Which to choose - Carbon Fibre or Aluminium

Timmyboy

Hello and hoping that I might be able to get some assistance on choice of a new racing bike.

Background is that I am thinking about utilizing the Bike to Work scheme as a means of acquiring a new racing style road bike. Last Friday went to a Local Bike Shop in Tralee to enquire about some possibilities. Under this particular Bike to Work scheme we are restricted to purchase of bicycles from vendors located in County Kerry. LBS owner was helpful and indentified two sorts of bikes at the upper and lower end of my budget (1000 to 2000 Euro).

One was aluminium frame, other was carbon fibre frame.

Anyhow the question is which should I go for?

All of my bikes (last time I bought a new bike was in the early 1990's) are steel and I've never ridden a carbon fibre bike and only had some spins for short journeys in the US on aluminium suspended MTBs.

Durability means a lot to me and if I'm spending up to 2000 Euros I really want a bike that's going to last as long as my steel bicycles (Reynolds and Tange tubing).

I want performance too and I'm not really sure what are the big differences in performance between such different types of bikes.

Finally, the bikes actually shown to me were a Giant Defy (not sure whether 1, 2 or 3 or 4) and a Giant TCR 4.

Any opinions? Thanks.

ednwireland

Timmyboy wrote: »

Durability means a lot to me and if I'm spending up to 2000 Euros I really want a bike that's going to last as long as my steel bicycles (Reynolds and Tange tubing).

you'd better go for steel (or titanium) then


i went from steel to CF and the difference was amazing but will it last a long as a steel bike i actually have no idea but i doubt it. but it so much better to ride (25 years of bike developement might have something to with it

certainly my aluminium (hardtail mtb) lost that zippy feeling after about 10years (or it could have been me)

nothing wrong with it but its certainley different to when i bought it

CheGuedara

Well short answer re the differences between alu and c.f. are that alu is heavier and can sometimes give a harsh-ish ride if done badly but cheaper and c.f. is lighter, stiffer, arguably stronger though less likely to survive a properly bad crash and more expensive.

Of the two bikes you were shown you've two ends of the road spectrum covered (assuming an alu. Defy) - the Defy is a very good, stable bike that would be ideal for sportives (challenge cycles) and all day rides due to a slightly more upright position. The TCR on the other hand is a race bike meaning a wee bit twitchier and with stiffer, more lightweight frame and a lower riding position.

We have members in my club riding both bikes and TBH both are very capable bikes - which one you pick depends on what you want it for - the Defy might not be the best choice if you think you might get into racing but the TCR will do everything, BUT the Defy may be more comfortable (at least initially) than the TCR for longer rides.

Personally - I'd leave the shop (O'Hallorans?) with a TCR - if you've a good history of cycling it won't be a waisted investment, you won't find yourself in 6 months going '...wish I'd gone for that TCR'

ipodrocker

just a note on the btw scheme, it allows a purchase up to 1,000euro through your payroll anything extra you will have to pay for it yourself.

gman2k

Timmyboy wrote: »

Under this particular Bike to Work scheme we are restricted to purchase of bicycles from vendors located in County Kerry. .

Is this restriction allowed under the regulation of the scheme?

papac

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

Straight talk on frame materials from Uncle Sheldon.
I think the bottom line is that there is always a compromise and you have to choose where you make it.

seamus

gman2k wrote: »

Is this restriction allowed under the regulation of the scheme?

Unfortunately yes.

Others might tell me that I'm talking out of my arse, but IMO if you're going to use a bike for commuting then you're better off with Alu over carbon. With carbon, something as simple as some idiot banging his bike off yours while locking it could wreck the frame.

I don't think there are any durability or lifespan concerns with carbon, it's just less tolerating of being struck by big heavy objects.

niceonetom

Where are all these defunct carbon and alu bikes that are being outlived by steel? If they really are as short lived as the traditionalists claim they should be piling up...

I think the reason you don't see many carbon bikes more than a few years old isn't that carbon spontaneously self-destructs after 5 years, but rather that the type of person who buys a carbon-fiber frame is the sort who's a compulsive upgrader and serial overspender.

Sure, both carbon and alu are reputed to soften with age, but so does steel and that starts out being pretty flexy. If you crash a bike hard enough to really dent a tube it's going in the bin regardless of material.

My advice would be to outline what your priorities are first; weight, stiffness, comfort, durability etc. and then choose the material accordingly, not to go with a fundamentally flawed jump-off point of 'carbon bikes are x' and 'steel bikes are y'.

Lumen

There is a philosophical question about what actually constitutes a bike.

If you take the view that the bike is the frameset and everything else is peripheral, then the lifespan of your carbon "bike" may be limited to the point at which paint becomes so tatty you can't bear to ride it any more, because carbon is harder to strip for repainting than metal (although Quigs Snr had his 9 y/o Trek repainted recently and it turned out great). However, before that happens you may have replaced every other component due to wear, so it's not really the same bike at all.

