# Aluminum vs. Carbon Fiber ?



## kjase1 (Sep 12, 2009)

I am looking to buy my first road bike this week, i'm not new to riding but new to paying attention to specs and wanted some experienced opionions on the pros/cons, advantages/disadvantages on aluminum and carbon. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thank You all!


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

kjase1 said:


> I am looking to buy my first road bike this week, i'm not new to riding but new to paying attention to specs and wanted some experienced opionions on the pros/cons, advantages/disadvantages on aluminum and carbon. Any advice would be much appreciated.
> 
> Thank You all!


Hold that thought while I go get some popcorn.....this thread could get interesting.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Aluminum frames will jar you to death because they're so stiff and uncomfortable. Carbon, OTOH, will start to melt on really hot days and will shatter if you drop the frame on a cold day. Get a steel bike.


----------



## djh01 (Jul 21, 2009)

How much are you spending?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Yeah.*



pmf said:


> ... Get a steel bike.


The trouble is, steel bikes are hard to find, set up for fixed speed or touring, or very expensive custom made by one guy with long waiting lists.

So you're stuck, hostage to the marketing gods of light weight. Racers I've known actually prefer aluminum for races, but many train on carbon frames. They're more comfortable--unless woven for stiffness. :eek6: Of course, unlike steel, the more resilient carbon is, the quicker it'll break in the inevitable crash.

Both aluminum and carbon bikes come with carbon forks, the single most likely member to break in a crash. They splinter like wood. That's ok, because they're cheap to replace, and probably absorb enough shock to prevent main frame damage. The old steel forks would bend and also transfer the energy into the headtube, bending the top and downtubes.

Aluminum is cheaper than carbon to produce, so for the money, they're probably a better buy. But heck, go with what turns you on. Above $1200. or so, both designs work great. :thumbsup:


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Aluminum.
You have to spend alot of money to get a carbon frame that out performs a decent aluminum one.


----------



## kjase1 (Sep 12, 2009)

I will be spending between $1200-$1500.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Would have to agree.*



mtbbmet said:


> Aluminum.
> You have to spend alot of money to get a carbon frame that out performs a decent aluminum one.


Cheap carbon bikes I've ridden are a disappointment compared to aluminum in the same price range. The carbon weaves aren't that responsive--or TOO stiff. Up around 4K is where carbon starts to shine over aluminum.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Aluminum the better buy.*



kjase1 said:


> I will be spending between $1200-$1500.


That's the low end of carbon bikes, usually 1600-2500. on clearance sales. On aluminum in that price point, you could get Ultegra drive train and a decent set of wheels, but with carbon you'd get 105 or cheaper drivetrain and lousy wheels.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Seriously, its six of one and a half dozen of the other. I had a Cannondale 3.0 years ago and that was one rough riding bike. I later bought a Kestrel 200 Sci and the difference was pretty dramatic. But this was when "steel was real". All my friends made fun of my "plastic bike". But aluminium bikes have come a long way since then. I've since bought a titanium bike and another carbon bike. I do think that in general, carbon bikes have a more muted feel and are more comfortable to ride -- especially over longer distances. The closest bike I currently have that I think would approximate aluminium is a Litespeed Ultimate. Its stiff and feels fast, but you do feel the bumps. They both have their virtues. 

In your price range, that Nuevation bikes website has some awesome deals on close-out bikes -- in carbon and in aluminium.


----------



## Elfstone (Jun 27, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Aluminum.
> You have to spend alot of money to get a carbon frame that out performs a decent aluminum one.


That's why I went with my C'dale caad 8 1000. I hope to purchase a steel frame someday and when I do, I will transpher almost everything from the C'dale to the steel frame.

Peace


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*+1 Neuvation.*



pmf said:


> Seriously, its six of one and a half dozen of the other. I had a Cannondale 3.0 years ago and that was one rough riding bike. I later bought a Kestrel 200 Sci and the difference was pretty dramatic. But this was when "steel was real". All my friends made fun of my "plastic bike". But aluminium bikes have come a long way since then. I've since bought a titanium bike and another carbon bike. I do think that in general, carbon bikes have a more muted feel and are more comfortable to ride -- especially over longer distances. The closest bike I currently have that I think would approximate aluminium is a Litespeed Ultimate. Its stiff and feels fast, but you do feel the bumps. They both have their virtues.
> 
> In your price range, that Nuevation bikes website has some awesome deals on close-out bikes -- in carbon and in aluminium.


A serious rider buddy has nothing but great stuff to say about Neuvation wheels he's running the crap out of, and the customer service he's gotten from the guys at Neuvation.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> A serious rider buddy has nothing but great stuff to say about Neuvation wheels he's running the crap out of, and the customer service he's gotten from the guys at Neuvation.


