Top end aluminium bike or lower end carbon

Littleleg5

Hi all I am new to this and have a small predicament. I have around £1200 to spend on a new road bike and have been to my local shop who have advised me to buy a upper end Ali framed bike like the trek madone or similar with 105 group set rather than going down the route of a carbon bike from Planet X or ribble with either SRAM or ultegra group set.

zx6man

Same here..

alihisgreat

I'd go for Aluminium in that price range.. the only way you're going to get a decent carbon frame is by taking a hit on the spec (eg. Specialized Tarmac Sport).. and bikes like the Planet X Pro Carbon are old frame designs that weren't particularly good in the first place - there is a lot of flex in them.

bigmat

Did the shop in question happen to stock a "top end" aluminium bike in your price range but nothing with a carbon frame by any chance?

If it was my money I'd go for the carbon frame and better groupset all day long. Nothing wrong with the Planet X or Ribble frames (Planet X SL Pro is a bit long in the tooth I suppose) - I know people who have raced and won on both.

If you have a good reason to favour aluminium I'd take a look at Canyon.

diamonddog

There are only badly made carbon frames as there are alu ones as opposed to low end. Most carbon frames are made in the Far East which include big brand and small brand names.

IME there is nothing wrong with alu or carbon, PX and Ribble sell loads of frames alu and carbon and if they were of low quality no one would buy them. They also offer better vfm ( no massive advertising overheads etc.) so better components usually.
So if you want alu get it but don't be put off the carbon options, I have one which is a PX Pro Carbon with Sram and it has been an excellent buy and a vgood bike, also take a look at Dolan.
The flex issue on the PX as mentioned in another post is a non issue IME.

How Far is too Far

Try Canyon

Good choice of Alloy and Carbon, very good value

A little over your budget but I would go for this,

https://www.canyon.com/_en/roadbikes/bike.html?b=3239

Grill

diamonddog wrote:

There are only badly made carbon frames as there are alu ones as opposed to low end. Most carbon frames are made in the Far East which include big brand and small brand names.

Really? You sure about that? So you're saying that all carbon fiber grades are high end and the only difference is the workmanship? So there's no difference between say a 3k and a 12k weave? What about the differences in tensile modulus? What about pre-preg CF?

Much like different grades of AL, Ti and Steel, not all carbon fiber is created equal.

markhewitt1978

Go for the carbon; the Planet X one is a good choice.

In general you should get the best frame you can afford, and pay little attention to the groupset, because you can always upgrade the groupset later, and the groupsets are all decent so it makes little difference anyway.

diamonddog

Grill wrote:

diamonddog wrote:

There are only badly made carbon frames as there are alu ones as opposed to low end. Most carbon frames are made in the Far East which include big brand and small brand names.

Really? You sure about that? So you're saying that all carbon fiber grades are high end and the only difference is the workmanship? So there's no difference between say a 3k and a 12k weave? What about the differences in tensile modulus? What about pre-preg CF?

Much like different grades of AL, Ti and Steel, not all carbon fiber is created equal.

I was referring to frames at the price point the OP has.

As you know one frame can be made from different grades of carbon to give it strength or flexibility where needed so why just come on to snipe at someone instead of offering the OP some advice. :roll:

Grill

Because you gave fallacious information. Different types of carbon are different prices, just like with alu so there clearly is such a thing as low and high end. Giving the impression that the only difference between a PX and Lightweight carbon frame is simply the guy building it simply allows the OP to rationalize under false pretense.

I've given loads of advice in these types of threads, it's always the same. Buy a good alu frame instead of entry-level carbon. Cannondale, Canyon, Kinesis, are all worth a look.

diamonddog

Grill wrote:

Because you gave fallacious information. Different types of carbon are different prices, just like with alu so there clearly is such a thing as low and high end. Giving the impression that the only difference between a PX and Lightweight carbon frame is simply the guy building it simply allows the OP to rationalize under false pretense.

I've given loads of advice in these types of threads, it's always the same. Buy a good alu frame instead of entry-level carbon. Cannondale, Canyon, Kinesis, are all worth a look.