So you need to be clear on what sort of longevity you're after. Repairability, repaintability, cosmetic toughness, impact resistance, corrosion resistance...

Whilst there's nothing wrong with aluminium, the dominance of carbon for the stiff-but-comfy niche has recently allowed steel to make a bit of a resurgence for those who admit that shaving the last few hundred grams and resisting the sprinting power of a doped pro is not really so important.

cdaly_

Lumen wrote: »

However, before that happens you may have replaced every other component due to wear, so it's not really the same bike at all.

And don't forget:

Sergeant Pluck* wrote:

The gross and net result of it is that people who spent most of their natural lives riding iron bicycles over the rocky roadsteads of this parish get their personalities mixed up with the personalities of their bicycle as a result of the interchanging of the atoms of each of them and you would be surprised at the number of people in these parts who nearly are half people and half bicycle.

*Sergeant Pluck, expounding on The Atomic Theory, in "The Third Policeman," by Flann O'Brien

Hungrycol

Buy both. Get a general cheapo kickaround hybrid commuter for €500 and spend the rest on a nice carbon bike with the rest.

IM0

Timmy. Alu is a more comfortable ride than carbon, carbon breaks like glass, once it has a hard enough impact or twist it snaps like a carrot...which has been deep fried in liquid oxygen..i.e. very small sharp pieces.

Steel/alum will just bend/break in one peice for the same impact.

The main thing with carbon is that it doesnt fatigue over time, with use, alum will become more flexy [some would say comfortable over time]
Carbon bikes are basically disposable, once you have had a significant crash its usually toast, an alum one will get up and carry on in those crashes.

If I was to do it again I wouldn't bother with carbon bike, then again if I hadnt of had both I woulnt know :pac:

blorg

me@ucd wrote: »

Carbon bikes are basically disposable, once you have had a significant crash its usually toast, an alum one will get up and carry on in those crashes.

That is just bollocks. Most crashes that would destroy carbon would also destroy an aluminium frame. I know countless people who have crashed on carbon but very few that have totalled their bikes.

That alu is more comfortable is also bollocks. Everything else being equal carbon CAN be far more comfortable (I have owned alu and carbon Treks in identical geometries- the carbon was fantastically comfortable while the alu was very direct but also harsh.)

@OP- in my experience carbon is a revelation compared to aluminium. Most of this is comfort IMO rather than weight or stiffness.

IM0

Im not taking about a crash where your front wheel washes out and you drop it on the floor at pretty much any speed, I mean Peloton crashes, the ones that go crunch, and bike fly through the air ones or you hit something solid.

Sorry blorg its not bollox, just in your experience its unusual, so what your really saying is statistically there is little difference, and we all [some of us?] know that there is statistically and real world, real life trumps statistics in my experience

Lumen

me@ucd wrote: »

Im not taking about a crash where your front wheel washes out and you drop it on the floor at pretty much any speed, I mean Peloton crashes, the ones that go crunch, and bike fly through the air ones or you hit something solid.

Maybe, maybe not. But then you can buy a new carbon frame for less than a set of levers, so I think it's better to focus on what you can afford to crash rather than the failure modes of specific materials.

How much does it cost to properly repair and repaint a badly damaged Cervelo S1, for instance?

petethedrummer

me@ucd wrote: »

Alu is a more comfortable ride than carbon

So all those bike magazines are wrong. And the lads in bike shops. And everyone i have talked to who has ridden both a carbon and aluminium bike.

You're really going to have to start a thread with a poll on this issue.

IM0

petethedrummer wrote: »

You're really going to have to start a thread with a poll on this issue.

Your saying that like it would make a difference! Im just sharing my experience with both, YMMV :pac:
I know different people to you, who have also ridden both and they agree with me, and none of them work in bikeshops

petethedrummer

me@ucd wrote: »

Your saying that like it would make a difference! Im just sharing my experience with both, YMMV :pac:

It would give a representative view of the people on this forum and it would come out in favour of Carbon Fibre, if everyone voting had ridden both. I happen to ride a cheap aluminium bike myself with carbon fork and seatpost but have ridden carbon and its more comfortable.

me@ucd wrote: »

I know different people to you, who have also ridden both and they agree with me, and none of them work in bikeshops

What is the wink about? I didn't imply in my post that everyone I know works in a bike shop. I merely stated that people in bike shops have recommended carbon as being more comfortable. People whose opinions I have come to trust.

Also a separate group of people I know, who don't work in bike shops and who have ridden both, say Carbon is more comfortable.

lescol

What are you planning on doing with the bike? I have steel, alu and carbon, on a short trip I wouldn't really mind which I take. Have done the Ring of Kerry on each of them, I'd pick the carbon for the "best" ride, although, it's probably a bit unfair to decide purely on frame material when there are other factors, wheels, saddle, handlebars etc. A good bike is a good bike.

As for durability I do like this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lsDXEEUlRE/YOUTUBE] however, it wasn't raining:D

DirkVoodoo

I'd ride anything.

