Is Carbon this good, or am I fitter than I thought?

KevChallis

I am curious, last year I rode a defy 3, this year im on a Planet X pro carbon.

My first ride was today, admittedly, only 19 miles, but my average was nearly 19mph, some points I wasn't trying that much and achieved personal best times.

Can carbon and a light bike seriously save you that much time, or can a heavier bike lose you that much time. As it took me a lot of training last year to get to the point I am at now.

Grill

Placebo effect. A lighter bike will save a bit of time, but nothing earth shattering.

jibberjim

In the same size, in a default position, the PX is significantly more aerodynamic than the defy, which is a very upright bike.

Anonymous

Its faster, thats all that really matters re being faster IMO.
Does it really matter by how much?

How did it feel?
Did you enjoy riding it more? If so, how much more?

Guessing it was much more enjoyable............and faster.
Win, win.

Hope you still have the Ali Defy to remind yourself how much more you like the Carbon PX

djhermer

Tailwind?

Moonbiker

I did a circular route recently, a fairly flat route of about 30 miles. Speed 11mph first half average, 23 mph second half average, due to the 35mph winds.

Got some strava cups.

KevChallis

djhermer wrote:

Tailwind?

For a part yes, but even with the headwind it was hugely better. Plus it was an out and back route, so wind probably didn't have much effect, So yeah, win win

No I don't have the defy anymore, probably will never go back to ally again lol.


It was comfier, faster, rolled better, I loved it and can't wait to get out again!!

Anonymous

I think its just you and me that feels like that on here though, so keep it quite 8)

simon_masterson

On two different bikes with different geometry, the frame material is hardly the primary concern.

Maybe if you had two frames in different materials with identical geometry and then built them up with identical wheels and finishing kit, you might have a stab at an objective comparison. Apart from anything else, much of the posts you read on this subject are from people who have upgraded from a lower class aluminium bike to a higher class carbon fibre bike, as carbon is the preferred material in 2014 and aluminium is mostly used for second best.

Gullible marketing victims will obviously tell you what they think they know about one material or another and will obediently extol the virtues of the wonder materials they've been sold, but the fact is that the frame and fork geometry define the response of the bike. Blind testing presents a bit of a challenge in cycling, but a skilled framebuilder could build up bikes in both materials with different geometry and then prompt an unsuspecting cyclist to notice the magic properties or lack thereof.

littledove44

First ride, mid April. Wuss?

imposter2.0

jibberjim wrote:

In the same size, in a default position, the PX is significantly more aerodynamic than the defy, which is a very upright bike.

You can get a perfectly good position on either bike, regardless of geometry. I don't see the aerodynamics of either bike as an issue really, considering that the human body accounts for about 70% of the profile.

KevChallis

littledove44 wrote:

First ride, mid April. Wuss?

Only just picked my bike up lol

Been riding on the mucky stuff all winter. Now back to the proper stuff lol

KevChallis

Imposter wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

In the same size, in a default position, the PX is significantly more aerodynamic than the defy, which is a very upright bike.

You can get a perfectly good position on either bike, regardless of geometry. I don't see the aerodynamics of either bike as an issue really, considering that the human body accounts for about 70% of the profile.

I didn't mean to start a debate, just seeing if it's the bike of me which has made me faster lol

ElectronShepherd

KevChallis wrote:

Can carbon and a light bike seriously save you that much time

It's much more likely to be the psychology of having a new and "better" bike. Different tyres will also make a difference. Carbon will help, but as others have said, the only real way to find out would be to have two bikes with the same geometry and all the same kit on.

Imposter wrote:

I don't see the aerodynamics of either bike as an issue really

It depends on the level you ride at. For me personally, I'm sure it makes no difference whatsoever to my speed. However, if Nairo Alexander Quintana Rojas had reduced his overall time by just 0.086% on the 2013 Tour de France, he would have won, instead of coming second.

Anonymous

Simon Masterson wrote:

On two different bikes with different geometry, the frame material is hardly the primary concern.

Maybe if you had two frames in different materials with identical geometry and then built them up with identical wheels and finishing kit, you might have a stab at an objective comparison. Apart from anything else, much of the posts you read on this subject are from people who have upgraded from a lower class aluminium bike to a higher class carbon fibre bike, as carbon is the preferred material in 2014 and aluminium is mostly used for second best.

