Steel v Carbon and the inverse bling return on money.
Comments
-
Shortfall wrote:reacher wrote:Garry H wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I have no problem with people buying what they perceive to be the best and in many cases that might well be a carbon bike. However I do question why a fat bloke would spunk 5 grand on a Trek racebike when in all likelihood he'd be better served killing himself and saving us all the burden of paying for his end of life care.
FTFY
Performance is not the barrier to buying nice things, bank balance is. If a 5 grand Trek gives said fat bloke a stiffy, then who are we to argue?
So your saying that a fat bloke or girl for that matter can't have a nice bike ? Rather a strange take on who should be allowed to buy nice bikes if you ask me to pursue their endeavours to get fitter. Have you stopped for one moment to consider that their probably making just as much effort as you are on those rides or probably more considering their weight or maybe in your world fat people should not be allowed on the road when neo pros like yourself are out and about training ready for a call from th Sky team boss
Not sure if that's directed at me or the guy who edited me post? Fat guys can buy all the Dogmas they want, Im just questioning their logic. I don't want to stop them.
It's the very same logic that you or anybody else use to buy stuff0 -
Garry H wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I have no problem with people buying what they perceive to be the best and in many cases that might well be a carbon bike. However I do question why a fat bloke would spunk 5 grand on a Trek racebike when in all likelihood he'd be better served killing himself and saving us all the burden of paying for his end of life care.
FTFY
Performance is not the barrier to buying nice things, bank balance is. If a 5 grand Trek gives said fat bloke a stiffy, then who are we to argue?
Its neither actually. enjoyment is why you should buy a nicer bike.
I think quoting a 5k bike in these things all the time is just to increase the hate of people who can 'afford' to buy an 'expensive' bike.
Its probably more 2-3k in reality, and most people on here could have one (assuming they can get credit) if they wanted.
They just prefer to spend the money on other things and then ridicule those that don't to make themselves feel better.
Love it when people with a £600 phone think a 3k bike is outrageous.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:A real return on investment is any bike you will enjoy riding for many years instead of 2 or 3.
A bike is not an investment, its a purchase.
2 or 3 years sounds about right to me, then you might buy a new one and enjoy that too.
Why would you stop enjoying the bike after 2-3 years anyway?
What differences are these two bikes you are mentioning?
How would you know how you will feel about a bike 5 years into the future?0 -
Carbonator wrote:Garry H wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I have no problem with people buying what they perceive to be the best and in many cases that might well be a carbon bike. However I do question why a fat bloke would spunk 5 grand on a Trek racebike when in all likelihood he'd be better served killing himself and saving us all the burden of paying for his end of life care.
FTFY
Performance is not the barrier to buying nice things, bank balance is. If a 5 grand Trek gives said fat bloke a stiffy, then who are we to argue?
Its neither actually. enjoyment is why you should buy a nicer bike.
I think quoting a 5k bike in these things all the time is just to increase the hate of people who can 'afford' to buy an 'expensive' bike.
Its probably more 2-3k in reality, and most people on here could have one (assuming they can get credit) if they wanted.
They just prefer to spend the money on other things and then ridicule those that don't to make themselves feel better.
Love it when people with a £600 phone think a 3k bike is outrageous.
I don't disagree, just so long as the guy buying the carbon bike isn't looking down his nose at the guy on a steel or alu frame.0 -
Shortfall wrote:
I don't disagree, just so long as the guy buying the carbon bike isn't looking down his nose at the guy on a steel or alu frame.
Why do you feel he is?
What has anyone ever said to that effect?
Its an urban myth and all in the heads of the haters with the steel/Alu bikes.
Frame material has bugger all to do with that anyway, the difference will be they are just cheaper.0 -
reacher wrote:Shortfall wrote:reacher wrote:Garry H wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I have no problem with people buying what they perceive to be the best and in many cases that might well be a carbon bike. However I do question why a fat bloke would spunk 5 grand on a Trek racebike when in all likelihood he'd be better served killing himself and saving us all the burden of paying for his end of life care.
FTFY
Performance is not the barrier to buying nice things, bank balance is. If a 5 grand Trek gives said fat bloke a stiffy, then who are we to argue?
