Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 30 May 2007 08:39:50
From: bramski@gmail.com
Subject: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
summer.

What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
stiffer?

Date: 01 Jun 2007 02:27:34
From: Marian
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On Jun 1, 8:01 am, "russellseat...@yahoo.com"
<russellseat...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On May 31, 7:20 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 9:39 am, "bram...@gmail.com" <bram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> > > minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> > > summer.
>
> > > What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> > > composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> > > bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> > > Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> > > it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> > > power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> > > bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> > > stiffer?
>
> > Only 3 things are important, fit, fit and of course, fit. You don't
> > mention steel either. Well made, about the same weight as many
> > 'blends, rides like a dream, looks great, lasts forever. No mention of
> > ti either, great material. Blend bikes are marketing 101, aluminum
> > 'should' be cheap, the market is awash with carbon, the latest 'great'
> > thing and as some tell it, the 'last word' in frame material(of
> > course, not true).
>
> > So, just about any bike that fits you will work for you, ragardless of
> > material. Ride all 4 materials, to see what suits you, then get a fit
> > and get the one that fits you...did I mention fit??
>
> I'll echo what Jay Beattie writes. Does fit really matter that much?
> The way some people make it sound, if the bike is not a perfect fit,
> the person will be crippled for life if they even swing a leg over the
> bike. I rode ill fitting bikes many thousands of miles. A bit of
> ignorance is bliss. But even when I knew the bike did not fit, I
> still rode it. I've seen many other people on ill fitting bikes that
> seemed to be riding quite happily. Fit is a secondary criteria.
> Primary is the desire to ride. If you want to ride a bicycle, you
> will ride.

Last year's road bike was astonishingly too large for me. Not as much
too large for me as the Cannondale mountain bike I picked up second
hand this past summer (which was so big I had negative standover
clearance even with a sloping top tube) but still too large for me.

With a short stem I happily put around 12,500km on it from October
2005 - > July 2006.

I was comfortable. The bike was great. I loved it. It fit fine.
And the people at the little bike shop who were insisting that the
frame was too large for me and that the big bike shop had done me a
disservice by selling me this bike and who were saying that I should
(at the very least) swap frames were clearly half trying to convince
me to spend money at their shop and half showing their The Other Shop
Is Evil sour grapes nastiness politics garbage.

I sold that bike while I was in the US over the summer.

Back in China I ended up with a much smaller road bike. So small that
I felt hunched up and uncomfortable on it but I bowed to superior
knowledge and pressure and took the smaller road bike that the bike
shop manager thought was a reasonable trade for the wheel-less early
90s Peugeot that lots of people were saying was too big for me.

Within a few weeks I was comfortable. The bike was great. I loved
it. And it fit fine. Pain and stiffness that I had previously been
completely unaware of was now completely gone. My masseur even
commented on lack of tension in my lower back. The people at the
little bike shop were still showing their sour grapes and politics.
They thought I should have at least given them a chance at the Peugeot
and they claimed that this frame was still too big for me.

Somewhere around the 5000km mark on that bike I started preparing to
buy a Habanero ti frame. One of the things Mark wanted me to do was
to measure my current bike and tell him how I didn't like it and how I
wanted to change my riding posture. Somewhere in there Mark suggested
that, indeed, my reach was a bit too long for me and perhaps I should
consider trying a short stem.

I tried the short stem. It was a clear waste of money. Vastly worse
than the long stem I'd been using before. For about two days.

And then, just like when I first switched down on frame size, I
realized that there was discomfort (not exactly pain) that was there
no longer. I hadn't been in pain and I hadn't been uncomfortable, I
simply hadn't realized that there was something better.

About a week after that change I went mountain biking. Using my too
big Cannondale. I'd been saying all along that this bike was getting
less use than the road bike because of the wide buzzy tires, the
suspension, and my general unwillingness to mountain bike alone. But,
after shortening the road bike's reach it became clear that the reason
I wasn't riding my C'dale was because it was _too big_. Really too
big. Painfully really too big. Before the realization of something
better it was a great bike. Afterwards it was just an achy unpleasant
bike suitable for short rides and nothing more.