I bought a set of Nuevation wheels in June and have been commuting on them all summer. They've been good wheels, reasonably light --- and they cost $250 for the set! I left a message with Nuevation before ordering them and the owner called me back 20 minutes later. Seemed like a real nice guy. The wheels even came with extra spokes.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I've owned 2 aluminum bikes. Never again! I had to have a lot of dental work done because they shook the fillings out of my teeth. My hands were always numb, I always had a saddle sore, and I found them to feel unresponsive because accelerating them was like applying pressure to a brick.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

CF is the wave so get on it. alum melts at the first sign of springtime.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Mr. Versatile said:


> I've owned 2 aluminum bikes. Never again! I had to have a lot of dental work done because they shook the fillings out of my teeth. My hands were always numb, I always had a saddle sore, and I found them to feel unresponsive because accelerating them was like applying pressure to a brick.


Have you thought about maybe taking 5-10 psi out of your tires?
Just a suggestion.
As I've said a thousand times here. All things being equal, esp tires/pressure/wheels, it is virtually impossible to tell frames aparts. Even more so to a newbie. Those three things have a much greater impact on ride quality than the frame material. 
And being unresponsive to acceleration goes against everything else in your post. You are saying that they are uncomfortable because they are too stiff, yet don't accelerate well because they are too stiff? What?

To the OP, please ignore posts like this and focus on facts.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

> As I've said a thousand times here. All things being equal, esp tires/pressure/wheels, it is virtually impossible to tell frames aparts.


i beg to differ


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

orangeclymer said:


> i beg to differ


95% of cyclist would not be able to tell the difference. I stand by that. Frames play a VERY small part in the feel of a bike. Don't buy into the marketing.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

mtbbmet said:


> 95% of cyclist would not be able to tell the difference. I stand by that. Frames play a VERY small part in the feel of a bike. Don't buy into the marketing.


i beg to differ


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

As long as the Aluminum frame is 2 1/2 pounds or under, it will be slightly flexable, and won't kill you. On the other hand, a good quality steel frame will weigh 3 1/2 pounds, and a good quality CF frame will go 2 pounds.
How much difference will 1 1/2 pounds make, unless you are a Cat 2?


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

mtbbmet said:


> 95% of cyclist would not be able to tell the difference. I stand by that. Frames play a VERY small part in the feel of a bike. Don't buy into the marketing.


He's right, in that if you could run an experiment with blindfolded cyclists running the same components on different frames, I'd bet they could not tell you with any certainty whether a frame was alu, carbon, steel, boron, bamboo, etc. It would be VERY interesting, however, to run a blind experiment asking cyclists to rate the frames on comfort, stiffness, etc. Then unblind everyone and tell them how they rated the frames.

Anyhoo, it doesn't really matter, because different frames do feel differently. I would imagine different frames transmit vibrations in different ways. But are there hard and fast rules? No. The only way to know is to try them. Cycling is an experiential sport.

That seems to be the trouble in the OP's price range. You can get a pretty darn good alu bike (nice components, well-known company with a good warranty/service), or you can get a really cheap carbon bike online with lower-end components and no LBS support.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2009)

95% of cyclist would not be able to tell the difference. I stand by that. Frames play a VERY small part in the feel of a bike. Don't buy into the marketing.

Hmmm. I beg to differ and I am a rookie. Go jump on them both one right after the other and tell me that again.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Hmmm. I beg to differ and I am a rookie. Go jump on them both one right after the other and tell me that again.


Umm, I have smarty. That's why I can make a statement like that. I have a 25 year old 531 frame, a brand new carbon frame, and a scandium frame. There is very little difference between them and with the same wheels, tires/pressure you would not be able to say that the scandium is a rougher ride than the carbon. The weight is the only real difference, and would you notice a pound while riding? Nope.
The fact that you think you could tell the difference tells me you are a rookie, you don't need to point it out.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2009)

Well I guess I have been told then.


----------



## boostmiser (Sep 10, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> 95% of cyclist would not be able to tell the difference. I stand by that. Frames play a VERY small part in the feel of a bike. Don't buy into the marketing.