I also stated that there was nothing wrong with alu if that is what the OP wanted.

brownbosh

Canyon or Roase AL for that money any day

Littleleg5

the bikes in which my local shop can supply is the trek domane 2.3 the trek madone 2.3 as well as the specialized tarmac sl4 all at £1200, yet ribble and planet x can supply a carbon for around £1000 so you can see my predicament. I have heard from some local riders that you should never get a lower end carbon bike due to the flex evan through the group sets are generally better, but having said that a previous post has mention that there isn't that much difference in the group sets nowadays.

I am still very open in which bike and make to go for and understand you pay a premium for a major manufacturer ie shop overheads execetra, compared to the internet retailers.

Grill

Frame is the most important part of the bike.

kajjal

You need to do some test rides as this should help you narrow down your choices. Have a think what type of riding position you want, comfortable or a more head down racing position.


The advice from the bike shop is good as long as you intend to keep the same bike for a while and are not planning to upgrade components until next year etc. If you are sure an upgrade of components is likely then go for a bike with a good frame. For most riders a £1,000 bike is more than good enough but its always nice to have a better bike

Have a look at the 2013 sales are there are some bikes like the tarmac sport from last year available for £1,200 if you can find your size. You need to allow for other bits such as a pump, clothing, tools etc. in your budget as well.

KonkyWonky

I was in the same position as you last year and went for a Canyon Ultimate AL 7.0, not regretted it for a minute.

I'm more than happy knowing I have one of the best AL frames out there, particularly when the alternative is a bottom end carbon frame (unless you buy second hand).

dj58

Cycling Plus Magazine are doing a group test (usual suspects), of aluminium framed bikes in the £1100 - £1500 price range in the next issue 284. Should be on the news stands soon.

defride

http://www.merlincycles.com/sensa-lomba ... 57868.html

Add full 105 & Ultegra wheelset options. further 10% off at the mo and it hits budget at about £1250. Or theres an Ultegra 11sp option with lesser wheels, chainset and brakes for slightly less money.

Would personally prefer this to the usual suspect alu options at the money.

Littleleg5

KonkyWonky wrote:

I was in the same position as you last year and went for a Canyon Ultimate AL 7.0, not regretted it for a minute.

I'm more than happy knowing I have one of the best AL frames out there, particularly when the alternative is a bottom end carbon frame (unless you buy second hand).

I have just checked out the canyon website very nice, need to find a local supplier so I can try it out.

DJ58 wrote:

Cycling Plus Magazine are doing a group test (usual suspects), of aluminium framed bikes in the £1100 - £1500 price range in the next issue 284. Should be on the news stands soon.

I will keep my eye open for that issue.

I am now 60/40 for the alu frame.

Littleleg5

defride wrote:

http://www.merlincycles.com/sensa-lombardia-custom-road-bike-57868.html

Add full 105 & Ultegra wheelset options. further 10% off at the mo and it hits budget at about £1250. Or theres an Ultegra 11sp option with lesser wheels, chainset and brakes for slightly less money.

Would personally prefer this to the usual suspect alu options at the money.

Thanks defride for the website,I am now back to 50/50

KonkyWonky

Littleleg5 wrote:

KonkyWonky wrote:

I was in the same position as you last year and went for a Canyon Ultimate AL 7.0, not regretted it for a minute.

I'm more than happy knowing I have one of the best AL frames out there, particularly when the alternative is a bottom end carbon frame (unless you buy second hand).

I have just checked out the canyon website very nice, need to find a local supplier so I can try it out.

You won't find a local supplier, you can only purchase from their website and it is shipped from Germany. That's the only downside however, value for money is excellent and it is widely regarded (at least the 2013 frameset was) as one of the best AL bikes out there along with the Cannondale CAAD10.

Anonymous

Last 3 bikes (daughter and wives first road and my first cross/winter bike) we have bought have been aluminium and am pretty sure they will be the last.

Just up your budget (if need be) and get a decent carbon framed 105 or above bike.
Anyone who can afford a decent aluminium bike can afford a decent carbon one if they really want it.
£1200 is carbon territory. Get a more expensive one on 0% finance and spread the difference over 2-3 years.


All this talk of high end aluminium v low end carbon is a load of bull imo.
Carbon is the new frame material and it is better than aluminium.
Forget about aluminium and just find a decent carbon bike. Think you will regret getting an aluminium road bike.