I traded my thirdhand Cannondale's frame (with severe cosmetic damage
on the downtube and a small dent on the top tube) to the little bike
shop for a brand new Giant ATX8 frame. Since I also had a couple of
other things that needed doing including pads for the disc brakes
(which were acquired by trading my old v-brakes, my old click
shifters, and a seatpost rack that I wasn't using) and building my new
disc compatible wheels (which took extra time since I decided that not-
in-stock hubs were tres cool) I haven't gotten to ride it yet but I
think the change from 21" to 17" is a good one.

Fit is important. Really important. I haven't gotten in as many
miles this year as I got in in a comparable period last year but I'm
no longer an unemployed student. I'm doing more long distance trips
and I'm doing them more comfortably and more frequently.

-M

Date: 31 May 2007 17:01:14
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On May 31, 7:20 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On May 30, 9:39 am, "bram...@gmail.com" <bram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> > minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> > summer.
>
> > What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> > composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> > bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> > Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> > it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> > power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> > bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> > stiffer?
>
> Only 3 things are important, fit, fit and of course, fit. You don't
> mention steel either. Well made, about the same weight as many
> 'blends, rides like a dream, looks great, lasts forever. No mention of
> ti either, great material. Blend bikes are marketing 101, aluminum
> 'should' be cheap, the market is awash with carbon, the latest 'great'
> thing and as some tell it, the 'last word' in frame material(of
> course, not true).
>
> So, just about any bike that fits you will work for you, ragardless of
> material. Ride all 4 materials, to see what suits you, then get a fit
> and get the one that fits you...did I mention fit??

I'll echo what Jay Beattie writes. Does fit really matter that much?
The way some people make it sound, if the bike is not a perfect fit,
the person will be crippled for life if they even swing a leg over the
bike. I rode ill fitting bikes many thousands of miles. A bit of
ignorance is bliss. But even when I knew the bike did not fit, I
still rode it. I've seen many other people on ill fitting bikes that
seemed to be riding quite happily. Fit is a secondary criteria.
Primary is the desire to ride. If you want to ride a bicycle, you
will ride.

Date: 31 May 2007 15:28:39
From: sergio
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On 31 Mag, 14:20, Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com > wrote:
Ride all 4 materials, to see what suits you, then get a fit
> and get the one that fits you...did I mention fit??

Not enough.
You know what the most important part is of the game?
To get yourself fit to the bike.

Sergio
Pisa

Date: 31 May 2007 05:20:25
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On May 30, 9:39 am, "bram...@gmail.com" <bram...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> summer.
>
> What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> stiffer?

Only 3 things are important, fit, fit and of course, fit. You don't
mention steel either. Well made, about the same weight as many
'blends, rides like a dream, looks great, lasts forever. No mention of
ti either, great material. Blend bikes are marketing 101, aluminum
'should' be cheap, the market is awash with carbon, the latest 'great'
thing and as some tell it, the 'last word' in frame material(of
course, not true).

So, just about any bike that fits you will work for you, ragardless of
material. Ride all 4 materials, to see what suits you, then get a fit
and get the one that fits you...did I mention fit??

Date: 31 May 2007 09:19:21
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message
news:1180614025.852251.89520@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 9:39 am, "bram...@gmail.com" <bram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
>> minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
>> summer.
>>
>> What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
>> composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
>> bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
>> Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
>> it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
>> power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
>> bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
>> stiffer?
>
> Only 3 things are important, fit, fit and of course, fit. You don't
> mention steel either. Well made, about the same weight as many
> 'blends, rides like a dream, looks great, lasts forever. No mention of
> ti either, great material. Blend bikes are marketing 101, aluminum
> 'should' be cheap, the market is awash with carbon, the latest 'great'
> thing and as some tell it, the 'last word' in frame material(of
> course, not true).
>
> So, just about any bike that fits you will work for you, ragardless of
> material. Ride all 4 materials, to see what suits you, then get a fit
> and get the one that fits you...did I mention fit??

Does fit matter?

