is a carbon bike that much better then aluminium

radiation man

i was going to buy a carbon frame and build it up but the 2014 frame i was after is not available, so now im thinking is carbon really that much better them aluminium to spend over 2 thousand pounds on, as it seems carbon have a lot more problems with the bottom bracket press fit bearings, i have had no problems with my threaded bottom bracket bearings, maybe i should just upgrade my trek 1.5

darkhairedlord

viewtopic.php?f=40042&t=12967525

cycleclinic

Not better just different.

bikes`n`guns

Yes it is that much better

sloppyschleckonds

Yes & No

aberdeen_lune

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Yes it is that much better

I love the logical argument in this response. A well reasoned response with pros and cons of both frame types, fantastic.

letap73

Not all carbon frames are press fit.
This one for example:
http://www.cycledivision.co.uk/product- ... pid21.html
Not all higher end models like the Colnago C59 are press fit either.

Anonymous

Go out and test ride some and see what you think.

evans cycles are very good for test rides.

Do not think I will buy an aluminium bike again............... Unless I can find a Cannondale Six 13 :P

Its different and better IMO. Depends how important the 'that much' in your thread title matters to you and if you bring money into the equation.

To me its better and it costs more, but puts a bigger smile on my face and so is worth it.
If it weighs the same and you like the look, get aluminium.

I think you should just get aluminium if you are having to ask this question on here.
Often wonder if people ask on here just to help convince themselves they don't need/want to spend out extra on carbon.

bikes`n`guns

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Yes it is that much better

I love the logical argument in this response. A well reasoned response with pros and cons of both frame types, fantastic.

That's not an argument, that's an opinion. Look em up, they`re different fings bud. Oh and while you`re at it, you forgot to add ANYTHING to the thread.

But anyway, much nicer lighter ride while keeping the stiff responsiveness of a metal bike.
I have found my Alu bikes to be quite buzzy on the roads around this area, nowhere near as nice as my steel bikes, and absolutely nothing like the magic carpet ride that is my Trek Domane.

curto80

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Yes it is that much better

I love the logical argument in this response. A well reasoned response with pros and cons of both frame types, fantastic.

That's not an argument, that's an opinion. Look em up, they`re different fings bud. Oh and while you`re at it, you forgot to add ANYTHING to the thread.

But anyway, much nicer lighter ride while keeping the stiff responsiveness of a metal bike.
I have found my Alu bikes to be quite buzzy on the roads around this area, nowhere near as nice as my steel bikes, and absolutely nothing like the magic carpet ride that is my Trek Domane.

Top class comeback, couldn't agree more.

Serious Cat

Cannondale caad 10 which is alloy is often preferred over carbon bikes.

Anonymous

Serious Cat wrote:

Cannondale caad 10 which is alloy is often preferred over carbon bikes.

Cannondale carbon bikes do not exactly get slated though do they?

You have gone from frame material to an actual bike.

Not sure why people prefer the CAAD 10, and over what carbon bikes, but cost and other probably irrelevant reasons to most people probably play a part.

mm1

Interesting question. I've recently been to a training camp where I rode a cheap borrowed aluminium bike fitted with cheap Shimano (Tiagra) components. Having only ever ridden steel and (more recently) carbon frames and Campag over 40 years of cycling I was very pleasantly surprised, especially because I'd heard that aluminium frames are "harsh" - it wasn't. I also have a friend who road races on an aluminium frame simply because he can't afford to stack carbon. It seems to me that most people won't be able to notice much difference between frame materials and that aluminium is a good option from a vfm perspective.

aberdeen_lune

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Yes it is that much better

I love the logical argument in this response. A well reasoned response with pros and cons of both frame types, fantastic.

That's not an argument, that's an opinion. Look em up, they`re different fings bud. Oh and while you`re at it, you forgot to add ANYTHING to the thread.

But anyway, much nicer lighter ride while keeping the stiff responsiveness of a metal bike.
I have found my Alu bikes to be quite buzzy on the roads around this area, nowhere near as nice as my steel bikes, and absolutely nothing like the magic carpet ride that is my Trek Domane.

That's better. Your making sense now. I've never had a steel bike quite fancy getting one. Anyway in my opinion a good Frame is a good frame regardless if material. There are poor carbon frames, poor steel frames and poor Alu frames. My CAAd10 is an excellent bike no road buzz at all very comfortable. I'd put it up there as good as some much more expensive carbon bikes.

cycleclinic

the alu bike you have riden then must be running narrow tyres at quite high pressure. Also the tubing used will have some effect. It is mostly tyres though that cause buzz. I find it quite easy to make any bike ride smoothly if it has clearance for any thing bigger than 23/25mm tyre.

Garry H

thecycleclinic wrote:

the alu bike you have riden then must be running narrow tyres at quite high pressure. Also the tubing used will have some effect. It is mostly tyres though that cause buzz. I find it quite easy to make any bike ride smoothly if it has clearance for any thing bigger than 23/25mm tyre.

Quite true. I've just put some 28mm 4seasons onto a Dolan preffisio (a cheap alu frame) and it now rides as smooth as my much more expensive carbon bike.

rickeverett

why is this being discussed again ?
viewtopic.php?f=40042&t=12967525

neeb

These threads usually end up segregating into two camps. Some people will say "carbon is better, but maybe a really good alu bike is better than a cheap carbon one". Others will say "the material doesn't matter, you can build a frame with any properties out of any material, it's the build quality and geometry that matter".

The truth is somewhere inbetween. I don't buy the argument that frame material is irrelevant, different materials have different properties and impose different limits on what you can do with them. You couldn't build a good frame out of PVC or copper.

