Carbon or Aluminium?

maloner

I've got an aluminium bike for 6 or 7 years now and its going fine, but what am I missing?

I've test rode a few carbon bikes round the car park of the LBS but that doesn't really tell me anything much. Taking it on a 80km spin round wicklow would probably help but I've not tried asking for that

My fears about carbon are lack of stiffness (which I think I felt in the carpark and felt quite odd), fragility (I have a static fall, or it falls off the bike rack and thats the end of it), a need to wrap it in bubble wrap every day and clean it meticulously, won't last as long.... Some or all of these might be nonsense.

Plus side would be weight but sizing up these two cube bikes with very similar specs, tells me there's not much weight difference at all 7.9 v 8.1.

Carbon

Aluminium


I'm not convinced about getting carbon, what am I missing?

I do quite a bit of cycling (650km + in August) so I be happy enough spending a decent wad of cash on a bike that'll last another wad of years.

seamus

By all accounts, a crash serious enough to break a carbon frame will also bend an aluminium frame. In both cases the frame has to be scrapped.

I haven't ridden carbon, so can't comment on the ride.

Hungrycol

Carbon is stronger than you think and the ride comfort would be better over distance greater than a car park. That said Aluminium bikes are still good bikes.

maloner

Hungrycol wrote: »

Carbon is stronger than you think and the ride comfort would be better over distance greater than a car park. That said Aluminium bikes are still good bikes.

I guess thats what I'm looking for views on. Is a good carbon really that much better than a good aluminium bike. Pro's use carbon hunting for every gram, but I'm not hunting for every gram.

Raam

maloner wrote: »

I guess thats what I'm looking for views on. Is a good carbon really that much better than a good aluminium bike. Pro's use carbon hunting for every gram, but I'm not hunting for every gram.

I ride both a carbon bike and an aluminium bike regularly. I much prefer the carbon one. It's just better. It also cost about 3 times the price.

velo.2010

Cannondale and Canyon regularly get top marks(over similar priced carbon frames) for their Alu bikes in the e1000 - e2000 bracket. Carbon frames are mast produced at this price point and may not offer all the benefits of the top of the range carbon frames that cost a whole lot more ie, they may not be as light and as stiff though will still offer a good level of comfort.

The Alu frames like the CAAD and Ultimate AL can be as light as the cheaper carbon frames, be stiffer though might not be as comfortable. Also the Alu frames might be better specced as well.

At the end of the day its true that a high end carbon frame would be better than the top Alu frame so its a case of how much have you got to spend? Good luck with your decision.

Lumen

I have owned a couple of carbon bikes. Sold one, crashed one. They were nice but I don't miss them that much.

I now have a titanium general purpose bike and a stiff alu race bike. If I didn't have the ti bike I'd buy a comfy steel or carbon one for non-racing. I have no plans to go back to a carbon race bike, unless I get my crashed one repaired.

The frame material is less important than how it's designed. I have owned alu bikes that were comfier than my carbon ones.

rp

Personally, I'd rather ride steel than ally, I find it harsh, especially on some of the surfaces I ride on. I've only had the carbon for a couple of weeks, but it seems good in this respect, and definitely stiff enough when giving it loads out of the saddle (Dolan Mythos). I'd happily give titanium a go, though...

Lemag

velo.2010 wrote: »

Cannondale and Canyon regularly get top marks(over similar priced carbon frames) for their Alu bikes in the e1000 - e2000 bracket. Carbon frames are mast produced at this price point and may not offer all the benefits of the top of the range carbon frames that cost a whole lot more ie, they may not be as light and as stiff though will still offer a good level of comfort.

The Alu frames like the CAAD and Ultimate AL can be as light as the cheaper carbon frames, be stiffer though might not be as comfortable. Also the Alu frames might be better specced as well.

Took my new CAAD 9 out fir the first time this weekend. I liked it but not as much as my carbon Canyon. The components are different. 105 and Aksium on the CAAD vs Ksyrium SL and sram red/force on the Canyon.

It'd be worth baring in mind that, aesthetics aside, the only thing which would be likely to outdate your carbon frame would be technology. Alu frames supposedly have a lifespan of about 10 years.