So your saying that a fat bloke or girl for that matter can't have a nice bike ? Rather a strange take on who should be allowed to buy nice bikes if you ask me to pursue their endeavours to get fitter. Have you stopped for one moment to consider that their probably making just as much effort as you are on those rides or probably more considering their weight or maybe in your world fat people should not be allowed on the road when neo pros like yourself are out and about training ready for a call from th Sky team boss
Not sure if that's directed at me or the guy who edited me post? Fat guys can buy all the Dogmas they want, Im just questioning their logic. I don't want to stop them.
It's the very same logic that you or anybody else use to buy stuff
Well if you mean that lots of people buy stuff they don't need simply because they can afford it then I wouldn't disagree. I try and avoid that if I can personally but if I'm honest I am guilty in some areas. With my bikes I buy stuff that is well built and useable for what I need it for. I0 -
Carbonator wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I don't disagree, just so long as the guy buying the carbon bike isn't looking down his nose at the guy on a steel or alu frame.
Why do you feel he is?
What has anyone ever said to that effect?
Its an urban myth and all in the heads of the haters with the steel/Alu bikes.
Frame material has bugger all to do with that anyway, the difference will be they are just cheaper.
I've already said if you check the thread that I think there are some excellent carbon bikes. The point Im struggling to make is that "some" people think carbon is the best material for a bike frame because the pros use it and because it's marginally lighter than the alternatives. I personally think these are rubbish reasons to base a purchase on but that doesn't mean I think all carbon bikes are rubbish, far from it.0 -
I am not having a go at you or suggesting that you are a hater.
You did not answer my question about what you have heard people say though.
Added to that, have you actually heard people say its the best material because the pros use it?
Not exactly an outrageous comment even if you did.
I would have thought it probably is the best frame material.
Is Carbon only 'marginally' lighter?
It depends how much you spend on it doesn't it.
Agree marginally lighter is a bit pointless, but noticeably lighter is worth it imo/ime.
4K gets you a sub race weight DA carbon bike with good enough wheels (rare I say that about stock wheels)
How near to that weight/cost/spec would you get a stock steel/alu bike.0 -
Carbonator wrote:I am not having a go at you or suggesting that you are a hater.
You did not answer my question about what you have heard people say though.
Added to that, have you actually heard people say its the best material because the pros use it?
Not exactly an outrageous comment even if you did.
I would have thought it probably is the best frame material.
Is Carbon only 'marginally' lighter?
It depends how much you spend on it doesn't it.
Agree marginally lighter is a bit pointless, but noticeably lighter is worth it imo/ime.
4K gets you a sub race weight DA carbon bike with good enough wheels (rare I say that about stock wheels)
How near to that weight/cost/spec would you get a stock steel/alu bike.
The weight is not that important to me to be honest. I'm over 100kg but even for average guys, the one kg or so you might save on a race spec carbon over high end steel is a tiny percentage of the overall rider and bike package.
Edit:
I read plenty of comments on forums like this that suggest that people base their bike purchase decisions on what the pros use and because it's light. Isn't that exactly what all the advertising and marketing aim at people? There is an obsession with weight in the bike industry because they know a lot of people want the lightest bike. So I repeat, if you're racing then carbon probably makes sense. If you're not racing then buy whatever bike you want for whatever reason you like don't pretend it's "the best" because its an expensive carbon bike. The best bike for you might be made of aluminium, or steel or might not be based around a racer, particularly if you're overweight and unfit.0 -
Shortfall wrote:The weight is not that important to me to be honest. I'm over 100kg but even for average guys, the one kg or so you might save on a race spec carbon over high end steel is a tiny percentage of the overall rider and bike package.
Another urban myth I am afraid.
1-2kg makes a noticeable difference. The bike will be much better spec'd too don't forget.
Trying to ignore that by taking rider into account is just what people who don't want to spend money on a bike say to make themselves feel better
Can you be more specific about the 'race spec carbon' and 'high end steel' bikes you are comparing.
Its just way too vague otherwise.
Have you ridden a high end, light carbon road bike?
