Carbon frames - accident damage?

james22b2
james22b2 Posts: 132
edited July 2015 in MTB beginners
Hi
The guy in my LBS told me I shouldn´t buy a carbon frame MTB, and instead tried to down sell me to a considerably cheaper model with an aluminium frame.
Is it true that carbon frames are more vulnerable, and that they get damaged more easily in crashes and from prangs on rocks etc?
Thanks!

Comments

  • Chunkers1980
    Chunkers1980 Posts: 8,035
    Yep - they dissolve in the rain too.
  • Chunkers1980
    Chunkers1980 Posts: 8,035
    But seriously - YouTube carbon vs metal - you'll be shocked to see the tests out there and what happens.
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    Let me guess, he just happened to have an Al in stock and not a carbon, am I right?

    He's a moron. carbon is much much tougher than AL. I wouldn't now shop there as a matter of principle, having the luxury of 4 decent LBS plus 3 Halfords and a Decathlon in reasonable range I was quite happy to inform the 5th LBS I wouldn't ever darken his counter with my money ever again, and I haven't!
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • oodboo
    oodboo Posts: 2,171
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs

    Yep, carbon is rubbish as a frame material...

    Just out of interest, what were you looking at and what did they try to sell to you?
    I love horses, best of all the animals. I love horses, they're my friends.

    Strava
  • james22b2
    james22b2 Posts: 132
    Let me guess, he just happened to have an Al in stock and not a carbon, am I right?

    Just out of interest, what were you looking at and what did they try to sell to you?

    I was looking at a Giant Trance Advanced 2 and he suggested getting a considerably cheaper Giant Trance 2 (700 GBP difference). Neither were in stock and have to be ordered. Both are in stock in the warehouse.
  • james22b2
    james22b2 Posts: 132
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs

    Yep, carbon is rubbish as a frame material...

    Interesting video, but the IBS guy cited "rock damage", rather than a massive direct impact.
  • oodboo
    oodboo Posts: 2,171
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs

    Yep, carbon is rubbish as a frame material...

    Interesting video, but the IBS guy cited "rock damage", rather than a massive direct impact.
    Like the concrete block test in the video but on a smaller scale?
    I love horses, best of all the animals. I love horses, they're my friends.

    Strava
  • rockmonkeysc
    rockmonkeysc Posts: 14,774
    Carbon is much better than aluminium in impacts. I even have a carbon guard to protect my aluminium frame from impacts.
  • james22b2
    james22b2 Posts: 132
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs

    Yep, carbon is rubbish as a frame material...

    Interesting video, but the IBS guy cited "rock damage", rather than a massive direct impact.
    Like the concrete block test in the video but on a smaller scale?

    Fair point.
    Perhaps there is just suspicion of carbon because it is relatively new in MTBs.. the guy also said it was more suited to road bikes because impacts were likely to be less. Anyway with this particular model it is 700 GBP more and someone has pointed out that it is only the front triangle that is carbon - hence a minor weight difference.
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    He's a moron, any rock strike that damages a carbon frame would destroy an Al one, many strikes that would damage an Al one will leave only a scuff on Carbon.

    My son's Carbon frame is 2006 (the Genius in the link in my Sig), I wouldn't say that was relatively new, and Carbon has been used in MTB frames since the mid 90's (Trek 'Y' for example) which was before disk brakes or air suspension (or even decent damping), so they all must be relatively new as well, as must external bottom brackets and many other things.

    If you want to have some fun, go back and ask him a few leading questions and see how big a hole he can dig for himself!

    As for whether carbon is worth the money, that is very subjective, I haven't see the full spec sheet for each bike to understand all the differences.
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • james22b2
    james22b2 Posts: 132
    edited July 2015

    If you want to have some fun, go back and ask him a few leading questions and see how big a hole he can dig for himself!

    As for whether carbon is worth the money, that is very subjective, I haven't see the full spec sheet for each bike to understand all the differences.

