Carbon is better than Aluminium

WarlKicken

Christ's Chin, you're all so ridiculously harsh to each other, wasssaaa tha matter?!?!

It's a completely subjective argument. Carbon/ Aluminium/ Steel. Everyone is going to prefer something different based on their own opinion of it. All opinions are welcome but stop with the effin' damning of other peoples. Diasgree, yes, don't put someone else down!!

You soddin' bunch of evil nerds!

iPete

the cheek, i guarantee you the interest rate of a wonga loan% that a fixed drivestrain is more responsive than your new carbon beast :P

Buckie2k5

when you fall off and bang your carbon bike you will be worried that the frame is gonna break on you everytime your on that big decent. Even more so if it gets wet!!

skyblue337

You do see a lot of this top end Alu frame is better than a low end carbon frame these days but no-one ever specifies what these disappointing carbon frames are. Is a Spesh Tarmac SL2 Sora at 1200GBP considered a low end carbon frame (next years will be the SL4)? What about the Supersix Tiagra at £1600? Or are these veiled references to open mould frames like Ribble use (notwithstanding the fact that Ribble's geenrally get glowing reviews and have happy owners)?

I can see the benefits of going with something like CAAD10 or Giant TCR SL as a whole bike but I can also see the place in the market for the much derided (on here rather than in reviews) Tarmac Sora for someone who has better parts they are willing to swap over.

charlie_potatoes

Buckie2k5 wrote:

when you fall off and bang your carbon bike you will be worried that the frame is gonna break on you everytime your on that big decent. Even more so if it gets wet!!

:shock: :shock: :shock:


Too much Buckfast Buckie?

stueys

My 3k worth of carbon with dura everything feels a lot faster than my 800 quid allez with 150 quid mavic wheels and Tiagra groupset. Sadly Strava tells me that there's only a very, very marginal difference when I ride the same routes on the two bikes.

The carbon feels like more fun though

drdvice

WarlKicken wrote:

Christ's Chin, you're all so ridiculously harsh to each other, wasssaaa tha matter?!?!

It's a completely subjective argument. Carbon/ Aluminium/ Steel. Everyone is going to prefer something different based on their own opinion of it. All opinions are welcome but stop with the effin' damning of other peoples. Diasgree, yes, don't put someone else down!!

You soddin' bunch of evil nerds!

Ha ha Christ's Chin, love it. Will start using that alongside Satan's beard now. Thanks!

markhewitt1978

Stueys wrote:

The carbon feels like more fun though

Which is the point

On_What

I don't think Mr. carbon Liquigas Cannondale would agree with you as I nailed him with my cheapo Alu Planet X :P on the commute home

hoojammyflip

Something that happens is that as cyclists get into the sport, they spend more on the bike, and notice they are going round a loop/route they know at a faster rate....the problem is that its difficult to know whether its the bike or the fact that they've personally shed 10kg riding so much. I think the 10kg off your belly and bum, with an increase in power output contributes more than a slightly more rigid frame...

To fuel the argument though:
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/backoffi ... 3FINAL.pdf

Check out the stiffness of the aluminium and carbon frames, not the stiffness/weight ratio, but absolute stiffness. 300g off your frame matters little if you are fat. Buy a full length mirror and verify whether you or your bike has the most weight to lose. Even if you don't acknowledge this, other riders will do it for you. So put down the cake and get out the 531 steel frame.

RyanV49er

Personally, I like both as they offer different things. My Cervelo S1 (alloy) is perfect for circuit racing as it's tough and stiff, with a longer wheelbase so it's less twitchy. My Cervelo R5 VMD is super light, accelerates like a rocket but I don't enjoy throwing it into tight bends in a peloton. Carbon is lovely stuff to have, but, let's not forget what we get out of a decent alloy frame.

cynicalrider

A rider's ability to perceive a difference in frame characteristics is almost nil unless the build kit is exactly the same, as they cannot interact with the frame except through the contact parts. Hence unless your groupset, cockpit, saddle and seatpost, plus wheels are the same between bikes then any comparison is meaningless.