I was about 100kg when I got my first one.
Carbon and steel are not even that comparable imo. They are both great materials.0 -
Carbonator wrote:Shortfall wrote:The weight is not that important to me to be honest. I'm over 100kg but even for average guys, the one kg or so you might save on a race spec carbon over high end steel is a tiny percentage of the overall rider and bike package.
Another urban myth I am afraid.
1-2kg makes a noticeable difference. The bike will be much better spec'd too don't forget.
Trying to ignore that by taking rider into account is just what people who don't want to spend money on a bike say to make themselves feel better
Can you be more specific about the 'race spec carbon' and 'high end steel' bikes you are comparing.
Its just way too vague otherwise.
Have you ridden a high end, light carbon road bike?
I was about 100kg when I got my first one.
Carbon and steel are not even that comparable imo. They are both great materials.
I rode a Ridley Noah Fast a couple of years ago at my local shops ride out. It wasn't all that, or maybe I wasn't good enough to get the most out of it which is rather my point. I have custom titanium bike which is every bit as quick on the road as my brother's Specialised carbon bike and all my mates carbon bikes come to that. It weighs around 8kg which is about the same as Madison Genesis Volare Team Steel . One of my mates has an aluminium Ribble with Tiagra and budget wheels and he's faster than the lot of us. If 1 kg makes as much of a difference to you as you say it does then may I suggest you ride without a water bottle and see how much difference it makes to your PBs on Strava? I'm guessing not much.0 -
Carbonator wrote:Shortfall wrote:The weight is not that important to me to be honest. I'm over 100kg but even for average guys, the one kg or so you might save on a race spec carbon over high end steel is a tiny percentage of the overall rider and bike package.
Another urban myth I am afraid.
1-2kg makes a noticeable difference.
I'm calling BS on this. Do we notice our race bikes getting faster on our way back as we've emptied our bidons ? Do we struggle going out with the extra 1500gr as we set out ?0 -
Oh dear, the old water bottle myth!0
-
0
-
cougie wrote:
Nope, I already knew that lighter bikes are faster
I personally try not to quantify how much faster they actually are.
Just knowing they are faster and feel a lot nicer to ride is good enough.
Recordable (not that you have a time machine to go back and do exactly the same ride twice) speed was not the only 'difference', but its the thing everyone latches onto.
Different people riding different bikes, riding on different days in different conditions with different fitness/oomph, beginning of a ride compared to end of a ride, riding without water etc. etc.
All way too chaotic to quantify, and, as usual, the point I made about better components on the lighter bike working/feeling better, have been conveniently ignored.
I think its best not to try to buy speed as its too difficult to quantify, and as we know, not as big a difference as people seem to want.
Buy a more enjoyable (perhaps because its lighter) bike for sure though, and take the extra speed (no matter how small) as a bonus.0 -
Carbonator wrote:cougie wrote:
All way too chaotic to quantify, and, as usual, the point I made about better components on the lighter bike working/feeling better, have been conveniently ignored.
.
Not sure what you're driving at with this? Let's keep it simple, assuming a top end carbon bike and a top end steel bike have the same wheels, finishing kit and groupset then the overall weight difference will be in the region of 1 to 1.5 kg. As a percentage of the overall rider and bike package this is a tiny percentage. No question the lighter bike will be faster, however how much faster? Can you show us some quantifiable research? My point is that if you're a racer and your body fat percentage is in single figures then 1.5 kg is a big deal when seconds count. If however you're 15 stone with 20% body fat and you go out and buy a Dogma then yeah you've got yourself a great bike but maybe you'd have been better off avoiding the pies and several thousand pounds the richer if you bought something more suited to your needs. If you decide that none of this matters because the Dogma is the bike of your dreams and you can afford it then knock yourself out and buy it.0 -
If it makes you feel like going out and riding then it's a good return on the money spent is really what it's about as to why a fat person should not have an exspensive bike I have no idea I'm pretty sure that those that are ridiculing these over weight riders are actually thinking their a lot better than they are because I'v yet to come across a top level athlete that has that opinion of other people trying to better themselves by training0
-
reacher wrote:If it makes you feel like going out and riding then it's a good return on the money spent is really what it's about as to why a fat person should not have an exspensive bike I have no idea I'm pretty sure that those that are ridiculing these over weight riders are actually thinking their a lot better than they are because I'v yet to come across a top level athlete that has that opinion of other people trying to better themselves by training
Well I haven't ridiculed any fat people on this thread and neither have I suggested they can't buy a nice bike made out of whatever material they want. I have however seen a few chubby rich blokes spilling out of lycra on really expensive bikes and thought to myself "what's the point?"0 -
Shortfall wrote:Carbonator wrote:cougie wrote:
All way too chaotic to quantify, and, as usual, the point I made about better components on the lighter bike working/feeling better, have been conveniently ignored.