Gullible marketing victims will obviously tell you what they think they know about one material or another and will obediently extol the virtues of the wonder materials they've been sold, but the fact is that the frame and fork geometry define the response of the bike. Blind testing presents a bit of a challenge in cycling, but a skilled framebuilder could build up bikes in both materials with different geometry and then prompt an unsuspecting cyclist to notice the magic properties or lack thereof.

Does any of that really matter?

Carbon looks way better even if it was no better a material (but it is (no I am not going to substantiate that)) so I have no problem with being a marketing victim if all expensive bikes are carbon and the cheap ones aluminium.

Why would anyone upgrade from an entry level aluminium to a better aluminium?
Just upgrade straight to carbon

Whats the option? build up your own aluminium bike just to try to prove a point?
It will still be ugly even if you bend over backwards to get one as light and vaguely as attractive.
The cost advantage will probably go out of the window and then its going to just be personal preference.

If you prefer the ride of aluminium, just ride it and leave people that prefer carbon alone lol

The same stuff was said about aluminium when it first appeared so guess we are all marketing victims unless riding steel bikes.

Maybe if expensive bikes were readily available in both materials it would be worth debating, but they are not, carbon has no real downside, so just live with it, buy a light/fast/expensive bike and get out and enjoy riding (like the OP has done) instead of whinging on about yesteryear and being some sort of mug if you pay more for carbon.

mpatts

From a recent few rides:

I do an interval session around a defined 'lap', on my PX |Carbon Pro I do it at over 20mph, on my genesis winter bike I do it in under 19 usually. The PX is definitely faster (there is an uphill section), but the main difference is I ride the genesis when it's windy and rainy.

I'd expect some difference, not least because it's a nice bike

simon_masterson

Carbonator wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

On two different bikes with different geometry, the frame material is hardly the primary concern.

Maybe if you had two frames in different materials with identical geometry and then built them up with identical wheels and finishing kit, you might have a stab at an objective comparison. Apart from anything else, much of the posts you read on this subject are from people who have upgraded from a lower class aluminium bike to a higher class carbon fibre bike, as carbon is the preferred material in 2014 and aluminium is mostly used for second best.

Gullible marketing victims will obviously tell you what they think they know about one material or another and will obediently extol the virtues of the wonder materials they've been sold, but the fact is that the frame and fork geometry define the response of the bike. Blind testing presents a bit of a challenge in cycling, but a skilled framebuilder could build up bikes in both materials with different geometry and then prompt an unsuspecting cyclist to notice the magic properties or lack thereof.

Does any of that really matter?

Carbon looks way better even if it was no better a material (but it is (no I am not going to substantiate that)) so I have no problem with being a marketing victim if all expensive bikes are carbon and the cheap ones aluminium.

Why would anyone upgrade from an entry level aluminium to a better aluminium?
Just upgrade straight to carbon

Whats the option? build up your own aluminium bike just to try to prove a point?
It will still be ugly even if you bend over backwards to get one as light and vaguely as attractive.
The cost advantage will probably go out of the window and then its going to just be personal preference.

If you prefer the ride of aluminium, just ride it and leave people that prefer carbon alone lol

The same stuff was said about aluminium when it first appeared so guess we are all marketing victims unless riding steel bikes.

Maybe if expensive bikes were readily available in both materials it would be worth debating, but they are not, carbon has no real downside, so just live with it, buy a light/fast/expensive bike and get out and enjoy riding (like the OP has done) instead of whinging on about yesteryear and being some sort of mug if you pay more for carbon.

Carbon fibre, aluminium and titanium have all been used since the late '70s or earlier to make bikes from. It took until the mid '90s for aluminium to be preferred to steel, and the middle of last decade for carbon fibre to take over. It's a great shame they didn't have you there to tell them how wrong they all were. Deda and other top end aluminium tubesets are still available; if you had one built up made to measure, it wouldn't be a bad bike and it wouldn't be heavy either.

markhewitt1978

There's also the issue that the light carbon bike is going to be nicer to ride, and if the bike is nice to ride you're going to be more inclined to ride it more often, further and harder.

mpatts

Carbonator wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

On two different bikes with different geometry, the frame material is hardly the primary concern.