I'm not so sure about that. I got back into riding a few months ago and it was the first time since the steel days in the 80's/90's I've riden a rode bike. In fact, I never rode an aluminum or carbon rode bike (AL mountain though). So I went to a Cannondale dealer and rode three bikes back to back (not blindfolded). First the aluminum, then a hybrid then the full carbon.They all had very distinct rides over the street and cobblestones. The bumps on the full carbon were very muted in comparison to the aluminum.It was easily to distinguish the carbon from the aluminum. The aluminum to the hybrid was also distinguishable. The hybrid to the carbon was less noticeable. Now, just because someone can tell the difference doesn't mean they would prefer carbon. All imo of course. I ended up with a Scott CR1 full carbon.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

boostmiser said:


> I'm not so sure about that. I got back into riding a few months ago and it was the first time since the steel days in the 80's/90's I've riden a rode bike. In fact, I never rode an aluminum or carbon rode bike (AL mountain though). So I went to a Cannondale dealer and rode three bikes back to back (not blindfolded). First the aluminum, then a hybrid then the full carbon.They all had very distinct rides over the street and cobblestones. The bumps on the full carbon were very muted in comparison to the aluminum.It was easily to distinguish the carbon from the aluminum. The aluminum to the hybrid was also distinguishable. The hybrid to the carbon was less noticeable. Now, just because someone can tell the difference doesn't mean they would prefer carbon. All imo of course. I ended up with a Scott CR1 full carbon.


Ok, that's great. But your not picking up what I'm putting down.
If you took a steel frame, a carbon frame, and an aluminum frame and built them with exactly the same geometry, then put on the same groupo, the same bars, the same stem, the same fork, the same wheels, the same post, the same tires, and with the same pressure on all three. You would not be able to tell the difference. I promise you that.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Well I guess I have been told then.



yea smarty pants you got told..........:ihih: by just another cyclist that professes to know and speak for everyone...........ohhh the internet is a beeeeeuuuuuuutiful thing.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

mtbbmet said:


> Ok, that's great. But your not picking up what I'm putting down.
> If you took a steel frame, a carbon frame, and an aluminum frame and built them with exactly the same geometry, then put on the same groupo, the same bars, the same stem, the same fork, the same wheels, the same post, the same tires, and with the same pressure on all three. You would not be able to tell the difference. I promise you that.



If you only read one reply, this is the one to read...it is spot on........don't buy into the hype.... test ride many bikes and pick the bike that you like........forget about frame material.......a well designed bike will meet your expectations regardless of material


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> 95% of cyclist would not be able to tell the difference. I stand by that. Frames play a VERY small part in the feel of a bike. Don't buy into the marketing.


95% of 'facts' presented on the internet are not facts. And that's a fact...or is it?


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

orangeclymer said:


> yea smarty pants you got told..........:ihih: by just another cyclist that professes to know and speak for everyone...........ohhh the internet is a beeeeeuuuuuuutiful thing.



OK, I'll bite...how about telling us your feelings on this subject instead of 3 sarcastic replies?


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

The Weasel said:


> 95% of 'facts' presented on the internet are not facts. And that's a fact...or is it?


Yeah, I think that's a fact. I think I read somewhere that it was closer to 98% though.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Dave Hickey said:


> OK, I'll bite...how about your experience instead of 3 sarcastic replies?


That's too much to ask.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

On the other hand, if you stick a 200 pound guy on a 531 frame, he may not be happy unless he rides "easy". I remember when the original C'dales were out. They were 3 1/2 pound killers. Fine for a 45 minute crit, but hell on wheels for a 6 hour tour.
Your statement about tires is mostly true. A problem is that many modern bikes are unable to take anything larger than a 23.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> On the other hand, if you stick a 200 pound guy on a 531 frame, he may not be happy unless he rides "easy". I remember when the original C'dales were out. They were 3 1/2 pound killers. Fine for a 45 minute crit, but hell on wheels for a 6 hour tour.
> Your statement about tires is mostly true. A problem is that many modern bikes are unable to take anything larger than a 23.



I agree with this...The Cannondale Criterium frame were brutal..I think those frame alone were responsible for most the harsh riding aluminum comments...

The 80's were an era of experimentation for aluminum..On one side, you had the whippy Vitus frame and the other end of the spectrum, the bone shaking Cannondale 2.8, 3.0 series...

Carbon went through something similar...There many "dead" feeling carbon frames from the 90's....there have been many bone shaking carbon frames too......

Design is much more important than material for frame design...


----------



## dcb0724 (Mar 24, 2009)

I bought an aluminum frame with carbon fiber bits (seatstays, fork) and it is not rough at all, I think you should just get what you prefer. You probably won't mind the ride either way. Just get something with the components you want and that fits well and rides well. carbon fiber is cool right now, and I like it, but for the money, I love my aluminum Felt.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 29, 2006)

kjase1 said:


> I will be spending between $1200-$1500.


