Are there any advantages to aluminum over carbon fibre?

nternal1

After 30 years of jogging I've decided to get a road bike to cover my cardio base. It took a decade of playing around with the idea but I finally made the leap with a 2013 Giant Defy 1 ( a week ago). I haven't ridden a bike for 35 years and, initially, am very impressed with the level of engineering available at this price point. I've also got decades of weight lifting under my belt and the bike seems to literally explode out from under me when I really drop some power onto the pedals. So far I'm quite happy with my decision to jump in at this level as an initial first step but one thing does bother me a bit...
The very first thing I noticed on the Defy 1 was that every ripple in the road seems to get transmitted straight to my crotch. I guess this is a characteristic of aluminum and, while the stiffness of the frame lets me transfer power efficiently from my legs to the road, it also makes for a very rigid and unforgiving ride. I gather that carbon fibre is the solution to this but, my experience in life has been that there are always pluses and minuses with any technology. Is a good carbon fibre frame superior to a good aluminum frame in every way or are there some advantages to aluminum?

Ps. I had planned to spend a year trying out a road bike and so far, based on initial impressions, I suspect I'll be into a Defy 1 Advanced by this time next year.

imposter2.0

If the ride is harsh, check your tyres pressures..

markhewitt1978

nternal1 wrote:

After 30 years of jogging I've decided to get a road bike to cover my cardio base. It took a decade of playing around with the idea but I finally made the leap with a 2013 Giant Defy 1 ( a week ago). I haven't ridden a bike for 35 years and, initially, am very impressed with the level of engineering available at this price point. I've also got decades of weight lifting under my belt and the bike seems to literally explode out from under me when I really drop some power onto the pedals. So far I'm quite happy with my decision to jump in at this level as an initial first step but one thing does bother me a bit...
The very first thing I noticed on the Defy 1 was that every ripple in the road seems to get transmitted straight to my crotch. I guess this is a characteristic of aluminum and, while the stiffness of the frame lets me transfer power efficiently from my legs to the road, it also makes for a very rigid and unforgiving ride. I gather that carbon fibre is the solution to this but, my experience in life has been that there are always pluses and minuses with any technology. Is a good carbon fibre frame superior to a good aluminum frame in every way or are there some advantages to aluminum?

Carbon fibre has a repuation of being more brittle and less likely to survive a crash than an aluminium frame which may end up a bit dented but otherwise shrug off the experience.

Other than that, no, carbon has aluminium beaten in every area. Lighter, stiffer where it matters but at the same time more forgiving over the bumps. You will find the power transmission of carbon is superior as well as the ride.

Don't ride a carbon bike unless you are prepared to buy one.

t4tomo

What will make as much difference in the mean time until you wnat to commitv the extra cash is

try 25mm tyres instad of 23mm at slightly lower pressure carbon seat post sort out your possition so hands feet and bum share the load more equally decent padded bib shorts

ianwilliams

I have just started riding my Defy 1 after moving from a hybrid (Specialized Sirrus).

I can't compare it to a carbon frame but I would say that a lot of its 'uncomfortable-ness' is symptomatic of general road bike design - a light, stiff frame with narrow, pumped-up tyres.

I personally find it quite comfortable but it will of course take some time in the saddle generally for your arms, wrists, hands and arse to get used to it all. Good gloves and shorts will help, along with the advice above.

In terms of performance, yeah, CF is the way to go. But in terms of a product, relative to your price point, then aluminium can have a lot of advantages - a great bike at a very good price. Plus, the performance benefits of CF would be basically lost on someone with my ability. Doesn't stop me lusting after a nice CF bike - but I need the finances and to be sure I'd get value for money out of it.

