Good quality Aluminium vs Low end Carbon
Tomc273
Posts: 29
I have got a Giant Defy 4 which is a Aluminium and steel compound with an 8 speed cassette. I am looking to upgrade to a new bike but don't know whether to get a high spec good aluminium frame with 105 on or a low end carbon frame with 105 on.
Have found a Rose Pro SL which gets raving reviews for stiffness and weight and comes with 105 shifters, derailleurs and brake callipers. This is all for under £900 so I can spend some more on some decent wheels.
OR
Do I go for a low end carbon bike? This will be more expensive and I don't know what I will be getting extra for my money! Is it just a myth that carbon beats a decent aluminium frame?
Cheers
Have found a Rose Pro SL which gets raving reviews for stiffness and weight and comes with 105 shifters, derailleurs and brake callipers. This is all for under £900 so I can spend some more on some decent wheels.
OR
Do I go for a low end carbon bike? This will be more expensive and I don't know what I will be getting extra for my money! Is it just a myth that carbon beats a decent aluminium frame?
Cheers
0
Posts
This is where my money would go all day long.
For close to but over a grand, I recommended the CAAD 10 or giant defy at 1200 with ultegra.
Kinesis Aithein
Storck Visioner
CAAD 10
De Rosa Milanino
Do the current range of frames still flex/ bounce?
That would be a product of the rider as much as the bike .
I think I'd likely pick the Canyon Ultimate AL over any <$1500 carbon frame. I also really like the some of the Rose bikes but they can be harder to find feedback about.
Whut!?
Fat, heavy cheap Import frames. I wouldn't go with Planet X if I was deciding between them and the likes of Rose or Canyon.
OP, I would get the Rose Xeon RS Aluminium or the Canyon Alu if your not bothered about welding marks. They are excellent VFM and get high praise and reviews. I'm eyeing up one of the Xeon RS Alus in Black & Yellow at the mo.
The Rose Xeon SL is cheaper mind, but for a tad extra you get better spec, VFM and lighter bike with the Xeon RS.
As the reviews say, these high end Alu frames win out over Mid range Carbons at higher prices. The spec you get on them is out of this world.
as in a light weight low powered rider is going to have less of a problem than heavy powerful rider. picture Wee Jimmy Krankie (in lycra
http://www.rosebikes.co.uk/bike/rose-pr ... tchanged=1
Lighter at 7.65kg in size Large 57, Full Ultegra, Mavic Wheelset, Ritchey Cockpit, decent finishing kit.
I ride only for fun, nothing competitive and nothing has really changed. I'm no faster, the Alu is no more or less comfortable.
I would be perfectly happy to have another Planet X and would not hesitate in recommending them. I weigh about 13 stone and noticed no flex, which is often mentioned about th SL Pro.
I think too much importance is given to frame material and unless,you are wanting to compete at a certain level it will make no real difference - you might as well pick the that has the nicest colour scheme!
Which ever you choose I hope to enjoy it. There's nothing like buying a nice new bike!
De Rosa Milanino :-
http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab78 ... -00148.jpg
This has 105 and a frame that is apparently very light. Look up the reviews on the internet for the 2013 model at CC and Bikeradar and they are very, very positive about this bike's comfort and performance. And you might get to sit on it before delivery too! ie
Either wait until you can afford it, get it on interest free, get a heavily reduced one if you can find something suitable, or go without something else/do some overtime.
Cannot help thinking you will still want a carbon frame after you get a new aluminium one if you are asking the question you have asked.
You have a Giant Defy 4 FFS.
How 'low end' do you think these low end carbon frames are?
What do you think is going to happen to them?
Would say it was still a massive upgrade, but if not add £500 and do it properly.
I bought a Cervelo S1 and a Canyon Roadlite (both aluminium). At no point do I think oh I wish I had bought a planet x carbon frame or another carbon frame for that matter....
The Cervelo in particular is light and goes like the clappers. I find it hard to believe a carbon frame would be much better.
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/
I am all for nostalgia and kid yourself all you want but the future of F1, aviation and cycling is carbon. Cost is a downside and if you can't afford it then you may not have the choice. I would save for longer
Out of interest, how long is it since someone won a tour on an aluminium bike?