At that price you'll have a lot to choose from in alu. I can't imagine you could find any new carbon bike for less than $1,800.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> If you only read one reply, this is the one to read...it is spot on........don't buy into the hype.... test ride many bikes and pick the bike that you like........forget about frame material.......a well designed bike will meet your expectations regardless of material


And of course it is painted red and white or white and red


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

If you were to stick a 140 pound rider on my steel frame, they would probably cry about how "brutal" steel frames are.
There are very few steel frames still made with a 1" top tube, which would be fine for a 140 pound rider......(my top tube is 1-1/4" with .4mm walls)


----------



## rydog9991 (Jul 15, 2008)

Buy this one.
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/road-bikes/frame/2008-bmc-streetfire-sram-rival-complete-bike-5977.html

Problem solved. Have a nice day.


----------



## jaredmx5 (Aug 31, 2009)

one thing i heard about on the internet is that when it's sunny out carbon can explode. i live in texas so it's sunny a lot here. should i be concerned with getting a carbon bike?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I have riden steel bikes in the past, ride is comfy, bike is heavy, good overall, nothing to write home about. ( aside the beauty of the lugged classics )

Since near a decade I am on Carbon bikes, I've riden Treks ( are they good ? ), Ridleys, Bianchis etc, mid level and high end.

You can tell the difference, sure, not a large one, but different anyway. 

Last summer I built me a "rain bike", I wanted to ride in the rain without damaging my full carbon Bianchi 928SL/DA bike, K-Wing carbon handlebars, K-Force carbon seatpost.

So I got a Felt Z70 aluminum, relaxed geometry, with carbon fork and seatstays. full 105, Open Pro/105 32x3 wheels, Ritchey wcs Aluminum bars and seatpost, and Conti 4 seasons tires.

One and only one test ride, ( on a dry day not a rainy one ) was enough to decide to sell it. It simply felt really harsh in comparison to my other bikes.

My teeth rattled, my ass hurt, my wrists too. Sold it quick.

Sure, I am surely delicate because I have been pampered by comfortable carbon bikes?

Consider that the Bianchi 928SL is an stiff bike, with racing geometry, and the Felt Z70 was a relaxed, comfort geometry one.

I wouldn't imaginge what would be the comparison between a comfort carbon bike and a racing full Alu one.

If you are less sensitive, the Alu bikes could be good, I am not puting them down. They are many beautiful and performance oriented ones, Hydroformed and what not.

Just not for me.

And about the theory of building identical bikes with identical components and compare them, it is simply technically not possible, the tubings have to be different so no comparison of that kind is possible IMHO.

The only reasons somebody could chose an Alu bike over Carbon, would be 1. Price, 2. Fear of carbon failure, ( that is an statistical quite low incidence in the real world BTW )

If I would have to stop riding Carbon , I'd pick Steel. No question.

BTW, my Commuting/Touring bike was built and Alu/Carbon CX frame, but I have a suspension seatpost on it.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2009)

Guys, sorry for the sarcasm. I have not rode 100+ bikes, but I have rode an aluminum, CF, and steel. I liked them all and could tell the difference without a doubt. The CF bike noticeably muted the road more than the others, and I know that it could be the placebo effect, but it wasn't just a little different. I currently own the Aluminum with CF seatstays and fork. I have read some on the subject, but in my humble opinion, pragmatically I don't necessarily agree that all materials can be made to act/react like the other with the proper engineering. Alloys are an amazing thing and have made metals be able to do wonderful things, but until I get a chance to ride identically setup bikes with the same geometry and different materials I will hang on to my opinion that different frame materials are used not only because of their mass, but there ride characteristics as well (as little that difference may be). 
Yes, I am a rookie, inexperienced, slow, and loving the sport. I have lost 28 lbs and proud of every mile I put on my alu-CF bike.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Dave Hickey said:


> If you only read one reply, this is the one to read...it is spot on........don't buy into the hype.... test ride many bikes and pick the bike that you like........forget about frame material.......a well designed bike will meet your expectations regardless of material


sorry but that's ridiculous - each frame material has unique properties and it's pretty easy for a rider with some experience to tell the difference. This is part of the 'design is everything' ideologues on this forum who should take a materials science primer.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> sorry but that's ridiculous - each frame material has unique properties and it's pretty easy for a rider with some experience to tell the difference. This is part of the 'design is everything' ideologues on this forum who should take a materials science primer.



My education is in engineering so I do bring a little bit of experience to this debate.. 

Of course each frame material has unique properties but those properties can be manipulated to get the desired ride.....one could build an aluminum, steel or carbon frame and the tubing size/shape/wall thickness could be maniputated to provide a very similar ride..


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

we've had this argument before - tell me, why doesn't NASA build steel rockets? Tell me one aluminum frame you'd ever mistake for a Scott Addict?