Let me know how you get on!

gozzy

You could consider trying a different saddle too, especially if you're getting numbness.
Try as many as possible in a bike shop, if possible place them on a stair and sit down and go through as many as possible till you find the most comfortable one. If there aren't any good ones go somewhere else with different stock and try again.

passout

You could try wider tyres 'if' your bike takes them. If it now has 23mm - could you run 25mm? With a track pump, check you have the right tyre pressure too. A carbon seatpost can help a bit & off course you'll need to spend years searching for the perfect saddle! Not all alu frames are harsh but some are eg my Trek 1000 was brutal but my Genesis Aether is comfortable.

mercia_man

It's a myth that all aluminium bikes give a harsh ride and all carbon bikes give a comfortable ride. It's more down to the design of the frame, the geometry, the type of carbon/aluminium etc. Plenty of aluminium bikes give a relatively comfortable ride and plenty of carbon bikes give a relatively hard ride. I've never ridden an aluminium Defy but by all accounts they're designed for comfort rather than extreme sportiness.

In my experience, tyres have much more effect on comfort than frame material. Switching from 23mm to 25mm or 28mm will make a big difference as will running at lower pressure. A higher quality supple tyre will also absorb the ripples of a rough road surface better than a cheap original fitment tyre.

Good shorts and getting used to riding a bike again after 30 years will definitely improve things. A carbon fibre seatpost - some are specially designed to give a bit of flex - or a suspension seatpost are worth considering if you are still bothered by a harsh ride after changing the tyres.

nternal1

Gozzy wrote:

You could consider trying a different saddle too, especially if you're getting numbness.
Try as many as possible in a bike shop, if possible place them on a stair and sit down and go through as many as possible till you find the most comfortable one. If there aren't any good ones go somewhere else with different stock and try again.

Yup, I'm on to that and am looking at a Specialized TOUPÉ RBX EXPERT as a good place to start.

nternal1

Mercia Man wrote:

It's a myth that all aluminium bikes give a harsh ride and all carbon bikes give a comfortable ride. It's more down to the design of the frame, the geometry, the type of carbon/aluminium etc. Plenty of aluminium bikes give a relatively comfortable ride and plenty of carbon bikes give a relatively hard ride. I've never ridden an aluminium Defy but by all accounts they're designed for comfort rather than extreme sportiness.

In my experience, tyres have much more effect on comfort than frame material. Switching from 23mm to 25mm or 28mm will make a big difference as will running at lower pressure. A higher quality supple tyre will also absorb the ripples of a rough road surface better than a cheap original fitment tyre.

Good shorts and getting used to riding a bike again after 30 years will definitely improve things. A carbon fibre seatpost - some are specially designed to give a bit of flex - or a suspension seatpost are worth considering if you are still bothered by a harsh ride after changing the tyres.

I've got good shorts and the seatpost on the Defy 1 is carbon fibre but...I definitely have a ways to go in terms of my riding technique.

daviesee

You probably have this covered but just in case.....

A decent bike shop will upgrade the saddle and tyres for the difference in price without you having to buy the complete bike and the better components.

alihisgreat

nternal1 wrote:

After 30 years of jogging I've decided to get a road bike to cover my cardio base. It took a decade of playing around with the idea but I finally made the leap with a 2013 Giant Defy 1 ( a week ago). I haven't ridden a bike for 35 years and, initially, am very impressed with the level of engineering available at this price point. I've also got decades of weight lifting under my belt and the bike seems to literally explode out from under me when I really drop some power onto the pedals. So far I'm quite happy with my decision to jump in at this level as an initial first step but one thing does bother me a bit...
The very first thing I noticed on the Defy 1 was that every ripple in the road seems to get transmitted straight to my crotch. I guess this is a characteristic of aluminum and, while the stiffness of the frame lets me transfer power efficiently from my legs to the road, it also makes for a very rigid and unforgiving ride. I gather that carbon fibre is the solution to this but, my experience in life has been that there are always pluses and minuses with any technology. Is a good carbon fibre frame superior to a good aluminum frame in every way or are there some advantages to aluminum?

Ps. I had planned to spend a year trying out a road bike and so far, based on initial impressions, I suspect I'll be into a Defy 1 Advanced by this time next year.

At £1k you're not going to get a very good carbon frame, but you will get a very good Aluminium frame like the Defy frameset.

I suspect a combination of incorrect tyre pressure, position on the bike, and a poor saddle is to blame for your discomfort.

sloppyschleckonds

nternal1 wrote:

the bike seems to literally explode out from under me when I really drop some power onto the pedals.

I'd get this checked out if I were you.

racingcondor

At £1k you're not going to get a very good carbon frame, but you will get a very good Aluminium frame like the Defy frameset.

