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

simon_masterson

Andy_S_T 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.

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.

Sounds like a fun project - you'll have to report back!

simon_masterson

Ai_1 wrote:

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.

They don't, but they should.

jibberjim

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.

Comparing a 56cm Cervelo RS with a 56cm Cervelo S1, you cannot get the same aerodynamic position without a truly ludicrous stem (I have a 140 -35 degree stem on the RS and it's considerably slower than my S1 set up which only has a -17 degree stem.

So yes, you can get the same aerodynamic position on any frame given silly enough stems and seatposts, however the default position of the two bikes in the same size is considerably different, with the default defy position being considerably slower.

homers_double

Seeing as there are a few carbon boffins in this thread I'll ask a question without opening a new thread...

Is there a rider weight limit on carbon bikes? I'm currently around 15.5st (hopefully going down) and at some point will upgrade my specialized allez, if I go for a higher spec/build will a carbon frame hold me up?

Grill

It varies by manufacturer so you'd need to check regarding the bikes you'd be looking at.

andy_s_t

homers double wrote:

Seeing as there are a few carbon boffins in this thread I'll ask a question without opening a new thread...

Is there a rider weight limit on carbon bikes? I'm currently around 15.5st (hopefully going down) and at some point will upgrade my specialized allez, if I go for a higher spec/build will a carbon frame hold me up?

I weigh 115kgs so about 18st. I love my Orbeas as they have a lifetime frame warranty without a weight limit. In fact when I asked about weight they were very confident that their frames could handle it, and more! There is no reason why a carbon bike should be less strong than an Ali or Steel bike.

ednino

On the other end of the spectrum...

I'm on a rental Kuota carbon bike here in Mallorca. Its no where near as good as my CAAD9 :?

jgsi

drlodge wrote:

or a 953 bike like this? :shock:

You need to ship this back to Staffs for me to race, you know!!
I won't crash it.....honest! and I'd have to ditch that saddle

drlodge

I'll be up at Rourke's with it on the 22nd, then out doing the Cat n Fiddle ;-)

BrandonA

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 think the "is cheap or expensive faster" is a bit too simplistic.

I think weight (of the bike), aerodynamics (of the bike) and rider position (based on geometry of the bike) and components installed on the bike frame all have an input.

An S-Works Venge for example saves 22 watts at 40kmh over the S-Works Tarmac. This has been proven during testing. Yes we don't know what components Specialised put on the two bikes to conduct this test but I doubt they are any poorer than the stock components that come on the lower tier Tarmacs (the Fulrum wheels for example as shocking)

This means that if like me you have a cheaper Tarmac and an S-Works Venge then the watt difference between these bikes will be even more.

I would say that on a circular course of between 30 and 50 miles that my speed difference between the two bikes is at least 0.5 miles per hour. I've only managed 20mph rides on the Tarmac a few times whereas I can go 21 occasionally on the Venge but nearly always over 20mph.

I think you could take two identical frames but top of the range components on one, including wheels and then entry level components on the other and you would see a difference in performance. Similarly if you switched the full set of components between my two bikes then I think the Tarmac will get faster and the Venge slower - whether the Tarmac becomes faster would be an interesting test.

I do also think that it is hard to compare to bikes because people tend to ride the lesser spec one in the winter. People ride slower in the winter anyway due to extra layers of clothing, the poorer road conditions and temperature/wind. It is hardly therefore fair to compare a windy/wet January ride with a warm August ride with no wind.

I wonder if people have a more aero riding style on their cheaper bike than their best one as lots of people don't seem to see any improvement. I also wonder if these people are not riding to their max, its easy to peter along at 15mph on both bikes and then claim that there is no performance difference. You need to push yourself and the bike to the limit to see any difference.

simon_masterson

BrandonA 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.

I think the "is cheap or expensive faster" is a bit too simplistic.

I think weight (of the bike), aerodynamics (of the bike) and rider position (based on geometry of the bike) and components installed on the bike frame all have an input.

Exactly. Is aluminium heavy? No - cheap aluminium frames are heavy. Top flight ones made when they were the choice of all the top professionals built up into 6.8kg bikes, including aluminium wheels. Are all carbon fibre bikes more aerodynamic than all aluminium bikes? The simple fact is that there aren't any magic materials.

markhewitt1978

Simon Masterson wrote:

The simple fact is that there aren't any magic materials.