----------



## Dubla-Va (Aug 15, 2009)

As some one who just bought his own first road bike. I would suggest going to a LBS and getting properly fit for one. And try differant bikes out too. In your price range will include most major manufactures entry level race bikes and enthusiasts bikes (I.E. pilot, defy, secteur, synapse)


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> we've had this argument before - tell me, why doesn't NASA build steel rockets? Tell me one aluminum frame you'd ever mistake for a Scott Addict?


we talking rockets or bikes? 

Ride a Merckx AXM.......The ride is comparable to an 80's Cannondale 3.0...It was the worst riding frame I've ridden in the last 20 years...It beat the crap out of me...but it's carbon...how is that possible? maybe it's _designed_ to be a stiff crit bike....I've had steel frame beat the crap out of me too......


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I ride Aluminum treated with Scandium and it is stiff enough, yet comfy enough for century rides. The tooth rattling harshness is something I feared and expected when I built it up, but it never happened. The only problem is... my butt gets a little sore after *gasp!* 8 hours in the saddle.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> and I know that it could be the placebo effect...


I think it would only be the placebo effect if you were given a Big Wheel, told it was a carbon fiber road bike, and believed it... 

Now, lest I be accused of being a smart alec without contributing... There is one aspect to this debate that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. The "feel" or "ride quality" or whatever term you want to use to sum up the response you have to riding a bike is highly subjective and relative to the individual. You and I could both ride the _exact same_ bike and have very different impressions of how it "feels" based on our unique physiology and our past experience. Which brings us back to the O.P. I don't doubt you'll be able to find an aluminum bike in your price range and if you can find a carbon fiber frame as well, ride them both and let your own experience decide what's right for you. It's your hard-earned dollar.


----------



## MANTEIGA (Sep 26, 2008)

*...*

i can't believe this is happening.........
again........


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

mtbbmet said:


> _Have you thought about maybe taking 5-10 psi out of your tires?
> Just a suggestion._
> 
> Not only did I think of lowering the pressure in my tires - I did. I also changed to 25mm tires and let some air out of them as well. I purchased padded tape for the bars. I used my favorite saddle, the one I still use today. All that helped a bit, but not enough.
> ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Attempting to clear up a few misunderstandings.*

Mr. Versatile rightly describes his harsh aluminum bike also not accelerating well because it's too stiff. I've ridden similar bikes. You mash down hard on the pedal and the rear wheel hops sideways, dissipating the energy, stealing forward motion. A great steel bike will flex just a little in the chainstays so as not to make the wheel hop. It bites into the road, providing traction and forward motion. I'm still surprised at how a steel bike I've ridden for 25 years accelerates so well. I literally wring it out with each pedal stroke. It responds instantly, increasing speed in rhythm with the strokes. It doesn't level off the faster you go, either. Any time I want, I'll sprint with surprising efficiency to 35 mph, my legs always giving up before the bike does. It climbs the same way, seemingly returning energy with each pedal stroke. But it's the same bike I've ridden many centuries on, and gotten home pleasantly spent, but not beat up as I have on lesser steel frames, as well as aluminum and carbon.

Dave Hickey is also right, IMO, that within each material choice, a fairly wide range of ride personalities can be engineered, from super harsh, like the Merckx referred to, to compliant like Dajianshan and others have referred to.

My experience overwhelmingly supports the argument, universally accepted by bike builders, that the frame is indeed the heart of the bicycle, meaning the primary determinate of not only handling, but also ride quality. Why? Because the frame balances the rider between the two wheels and transfers his energy to the wheels. It's wheelbase and angles detemine how it handles, and materials determine how road buzz gets swallowed up or sent to the saddle and handlebars. These are things, like fit issues, that become obvious over long distances. They are very often difficult to articulate, much less explain by most riders. But the feedback loop is intimate, as the bike is an extention of the body. Riders feel everything, so their impressions are as valid as scientific treatises.


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

........


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

> 95% of cyclist would not be able to tell the difference. I stand by that. Frames play a VERY small part in the feel of a bike. Don't buy into the marketing.



It must be a miracle that all the DIFFERENT bike makers can make money making different bikes with different riding characteristics for people who are completely different from each other. Oh wait! This just in...


> The fact that you think you could tell the difference tells me you are a rookie, you don't need to point it out.


 We humans are all the same now and all feel the same thing. Guess my thumb-print and signature means nothing....


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Fredrico said:


> Dave Hickey is also right, IMO, that within each material choice, a fairly wide range of ride personalities can be engineered, from super harsh, like the Merckx referred to, to compliant like Dajianshan and others have referred to.
> 
> .



This is my final post in this thread......Thanks for clearing up what I've been trying to say..

It's frustrating when someone asks what bike to buy and people chime in with " get carbon" or "stay way from aluminum"...

