Why would you NOT buy this bike?
ct8282
Posts: 414
So assuming you had the money, and were looking for a bike to ride distance comfortably, why would you not buy this bike....
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/bmc ... e-ec043706
I guess my mine line of enquiry is in relation to the carbon v Alu discussion. I realise most people would automatically expect you to buy a carbon frame when you're into big bucks, but why? We hear this word compliance a lot but what exactly does it mean when it comes to really riding a bike? BMC claim this frame is very compliant and the geometry will swallow road bumps and vibrations as good as a carbon frame. Will it really?
So, why would you not buy this bike if you have £3600 to spend? Just because its Alu?
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/bmc ... e-ec043706
I guess my mine line of enquiry is in relation to the carbon v Alu discussion. I realise most people would automatically expect you to buy a carbon frame when you're into big bucks, but why? We hear this word compliance a lot but what exactly does it mean when it comes to really riding a bike? BMC claim this frame is very compliant and the geometry will swallow road bumps and vibrations as good as a carbon frame. Will it really?
So, why would you not buy this bike if you have £3600 to spend? Just because its Alu?
0
Posts
So what?
I'm surprised they have chosen to butt rather than hydroform the frame as hydro forming generally allows greater flexibility in design however more expensive especially for short production runs.
However saying this I have an older BMC as my training bike. Fun to ride but one of the most rigid feeling bikes I have ridden, the back end skips around like nothing else when sprinting but that just adds to its charm.
With that sort of money you could buy something beautiful, and which would probably last longer, made from 953 or titanium......
No reason why Ti or 953 would last longer than cf.
Can't agree with that, the CAAD10 and Canyon Ultimate AL are lighter than many carbon frames and outperform them.
2003 Specialized Allez Sport
I'm sure you posted this just for a bit of a debate, but if you were serious, my reason for not buying it would be because I don't like the look of it, I'm not keen on SRAM and most importantly there would be other bikes on my shopping list.
Ali will never compare in weight??? This bike s 6.9kg....
Why is Alu a poor choice?
Try scratching your composite widget and then see how long it lasts........
Now this is interesting. I will look at that, thanks. So BMC market the Granfondo range as a bike designed for the punishing cobblestones of Paris Roubaix. Their teams are using these bikes for those types of races. Surely that type of surface will put an awful lot of stress on the frame. And is it important to have a frame under 1200g?
This one weighs 1100g by the way.
I can't help feeling that a well made stainless steel frame will be vastly superior in fatigue compared to a CFRP design. I wouldn't expect a CFRP frame to last longer than a decade or so of frequent riding without developing a significant amount of compliance as the epoxy separates from the fibres; anything more than that would be a bonus. But you wouldn't be surprised by a steel frame surviving with basically unchanged characteristics for the next 50 years.
Ti is so difficult to work with that it is very difficult to be sure that you're getting someone who knows what they're doing.
Having said all that, at the OP's budget I would have dismissed off-the-peg frames from the off.
On Strava.{/url}
Why would I scratch it? Not that it would worry me if it did.
My Ribble is on 11,000 miles so far and doing fine; it looks like new. It won't fatigue fail. Ti welds can crack. More faith in the 953 (all my road bikes are steel or CF - I do love steel bikes though Ti frames just don't interest me at all somehow) but even steel can be damaged by a hard pothole hit and I reckon CF is probably cheaper to repair when it does get damaged.
On what basis do you think CF won't last as long as Ti or 953? Do some research
Now this on the other hand is an informed argument! Still, what does a decade of frequent riding mean in miles? How long should I expect my Ribble to last given the mileage I do? Time is really not a very ideal measure given how different peoples mileages are. And I've not yet noticed any posts on here about people complaining about CF frames deteriorating which does imply that either we haven't yet reached the point when that becomes an issue (ie you need more like 25 years to get a problem) or that people simply don't ride frames long enough for it to be an issue even if they like the idea of a frame lasting forever. Once something becomes a bit of an antique, people don't tend to use them on a daily basis anyway at which point their life span probably becomes infinite.
Kudos to BMC for apparently making an alloy frame match a CF one. The only question is - what actually is the point? The blurb seems to just say it is as good as CF but without mentioning in anyway how it is better. Given that the longevity of the frame must be somewhat uncertain under the circumstances, why would anyone buy this unless scared of cf?
Only reason I posted was to help op make a more informed decision on a bike by stating a couple potential flaws.
If there were no drawbacks to aluminium then why has a lot of the high end industry gone carbon?
The interesting question is how much does this BMC frame cost to manufacture compared to a CF one. I can't see any reason why any monocoque carbon frame really needs to cost much based on its manufacturing cost (excepting hand made frames and oddities like the Impec) - but an alloy frame is presumably going to be more labour intensive to put together. I'd love to know what the respective profit margins are on the average high end frame compared to more run of the mill frames.
2) cos it's a BMC
3) cos it's running Sram Red
4) it's from Evans
5) i wouldn't spend that much on an alloy bike
Because the use of CF and layup techniques enables weight, performance and ride characteristics to be tuned in a way that is not possible with other materials. There are no 'inherent' drawbacks to producing in aluminium as such.
Well I suppose you wouldn't on purpose, but small accidents do happen......and then the frame / fork / handlebar,or whatever, fails without any warning, at some point when you least need it.
Your faith in the marketing hype is touching... if misinformed.
You can break anything if you try hard enough...... and good luck with repairing composites.
until they reduce the price. It will drop a good grand.
I do like being a Yorkshireman
Don't forget marketing! Muy importante. Cyclists are mugs for the latest and greatest - we all know this.
On Strava.{/url}
There's more evidence around the net of successful repair of accident damaged composites than there is of them failing through general ageing. But who knows - maybe I'm wrong. Point me to some examples of carbon frames that have had to be scrapped due to ageing rather than accident damage and maybe I'll have to reconsider my views a bit. And also point me to evidence of frames that have failed due to being scratched. Clearly you believe strongly that this is a serious issue so I daresay you have specific evidence that has given you that opinion.
Even if you are sceptical about the repairability of cf, it definitely can be done (even at home) which is more than can be said realistically for alloy. That alloy BMC frame is an expensive and delicate investment.
As for marketing hype - I never really pay any attention to marketing hype. Neither do I suffer from carbon fibre phobia.
its not like its of a stand out design, looks like the next Au you see down the road.
Sensa Trentino SL Custom 2013 - 105 Compact - Aksium Race