Lumen

Lemag wrote: »

It'd be worth baring in mind that, aesthetics aside, the only thing which would be likely to outdate your carbon frame would be technology. Alu frames supposedly have a lifespan of about 10 years.

Aesthetics not aside, the lifespan of a carbon bike is measured in months.

Discovery Trek anyone?

Lemag

Lumen wrote: »

Aesthetics not aside, the lifespan of a carbon bike is measured in months.

Discovery Trek anyone?

Hong Fu with no paint job.

maloner

Lemag wrote: »

Took my new CAAD 9 out fir the first time this weekend. I liked it but not as much as my carbon Canyon. The components are different. 105 and Aksium on the CAAD vs Ksyrium SL and sram red/force on the Canyon.

It'd be worth baring in mind that, aesthetics aside, the only thing which would be likely to outdate your carbon frame would be technology. Alu frames supposedly have a lifespan of about 10 years.

A Cannondale would be on the wish list alright. Cannondale Synapse looks like the right type of thing ("comfort" frame rather than "performance"). Also on the list would be the Felt F4.

Reckon I'll go for carbon at some point over the winter.

Ta

bad2dabone

does it make a difference how lardy the cyclist is? I've got a Litespeed at the moment, Alu frame Carbon fork, carbon/titanium seatstays and i'm looking to change bike early next year
with a budget of about 2grand. I could go for a decent specced end alu or a carbon at that range with a bit of budget stretching but i'm very much on the chunky side and don't know which frame would suit the heavier rider.

VanhireBoys

I am back on my 24 year old F.Moser after a brief encounter with a Felt F5 !

It was rigid and good on the hills but I used it a few times to go to work and it was scooty. I had no peace with the rough roads.

The Moser I have 700x25 Bontrager on and I just horse like anything - Jump kerbs ride through ruff stuff no problem !

I done 65 odd miles today and the bike was brilliant !

If I want to go faster I will have get fitter .. None of this willy waving dung for me

twinsen

Hungrycol wrote: »

Carbon is stronger than you think and the ride comfort would be better over distance greater than a car park. That said Aluminium bikes are still good bikes.

How can carbon be different than aluminum in regards to comfort?

maloner

twinsen wrote: »

How can carbon be different than aluminum in regards to comfort?

Carbon is more flexible than aluminium and absorbs more energy than aluminium. As I understand it anyway.

This is good and bad. Good, that the ride is smoother. But bad as some of your pedal energy goes into the frame and not the road.

Lemag

maloner wrote: »

Carbon is more flexible than aluminium and absorbs more energy than aluminium. As I understand it anyway.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't true.

Lumen

Histeretic/Hysteresis losses.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/138330-When-is-flex-in-a-bike-frame-a-good-thing

Hungrycol

twinsen wrote: »

How can carbon be different than aluminum in regards to comfort?

It absorbs a lot of road buzz.

Lumen

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2008/10/bicycle-structural-dynamics-by-vlus.html

Peetrik

I use an alu (scandium) bike as my 'good' bike and use a newer carbon bike for nipping round town.

To put it another way, +1 on Lumen's point on Alu frames not necessarily being inferior than the more exotic Ti or Carbon frames

maloner

Lumen wrote: »

Histeretic/Hysteresis losses.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/138330-When-is-flex-in-a-bike-frame-a-good-thing

If you really want to improve your hillclimbs, take a big dump before the ride and toss your bottles at the bottom.

dermur

Hungrycol wrote: »

It absorbs a lot of road buzz.

Carbon frames do seem to have a dampening effect. If you've been riding alluminium/alloy bikes up until now, you might even find that carbon feels a little "dead" on the road...less responsive than alloy.

But you can always get some stiffer frames like Ridley RS, etc. which feel a lot more lively in comparison to other carbon frames.

maloner

Felt z4 with full ultegra and mavik ksyrium equip for about 2350 from wheelworx. Dang the rain and dark. Will have to take it for a spin tomorrow to find out about carbon or aluminium but happy out at the mo.

fat bloke

maloner wrote: »

Carbon is more flexible than aluminium and absorbs more energy than aluminium. As I understand it anyway.