This.

There are some great Alu frames out there around this price, some very racy (and often somewhat harsh), some less so. A really good Carbon frame though will cost quite a bit more than £1,000 just for the frame and fork (and yes, it's likely that it will be stiffer, lighter and more comfy but at 4x the price you'd hope so!). I have 2 bikes, both carbon and while both are great fun and plenty stiff the more expensive one soaks up road buzz much more.

As has been suggested, tyres, pressures and bar tape all make a big difference (Lizard Skinz DSP is expensive but really plush). For the price you've got a good bike. My advice, don't worry about it and enjoy the ride.

vortice

My Canyon AL bike is a smoother ride than my Ribble Bianco carbon bike.

rolf_f

I have two carbon bikes - one cost £1200 (though you can spec them for less than 1k) and one cost about £3.4k. Both are excellent. The £3.4k one is better but laws of diminishing returns apply. Personally, I think those who don't rate £1k carbon frames are wrong!

Note - re frame stiffness - it should really be proportional to your weight. If you are light, there is no point getting an ultra stiff frame so in that respect, paying more could result in you getting a worse frame.

waterfalll

what bikes you got rolf?

nternal1

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

nternal1 wrote:

the bike seems to literally explode out from under me when I really drop some power onto the pedals.

I'd get this checked out if I were you.

You realize I meant that in a good way right?

nternal1

Rolf F wrote:

I have two carbon bikes - one cost £1200 (though you can spec them for less than 1k) and one cost about £3.4k. Both are excellent. The £3.4k one is better but laws of diminishing returns apply. Personally, I think those who don't rate £1k carbon frames are wrong!

Note - re frame stiffness - it should really be proportional to your weight. If you are light, there is no point getting an ultra stiff frame so in that respect, paying more could result in you getting a worse frame.

I'm 190 lb so in theory a stiff frame is probably OK. I hope people don't think I'm complaining that I'm in misery when I ride the bike. I'm not. It's just that I do find myself avoiding rough patches in the road because I know I'm going to feel them transmitted directly to me.

smoggysteve

If I were on a budget of around a grand or so, I would pick a Cannondale CAAD 10, or Canyon AL over a cheap carbon bike any day. If you are an amateur rider you are going to notice weight more that stiffness. And an ALu bike weighing in at around 7.5k like a Canyon AL and its available groupsets is a far better deal than a Carbon frame with a groupset made of concrete attached to it to bring the cost down.

The advice from the above is sound. So many things can make a ride harsher than normal. cheap tyres, Cheap rims, Seat post, seat, tyre pressure, tyre width.

The modern alu frame is not a bone shaker and the Giant defy is up there with the best of them on the market for comfort.

rolf_f

waterfalll wrote:

what bikes you got rolf?

Ribble Gran Fondo and Look 585. Both have Centaur Ultratorque (carbon cranks on the Look, alloy on the Ribble) - wheels are Campag Khamsins on the Ribble and Neutrons on the Look. So, the Ribble was cheap but still pretty well spec'd - it's a nice bike and I wouldn't swap it for an alloy one - steel or carbon for me. Ultimately, it's mostly about personal prejudice but, as SmoggySteve says, much of it is down to what you put on the frame.

denniskwok

Just to give my own personal experience of going from a £1000 alu bike (Eddy Merckx AMX-1 Tiagra) to a £1375 carbon bike (Focus Cayo Evo 6.0). Admittedly, there is a £375 difference between them, but the latter comes with 105 compared to Tiagra, so the frames come in at quite similar price points. The Merckx was a pretty decent frame (with carbon forks), but on longer rides I found that it just used to beat me up to the point where I was weaving around just to avoid patches of broken tarmac. The lack of rear-end compliance really told the longer the ride went on.