Being the bicycle guy at work, my co-workers (and most recently the wife of
a co-worker) ask me for bicycle recommendations and then regale me with
their stories of test riding bicycles. Sometimes the decision to buy one
frame material or another is based on whether a shift lever was sticky or a
derailleur was misadjusted on a test bike. It's also amazing that these
infrequent recreational riders are spending so much money on bikes. The
aforementioned wife stated a distinct preference for the feel of CF (versus
Al), but that could have been a preference implanted by the sales person.
The CF bike also sounded like it was a better fit. There are apparently a
lot of off the rack carbon bikes in the $2K range these days. -- Jay
Beattie.

Date: 31 May 2007 10:18:16
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message
news:465ef455$0$17198$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message
> news:1180614025.852251.89520@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 30, 9:39 am, "bram...@gmail.com" <bram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
>>> minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
>>> summer.
>>>
>>> What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
>>> composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
>>> bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
>>> Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
>>> it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
>>> power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
>>> bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
>>> stiffer?
>>
>> Only 3 things are important, fit, fit and of course, fit. You don't
>> mention steel either. Well made, about the same weight as many
>> 'blends, rides like a dream, looks great, lasts forever. No mention of
>> ti either, great material. Blend bikes are marketing 101, aluminum
>> 'should' be cheap, the market is awash with carbon, the latest 'great'
>> thing and as some tell it, the 'last word' in frame material(of
>> course, not true).
>>
>> So, just about any bike that fits you will work for you, ragardless of
>> material. Ride all 4 materials, to see what suits you, then get a fit
>> and get the one that fits you...did I mention fit??
>
> Does fit matter?
>
> Being the bicycle guy at work, my co-workers (and most recently the wife
> of a co-worker) ask me for bicycle recommendations and then regale me with
> their stories of test riding bicycles. Sometimes the decision to buy one
> frame material or another is based on whether a shift lever was sticky or
> a derailleur was misadjusted on a test bike. It's also amazing that these
> infrequent recreational riders are spending so much money on bikes. The
> aforementioned wife stated a distinct preference for the feel of CF
> (versus Al), but that could have been a preference implanted by the sales
> person. The CF bike also sounded like it was a better fit. There are
> apparently a lot of off the rack carbon bikes in the $2K range these
> days. -- Jay Beattie.

One could tell a lot by observing the rider if they're comfortable on their
bike and bike fit, and also the riders condition. One of the gals I trained
with insisted on not using her small chainring of her triple crank while
climbing.
Possibly a macho thing. Although she was maxed out in her middle chainring
and a struggling cadence. I told her why have the triple if you're not
going to use it? Finally I convinced her on using the small chainring and a
very smooth climbing cadence. After we reached the summit, she never did say
thanks, possibly another macho thing, so I said; " Hey stubborn, I did miss
the sound of your heavy breathing!"
Fit/Comfort > (Carbon, Aluminum, Composite, Steel)
-tom

Date: 31 May 2007 04:56:59
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On May 31, 1:28 am, Garry Lee <gol...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Tires do have a huge effect on comfort,
>
> > but all other things being equal, IMO a carbon frame will be more
> > comfortable, and not because it is flexible (which it might be on some
> > frames, but that isn't the issue), but becaue it absorbs some of the
> > buzz.
>
> > Joseph
>
> Joseph,
>
> this is, I'm afraid, just rubbish.
> With the frames covered up, "experts" cannot tell what they're riding,
> as regards "comfort".

Well, this appearts to be the case with frames of the same dimensions
and materials. An example is the famous 'Blind Frame Test' which
appeared in "Bicycle Guide" in the 1980s.

It would be interesting, but difficult IMO, to conduct a blind test of
frames which take best advantage of different materials (i.e., steel
v. aluminum v. titanium v. CFRP).

I do think the differences, including the effects frame weight and
"comfort" would be alot less than some folks might think.

>
> This is just advertisement-industry bilge.

There's alot of that going around these days.

Date: 31 May 2007 14:20:36
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

>> Joseph:
>>> Tires do have a huge effect on comfort,
>>> but all other things being equal, IMO a carbon frame will be more
>>> comfortable, and not because it is flexible (which it might be on some
>>> frames, but that isn't the issue), but becaue it absorbs some of the
>>> buzz.