Maybe if you had two frames in different materials with identical geometry and then built them up with identical wheels and finishing kit, you might have a stab at an objective comparison. Apart from anything else, much of the posts you read on this subject are from people who have upgraded from a lower class aluminium bike to a higher class carbon fibre bike, as carbon is the preferred material in 2014 and aluminium is mostly used for second best.

Gullible marketing victims will obviously tell you what they think they know about one material or another and will obediently extol the virtues of the wonder materials they've been sold, but the fact is that the frame and fork geometry define the response of the bike. Blind testing presents a bit of a challenge in cycling, but a skilled framebuilder could build up bikes in both materials with different geometry and then prompt an unsuspecting cyclist to notice the magic properties or lack thereof.

Does any of that really matter?

Carbon looks way better even if it was no better a material (but it is (no I am not going to substantiate that)) so I have no problem with being a marketing victim if all expensive bikes are carbon and the cheap ones aluminium.

Why would anyone upgrade from an entry level aluminium to a better aluminium?
Just upgrade straight to carbon

Whats the option? build up your own aluminium bike just to try to prove a point?
It will still be ugly even if you bend over backwards to get one as light and vaguely as attractive.
The cost advantage will probably go out of the window and then its going to just be personal preference.

If you prefer the ride of aluminium, just ride it and leave people that prefer carbon alone lol

The same stuff was said about aluminium when it first appeared so guess we are all marketing victims unless riding steel bikes.

Maybe if expensive bikes were readily available in both materials it would be worth debating, but they are not, carbon has no real downside, so just live with it, buy a light/fast/expensive bike and get out and enjoy riding (like the OP has done) instead of whinging on about yesteryear and being some sort of mug if you pay more for carbon.

I still think steel looks better - skinny tubes and lugs just looks amazing. If I could afford it, my race bike would be in 953.

simon_masterson

mpatts wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

On two different bikes with different geometry, the frame material is hardly the primary concern.

Maybe if you had two frames in different materials with identical geometry and then built them up with identical wheels and finishing kit, you might have a stab at an objective comparison. Apart from anything else, much of the posts you read on this subject are from people who have upgraded from a lower class aluminium bike to a higher class carbon fibre bike, as carbon is the preferred material in 2014 and aluminium is mostly used for second best.

Gullible marketing victims will obviously tell you what they think they know about one material or another and will obediently extol the virtues of the wonder materials they've been sold, but the fact is that the frame and fork geometry define the response of the bike. Blind testing presents a bit of a challenge in cycling, but a skilled framebuilder could build up bikes in both materials with different geometry and then prompt an unsuspecting cyclist to notice the magic properties or lack thereof.

Does any of that really matter?

Carbon looks way better even if it was no better a material (but it is (no I am not going to substantiate that)) so I have no problem with being a marketing victim if all expensive bikes are carbon and the cheap ones aluminium.

Why would anyone upgrade from an entry level aluminium to a better aluminium?
Just upgrade straight to carbon

Whats the option? build up your own aluminium bike just to try to prove a point?
It will still be ugly even if you bend over backwards to get one as light and vaguely as attractive.
The cost advantage will probably go out of the window and then its going to just be personal preference.

If you prefer the ride of aluminium, just ride it and leave people that prefer carbon alone lol

The same stuff was said about aluminium when it first appeared so guess we are all marketing victims unless riding steel bikes.

Maybe if expensive bikes were readily available in both materials it would be worth debating, but they are not, carbon has no real downside, so just live with it, buy a light/fast/expensive bike and get out and enjoy riding (like the OP has done) instead of whinging on about yesteryear and being some sort of mug if you pay more for carbon.

I still think steel looks better - skinny tubes and lugs just looks amazing. If I could afford it, my race bike would be in 953.

Me too! Whether it's with a quill and (shock horror) aluminium box sections, or full carbon finishing kit and wheels. It's not even that much heavier. Maybe one day I'll own something in 953...!