There are good and bad bikes made of both materials..Just because it's carbon doesn't mean it's laterally stiff yet vertically compliant


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Mr Hickey, there are two separate positions you seem to inevitably conflate in these arguments. 

1. design influences frame characteristics - no one doubts this. It is trivial.

2. Design is unconstrained by materials choice - this is patently false and yet you try to defend it every time in these arguments - then when challenged revert to position 1. You never answer the question of what aluminum frame is indistinguishable from a frame such as a Scott Addict (because the answer is there is not one). 

You say you have a background in engineering - I certainly hope you aren't designing the nation's bridges...


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

I can set this to rest. 

The answer is... EXXXXPPPLOOOOOOOOODEEEE!!!


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> 1. You never answer the question of what aluminum frame is indistinguishable from a frame such as a Scott Addict (because the answer is there is not one).
> 
> You say you have a background in engineering - I certainly hope you aren't designing the nation's bridges...



The reason I never replied to your question is I have never ridden a Scott Addict so I'm not qualified to give an opinion........and unlike you, I've refrained from personal attacks....have a nice day........


----------



## mwirwin (Jun 8, 2008)

OP - What kind of riding are you into? Are you doing any kind of racing or club rides? Or are you an aggressive or casual recreational rider? Be honest about what you want to accomplish on the bike and look into the bikes that will get you to your goal. A lot of the manufacturers are putting the list prices on their sites now - so you can start to see what you get for your money.

I rode an aluminum/carbon hybrid for about 3 years - really comfortable, but only after I spent a month to fit me properly. Before that I road a steel frame - smooth as silk but I never got it to fit me properly. I ride fast centuries, so I like to feel comfortable for distance but still want some aggressiveness in the design

My advice - try as many bikes as you can. Work with a store that has patience and is willing to set up the bike so that it at least starts to feel comfortable. Components can eventually be upgraded - so I would focus on frame for now. I would get the best frame you can afford.

Just bought a Giant Defy Advanced full carbon frame that I'm building up. I love the ride. Test rode one about 3-4 hours over 3 weeks before I decided over a Specialized Roubaix and Cervelo RS. BTW - if you have decent components, have you thought about transferring them to a new frame? The Defy Advanced frame/fork/seatpost/headset is going for about $1500.

The main reason I chose the Giant? I wanted a bike that fit my body and the Specialized and Cervelo didn't get there. All three of these bikes are in the plush race category - they're designed to be comfy with some aggressive aspects. But if a bike doesn't fit - it'll never be comfortable, no matter what the marketing says.

So try as many bikes as you can. There is one out there that will speak to you and you'll know it when you feel it.


----------



## Puchnuts (Oct 9, 2008)

OP: I would look high & Low for a good steel-framed machine. At your price line, a carbon frame wouldn't be that great. And the possibility of it's utter destruction from small events like temperature and potholes....nope.

Now if I couldn't find a good steel-framed bike, I'd find a really nice aluminum-framed bike. But I'd swap out the fork if that was aluminum as well. A good steel fork will help to absorb road-shock as you ride on rough roads. Even a good carbon fork could be considered.

That's my opinion. Have a good time shopping.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Dave Hickey said:


> If you only read one reply, this is the one to read...it is spot on........don't buy into the hype.... test ride many bikes and pick the bike that you like........forget about frame material.......a well designed bike will meet your expectations regardless of material


I don't believe that. Especially if you were comparing different materials such as carbon and aluminium. Carbon frames have a very disctinctive feel to them. 

But whatever bike this guy chooses is going to feel awesome to him because it'll be a huge improvement over what he's riding now. In his price range, aluminum is about the only choice. Carbon is more expensive to fabricate. Shoot for a carbon fork and good components like Shimano Ultegra.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

I've owned 2 aluminum bikes, a Klein Quantum Race and a Blue RC5AL. Also 2 carbon bikes, a Look 555 (older version from 2006) and a Look 565. Still have the 565 and the Blue.

I'm a century guy, haven't raced in many many years, so factor that into my preferences. Have ridden all 4 bikes with same wheels, tires and saddle. 565 clearly has smoothest ride, followed by the 555 and the Blue (those 2 are very close), and then the Klein. Klein clearly was harsher than the others, didn't like it at all for anything over about 50 miles. But it would have been a great crit racing bike if that's what I'd wanted.

The Blue has carbon seat stays, but I doubt if that makes that much difference. I suspect the more relaxed geometry compared to the Klein matters much more. If I didn't have the 565, I suspect I'd be fine with the Blue for century riding. Then again, I see plenty of folks happily riding centuries on Kleins, as well as riding crits on Kleins. Different people, different preferences.