General statements like that about the materials aren't really relevant tbh, manufacturers design and build stiffness and flex into their manufacture and design protocols. You see it in motogp now - the goals used to be all about stiffness, then they realised with modern materials and processes they could make the frickin things as stiff as the proverbial board, and it became all about engineering the right balance between stiffness and flex.

I used to ride an aluminium frame and my new carbon bike is very "buzzy" over rutted surfaces, but there's a lot of flex in the carbon bars, I found them almost almost alarmingly wobbly to begin with.

I also have an old steel frame Colnago, and I have to say, it is a marvelous real world, real road, bicycle. It's astonishing. A lovely combination of weight, stiffness and comfort. Would be interested to ride one of these so-called "ultimate" Al machines, see what they're like.

I have to say, I'm not sure I see the point in buying a low to mid range CF bike that's like 8 to 9 Kg. The whole point for me of going CF is light weight, so if you're not getting that.... definitely explore the possibility of other materials.


Edit - just looking at the canyon website there. Forgetting about prices, I like the idea about buying a top of the range AL bike, rather than a mid-pack CF machine. Pity they bail out at ultegra level. Would be nice to see them keep the faith with their "ultimate Al" idea and sell the bike with sram red or dura ace and some carbon wheels, for the 2.5 to 3k mark maybe?

rp

Lemag wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that this isn't true.

Aluminium has a face-centered cubic crystal structure, whilst a carbon fibre frame is made up of layered carbon fibres.

kuro_man

It seems to me that the main advantage of CF is the ability to alter stiffness in certain parts of the frame, so that the bb, chainstains and perhaps headtube could be very stiff and responsive, the seat tube, rear forks and front forks can be more flexible to absorb vibration. I guess this is harder to do in aluminium, so they use carbon forks, seat post etc.

If cheaper CF frames don't vary the stiffness, or the variation is small, then is seems a bit futile, and aluminium frame with cf forks/seat post/handlebars would probably be better. If it works out cheaper, you could spend the difference upgrading the wheels instead.

kuro_man

I would be interested to know if someone went from an alu bike to a plant-x or ribble cf (or similar) how they got on.

Idleater

kuro_man wrote: »

I would be interested to know if someone went from an alu bike to a plant-x or ribble cf (or similar) how they got on.

You mean in terms of entry level carbon bike cost or in terms of planet-x reputation for being flexy and thereby comfortable?

fat bloke wrote: »

I have to say, I'm not sure I see the point in buying a low to mid range CF bike that's like 8 to 9 Kg. The whole point for me of going CF is light weight, so if you're not getting that.... definitely explore the possibility of other materials.
?

Personally I agree with this. I saved for a year and used it as a carrot/stick as a reward if I managed to put in proper winter training. I don't know how much worse I would have been on a "cheap" carbon bike, but the one I got was exceptionally comfortable, stiff, light and fast over smooth and rough surfaces and over short and long distances.
Definitely a case of bike > rider

maloner

Idleater wrote: »

Personally I agree with this. I saved for a year and used it as a carrot/stick as a reward if I managed to put in proper winter training. I don't know how much worse I would have been on a "cheap" carbon bike, but the one I got was exceptionally comfortable, stiff, light and fast over smooth and rough surfaces and over short and long distances.
Definitely a case of bike > rider

Was out on spin round the phoenix park this morning and very happy with the carbon bike. Hard to make any real judgements on a short 30 min spin before work, but was very smooth. Might need a longer stem but thats no biggie so happy out.

I've done more Km's than I spent on the bike, so I'm content enough with the amount I spent. I'm not looking to enter the tour de france or do any racing so I'm quite happy to take this mechanical advantage that this new bike gives me over my other AL bike to go further faster, which I think it will enable me to do.

The ultegra group set (other bike is 105) is really great I have to say. Could be that the 105 set is 7 years old but the shifting is superior, most obviously on the front derailleur. Didn't expect such a difference, but a good bit of it is likely due to 7 years use on the 105 as much as any mechanical advantages.

Vélo

Best of luck with it. Nothing better than a nice new shiny bike.

blorg

kuro_man wrote: »

I would be interested to know if someone went from an alu bike to a plant-x or ribble cf (or similar) how they got on.