> Garry Lee <gol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> this is, I'm afraid, just rubbish.
>> With the frames covered up, "experts" cannot tell what they're riding,
>> as regards "comfort".
>> This is just advertisement-industry bilge.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Well, this appearts to be the case with frames of the same dimensions
> and materials. An example is the famous 'Blind Frame Test' which
> appeared in "Bicycle Guide" in the 1980s.
> It would be interesting, but difficult IMO, to conduct a blind test of
> frames which take best advantage of different materials (i.e., steel
> v. aluminum v. titanium v. CFRP).
> I do think the differences, including the effects frame weight and
> "comfort" would be alot less than some folks might think.
> There's alot of that [bilge] going around these days.

Carbon frames can damp some frequencies of noise which leads some
'analysts' to extrapolate into fiction about 'damping' generally. That
seriously confuses the issue especially where riders have a strong
desire to 'believe'. I give you 'handlebar gel inserts' as a great example.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 31 May 2007 04:44:13
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On May 30, 4:26 pm, "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> "amakyonin" <amakyonin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180555907.585267.246730@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 30, 11:39 am, "bram...@gmail.com" <bram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Cannondale "revolutionized" aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and
> > making frames that were
> > considered to be exceedingly stiff.
>
> Egads! Gary Klein is rolling over in his grave. Wait, he's not dead. He's
> rolling over on his sofa! Where is Gary these days, anyway? -- Jay Beattie.

Exactly! Cannondale didn't "revolutionize" aluminum frame design, they
just ripped off Gary Klein.

Does anyone know what Mr. Klein is up to these days?

Date: 30 May 2007 23:28:50
From: Garry Lee
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

Tires do have a huge effect on comfort,
> but all other things being equal, IMO a carbon frame will be more
> comfortable, and not because it is flexible (which it might be on some
> frames, but that isn't the issue), but becaue it absorbs some of the
> buzz.
>
> Joseph

Joseph,

this is, I'm afraid, just rubbish.
With the frames covered up, "experts" cannot tell what they're riding,
as regards "comfort".

This is just advertisement-industry bilge.

Date: 30 May 2007 21:37:35
From: bdbafh
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On May 30, 7:04 pm, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net >
wrote:
> bram...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> > minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> > summer.
>
> > What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> > composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> > bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> > Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> > it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> > power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> > bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> > stiffer?
>
> I ride an E5 S-Works which is (in my year?) an Al frame. I don't think
> it particularly harsh but I do have carbon bars and seat post. I used to
> have a Thomson Al seatpost which I swapped for an Alien carbon one
> noting absolutely no difference in ride. I did notice that the Alien is
> a PITA to adjust where the Thomson was a pleasure.
>
> I'm a beginner for sure, but my take is that the entire discussion about
> road feel is a red herring as far as frame composition is concerned. My
> guess is that the frame geometry is the key not the material of the frame.
>
> -paul

your bike rocks.
really.
If you were to attempt a ride on a 61 cm Roubaix Elite, you would
likely say "This bike drifts out of the apex on a curve" etc.
I know that what I say.
plenty of variables out there. frame material is just one of them.

my roubaix has 28 mm tires on it now.

-bdbafh

Date: 30 May 2007 21:11:53
From: amakyonin
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On May 30, 5:26 pm, "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> Egads! Gary Klein is rolling over in his grave. Wait, he's not dead. He's
> rolling over on his sofa! Where is Gary these days, anyway? -- Jay Beattie.

Sold out to Trek.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 00:45:51
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:11:53 -0700, amakyonin wrote:

> On May 30, 5:26 pm, "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>> Egads! Gary Klein is rolling over in his grave. Wait, he's not dead. He's
>> rolling over on his sofa! Where is Gary these days, anyway? -- Jay Beattie.

> Sold out to Trek.

I've heard Trek has retired the Klein brand. Mike?

Matt O.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 06:50:11
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:45:51 -0400, Matt O'Toole
<mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote:

>On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:11:53 -0700, amakyonin wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 5:26 pm, "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>> Egads! Gary Klein is rolling over in his grave. Wait, he's not dead. He's
>>> rolling over on his sofa! Where is Gary these days, anyway? -- Jay Beattie.
>
>> Sold out to Trek.
>
>I've heard Trek has retired the Klein brand. Mike?