Grill

Carbonator wrote:

All this talk of high end aluminium v low end carbon is a load of bull imo.
Carbon is the new frame material and it is better than aluminium.

And I suppose you can support your contentions with facts as opposed to pure conjecture... :roll:

Anonymous

Grill wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

All this talk of high end aluminium v low end carbon is a load of bull imo.
Carbon is the new frame material and it is better than aluminium.

And I suppose you can support your contentions with facts as opposed to pure conjecture... :roll:

Nope, would not waste my time.
I would just find the cash to get the carbon equivalent of the aluminium bike.

Its better if only for being lighter and not having pig ugly welds imo.

The OP would not even be asking the question if there were no price difference so I think debating which material is better for making bikes out of is a little pointless.

rickeverett

Some manufacturers use very good quality carbon frames on lower price bikes, others not so much.

I wouldn't say low end carbons are any worse as high end aluminium. Load of bollocks and too much of a sweeping statement.

Watch out for big name brands with carbon frames and low specs. The frames perform no better if you look at reviews. There game is profit via name tag - something rife in the cycling world.

What you do get is a price difference. The Canyon aluminium bikes for example are great because they can afford to put together higher spec bikes because the frame material is cheap to acquire and construct with.

Grill

Of course, why would you waste time with facts...
CAAD10 Frame = 1248g
Canyon Ultimate AL = 1220g
Kinesis Aitheon = 1138g
WyndyMilla Beastie Boy = 1200g
Specialized Allez E5 = 1200g

bagz3

Who said Planet X frames were low end. Only low end i've read upon is the price.......

cycleclinic

You are best not to focus on the frame material per se but go with the bike you like.

For top end aluminum frame there is the new Deda aluminio yes a crap name but it is a light frame. http://www.chickencycles.co.uk/index.ph ... =121&ord=2

Grill

bagz3 wrote:

Who said Planet X frames were low end. Only low end i've read upon is the price.......

They're simply open-mould Chinese frames. There is no QC worth mentioning and proper R&D is a joke. The nice thing about them as compared to buying direct is that they will replace their product if faulty which is more than you'll get from buying direct.

Now I'm not necessarily saying they're bad frames, just that the engineering general focus behind such frames isn't in the same league as larger brands. It could certainly be done, but the time and cost involved would negate what makes these frames so attractive- the price.

Again, you can ride any bike and be happy with it, but comparing a PX frame to a Spec frame is hardly apples to apples.

I will say that at least PX don't inflate their prices excessively nor do they misrepresent what they're offering unlike Ritte.

rolf_f

Grill wrote:

Now I'm not necessarily saying they're bad frames, just that the engineering general focus behind such frames isn't in the same league as larger brands. It could certainly be done, but the time and cost involved would negate what makes these frames so attractive- the price.

What specific knowledge do you have (beyond conjecture and instinct) to back that up both in terms of the 'engineering general focus' and the translation of that to any actual performance benefit in the bike? (You are accusing others of conjecture so I'm sure you do have something to back this statement up because it would be a bit cheeky to pick on others for something you aren't averse to doing yourself ) I have read loads of these threads and nobody so far who advocates that high end alloy is somehow superior to low end carbon (whatever that actually is - does it even exist for the most part anymore?) has ever come up with anything tangible to back the theory up.

Grill

Rolf F wrote:

Grill wrote:

Now I'm not necessarily saying they're bad frames, just that the engineering general focus behind such frames isn't in the same league as larger brands. It could certainly be done, but the time and cost involved would negate what makes these frames so attractive- the price.

What specific knowledge do you have (beyond conjecture and instinct) to back that up both in terms of the 'engineering general focus' and the translation of that to any actual performance benefit in the bike? (You are accusing others of conjecture so I'm sure you do have something to back this statement up because it would be a bit cheeky to pick on others for something you aren't averse to doing yourself ) I have read loads of these threads and nobody so far who advocates that high end alloy is somehow superior to low end carbon (whatever that actually is - does it even exist for the most part anymore?) has ever come up with anything tangible to back the theory up.