    I know what you mean, but the sales assistant in the official Giant store was so quick to say the carbon was a better long term investment that I find it really weird to be "down sold" the option by the LBS guy.. presumably there is less mark up on the all aluminium model as it is two-thirds the price. He said it was the model he sold the most, which I guess is not so surprising.

    With regard to the carbon version:
    "The front triangle is carbon on the Trance Advanced, and everything from the rocker arm, back, is alloy. According to Giant’s Global Marketing Director, Andrew Juskaitis, there is only a 15-gram weight savings with a carbon rear triangle, yet the price to produce them is 3-times as expensive. Rear triangles also tend to take a lot of abuse, especially from chain slap, so Giant opted to run alloy rear triangles on the Advanced bikes in 2014."
    http://www.mountainflyermagazine.com/view.php/first-look-2014-giant-trance-27-5.html
    So maybe he is not the only one that doesn´t trust carbon!?

    The Giant site doesn´t state the weight difference between the carbon front triangle and aluminium triangle. It is strange how furtive some manufacturers are about publishing weights.

    Would be interested to know if more experienced riders think it is worth it price wise.

    These are the links to the specs of the two models with total weights:
    http://www.giant-bicycles.com/es-es/bikes/model/trance.27.5.2.ltd/19159/77194/#specifications
    http://www.giant-bicycles.com/es-es/bikes/model/trance.advanced.27.5.2/19160/77191/#specifications

    Thanks!
  • Chunkers1980
    Chunkers1980 Posts: 8,035
    Do you mean to say IBS?
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    What he's saying is the cost wasn't worth a 15g saving, chain slap does make Carbon look tatty as it gouges the resin, but it doesn't have a structural impact on it.

    All manufacturers are coy about weight, apart from anything else full bike weights are a nightmare, some manufacturers blatantly lie,l some include pedals and some don't, some weigh an XS others don't, so you can't compare two manufacturers values at all.
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • james22b2
    james22b2 Posts: 132
    edited July 2015
    So how much is the approximate difference between a carbon front triangle and an aluminium one, approximately?
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    Depends entirely on where each falls in the levels you'd expect of each...

    For example, the best carbon MTB hardtail frames (I know these ones) are circa 900g, the mid range about 1100g and the heaviest about 1300g, for aluminium you can go from about 1300g (alloyed with Scandium) to about 1750g for a good one through to about 2150g for an OK one.

    My aluminium FS frame is the same weight as a mid level hardtail despite the shock mounts, linkages and bushes/bearings with bolts etc.

    As a piece of total guesswork (with a little knowledge behind it) I'd say probably about 200-250g saved for the Trance. Of course the carbon framed bike may have a better Al rear which may be lighter than a lower in the range Al rear.
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • james22b2
    james22b2 Posts: 132
    As a piece of total guesswork (with a little knowledge behind it) I'd say probably about 200-250g saved for the Trance. Of course the carbon framed bike may have a better Al rear which may be lighter than a lower in the range Al rear.

    So sounds like there are more affordable ways to lose some weight..
  • oodboo
    oodboo Posts: 2,171
    It's probably worth mentioning that the 700 difference includes a dropper seat post, better compound (Snakeskin Trailstar/Pacestar) on the tyres and IMO the rest is preference sram x7/9 and RS on the carbon version versus shimano slx/xt and Fox on the alu version.
    I love horses, best of all the animals. I love horses, they're my friends.

    Strava
  • robertpb
    robertpb Posts: 1,866
    Go back 30 years when the first Cannondale Al bikes came into this country and much as what's been said about carbon was said about Al.

    If a rock hits that, end of frame, those dropouts aren't going to last 5 minutes, ad infinitum.
    Now where's that "Get Out of Crash Free Card"
  • james22b2
    james22b2 Posts: 132
    Hmm.. but is it worth about 550 GBP more (I got a new offer) to go with the Trance Advanced 2 and the carbon composite frame?
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    That's a personal decision based on your riding, your finances, how long you will keep the bike and what you want from it.
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.