Perhaps you could look it up yourself?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 30 May 2007 17:04:47
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

bramski@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> summer.
>
> What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> stiffer?
>
I ride an E5 S-Works which is (in my year?) an Al frame. I don't think
it particularly harsh but I do have carbon bars and seat post. I used to
have a Thomson Al seatpost which I swapped for an Alien carbon one
noting absolutely no difference in ride. I did notice that the Alien is
a PITA to adjust where the Thomson was a pleasure.

I'm a beginner for sure, but my take is that the entire discussion about
road feel is a red herring as far as frame composition is concerned. My
guess is that the frame geometry is the key not the material of the frame.

-paul

Date: 31 May 2007 17:42:19
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

Paul Cassel wrote:
> bramski@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
>> minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
>> summer.
>>
>> What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
>> composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
>> bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
>> Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
>> it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
>> power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
>> bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
>> stiffer?
>>
> I ride an E5 S-Works which is (in my year?) an Al frame. I don't think
> it particularly harsh but I do have carbon bars and seat post. I used to
> have a Thomson Al seatpost which I swapped for an Alien carbon one
> noting absolutely no difference in ride. I did notice that the Alien is
> a PITA to adjust where the Thomson was a pleasure.

Why did you swapped your Thomson seatpost?

Lou

--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

Date: 30 May 2007 17:24:00
From: Barnard Frederick
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

In article <1180539590.543201.8620@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
bramski@gmail.com says...

> I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> summer.
>
> What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> stiffer?

IMO, if you can easily afford to go CF, then do it. I wouldn't have
believed a road bike could be so comfortable until I bought my Giant OCR
C1. I suspect a serious racer might find it a little too flexy, but
this is the kind of bike you should consider given your description of
how you will use it. A similar bike that springs to mind is the
Specialized Roubaix, although the Roubaix might be somewhat racier.
Most of the major brands probably have something similar.

If you start looking at the design of CF frames, you will start to see
that it isn't just the material that makes them different, but what they
can do with it. CF can be molded into compound curves and shapes that
just aren't practical with metal.

I may eat my words one day if the frame starts going south on me, but
for now I think my CF frame is the smartest bike purchase I have ever
made. If you have perfect roads everywhere you go, then a stiff
aluminum frame is just as good. If patched roads and chip seal are part
of the mix, then do yourself a favor and buy a bike that is designed for
it.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 01:05:15
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:24:00 -0400, Barnard Frederick wrote:

> If you start looking at the design of CF frames, you will start to see
> that it isn't just the material that makes them different, but what they
> can do with it. CF can be molded into compound curves and shapes that
> just aren't practical with metal.

This is true. So I wonder why they continue to make frames with no tire
clearance. A friend's Scott CR1 can't even take a 25mm tire. This is
absurd.

Trek is starting to "get it" with their Pilot series, but why can't their
"race" bikes have good chainstay clearance too? Actually the Pilot and
the Specialized Roubaix are pretty nice bikes, good all-around rides for
most people.

Matt O.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 12:34:57
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

> Barnard Frederick wrote:
>> If you start looking at the design of CF frames, you will start to see
>> that it isn't just the material that makes them different, but what they
>> can do with it. CF can be molded into compound curves and shapes that
>> just aren't practical with metal.

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> This is true. So I wonder why they continue to make frames with no tire
> clearance. A friend's Scott CR1 can't even take a 25mm tire. This is
> absurd.
>
> Trek is starting to "get it" with their Pilot series, but why can't their
> "race" bikes have good chainstay clearance too? Actually the Pilot and
> the Specialized Roubaix are pretty nice bikes, good all-around rides for
> most people.