Bottom line - I agree with the "try a bunch of bikes, see what you like" recommendations. We can all give experiences and advice (often conflicting  ), but ultimately you need to try different bikes to see which one gets you jazzed.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

kjase1 said:


> I will be spending between $1200-$1500.


You can get an Aluminum frame with Carbon Chain/Seat Stay(s), Fork, Seat Post and a 105 Groupset. 

Sounds like a Trek 2.X Series bike would be something to consider among the others.
Aluminum/Carbon mix frames are not as stiff as all Aluminum.

Priorities: Fit first, everything else is second. 










Or, something like it (depending on your preference in brand). 

You'll probably stick with a Carbon/Aluminum bike with a 105 drivetrain 
a lot longer than an all aluminum bike with a lesser grade drivetrain.



Good luck and read a lot here. 
It helped me when I got my first bike.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

*Ok, just read the rest of the thread (besides the OP)...

Guys! 

:lol: *


----------



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

Curtlo in the Seattle area makes custom frames starting at $850. Turnaround time is was around 4 weeks


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

dcb0724 said:


> I bought an aluminum frame with carbon fiber bits (seatstays, fork) and it is not rough at all, I think you should just get what you prefer. You probably won't mind the ride either way. Just get something with the components you want and that fits well and rides well. carbon fiber is cool right now, and I like it, but for the money, I love my aluminum Felt.


I've owned both, a TREK 2100 alu/carbon mix [rear seat stays and fork blades carbon] the rest aluminum. Rode it 4,200 miles last year. Was a good bike.

This year a Cannodale SuperSix Ultegra. It's all carbon. I'm approaching 7,000 miles this year on it since starting February.

I will say something. I don't take chances on a full carbon frame like I would a Aluminum or Steel. It goes down once ...wrong ...it's toast. Even on today's ride I could have hopped a grated storm drain keeping my line while being passed by a large cement mixer, or slow it down.... Normally wouldn't think twice about it. But I'm starting to.

The carbon frame I'm riding is beautiful. Very responsive. It took me half the season to dial it in. No fatigue, no feed back on the bars and silent. The TREK aluminum/carbon pcs bike was good too ...but if I were to do it again ...all over ...it would be STEEL. I'll take the extra 1.5 lbs just to hop those storm drains on tight countryside roads. 

I miss steel.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Fredrico said:


> Cheap carbon bikes I've ridden are a disappointment compared to aluminum in the same price range. The carbon weaves aren't that responsive--or TOO stiff. Up around 4K is where carbon starts to shine over aluminum.


There ain't no such thing as too stiff. That's what big tires, soft saddles, and iron butts are for.


----------



## Darth Moots (Jun 7, 2009)

mtbbmet said:


> If you took a steel frame, a carbon frame, and an aluminum frame and built them with exactly the same geometry, then put on the same groupo, the same bars, the same stem, the same fork, the same wheels, the same post, the same tires, and with the same pressure on all three. You would not be able to tell the difference. I promise you that.


I used to ride an aluminum bike with carbon seat stays, carbon chain stays and a carbon fork. Someone else crashed into me and compromised the carbon seat stay pretty bad. I retired the frame and bought a Ti frame. Transferred the groupo, bars, stem, wheels, tires, and I always run the same tire pressure. I got a new fork and the geometry of the new bike is only slightly different. 

I'm riding on the same roads. The ride is much smoother. Descending is much more stable. I know you didn't mention Ti above, but in my own experience, I can tell a difference.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Darth Moots said:


> I used to ride an aluminum bike with carbon seat stays, carbon chain stays and a carbon fork. Someone else crashed into me and compromised the carbon seat stay pretty bad. I retired the frame and bought a Ti frame. Transferred the groupo, bars, stem, wheels, tires, and I always run the same tire pressure. I got a new fork and the geometry of the new bike is only slightly different.
> 
> I'm riding on the same roads. The ride is much smoother. Descending is much more stable. I know you didn't mention Ti above, but in my own experience, I can tell a difference.


The problem is that you don't know whether it's a better frame design (even with the same geometry) or a better material. I would hope with the cost of a Ti frame that you'd be paying for a lot of engineering, and wouldn't be able to buy the equivalent of a 'gas tube' Ti bike.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

I cant believe someone said you can have a bike too stiff and light...LOL

Whipping the back out? Thats YOUR INABILITY to sprint. Not the bike. I can put 100% max power to the ground on a 6.1kg K3 without 'whipping the back' around, flicking it side to side etc. I can also make a 20kg steel mountainbike whip by hanging my knees out to the side whilst sprinting and not keeping the head tube as verticle as possible regardless what the rest of the bike does.