Part of the drive to sell carbon bikes with cheaper parts is that they will wear more quickly - higher end parts and alu frames tend to have a longer lifespan.

Bottom line, which would you rather have

Alu frame (£500) - Dura Ace - basic wheels

Carbon Frame (£1500) - Dura Ace - uber wheels

If you have finite resources, my experience is to prioritise spending on groupset, then wheels, then frame, as this is the order in which difference in quality are most obvious.

For the record, the frame I've most enjoyed riding was a scandium merckx like this - http://www.roadbikeaction.com/contentim ... erckx1.jpg - and I've ridden the same build kit on top end frames from Specialized, Cannondale and Felt for years.

tonye_n

cynicalrider wrote:

A rider's ability to perceive a difference in frame characteristics is almost nil unless the build kit is exactly the same.......

Rubbish. :roll:

Anonymous

The 'high end aluminium frame being better than an off the peg carbon one' thing is so funny.

Surely the comparison would be between high end carbon if its being compared with high end aluminium?

The aluminium v carbon thing is about cash. Carbon is generally better, but costs a lot more.

morstar

cynicalrider wrote:

A rider's ability to perceive a difference in frame characteristics is almost nil unless the build kit is exactly the same, as they cannot interact with the frame except through the contact parts. Hence unless your groupset, cockpit, saddle and seatpost, plus wheels are the same between bikes then any comparison is meaningless.

Part of the drive to sell carbon bikes with cheaper parts is that they will wear more quickly - higher end parts and alu frames tend to have a longer lifespan.

Bottom line, which would you rather have

Alu frame (£500) - Dura Ace - basic wheels

Carbon Frame (£1500) - Dura Ace - uber wheels

If you have finite resources, my experience is to prioritise spending on groupset, then wheels, then frame, as this is the order in which difference in quality are most obvious.

For the record, the frame I've most enjoyed riding was a scandium merckx like this - http://www.roadbikeaction.com/contentim ... erckx1.jpg - and I've ridden the same build kit on top end frames from Specialized, Cannondale and Felt for years.

As a budget conscious cyclist, the last thing on my priority list would be dura ace. Durability actually decreases beyond 105 as you sacrifice durability for weight savings. Don't get me wrong, I'd love dura ace but no way I'd waste money on an unnecessary luxury when buying a low-mid range machine.

cynicalrider

Whatever the groupset, the point I was making is that if its equal between an alu frame and a more expensive carbon frame where the differences between the two aren't that significant, you are better off getting the alu version and using the saving somewhere more palpable, like the wheels or groupset.

Point accepted re drivetrain durability

kayakerchris

You are all wrong. Titanium is the only material worth having for a bike frame.

drlodge

kayakerchris wrote:

You are all wrong. Titanium is the only material worth having for a bike frame.

Would be interesting to see those Giant tests applied to some Ti and 953 frames.

Alitogata

Carbonator wrote:

The 'high end aluminium frame being better than an off the peg carbon one' thing is so funny.

Surely the comparison would be between high end carbon if its being compared with high end aluminium?

The aluminium v carbon thing is about cash. Carbon is generally better, but costs a lot more.

The thing has to do with what you can buy when you have to afford the same amount of money and when the amount of money is a moderate one. A better aluminum frame or a better carbon frame?

If your budget is unlimited ... then ok .... you can get the best of each material.

But I don't think that this is the concept for everyday recreational rider.

And if we see it from another point of view, the need ( that market creates), of spending thousands of euros in order to buy a good frame is standing totally against the philosophy of what, in the first place, owning a bike means.

P.S Unless you are a pro tour rider.. ( but these people are sponsored for their bikes).

pride4ever

Well I seem to pass people on bikes of all makes and construction on a daily basis so I guess its down purely to the rider. LIKE ANYONE DIDNT KNOW THAT ALREADY FFS...:)