I went from an aluminium Trek to a carbon Trek with otherwise identical geometry. I had also test-ridden a high end aluminium Trek with the same groupset (Ultegra.) The difference was night and day, the carbon was infinitely more comfortable while the aluminium bike you felt every little bump in the road.

Plenty of others have had similar experiences. Tom, for example, swapped an aluminium Cube frame for a Planet X, and was very happy. Exact same components, e.g. they came from the old bike.

I also have a PX and it is a great ride. I would take it over aluminium any day.

Lumen

I went from a carbon Scott Addict SL to an aluminium Canyon Ultimate AL. Same groupset and wheels. Didn't notice a big difference in any qualities.

velo.2010

@Lumen , re the Ultimate AL, you got the frame only?

How do you find it, lightness, handling, and does that Giants Causeway* Seatpost do what its supposed to?

*Carbon layered with Basalt.

Lumen

velo.2010 wrote: »

@Lumen , re the Ultimate AL, you got the frame only?

How do you find it, lightness, handling, and does that Giants Causeway* Seatpost do what its supposed to?

*Carbon layered with Basalt.

I got the frameset with the alloy seatpost (cheapy purchase from outlet).

It is light and fast. A great racing frameset.

Ride quality on chip and tar roads down the country with my deep section carbon clinchers is pretty abysmal, but that's probably the fault of the wheels.

Lemag

Lumen wrote: »

I went from a carbon Scott Addict SL to an aluminium Canyon Ultimate AL. Same groupset and wheels. Didn't notice a big difference in any qualities.

Canyon > Scott

ROK ON

blorg wrote: »

Plenty of others have had similar experiences. Tom, for example, swapped an aluminium Cube frame for a Planet X, and was very happy. Exact same components, e.g. they came from the old bike.

I also have a PX and it is a great ride. I would take it over aluminium any day.

Lumen wrote: »

I went from a carbon Scott Addict SL to an aluminium Canyon Ultimate AL. Same groupset and wheels. Didn't notice a big difference in any qualities.

I think a lot of it comes down to the type/grade of material used in the construction of the frame as well as the method of construction.

I have a Kuota Kebel, which is a carbon frame. It is a dream to cycle on reasonable roads (uphill, downhill, tight corners). However on roads with poor surfaces the stiffness makes it pretty unenjoyable to ride. There is feedback through the seatpost and handlebars. This is despite the wheels that I have on it. On a ride during the summer I hit a pothole on a very fast steep descent. The rear fork fistailed out of the pothole. I was lucky not to crash. There was a boardsie on my whell who witnessed the event. It was as if instead of going thru the hole, the rearwheel/fork bounced too the side.
There is another person on this website that has recently sold a very high end stiff carbon bike due to the fact that it was pretty uncomfortable to ride on many Irish roads. Stiffness seems to be a quality favoured by bike reviewers and guys that race at a reasonable level. But for many people I suspect that a little more flexibility in a bike maybe a better option.

If I was selling either of my carbiin bikes, I think I would get a Ti or Steel frame to be honest, even though I prefer the look of carbon.

If I know I am going to be riding on sh1te roads I prefer to cycle my alu frame( Orbea). It is a slower and heavier and more flexy than my good carbin bike, but it is a more comfortable ride on poor road surfaces.
Know both bikes are better than my previous aluminium bike (a specialized) in terms of ride quality.
I am not a materials scientist, but I think it is too simplistic to say that carbon > aluminium. (1) it depends what you want from the bike, and (2) it depends on the type and method of construction I would imagine.

chakattack

It's not a simple question of one material against another, it's down to frame design, picking the tubes to give the right combination of flex and stiffness for performance and comfort.

I had a columbus airplane alu frame that was a dream to ride, it might be nostalgia but I think I preferred it to my carbon bike although it wasn't as stiff.

I have a carbon frame that is very comfortable on most surfaces but super stiff and very accurate on a tight descent.

I have an old 531 frame, feels very flexy and slow to steer but oh how it soaks up the bumps.

I have an alu training frame that is ok on an easy controlled ride but rattles the sh*t out of me when the pace rises.

Some carbon all out race bikes are probably far too stiff for general use (on our roads) and better for crits than sportives or long races.