Boardman FS Pro
The crux of it lies right there.
How many cyclists do bloody Tours ! ?
The vast majority want a reliable, comfy, decent spec, decent budget bike. The cycling world has somehow persuaded everyone that a £2000-£10000 bike is the way to go for the Sunday roll out or fatty training.
Almost everyone out will be fine with a sub £2000 bike and the Alus offer great spec and performance. If the reviews are true, there's no difference between these Alu frames and Mid range Carbons.
But if some want to pose, flash the cash or have a mid life crisis etc then yeah then most expensive Carbon you can afford, there's nothing wrong with that. Just remember to hold the gut in as your passed by a old fella on a steal or the kid on his Halfords special.
So don't dismiss "reputable" low-mid price carbon.
That's not the crux at all or we would all be riding Ammaco specials.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to use good materials, materials that make use of modern design and manufacturing techniques.
There is this myth about entry level carbon bikes, that similar priced aluminium bikes are somehow better. They aren't. It's a myth. You don't read poor reviews of any popular carbon bikes.
Anyway, what was the answer to my question?
Boardman FS Pro
I don't think he's suggesting that at all. The point is that Tour winners have very expensive bikes, and that doesn't mean everybody should be spending 4-5 grand on a bike. There's some distance between an Ammaco special and a 1-1.5k bike.
As to the myth, would be nice to get some proof of that (given that's what the post is all about). Yes, plenty of entry-level carbon bikes get good reviews, but so do plenty of aluminium ones in the same price range. So, only because they're good, doesn't mean they're better. I'm not really arguing either way, I don't know much about bikes (hence my interest), but not sure why there is so much focus on material itself, vs just the bikes.
Out of interest, what makes carbons automatically better? I just had a 1K budget to spend on a bike, picked an aluminium one (Rose) vs for example the carbon planet x, because it was lighter and gets very good reviews in terms of performance/stiffness, what would the planet x have offered to make it better? (genuine question).
Incidentally I think a pro did ride aluminium to victory just a few years ago. Didn't Philip Gilbert ride a Canyon Ultimate Al in a few races in preference to the carbon options back around 2011? Correct me if i'm mistaken!
As I think was mentioned earlier carbon fibre is not a simple homogeneous material and can produce differing properties depending on the layup, resin and curing. Well engineered frames will utilise this ability to tailor the material usage for the job and should then be able to easily outperform aluminium frames in terms of weight, comfort and handling. However, not all carbon frames are necessarily well designed or well manufactured. Poorly executed carbon frames are certainly capable of being inferior to their aluminium counterparts. Whether this is the case or not in reality is debatable. There may be empirical evidence out there - I don't know.
Nothing makes it automatically better despite the impression a lot of marketing and other proponents of carbon may give. As above, carbon if used well should outperform aluminium but a bad carbon frame is still a bad frame and a good aluminium frame will still be a good frame. I don't think it's worth worrying too much about it.
No what I was saying is to bring in the fact many pros and tours have carbon bikes doesn't mean anything to the average Joe who does the odd sportive.
those are super high end race machines that some feel they need to buy because we are being persuaded that the pro kit is a must.
Some of the top ALU bikes could very well mix it with the pros I reckon but as others have said its what the pros are given.
Have a look at reviews for high end ALU bikes from the likes of Canyon and Rose, (that even came away with bikes of the year) and you will see there's nothing wrong with aluminium.
Was it not Hoy who said he still preferred the material for its stiffness and ride!?
There's nothing wrong with "low end" carbon as such but I would take a engineered bike like the Rose Xeon RS over a Planet X any day.
Basically it's the cost of frame material and then what its got plastered to it. As said there's nothing wrong with low end carbon. Planet x frames are open moulds from China. Different to say Canyon or Scott frames developed in those companies and then made in selected Chinese factories (hence higher cost)
The Rose Xeon RS aluminium's are high end ALU frames and the reviews go to prove that they obviously can hold there own if not outperform many carbons. You also have the bonus aluminium is cheaper and easy to work with so they can slap a better spec finishing kit like group set and wheels on that's also a big factor in the performance of a bike.
Personally I would go with a high end aluminium like the Ultegra Rose over the Planet X which is heavier, and has lower spec kit.