Just pulling up to the coffee shop with a Raleigh Rush Pro, a Bianchi
Concept or a real Keirin bike with no room for a brake, 23mm tire just
missing the underside of the crown, drips with 'style points' now. Oh,
and matching colored tires of course.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 01 Jun 2007 14:51:00
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

In article <1360m6koko32d22@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:

> > Barnard Frederick wrote:
> >> If you start looking at the design of CF frames, you will start to see
> >> that it isn't just the material that makes them different, but what they
> >> can do with it. CF can be molded into compound curves and shapes that
> >> just aren't practical with metal.
>
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
> > This is true. So I wonder why they continue to make frames with no tire
> > clearance. A friend's Scott CR1 can't even take a 25mm tire. This is
> > absurd.
> >
> > Trek is starting to "get it" with their Pilot series, but why can't their
> > "race" bikes have good chainstay clearance too? Actually the Pilot and
> > the Specialized Roubaix are pretty nice bikes, good all-around rides for
> > most people.
>
> Just pulling up to the coffee shop with a Raleigh Rush Pro, a Bianchi
> Concept or a real Keirin bike with no room for a brake, 23mm tire just
> missing the underside of the crown, drips with 'style points' now. Oh,
> and matching colored tires of course.

When I finish a ride all I want is to quickly bathe
before hoovering up the scoff.

--
Michael Press

Date: 30 May 2007 17:09:01
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

Barnard Frederick wrote:
> ...
> IMO, if you can easily afford to go CF, then do it. I wouldn't have
> believed a road bike could be so comfortable until I bought my Giant OCR
> C1. I suspect a serious racer might find it a little too flexy, but
> this is the kind of bike you should consider given your description of
> how you will use it. A similar bike that springs to mind is the
> Specialized Roubaix, although the Roubaix might be somewhat racier.
> Most of the major brands probably have something similar.
> ...
>

Locally, at least, there's a Roubaix that is aluminum. It is the lowest
priced Roubaix on the company website the last time I looked, but the
others are all carbon fibre, unless something else slipped in there at
the top.

Date: 30 May 2007 13:11:47
From: amakyonin
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On May 30, 11:39 am, "bram...@gmail.com" <bram...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> summer.
>
> What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> stiffer?

If you have century rides as one of your primary goals then you may
want to lean toward aluminum, titanium, or steel frames since these
allow you to mount a rear rack regardless of whether the frame has
mount points. I know of no carbon frame that has rack mounts and I
would not want to use P-clips to attach a rack to a carbon frame or
the currently en vogue aluminum frame with carbon stays. The seatpost
mounted racks are problematic at best and essentially restrict you to
carrying a limited amount of weight in a trunk bag.

Your experience with the Fuji may not be entirely applicable to what
is available today. There is a lot of conventional "wisdom" about
aluminum being harsh that really isn't supported by reality. Early
aluminum frames were built with the same tube dimensions as steel
frames and were found to be too flexible. Cannondale "revolutionized"
aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and making frames that were
considered to be exceedingly stiff. Somewhere in between these
extremes is a happy medium that balances the positives with the
negatives. If your Fuji was on the cheaper end of the spectrum then
its tubing wouldn't be as thin-walled as that used on a better
aluminum frame which may provide a ride you find perfectly
comfortable.

You can get good, affordable (105 and Ultegra level) stock aluminum
road bikes in the range of 19-20 lbs. Good stock carbon framed bikes
are going to be 17-19 lbs. Some of the cheap carbon bikes are so
overbuilt (to avoid lawsuits) that they can weigh in at over 22 lbs,
so don't just buy any old carbon bike for the sake of having carbon.
Obviously, you can go even lighter if you splurge on more expensive
componentry or find a builder that uses smaller/thinner tubes than
usual (someone still building scandium frames).

Date: 01 Jun 2007 01:00:04
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On Wed, 30 May 2007 13:11:47 -0700, amakyonin wrote:

> There is a lot of conventional "wisdom" about
> aluminum being harsh that really isn't supported by reality. Early
> aluminum frames were built with the same tube dimensions as steel
> frames and were found to be too flexible. Cannondale "revolutionized"
> aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and making frames that were
> considered to be exceedingly stiff.

They also had steep angles, short wheelbases, and twitchy handling, so
they knocked you around a bit, which people attributed to frame stiffness.
They are stiff, but compared to what? It's not as if other frames are
soft. You might feel a difference in chain rub while sprinting or
climbing, but ride comfort comes from elsewhere.

> Somewhere in between these
> extremes is a happy medium that balances the positives with the
> negatives. If your Fuji was on the cheaper end of the spectrum then
> its tubing wouldn't be as thin-walled as that used on a better
> aluminum frame which may provide a ride you find perfectly
> comfortable.