Yes, carbon is not a wonder material, but it's pretty close. It probably won't last you for 30 years, but if you get 10 years of solid cycling from any bike then it's really paid for itself. I have an aluminium bike and 2 carbon bikes. They all handle and feel different. Go an ride as many bikes as you can withing your budget and choose the one you like best. Like Tom says, don't try and break it down into a simple choice between carbon and aluminium.

Timmyboy

Thanks to everyone for help on this.

@CheG. Yes, it was at O'Hallorans in Tralee.


Essentially at this stage I feel divided between the two bikes. There are geometry differences betwen the Defy and the TCR but for me it was the frame material difference and price that stuck out the most. The groupsets and kit of the bikes was very much similar.

I'm going to ponder just a little more during the weekend and make the decision next week. Now it looks like Carbon framed Giant TCR 4 for me.

As Tony said, back 10 or 15 years ago, it would have been a "James Bond bike":). Brilliant!

petethedrummer

You can get a Defy Advanced, which is the Carbon version of the Defy.

ROK ON

I was cycling this week with a TREK OCLV. Must be 8yrs old.
Looked fantastic. Carbon if maintained properly and avoid serious accidents will be just fine in 10yrs time.
I have two carbon and two alu bikes. If I was going o. A substantial ride I would I only go on the carbon ones for sheer comfort.

amused2death

gman2k wrote: »

Is this restriction allowed under the regulation of the scheme?

Reference restrictions on the bike to work scheme. Nothing in the regs define where the bike or accessories must be purchased. As such purchases can be made from european on line bike shops or your local retailer. Employers may do deals with local retails but this does not restrict the employee to purchase from that outlet only. In my own case I am self employed and buying from a German on line store. If ever in doubt check back to the the relevant government department web site. Local retailers have a vested interest in providing information that is misleading and false. Keep in mind it is YOUR TAX money that is been spend. So spend it wisely

Single Malt

amused2death wrote: »

Reference restrictions on the bike to work scheme. Nothing in the regs define where the bike or accessories must be purchased. As such purchases can be made from european on line bike shops or your local retailer. Employers may do deals with local retails but this does not restrict the employee to purchase from that outlet only. In my own case I am self employed and buying from a German on line store. If ever in doubt check back to the the relevant government department web site. Local retailers have a vested interest in providing information that is misleading and false. Keep in mind it is YOUR TAX money that is been spend. So spend it wisely

Its up to the employer to decide where they buy your bike for you.

amused2death

double posting.........
On the issue of alloy or carbon frames..... Both are excellent and have come a long way since the 1980's. The key issue is not what you are willing to spend but what you can afford to maintain. Alloy relative to carbon is cheaper and is standardised. That is you can see the make up of the material or process by the numbers on the frame which may read 7005 T6. While many advertised carbon bikes fail to provide details on the quality or manufacturing standards applying to each bike or range from each manufacturer. Simply describing a frame as "carbon" does not mean it is lighter than an alloy frame or better quality or of the same standard as another carbon frame. Carbon frames should provide the tensile strength of the frame shown as "T" and a number for example "T60" meaning this frame has a high tensile strength compared to a T24 frame. you can expect that the higher the T number the lighter the frame while strength is not compromised. You might see a "K" value used for carbon frames or bikes accessories. This refers more to the finish of the carbon on the surface and does not effect the strength of the item. Look more for the T value. Alloy offers great value and can be found in superlite models. Before you buy learm more about what you are buying and why.

amused2death

Single Malt wrote: »

Its up to the employer to decide where they buy your bike for you.

Considering I am the employer that point is void....This system is quite active in the public service and larger companies where some means of consultantion has taken place taking account of the employees views as well as those of the employers. Considering in most cases BOTH are contributing to it! Any system that imposes the views of one over the other is not going to be very successful.

Single Malt

amused2death wrote: »

Considering I am the employer that point is void....This system is quite active in the public service and larger companies where some means of consultantion has taken place taking account of the employees views as well as those of the employers. Considering in most cases BOTH are contributing to it! Any system that imposes the views of one over the other is not going to be very successful.

Maybe, but you are not the OP's employer, making my point valid. Who decided to only buy local. Which is a fair decision, as they are lending the voucher of up to 1000E to the employee.

amused2death

Single Malt wrote: »

Maybe, but you are not the OP's employer, making my point valid. Who decided to only buy local. Which is a fair decision, as they are lending the voucher of up to 1000E to the employee.

Well considering the purpose is to encourage employees to get out of their cars and on to a bike and that most schemes involve employees paying at least a tax contribution employees should be consulted on what and where such a scheme operates for any hope of employee "buy-in" There are many of these so called "local schemes" operating around the country where there is poor participation. If you dont include all the stakeholders in devising the scheme dont be surprised when one doesnt buy in to it.

blorg

Single Malt wrote: »

Maybe, but you are not the OP's employer, making my point valid. Who decided to only buy local. Which is a fair decision, as they are lending the voucher of up to 1000E to the employee.

It is a legal decision. Fair is another matter.