.
Not sure what you're driving at with this? Let's keep it simple, assuming a top end carbon bike and a top end steel bike have the same wheels, finishing kit and groupset then the overall weight difference will be in the region of 1 to 1.5 kg. As a percentage of the overall rider and bike package this is a tiny percentage. No question the lighter bike will be faster, however how much faster? Can you show us some quantifiable research? My point is that if you're a racer and your body fat percentage is in single figures then 1.5 kg is a big deal when seconds count. If however you're 15 stone with 20% body fat and you go out and buy a Dogma then yeah you've got yourself a great bike but maybe you'd have been better off avoiding the pies and several thousand pounds the richer if you bought something more suited to your needs. If you decide that none of this matters because the Dogma is the bike of your dreams and you can afford it then knock yourself out and buy it.
Wow, big paragraph!
It seems we agree though
We agree the lighter bike will be faster and they both sound like v nice bikes.
Which steel bike is it? I want one!
In reality I don't think they both actually really exist as stock bikes though.
The steel bike would be very niche and so nice that the 1kg difference would be a lot less of an issue.
Reality is more like a lower spec'd steel bike with a bigger weight difference.
My heavy drop bar bike is about 22lb, and my light one is 16lb.
They feel very different (partly due to spec, partly weight, partly geometry, partly stiffness etc.) and there is no way on earth that 6lb off my body will make them feel the same.
My strava average speeds are fastest on the light aero bike, but I really don't give a monkeys why that is.
I know its the fastest bike I have and so it makes sense to take that one on a ride i want to do fast.
How much faster it actually is, is irrelevant.
It feels way more enjoyable to ride........and it looks good!
If I had to take the heavier bike for some reason, I would feel sad the whole way around.
I am not that far off 15 stone and look nothing like the Dogma pie eater I am visualizing.0 -
Shortfall wrote:I have however seen a few chubby rich blokes spilling out of lycra on really expensive bikes and thought to myself "what's the point?"
Sounds more than a little chip on shoulder, even though I get what you mean.
I just don't see that many that are of the extreme type you seem to be describing.
Some fatties are pretty fast.0 -
The Genesis Volare Team is a smidge over 7.5kg.0
-
Carbonator wrote:Shortfall wrote:I have however seen a few chubby rich blokes spilling out of lycra on really expensive bikes and thought to myself "what's the point?"
Sounds more than a little chip on shoulder, even though I get what you mean.
I just don't see that many that are of the extreme type you seem to be describing.
Some fatties are pretty fast.
Not really. Im no racing snake myself.0 -
reacher wrote:Garry H wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I have no problem with people buying what they perceive to be the best and in many cases that might well be a carbon bike. However I do question why a fat bloke would spunk 5 grand on a Trek racebike when in all likelihood he'd be better served killing himself and saving us all the burden of paying for his end of life care.
FTFY
Performance is not the barrier to buying nice things, bank balance is. If a 5 grand Trek gives said fat bloke a stiffy, then who are we to argue?
So your saying that a fat bloke or girl for that matter can't have a nice bike ? Rather a strange take on who should be allowed to buy nice bikes if you ask me to pursue their endeavours to get fitter. Have you stopped for one moment to consider that their probably making just as much effort as you are on those rides or probably more considering their weight or maybe in your world fat people should not be allowed on the road when neo pros like yourself are out and about training ready for a call from th Sky team boss
No, I said the opposite.0 -
Carbonator wrote:brianonyx wrote:
Why did nobody tell me that carbon bikes aren't actually any better or faster in the real world than steel bikes.