But you can build very good frames out of both alu and carbon. There will be a big difference between an old-school cheap alu frame and a high-end modern alu frame like a CAAD10, just as there will be a big difference between a low-modulus cheap carbon frame and a top high-end team-issue frame. But you can do more with carbon at the higher end of the scale, and the top carbon frames probably have properties that it would be difficult or impossible to replicate with Alu.

I'm going to suggest that the situation is more or less as follows with regard to frame properties:



A lot of bikes sold will be in the intersection of the "possible alu frames" and "possible carbon frames" sets. But the best high-end carbon frames will be outside of this intersection, i.e. it probably wouldn't be possible to make a frame with exactly the same properties out of aluminium. On the other hand, the set of frame properties that you can achieve with alu but not with carbon is quite small and probably doesn't include many that are desirable.

MisterMuncher

Carbonator wrote:

Serious Cat wrote:

Cannondale caad 10 which is alloy is often preferred over carbon bikes.

Cannondale carbon bikes do not exactly get slated though do they?

You have gone from frame material to an actual bike.

Not sure why people prefer the CAAD 10, and over what carbon bikes, but cost and other probably irrelevant reasons to most people probably play a part.

Cost is definitely a factor, particularly for the privateer racer, and to disregard it is silly.

As it goes, I chose a CAAD10 over a Supersix (Same geometry, same manufacturer) because I preferred the feel on the road. That's not an irrelevant consideration: it's the only one that matters.

aberdeen_lune

I agree cost is a factor. I cracked my carbon frame (Orbea Orca) in a road race crash last season then replaced it with a CAAD10. My logic was if I had to replace the frame again a £500 or so Al frame would be less painfull to replace than a £2K carbon frame. However I have been amazed by how light and comfortable the CAAD10 is. It is so good in fact that I have no desire to buy another carbon road frame at the moment. I have two carbon TT bikes, swapping over to the CAAD10 I dont lose any comfort or gain any road buzz at all.

rickeverett

neeb wrote:

These threads usually end up segregating into two camps. Some people will say "carbon is better, but maybe a really good alu bike is better than a cheap carbon one". Others will say "the material doesn't matter, you can build a frame with any properties out of any material, it's the build quality and geometry that matter".

The truth is somewhere inbetween. I don't buy the argument that frame material is irrelevant, different materials have different properties and impose different limits on what you can do with them. You couldn't build a good frame out of PVC or copper.

But you can build very good frames out of both alu and carbon. There will be a big difference between an old-school cheap alu frame and a high-end modern alu frame like a CAAD10, just as there will be a big difference between a low-modulus cheap carbon frame and a top high-end team-issue frame. But you can do more with carbon at the higher end of the scale, and the top carbon frames probably have properties that it would be difficult or impossible to replicate with Alu.

I'm going to suggest that the situation is more or less as follows with regard to frame properties:

A lot of bikes sold will be in the intersection of the "possible alu frames" and "possible carbon frames" sets. But the best high-end carbon frames will be outside of this intersection, i.e. it probably wouldn't be possible to make a frame with exactly the same properties out of aluminium. On the other hand, the set of frame properties that you can achieve with alu but not with carbon is quite small and probably doesn't include many that are desirable.

In the last thread like this it also came down to the question of "what do you really need?"

The high end aluminium frame bikes perform really well and certainly (according to reviews) out gun or match low-mid range carbons) found at the same or higher prices.

As you said, mid-high range carbon machines will certainly go the extra mile with frame weights almost 500g lighter than the lightest aluminium.
HOWEVER - Do many people really need those kind of bikes ?

Top end alus offer high end specs for less than carbons. In many cases they are also much lighter than Carbon bikes at that price range, which is a no brainer if you was Ultegra or Force with decent carbon finishing kit and wheels etc for <£1500>.

But then Carbons offer you a smooth looking, and possibly a lighter frame fit for future upgrades and wider choice etc.

I have been eyeing up the Alu ROSE bikes for a while now as they offer (like the CADDs) a kit and ride that's supposed to be better than Carbons around that price range, and a few hundred quid or so above.

cswitch

Canyon ultimate AL is a fantastic frameset and I prefer it to other carbon frames I own. There is a fair amount of difference in weight between top end carbon and top end aluminium and probably the carbon is more forgiving on rough roads. However compare a high end aluminium bike to a similarly priced carbon frame and I would think weight penalty is minimal and the aluminium rides better...,but then again really all depends on which frames are being compared.

darkhairedlord

the tyres make more difference anyway.......I'll get my coat!

Anonymous

MisterMuncher wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Serious Cat wrote:

Cannondale caad 10 which is alloy is often preferred over carbon bikes.

Cannondale carbon bikes do not exactly get slated though do they?

You have gone from frame material to an actual bike.

Not sure why people prefer the CAAD 10, and over what carbon bikes, but cost and other probably irrelevant reasons to most people probably play a part.

Cost is definitely a factor, particularly for the privateer racer, and to disregard it is silly.

As it goes, I chose a CAAD10 over a Supersix (Same geometry, same manufacturer) because I preferred the feel on the road. That's not an irrelevant consideration: it's the only one that matters.

I was not saying cost was an irrelevant factor. It was that cost was a factor as well as other irrelevant (to most people) ones.

Cost is a factor in buying a bike but its got nothing to do with whether one material is generally better than another.
The OP is asking both things but in a more carbon v ali way than it should be.

To compare a carbon and ali bike of the same price is silly. Just accept a decent carbon is more expensive than decent ali and compare two actual bikes.
If you prefer the ali one then fantastic. If you prefer the carbon one then its only you (the individual buying) that can say if its worth it or not, in the same way as deciding if a better groupset etc. is worth it.

sy1975

thecycleclinic wrote:

Not better just different.

Agreed I have both.

Tha aluminium frame I have fees stiffer and more responsive, but I still love riding both...steel has its place to. It's all down to the build for you IMHO.