A fair point. It's worth noting that when I speak of open-mould carbon frames, I'm comparing them to fully engineered carbon frames, and not necessarily AL frames (I'll get into that later). In terms of what constitutes 'performance benefit' I suppose this could be broken down into aero, weight and compliance.

Aero is probably the most contentious from an open-mould standpoint. This is because even though the big names do all the R&D, the moulds can be easily stolen or copied. I don't think there's any argument that aero testing and development is done at great cost as marginal gains are everything at the top. Specialized recently built their own tunnel, companies turn to aero specialists for design (both Giant and Scott have used Simon Smart, Spec-McLaren), and they're always pushing boundaries (both UCI-legal and design) in order to eek out a lower cd at varying yaw angles. Trek, Ridley, Scott, Cervelo, Spec, Felt and many more tunnel test their bikes. Even those who don't bother (either due to money or it being a low priority) typically use CFD to approximate real world conditions. I could link articles and interviews for days on this, but as I said I doubt there is any real debate on this.

Weight is an interesting one as it's more the boutique companies that focus on this. That said there is still a bit of a battle for the big players to produce lighter framesets, even if it's just for bragging rights. Scott, Cervelo, Trek, to name a few, all prototype in-house. Their engineers work with different carbon moduli and layups in order to find the best strength to weight to create light frames that won't crumble and still retain the desired ride qualities (see next section). The boutique segment do the same thing although they don't always have the facilities in-house, but they create incredibly light and strong frames. Check out Rolo, Guru and Parlee for examples of quality exemplified through workmanship.

Compliance is perhaps the most import metric in terms of bike quality, and that which is the most difficult for open-mould fabs to recreate. Compliance can be anything from a super-stiff frame for a sprinter, to something with a cushy ride for the sportive rider. There are three main things that influence compliance- geometry/design, carbon layup and added/propriety tech.
Geometry/design is not just a question of shaping the frame based upon the status quo. Everything from the shape of the down tube, to the size of the head tube, to the curve of the seat stays impacts the ride. Who does all this? A combination of PhD's, industry experts and cyclists. Look at the 25.4mm seatpost of the Synapse, the Kamm-styling of the Foil and Madone or even the wonky forks that Pinarello use. There is no accident to these designs and the all affect compliance and are the cumulative result of lots of people's hard work
Layup influences ride. Depending on the manner in which specific types of carbons are applied and where, the ride characteristics are altered. This process requires considerable knowledge of not just carbon, but also bicycle geometry as how force is applied. When I speak to inferior layups, this is what I'm referring to. Anybody can steal/copy a mould, but they don't replicate the process and materials that makes a good frame what it is. If they did manage to copy the materials and application process then the price of the frames would be much higher which eliminates the consumer's incentive to buy. A good example of difference in materials and care taken when differently applied would be the Scott Foil. It's available in either HMF or HMX carbon, the latter is 20% stiffer. With the HMX carbon they're able to make a thinner tube which reduces weight, but the lack of material doesn't adversely harm the ride, in fact it's as near to identical as you can get. Even the smaller companies work with their manufacturers to dial in ride. WyndyMilla does this with Sarto. There are loads of prototypes and they work together to tune characteristics. Again, not something you'll find with HongFu.
In terms of Propriety tech, that's an easy one. Spec have Zertz, Cannondale have SAVE and the Power Pyramid, Trek have IsoSpeed etc. These are all designed with the same resources and purposes as I've listed above and can't be recreated in a random fab for practical or legal reasons.

That's carbon, but you'll find that these design principles are the same when it comes to their alu models even though the materials are different. Specialized's E5 frames use SmartWeld (and many other techs) to create a light and stiff alu frame and applied Zertz to the Secteur for a smoother ride. Kinesis developed kinesium to shave weight. Scott applied aero shaped tubes to the Speedster. These are just a few examples but they illustrate how trickle down works in the industry.

Check out how Guru bikes do it. Now think that the PX's of the world do nothing more than apply a sticker to an anonymous frame. Which would you rather have regardless of material?
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/10/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-1-office-visit-carbon-bike-design-stress-testing/
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/11/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-2-building-a-carbon-bicycle-frame/
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/12/14/factory-tour-guru-cycles-part-3-titanium-frame-building-painting-and-finishing/