Good quality Aluminium vs Low end Carbon
Comments
-
Just for interest's sake: http://www.pavepavepave.com/2011/04/06/ ... -flanders/ - it seems alloy has not been away from the pro ranks that long after all.0
-
Never mind aluminium, Madison Genesis ride steel
Red bikes are the fastest.0 -
That's the 2011 bike I was thinking of. Thought it was Gillbert riding it.antonyfromoz wrote:Just for interest's sake: http://www.pavepavepave.com/2011/04/06/ ... -flanders/ - it seems alloy has not been away from the pro ranks that long after all.0 -
The latest Pro Carbon is full Ultegra 11 speed front to back, so just like the Rose and the Rose is more expensive.rickeverett wrote:lgcbiking wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:rickeverett wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:
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).
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.
Some very well known brands use open mold frames which are then badged up.
Nothing wrong with alu or carbon frames just a matter of preference.0 -
what it boils down to is that there are some good aluminium frames that will outperform bad carbon frames at a canter. And there are some good carbon frames that will likewise do the same to bad aluminium frames.
Ultimately, if it's going to be your bike, don't judge the bike by the material it's made from, judge it by whether you like the way it rides as that's what you're going to be doing with it.0 -
diamonddog wrote:
The latest Pro Carbon is full Ultegra 11 speed front to back, so just like the Rose and the Rose is more expensive.rickeverett wrote:lgcbiking wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:rickeverett wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:
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).
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.
Some very well known brands use open mold frames which are then badged up.
Nothing wrong with alu or carbon frames just a matter of preference.
True but your £140 extra or so gets you a better finishing kit, and wheelset and a much lighter build overall.
But yeah, usage is also important, think the Rose is slightly more agressive.0 -
pkripper wrote:what it boils down to is that there are some good aluminium frames that will outperform bad carbon frames at a canter. And there are some good carbon frames that will likewise do the same to bad aluminium frames.
Ultimately, if it's going to be your bike, don't judge the bike by the material it's made from, judge it by whether you like the way it rides as that's what you're going to be doing with it.
This is the best advice. It is interesting how road bikers use a wide variety of justifications for buying high priced items they feel they need . In road bikes especially the manufacturers are very good at upselling. They charge a significant price hike for something that is not a lot better after a certain point. This is true in mountain biking as well but the mark ups are nowhere near as much. To give an example Dura Ace Road brakes for just the pair of callipers costs more then the pair of levers, callipers and rotors for XT disc brakes which are the same groupset level but mountain biking.0 -
Kajjal wrote:pkripper wrote:what it boils down to is that there are some good aluminium frames that will outperform bad carbon frames at a canter. And there are some good carbon frames that will likewise do the same to bad aluminium frames.
Ultimately, if it's going to be your bike, don't judge the bike by the material it's made from, judge it by whether you like the way it rides as that's what you're going to be doing with it.
This is the best advice. It is interesting how road bikers use a wide variety of justifications for buying high priced items they feel they need . In road bikes especially the manufacturers are very good at upselling. They charge a significant price hike for something that is not a lot better after a certain point. This is true in mountain biking as well but the mark ups are nowhere near as much. To give an example Dura Ace Road brakes for just the pair of callipers costs more then the pair of levers, callipers and rotors for XT disc brakes which are the same groupset level but mountain biking.
"Yes I know it's aluminium but at least it's not a carbon xxxxxx". Who makes these 'bad carbon' bikes that aluminium buyers keep talking about?
What carbon bikes is a £1000 aluminium bike better than?
How do buyers know that their £1000 aluminium bike isn't a bad aluminium bike???
I would have said Dura Ace is XTR level, not XT.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:Bottom brackets, chain stays, head tubes, the possibilities with carbon and finite element analysis mean designers can produce frames with rigidity and stress transfer properties that aluminium users could never dream of and that's before you consider the weight Add in high frequency vibration damping and the only reasons for buying aluminium today are budget and nostalgia.
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?
The question is good-quality aluminium v low-end carbon; I wouldn't have thought anyone was riding the Tour de France on a low-end carbon bike.
Although I think it's also true that Philippe Gilbert won Ardennes Classics races on an alu bike (made by Canyon) as recently as 2010.0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:Bottom brackets, chain stays, head tubes, the possibilities with carbon and finite element analysis mean designers can produce frames with rigidity and stress transfer properties that aluminium users could never dream of and that's before you consider the weight Add in high frequency vibration damping and the only reasons for buying aluminium today are budget and nostalgia.
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?
And in exactly the same way, hydroforming, adhesives and design methodology mean you can pretty much do the same with aluminium. As you rightly say, designers can produce frames that are tuned to what you want them to do, but on that basis, in order to determine which bike is right for you, you'd need to understand the design input to each frame and determine whether it met the criteria that would suit your riding style / intended use. A poorly designed frame will be a poorly designed frame regardless of the material.
I know full well from direct experience that my expensive carbon bikes have been head and shoulders above the lower end ones I've tried for the type of riding i want to do, and I've also really liked the ride of some aluminium bikes (the CAAD10 in particular). But as before, the only way to determine what bike you like is to try it. It's irrelevant what it's made of if you like the way it rides and you're happy with it.
