :?

A simple answer to your question is to suggest you think about it like this;

If you did go for the alloy option, would you spend the next two years thinking "awe, I wish I'd bought a carbon"? If so, all the logic in the world won't make you feel like you did the right thing. Plenty of folks, me included, like the idea of having a carbon frame and this was, in the end, what made me buy one. If you are objective enough not to have nagging doubts, you'd probably go for aluminium.

The question now, for me, is whether I wish I'd bought an alloy frame. Not a chance. My old Allez has an alloy frame and, much as I like it, the bike looks and feels a bit old hat. Not an objective way to look at things, but who the hell says you're not allowed to just enjoy what you got?

The fact is, modern technology means you are extremely unlikely to be able to buy a dog of a bike at the price point you are looking. It just depends what makes you feel you did the right thing in the end. I'd be interested to see how many owners of carbon frames go back to alloy. Thousands are buying carbon.

The carbon bike I bought is a Ribble Evo Pro and I have absolutely no complaints about it all all. Full Centaur groupset and Khamsin wheels for under a grand is excellent value, the bike is comfortable and light. I have not exerienced any frame flex despite what a couple fo mag reviews claim. It looks great and I can only say I'm glad I bought it instead of an alloy frame.