Nonsense. All normal diamond frames are, for all practical purposes,
completely rigid in the vertical direction, whatever they're made of.

Fat tubed aluminum frames sound harsh, because they resonate acoustically.
Carbon frames don't resonate like this as much, nor do metal bikes with
small-diameter tubes.

Matt O.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:18:20
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

> amakyonin wrote:
>> There is a lot of conventional "wisdom" about
>> aluminum being harsh that really isn't supported by reality. Early
>> aluminum frames were built with the same tube dimensions as steel
>> frames and were found to be too flexible. Cannondale "revolutionized"
>> aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and making frames that were
>> considered to be exceedingly stiff.

Matt O'Toole wrote:
-snip-
> Nonsense. All normal diamond frames are, for all practical purposes,
> completely rigid in the vertical direction, whatever they're made of.
>
> Fat tubed aluminum frames sound harsh, because they resonate acoustically.
> Carbon frames don't resonate like this as much, nor do metal bikes with
> small-diameter tubes.

ding ding ding! Hand that man a cigar.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 06 Jun 2007 12:19:44
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:18:20 -0500, A Muzi wrote:

>> amakyonin wrote:
>>> There is a lot of conventional "wisdom" about
>>> aluminum being harsh that really isn't supported by reality. Early
>>> aluminum frames were built with the same tube dimensions as steel
>>> frames and were found to be too flexible. Cannondale "revolutionized"
>>> aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and making frames that were
>>> considered to be exceedingly stiff.
>
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
> -snip-
>> Nonsense. All normal diamond frames are, for all practical purposes,
>> completely rigid in the vertical direction, whatever they're made of.
>>
>> Fat tubed aluminum frames sound harsh, because they resonate acoustically.
>> Carbon frames don't resonate like this as much, nor do metal bikes with
>> small-diameter tubes.
>
> ding ding ding! Hand that man a cigar.

As the owner of a fat-tubed Klein with a Hugi-type freewheel (in need of
some grease at the moment), I know all about resonance. I can't sneak up
on anyone!

Matt O.

Date: 07 Jun 2007 12:52:52
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:19:44 -0400, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org >
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:18:20 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
>
>>> amakyonin wrote:
>>>> There is a lot of conventional "wisdom" about
>>>> aluminum being harsh that really isn't supported by reality. Early
>>>> aluminum frames were built with the same tube dimensions as steel
>>>> frames and were found to be too flexible. Cannondale "revolutionized"
>>>> aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and making frames that were
>>>> considered to be exceedingly stiff.
>>
>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>> -snip-
>>> Nonsense. All normal diamond frames are, for all practical purposes,
>>> completely rigid in the vertical direction, whatever they're made of.
>>>
>>> Fat tubed aluminum frames sound harsh, because they resonate acoustically.
>>> Carbon frames don't resonate like this as much, nor do metal bikes with
>>> small-diameter tubes.
>>
>> ding ding ding! Hand that man a cigar.
>
>As the owner of a fat-tubed Klein with a Hugi-type freewheel (in need of
>some grease at the moment), I know all about resonance. I can't sneak up
>on anyone!

I had a Rascal like that once. I'd bought it online and at first thought
something was broke. Natures way of teaching me to keep turning the pedals over.

Ron

Date: 30 May 2007 16:43:32
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

amakyonin wrote:

> If you have century rides as one of your primary goals then you may
> want to lean toward aluminum, titanium, or steel frames since these
> allow you to mount a rear rack regardless of whether the frame has
> mount points. I know of no carbon frame that has rack mounts and I
> would not want to use P-clips to attach a rack to a carbon frame or
> the currently en vogue aluminum frame with carbon stays. The seatpost
> mounted racks are problematic at best and essentially restrict you to
> carrying a limited amount of weight in a trunk bag.
>

I do a lot of organized century rides and I'd wager <<1% of the bikes
have rear racks, and most of those don't have a trunk bag attached.

Date: 30 May 2007 14:26:44
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

"amakyonin" <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1180555907.585267.246730@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 11:39 am, "bram...@gmail.com" <bram...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip >

> Cannondale "revolutionized" aluminum by moving to oversized tubes and
> making frames that were
> considered to be exceedingly stiff.