When I bought the Cayo, I transferred all of the finishing kit and wheels over to it with the exception of the non-compatible seatpost (both were/are carbon). I also fitted Michelin Lithion 2 tyres onto the Cayo, compared to the more supple Ultremo ZX R.1s I left on the Merckx. Despite this and the more aggressive geometry, the Cayo frame rides just so smooth in comparison. I can hammer over broken tarmac surfaces instead of slowing down for them and the longer the ride, the more benefit I get back in terms of not feeling beaten up. To me, this is where the main speed benefits of carbon come from. In terms of stiffness under power, the Cayo frame is also noticeably torsionally stiffer at the BB and head tube area. I'm not a rider with a huge amount of power and I only weigh 60kg, but the improvement was easily and immediately noticeable from the word go. One thing to note though, is that I have 6700 Ultegra cranks on the Cayo compared to the 4500 Tiagra on the Merckx, but I doubt I'd be able to detect any stiffness difference between cranks.

For me, the switch to a cheaper carbon frame from alu is a big improvement in all areas with no downsides.

crankycrank

I would say the best answer to the OP's question is to just go out and test ride some other bikes in the right price range. Too hard to generalize about frame materials without finding a hundred exceptions to the rules plus different geometries play a part in how much a rider enjoys their ride. One thing about CF is that if the frame gets damaged, broken in two even, it can be repaired to as strong as new, cost being the only determining factor as to whether it's worth the repair or not.

keef66

I've been riding a good alloy frame (Racelight Tk) for 6 years. Using 25mm tyres at the lowest pressures I can get away with.

Just transferred everything, apart from the seatpost, to one of the bargaintastic Westbrooks CR1-SL frames, so I have a like for like comparison.

I can say that the carbon frame (with an alloy seatpost) is conspicuously more comfortable than the alloy frame (with a carbon seatpost)

I also suspect that the carbon frame would be more likely to survive a crash than the thin-walled alloy one, and if damaged would be more likely to be repairable.

I feel the only advantage aluminium now has over carbon is one of lower cost, but that if you choose a cheap alu frame it is likely to give a harsh ride.

alihisgreat

keef66 wrote:

I've been riding a good alloy frame (Racelight Tk) for 6 years. Using 25mm tyres at the lowest pressures I can get away with.

Just transferred everything, apart from the seatpost, to one of the bargaintastic Westbrooks CR1-SL frames, so I have a like for like comparison.

I can say that the carbon frame (with an alloy seatpost) is conspicuously more comfortable than the alloy frame (with a carbon seatpost)

I also suspect that the carbon frame would be more likely to survive a crash than the thin-walled alloy one, and if damaged would be more likely to be repairable.

I feel the only advantage aluminium now has over carbon is one of lower cost, but that if you choose a cheap alu frame it is likely to give a harsh ride.

Comparing a £300 frame to one with an RRP of £1300 isn't exactly a reasonable comparison to make is it?

keef66

That is a good point, it's hardly a fair comparison. I think I'd better look after the CR1 cos I'll never be able to afford to replace it with something of similar quality.

junglist_matty

Aluminium = harsh & Carbon = soft

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!

1. My aluminium bike is really harsh; I feel every single bump on the road and is really uncomfortable.
2. My carbon bike is really soft; it soaks up every single bump on the road and is really comfortable.

What a load of tosh.

Have any of you monkey's blabbering this tosh ever ridden a decent alu bike??????? If not, shut up, you don't have a clue.

markhewitt1978

What's your definition of decent then?

LCJ

On this subject.. I have the opportunity to get a new Trek at a smidge above trade price. My options as I see them are the Madone 2.3 or 3.1 which would be £1020 or £835 respectively. Spec is marginally higher on the 2.3, better wheels and slightly more 105 stuff, but I guess the main difference is the frame. And the 2.3 has a bright paint job, which pleases the child in me

Am I going to regret not spending the extra on the carbon framed 3.1 shortly after buying the 2.3? Coming from the mountain bike world and suspended loveliness I imagine most road bikes are going to seem harsh, so I'm inclined to go with the 2.3 use the difference on upgrades as I need (carbon post most likely).

Any views please?

markhewitt1978

3.1 without a single shadow of a doubt. Components you can upgrade one by one as the mood takes you, always start out with the best frame you can buy, and the Madone 3 series frame is decent.

The 2.3 frame is the same as my 2.1 which I bought a Scott CR1 frame to get rid of.

LCJ

Thanks Mark, interesting to hear. What didn't you like about the 2.3 or was the CR1 just better?