Grill

It's all about mixing steel and carbon. My next bike will look very similar to this:

markhewitt1978

No offence but I think that just looks odd! Like wearing a business suit with bermuda shorts..

menthel

Grill wrote:

It's all about mixing steel and carbon. My next bike will look very similar to this:

Just had a gentleman's accident in my trousers- what a beautiful bike!

(Off topic- any piccies of your wyndymilla knocking around- am planning a purchase and they are on the list...)

Grill

I'll be posting updated pics next week as there have been a few changes (EE Cycleworks brakes, Ritchey Monocurve bars/stem, new cages, new wheels, etc.).
This is my most recent one from a the top of Mt. Lemmon a couple weeks ago.

drlodge

or a 953 bike like this? :shock:

andy_s_t

Simon Masterson wrote:

On two different bikes with different geometry, the frame material is hardly the primary concern.

Maybe if you had two frames in different materials with identical geometry and then built them up with identical wheels and finishing kit, you might have a stab at an objective comparison. Apart from anything else, much of the posts you read on this subject are from people who have upgraded from a lower class aluminium bike to a higher class carbon fibre bike, as carbon is the preferred material in 2014 and aluminium is mostly used for second best.

Gullible marketing victims will obviously tell you what they think they know about one material or another and will obediently extol the virtues of the wonder materials they've been sold, but the fact is that the frame and fork geometry define the response of the bike. Blind testing presents a bit of a challenge in cycling, but a skilled framebuilder could build up bikes in both materials with different geometry and then prompt an unsuspecting cyclist to notice the magic properties or lack thereof.

I am actually about to do something like this. I recently picked up an Orbea Orca frame for a price I couldn't refuse and I am building it to the same 105 spec as my Orbea Qqua. Geoemtry wise they are almost identical. So it'll be same wheels, same geometry, same gearing etc. The Aqua is a pretty light Ali frame as the whole bike came in at 9.7kgs and the Orbea will be a bit lighter at around 8.5kgs. I am interested in the difference between the ride of the two, and will be keeping both as I like the ride of the Aqua.

Looks wise I'm not sure what I prefer, the Aqua is a nice looking bike (especially in it's EE colours), the Orca looks racy, edgy and modern, but I actually prefer the look of my Genesis Crox de Fer most of the time, as there is just something about the skinny tubes etc. That's probably just showing my age though, as bikes all had skinny tubes when I 'were a lad'. All the bikes are different though, I'm pretty sure the Orca will be the quickest, but they all have plus points.

drlodge

Grill wrote:

It's all about mixing steel and carbon. My next bike will look very similar to this:

I thought your next bike might be pink ;-)

Grill

Considering that delivery of my English won't be for another year and a half, I'm sure I'll find time to acquire a few other bikes before then. :P

ai_1

"Is Carbon this good, or am I fitter than I thought?"

The simple fact the bike is made using carbon fibre doesn't make anyone faster. You've given us all two choices but all anyone can say for sure is that it's not option 1!

Your new bike might be making you faster because of the geometry, weight, stiffness, frame aerodynamics, the psychological impact of having a new bike or any combination of those. The construction material (carbon) may facilitate some of those factors but the carbon itself should not be considered a magic bullet.

Most people, including myself, will say a legitimate significant increase in average speed on a flattish route is probably due primarily to either an improvement in fitness, riding position, placebo effect or a combination of these. On a hilly course, bike weight could be significant but on the flat it won't be hugely important. Of course if you're basing this on a single ride it's equally possible that it's nothing to do with the new bike and you just had a good day with good conditions.

menthel

Grill wrote:

I'll be posting updated pics next week as there have been a few changes (EE Cycleworks brakes, Ritchey Monocurve bars/stem, new cages, new wheels, etc.).
This is my most recent one from a the top of Mt. Lemmon a couple weeks ago.

Thanks. Looks nice, although I am not sure I would go for that paint job. Yellow and black is my current thinking- a custom painted Super Acciaio is the current fave. Want something less relaxed than the Italia which is really designed to eat up the miles at a good but pleasant pace.

Anyway, I will stop crashing threads about Carbon with steel and alu nonsense.

Grill

You wouldn't be able to go with the paint job even if you liked it. My design.