Egads! Gary Klein is rolling over in his grave. Wait, he's not dead. He's
rolling over on his sofa! Where is Gary these days, anyway? -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 30 May 2007 20:53:20
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

> If you have century rides as one of your primary goals then you may
> want to lean toward aluminum, titanium, or steel frames since these
> allow you to mount a rear rack regardless of whether the frame has
> mount points. I know of no carbon frame that has rack mounts and I
> would not want to use P-clips to attach a rack to a carbon frame or
> the currently en vogue aluminum frame with carbon stays. The seatpost
> mounted racks are problematic at best and essentially restrict you to
> carrying a limited amount of weight in a trunk bag.

Some carbon frames *do* have rack fittings in the rear dropouts (including
the Trek Pilot series). For the upper mount, if you don't wish to use the
brake mounting configuration, you can replace the seat collar with one that
doesn't have a recess for the bolts and attach the fittings there.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

Date: 30 May 2007 10:42:19
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On May 30, 6:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> > I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> > minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> > summer.
>
> > What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> > composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> > bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> > Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> > it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> > power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> > bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> > stiffer?
>
> Geometry and common-sense design are probably bigger factors in comfort than
> the material a frame is made of. A short-wheelbase carbon frame designed to
> take nothing larger than 23c tires is going to knock you around in a way
> that an outrageously-stiff oversized-tubing aluminum frame with a longer
> wheelbase and 28 or even 25c tires will not.
>
> Best bet is to find a good bike shop and try a couple to see what *you*
> like. You might find this article on our website useful-www.ChainReaction.com/roadbiketestrides.htm. It's both brand & material
> "neutral" but will help you figure out how the bike should be set up and
> what you should be looking for.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

I agree 100%, but as I understand it carbon lacks resonation in ways
some other common materials do not. This allegedly is what helps limit
the road-buzz on carbon frames and is I suppose the theory behind
carbon forks and chainstays. Tires do have a huge effect on comfort,
but all other things being equal, IMO a carbon frame will be more
comfortable, and not because it is flexible (which it might be on some
frames, but that isn't the issue), but becaue it absorbs some of the
buzz.

Joseph

Date: 30 May 2007 16:33:27
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

> I'm looking at purchasing a new road bike. My main goals include some
> minor racing, but mostly some major centuries and hill challenges this
> summer.
>
> What would people say are the real benefits of carbon, aluminum, and
> composite bikes are? I know that aluminum is quite stiff and taking
> bumps on it can be a less comfortable experience (I own an older Fuji
> Al right now). But are carbon bikes really that much lighter, or is
> it the added flex that really helps, but won't that decrease your own
> power output if the frame flexes as you apply force? Don't stiff
> bikes perform better on downhill sections because they are so much
> stiffer?

Geometry and common-sense design are probably bigger factors in comfort than
the material a frame is made of. A short-wheelbase carbon frame designed to
take nothing larger than 23c tires is going to knock you around in a way
that an outrageously-stiff oversized-tubing aluminum frame with a longer
wheelbase and 28 or even 25c tires will not.

Best bet is to find a good bike shop and try a couple to see what *you*
like. You might find this article on our website useful-
www.ChainReaction.com/roadbiketestrides.htm. It's both brand & material
"neutral" but will help you figure out how the bike should be set up and
what you should be looking for.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Date: 31 May 2007 20:48:50
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite

On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:33:27 GMT, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Geometry and common-sense design are probably bigger factors in comfort than
> the material a frame is made of. A short-wheelbase carbon frame designed to
> take nothing larger than 23c tires is going to knock you around in a way
> that an outrageously-stiff oversized-tubing aluminum frame with a longer
> wheelbase and 28 or even 25c tires will not.

That describes my two bikes (Giant OCR3 and TCR1) pretty exactly, except
that I was using 23c tyres on the OCR by the time I bought the TCR. Sorry,
but the TCR is far smoother at the same tube inflation pressure - compared
to the OCR, it feels as though I'm riding on a thin carpet.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 30 May 2007 09:17:22
From: bdbafh
Subject: Re: Carbon vs. Aluminum vs. Composite