Whether someone wins a tour or not is an entirely different question, and not really relevant. I don't intend to win a tour - I quite like my Ti bike too.0 -
That's not really true. The properties of metal structures cannot be manipulated in the same way as composite ones. Metals are much more homogeneous, many, including aluminium and steel can be heat treated and work hardened etc to produce certain localised properties but they cannot be manipulated nearly as effectively, accurately or easily as composites, especially for one piece structures like bike frames. Composites CAN be used very effectively to outperform say aluminium in almost every way. However I'm not confident that they ARE used effectively on all bikes. Poor quality and poorly applied composites are not necessarily better than aluminium and may be worse. Thus choosing purely based on material is an error in my opinion. Aluminium does the job well and is a suitable material for bike building. Carbon has the potential to do it better and frequently does. I don't think that makes aluminium obsolete. Especially in the middle or low end of the market (price wise).pkripper wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:Bottom brackets, chain stays, head tubes, the possibilities with carbon and finite element analysis mean designers can produce frames with rigidity and stress transfer properties that aluminium users could never dream of and that's before you consider the weight Add in high frequency vibration damping and the only reasons for buying aluminium today are budget and nostalgia.
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?
And in exactly the same way, hydroforming, adhesives and design methodology mean you can pretty much do the same with aluminium.....0 -
Carbonator wrote:The answer is to up your budget and get a 'good quality' carbon bike.
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.
You're a complete plank.0 -
I'd get a cheap 105 setup, the group should be found going cheap, some new wheels and if you've money spare, post stem and bars. Not really much wrong with the bike you've got, put together well and carbon forks. It also has a threaded BB which for me is less problematic than the trend of press fit (admittedly I never really thought the idea of spending £££ engineering a frame for stiffness etc, then interfacing the crank by means of cheese was well thought through, but whatever allows them to fit a crank to carbon successfully I guess).
Or.. keep the Defy for winter and go for something titanium or steel. If you're happy with the Defy, why not go up to the composites? same geometry and they have good warranty
You've loads of options really, post didn't answer your topic but I think you'll be forever with that one! Enjoy0 -
You can do a few clever things with hydroforming etc, but none of them will match what you can do with FEA and carbon. Even the cheapest carbon bikes have bottom bracket sizes and shapes (to transfer the pedal force) that aluminium designers couldn't contemplate.
But still no one has said who makes these 'bad' carbon bikes. Who are they?
And if the material doesn't matter, why do high end aluminium bikes often come with carbon forks?Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
The irony is that it is high volume that makes 'cheap' carbon frames low cost, so in effect you are likely to find better process contol and therefore more consistent production quality. Give me a 'cheap' carbon frame produced in high volume anyday over a high volume aluminium frame. Moreover, there are some fundamental material properties of aluminium alloys that you cannot "engineer-out" like a finite fatigue limit. There's a reason that alloy frames dominate the low-end of the market and that's because they're cheap to produce, regardless of how Cannondale or Kinesis want to dress it up.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Bear in mind the OP did ask the question as "Good Quality Aluminium vs Low End Carbon"Monty Dog wrote:The irony is that it is high volume that makes 'cheap' carbon frames low cost, so in effect you are likely to find better process contol and therefore more consistent production quality. Give me a 'cheap' carbon frame produced in high volume anyday over a high volume aluminium frame. Moreover, there are some fundamental material properties of aluminium alloys that you cannot "engineer-out" like a finite fatigue limit. There's a reason that alloy frames dominate the low-end of the market and that's because they're cheap to produce, regardless of how Cannondale or Kinesis want to dress it up.
And thankfully good quality and low cost are not mutually exclusive.
The fact that aluminium is cheap to produce is a positive not a negative and the very reason it should get serious consideration if you're on a budget. If I was spending under £1500 I'd seriously consider going with alloy over carbon.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:If I was spending under £1500 I'd seriously consider going with alloy over carbon.
Really????
You would be dismissing a lot of really good carbon bikes.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
No I wouldn't. Please re-read what I wrote. I said I'd seriously consider alloy over carbon. That doesn't state or imply that I'd dismiss anything. My point is that I wouldn't dismiss alloy not that I would dismiss carbon.Bar Shaker wrote:Ai_1 wrote:If I was spending under £1500 I'd seriously consider going with alloy over carbon.
Really????
You would be dismissing a lot of really good carbon bikes.0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:Ai_1 wrote:If I was spending under £1500 I'd seriously consider going with alloy over carbon.
Really????
You would be dismissing a lot of really good carbon bikes.Ai_1 wrote:
No I wouldn't. Please re-read what I wrote. I said I'd seriously consider alloy over carbon. That doesn't state or imply that I'd dismiss anything. My point is that I wouldn't dismiss alloy not that I would dismiss carbon.Bar Shaker wrote:Ai_1 wrote:If I was spending under £1500 I'd seriously consider going with alloy over carbon.
Really????
You would be dismissing a lot of really good carbon bikes.
Look at feedback and reviews from the alu bikes from the likes of Connondale, Canyon and Rose and they can seriously mix it with Carbon.0 -
In summary, aluminium bikes can be good and cheap, bad and cheap, good and expensive, bad and expensive. Carbon can be good and cheep, good and expensive, bad and cheap or bad and expensive. Some aluminium bikes are better than some carbon bikes of the same price while some carbon bikes are better than some aluminium.0