You have a steel ribble with Sora and do not think a light Carbon Trek (or whatever) with Dura Ace and direct mount brakes is any better?
You are either very lucky to get the same enjoyment, or very unlucky that you cannot tell the difference.
I think its pointless mentioning speed differences on here, but what do you actually mean by 'better'?
Seems like you really like the steel Ribble, which is great, but why become a Carbon hater?
I think you are selectively quoting me.
I was pleasantly surprised that the relatively cheap steel ribble with sora 'feels' more comfortable and 'nicer' to ride than my several K latest carbon bike with sram force. Even more surprised to not be able to notice any huge trend difference in times on strava. or notice over a long ride any real difference between a sub 7kg bike and I guess an 8.5 ish kg bike.Yes, the SRAM might feel slightly better than the sora but the sora feels remarkably good.
You imply that maybe i'm lucky to be not experienced enough to feel the difference. Probably not true. I would challenge anyone to go for a reasonable ride on a decent carbon bike and then a modern steel frame bike and not come back scratching their heads that conventional wisdom might not be correct.
As an aside, just because something is considered by you to be 'niche' just means it's not necessarily a sensible choice, it just means that sheep who follow the main brands are yet to discover that.0 -
Shortfall wrote:
Well I haven't ridiculed any fat people on this thread and neither have I suggested they can't buy a nice bike made out of whatever material they want. I have however seen a few chubby rich blokes spilling out of lycra on really expensive bikes and thought to myself "what's the point?"
Isn't the point the same as it is for skinny people, a light bike is faster than a heavier one whether you are fat or skinny.
A top end steel bike often isn't cheap anyway and my experience is that a light steel bike doesn't feel as planted in the corners as a good carbon one can (yes anecdotal based on a small n) so unless you have a particular reason for favouring it carbon is likely to make more sense.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Shortfall wrote:reacher wrote:If it makes you feel like going out and riding then it's a good return on the money spent is really what it's about as to why a fat person should not have an exspensive bike I have no idea I'm pretty sure that those that are ridiculing these over weight riders are actually thinking their a lot better than they are because I'v yet to come across a top level athlete that has that opinion of other people trying to better themselves by training
Well I haven't ridiculed any fat people on this thread and neither have I suggested they can't buy a nice bike made out of whatever material they want. I have however seen a few chubby rich blokes spilling out of lycra on really expensive bikes and thought to myself "what's the point?"
Because for them it's just as hard as for you, my mate has cerble palsy, do I take the piss because he buys nice kit, no I don't it's his way of trying to improve himself
I have to be honest here I find that attitude very strange, the point is for these people they are at least trying, not rolling over and saying its not worth the effort, and to be fair I'v seen more people with shiit loads of talent beaten by people who had determination and the guts to say I may be crap but I'm going to train as hard as you are even harder0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Shortfall wrote:
Well I haven't ridiculed any fat people on this thread and neither have I suggested they can't buy a nice bike made out of whatever material they want. I have however seen a few chubby rich blokes spilling out of lycra on really expensive bikes and thought to myself "what's the point?"
Isn't the point the same as it is for skinny people, a light bike is faster than a heavier one whether you are fat or skinny.
A top end steel bike often isn't cheap anyway and my experience is that a light steel bike doesn't feel as planted in the corners as a good carbon one can (yes anecdotal based on a small n) so unless you have a particular reason for favouring it carbon is likely to make more sense.
Steel's not for you, great, I have no problem if you prefer carbon. I'm not anti carbon honest!0 -
reacher wrote:Shortfall wrote:reacher wrote:If it makes you feel like going out and riding then it's a good return on the money spent is really what it's about as to why a fat person should not have an exspensive bike I have no idea I'm pretty sure that those that are ridiculing these over weight riders are actually thinking their a lot better than they are because I'v yet to come across a top level athlete that has that opinion of other people trying to better themselves by training
Well I haven't ridiculed any fat people on this thread and neither have I suggested they can't buy a nice bike made out of whatever material they want. I have however seen a few chubby rich blokes spilling out of lycra on really expensive bikes and thought to myself "what's the point?"