Carbon nano-tubes sound like magic to me!

sparklehedgehog

KevChallis wrote:

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.

Dodgy speedo?!

thegibdog

BrandonA wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Gullible marketing victims will obviously tell you what they think they know

An S-Works Venge for example saves 22 watts at 40kmh over the S-Works Tarmac. This has been proven during testing.

Interesting. Maybe if it was fitted with all the various parts that manufacturers claim save X amount of watts you'd have to fasten it down to stop it riding off all by itself.

simon_masterson

thegibdog wrote:

BrandonA wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Gullible marketing victims will obviously tell you what they think they know

An S-Works Venge for example saves 22 watts at 40kmh over the S-Works Tarmac. This has been proven during testing.

Interesting. Maybe if it was fitted with all the various parts that manufacturers claim save X amount of watts you'd have to fasten it down to stop it riding off all by itself.

Exactly. It's just like the various energy products that have been 'proven during testing' to improve performance by x%. On a level with the stats on shampoo adverts. Useful if you do your cycling in a lab under controlled conditions, I guess. You can't blame the manufacturers for exploiting the 'gullible and loaded' market, though...

desweller

Simon Masterson wrote:

The simple fact is that there aren't any magic materials.

Steel is very close to magic - there is no other material with such a huge range of applications.

simon_masterson

And it can build up into a frame that is very comfortable, durable (and won't fail without warning), fully repairable and lightweight. Not to mention good looking.

ai_1

DesWeller wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

The simple fact is that there aren't any magic materials.

Steel is very close to magic - there is no other material with such a huge range of applications.

That depends on the criteria you use. Carbon is an ingredient in steel after all! No material is magical. They each have their advantages and fans.

desweller

Ai_1 wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

The simple fact is that there aren't any magic materials.

Steel is very close to magic - there is no other material with such a huge range of applications.

That depends on the criteria you use. Carbon is an ingredient in steel after all! No material is magical. They each have their advantages and fans.

Wait till you see my bike made from unicorn horn. Now that's magic.

I use the tears of the baby Jesus to oil the chain.

andy_s_t

Simon Masterson wrote:

And it can build up into a frame that is very comfortable, durable (and won't fail without warning), fully repairable and lightweight. Not to mention good looking.

Steel can easily fail without warning, any material can. The very thin wall steel tubes that are typically used can crack and split easily is put under the right/wrong conditions. not going to argue with the good looking bit though as I prefer the look of my Genesis to my Plastic bike 80% of the time.

I'd say that carbon frames are as easy to repair as steel or ali, maybe easier, just a different method. In fact you need less specialist equipment to do a CF repair than you do steel or ali. Tig welders are not cheap, and decent brazing gear isn't cheap either. Yet resin and carbon can be bought much more cheaply, and with a bit of knowledge a repair can be quite simple.

Anonymous

DesWeller wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

The simple fact is that there aren't any magic materials.

Steel is very close to magic - there is no other material with such a huge range of applications.

Yeh, it's fantastic for cutlery.

It's great for bikes too in some situations, but in the real world, for most people, for most rides, buying a road bike from most places, carbon is a better option than aluminium.

The reason it gets stick is that it costs more.

simon_masterson

Andy_S_T wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

And it can build up into a frame that is very comfortable, durable (and won't fail without warning), fully repairable and lightweight. Not to mention good looking.

Steel can easily fail without warning, any material can. The very thin wall steel tubes that are typically used can crack and split easily is put under the right/wrong conditions. not going to argue with the good looking bit though as I prefer the look of my Genesis to my Plastic bike 80% of the time.

I'd say that carbon frames are as easy to repair as steel or ali, maybe easier, just a different method. In fact you need less specialist equipment to do a CF repair than you do steel or ali. Tig welders are not cheap, and decent brazing gear isn't cheap either. Yet resin and carbon can be bought much more cheaply, and with a bit of knowledge a repair can be quite simple.

But does a carbon frame always repair? Is it as strong? Is it financially viable? Etc. Genuine question. Specifically comparing to a lugged steel frame - it doesn't cost that much to put in a new Reynolds tube.

simon_masterson

Carbonator wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

The simple fact is that there aren't any magic materials.