Because for them it's just as hard as for you, my mate has cerble palsy, do I take the wee-wee because he buys nice kit, no I don't it's his way of trying to improve himself
I have to be honest here I find that attitude very strange, the point is for these people they are at least trying, not rolling over and saying its not worth the effort, and to be fair I'v seen more people with shiit loads of talent beaten by people who had determination and the guts to say I may be crap but I'm going to train as hard as you are even harder
Look, I don't know about your mate. I'm talking in general terms. I'm not anti carbon. I'm not anti spending whatever you want on expensive bikes. But I am entitled to an opinion. Some people dismiss steel and aluminium bikes for what I consider to be ridiculous reasons ie it weighs a tad more or they consider it old fashioned. That's fine, it's their money, just so long as they don't mind me pointing out that there might be flaws in their reasoning. We all enjoy riding bikes. Peace.0 -
I've got a steel frame bike, an alu bike and a carbon bike.
Here's my take...
Steel IS real. It's a lovely strong material that can last for years. Just keep it rust free and it can take tons of abuse. It has excellent vibration absorbing qualities and can go very fast on the the flat and rail down hills. They are easy for frame builders to make so you can customize a bike and tailor it to your exact needs. I think everyone should have a steel frame bike and really spend some money on it that it deserves and give it a nice group-set with a nice saddle and carbon post, rather than cheaping out with low end group sets just because it's heavier and steel isn't an expensive material. It's an ideal candidate for hydraulic disk brakes, threaded BBs, 28-32mm tubless gravel capable tires as it's going to be heavier by 1kg-1.5kg anyhow, so weight weenie nonsense can all conveniently be side-stepped and you can just go for 100% strong and durable Shimano type build philosophy. Best uses are commuting, bikepacking, training/fun Hardtail MTBs and touring. It doesn't make for an uber flickable responsive mega 'bunny-hoppable' bike, but it can handle very predictably and doesn't tend to get very flustered by road/trail inconsistencies.
Carbon is fun. It's light, and you can build up even an entry level rim bike to somewhere approaching a pro bike's weight, with some nicer wheels and a higher end group-set. So for a reasonable budget most people can realize the difference between them and a pro is mostly the motor, not the bike. It's a very flickable bunny-hoppable light entertaining ride, but you need to be careful about road inconsistencies and be 'on the ball' and charging to get the most from it. Usually they have big BBs and large chainstays allowing you to efficiently put down power, but it's only a few percent and you probably won't notice the difference much even on Strava, it makes more difference how your legs feel on that day or if you had one too many beers the night before really. You can easily scratch the top coat, and generally ruin a carbon fiber bike in a crash. The lighter weight won't save you hardly any time up the hills, but maybe it's not about that as much as that lightweight ride quality as it's so light responsive and fun. Best uses are summer climbing bikes, racing MTBs, sportive and TT bikes.
Aluminium is harsh but quick. It shares similar qualities to carbon fibre if built right. It's not as smooth and compliant as carbon fibre usually but if you were riding on flat smooth roads and used a carbon seat post and maybe a stem with being careful about tire choice you would struggle to tell the difference and can lay down the power probably just as well as carbon fibre. It's cheaper than carbon fibre and usually much tougher so can take much more abuse and so is much less of a worry. Best uses are winter training bikes, flat crit racing, full suspension MTBs.0 -
Okay, change return on investment to value for money.Carbonator wrote:PBlakeney wrote:A real return on investment is any bike you will enjoy riding for many years instead of 2 or 3.
A bike is not an investment, its a purchase.
2 or 3 years sounds about right to me, then you might buy a new one and enjoy that too.
Why would you stop enjoying the bike after 2-3 years anyway?
What differences are these two bikes you are mentioning?
How would you know how you will feel about a bike 5 years into the future?
My opinion is based on experience of people thinking I paid too much for my steel bike 9 years ago while they have been through 3 alu/carbon cheaper bikes which add up to more than my one "overpriced" bike.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