Steel is very close to magic - there is no other material with such a huge range of applications.

Yeh, it's fantastic for cutlery.

It's great for bikes too in some situations, but in the real world, for most people, for most rides, buying a road bike from most places, carbon is a better option than aluminium.

The reason it gets stick is that it costs more.

But does it really cost more or do they charge more?

Anonymous

Simon Masterson wrote:

But does a carbon frame always repair?

But do I care?

Simon Masterson wrote:

it as strong?

Never broke one and if I do see above.

Simon Masterson wrote:

Is it financially viable?

Pound for pound have enjoyed carbon spent pounds more than aluminium ones so makes more financial sense to me.

Anonymous

Simon Masterson wrote:

But does it really cost more or do they charge more?

I meant cost more to buy.

I don't really care why it cost more, I just want to enjoy cycling.
Guessing they cost more to make initially, but maybe not now.
I am happy to pay more because I prefer it.
I am not going to cut my nose off to spite my face.

How much do you think they are overcharging?
Just get a sale carbon bike. The saving will absorb any overcharging at list price.

Grill

In regards to strength- anything will break give the right circumstance. I snapped my steel Ritchey frame after two weeks. My Foil was broken by TSA because they can't repack a bike box. Sucks, but it's life and it's what insurance is for.

neeb

I have a 30 mile route I do very regularly and it's remarkable how close my times and average speeds are between my two main bikes. They are both very nice bikes, but one is custom stainless steel with clinchers and the other is carbon with deep section tubulars. There's about a kilo weight difference between the two. The main factor influencing my speed is the season, which reflects both weather and fitness. I have powertaps on both bikes so I can also see the relationship between average power and average speed over many rides.

Basically, there IS a detectable and consistent difference between the bikes, but it is very small and only just detectable. I reckon it's in the region of 0.2 mph.

simon_masterson

Carbonator wrote:

Pound for pound have enjoyed carbon spent pounds more than aluminium ones so makes more financial sense to me.

Nothing to do with repairability. It's a small thing, and one of many benefits of steel frames, but lugged steel frames really do win hands down here. Does it matter? Debatable.

But you have pretty much cemented the impression that you like expensive things because they're expensive. To reiterate a point from earlier, I have every reason to believe that a framebuilder could build up a bike in aluminium and convince you that - based on ride quality - it were made from magical carbon fibre. And vice versa.

Anonymous

Simon Masterson wrote:

But you have pretty much cemented the impression that you like expensive things because they're expensive. To reiterate a point from earlier, I have every reason to believe that a framebuilder could build up a bike in aluminium and convince you that - based on ride quality - it were made from magical carbon fibre. And vice versa.

I mainly like quality and a shop bought carbon bike is usually way better quality than an aluminium one.
I would be looking at 105 spec and above so aluminium ones which are usually lower spec get separated even further.
The appearance (which I feel is a quality factor) and weight are normally way different too.

Quality things are normally expensive, but its the quality I am after more than the expense.
I do this very much for myself in the first instance and not to show off (if thats the implication).
Showing off to a hater (I don't mean bikes) can be fun though.

I would like a custom made frame because it would be quality.
I would probably not get one because I am not keen on shapeless tubes and welds, and much prefer seamless shapely carbon.

I would admire/respect someone else's high end/custom frame though. Same as I would a retro one.

There does not seem much point in having one made just to make it as good as a carbon one you can buy in a shop.
Of course the fit will be better, but thats nothing to do with the carbon v aluminium debate.

If people prefer aluminium or steel in terms of ride quality then just get one.
I am not anti aluminium, just pro carbon.

neeb

Quality is a slippery concept. What makes something good "quality"? You could argue that it is durability and functionality, in which case as far as frames are concerned quality and performance are probably much the same thing (not many frames break).

On the other hand, some people perceive quality more in aesthetic terms - a neat weld would be higher quality even if it wasn't any stronger than a slightly messy one. But then you get into dodgy territory - is a lugged steel frame with intricate lugs better "quality" than a tig welded one, just because it has taken longer to make and looks interesting, despite (arguably) being functionally inferior?