Tyre pressure > Seatpost > handlebar/stem > fork > tyre > frame design > frame material are what makes a bike comfortable. It aint the frame....my downhill dually is as uncomfortable as my crit bike if i pump slicks up to 90psi and dont wear gloves...and it has f**king suspension...

I wish you clowns would learn its all marketing bullsh*t.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

2ndGen said:


> *Ok, just read the rest of the thread (besides the OP)...
> 
> Guys!
> 
> ...


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

team_sheepshead said:


> It's this kind of statement that marketing people love to read on these forums, because it's hype. Is there any evidence to back up this statement? In fact, I'd consider the opposite: That adding carbon to an alu frame enables the builder to make a very stiff bottom bracket on a frame that won't rattle out your teeth...precisely because the carbon might damp some of the road vibration. But I have no evidence to back up that statement.


I remember a few years ago when Liquigas were riding Bianchi's most of the team rode the full aluminum FG Lite. The guys thought it was stiffer than the carbon stay version of the frame, and it was 200g lighter. Bianchi had the 928 in production but most of the team were not into it, heavy and flexy. So what does this say?
Adding carbon stays to a frame makes the rear end flexy and adds weight to the frame.
Just because it's a carbon frame does not make it light, or LS-VC.


----------



## MANTEIGA (Sep 26, 2008)

Cracka said:


> I cant believe someone said you can have a bike too stiff and light...LOL
> 
> Whipping the back out? Thats YOUR INABILITY to sprint. Not the bike. I can put 100% max power to the ground on a 6.1kg K3 without 'whipping the back' around, flicking it side to side etc. I can also make a 20kg steel mountainbike whip by hanging my knees out to the side whilst sprinting and not keeping the head tube as verticle as possible regardless what the rest of the bike does.
> 
> ...



fitting name for your avitar......
stick to riding downhill.:thumbsup:


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

MANTEIGA said:


> fitting name for your avitar......
> stick to riding downhill.:thumbsup:


Do you realise what a King3 is?

It aint a downhill bike my friend. The DH bike is for fun.

And if you're going to insult a name...At least spell Avatar correctly. But lets not get stuck on petty factors like names.

Regardless...if a bike is uncomfortable, change your bars, seatpost and tyres. I can make my crit bike as comfortable as I like by changing to carbon stem/bars and going from 135 to 120psi... On the otherhand I can make my carbon mountaingoat as harsh as I want just by fitting the crit bikes ally bars/stem and wheels/tyres. It aint the frame, or the material. I doubt most riders could tell the difference between 1980's steel and 2009 carbon if they were blindfolded.


----------



## Mark2.0 (Jul 31, 2009)

I have never understood the bad rap that aluminum gets about being too harsh and stiff. I have 2 Kleins: a hardtail mountain bike and a road bike. I do not feel beat up when I get home from a ride. What I can tell you is that both bikes handle beautifully and respond instantly when you jump on the peddles.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

team_sheepshead said:


> 2ndGen said:
> 
> 
> > *Ok, just read the rest of the thread (besides the OP)...
> ...


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Mark2.0 said:


> I have never understood the bad rap that aluminum gets about being too harsh and stiff. I have 2 Kleins: a hardtail mountain bike and a road bike. I do not feel beat up when I get home from a ride. What I can tell you is that both bikes handle beautifully and respond instantly when you jump on the peddles.


I used to wonder as to why most MTB's were aluminum and there never was any great Carbon VS Aluminum debate for MTB's...then I remembered, the overwhelming majority of MTB's have single or dual suspension. 

I prefer metal for MTBing.


----------



## MANTEIGA (Sep 26, 2008)

*...*

I doubt most riders could tell the difference between 1980's steel and 2009 carbon if they were blindfolded.[/QUOTE]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Do you have any evidence or proof to anything you are saying?

what's petty is you've been a member of this website for 24 hours and
you're already calling everyone that has purchased a carbon fiber 
bike a victim of marketing hype....or CLOWN, as you elegantly stated...

you sound like a complete newbbb to the sport and you probably don't own a 
carbon bike like the rest of us clowns...
and that is where the resentment is stemming from.

i have had (probably like a huge majority of people here) a carbon bike, a steel bike, and an aluminum bike and the difference is huge.... not slight, but huge.

i may not be GREAT at spelling like you CRACKA (!?), 
but at least my misspelled words gets some kind of point across...


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

:lol:











:lol:


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Mark2.0 said:


> I have never understood the bad rap that aluminum gets about being too harsh and stiff. I have 2 Kleins: a hardtail mountain bike and a road bike. I do not feel beat up when I get home from a ride. What I can tell you is that both bikes handle beautifully and respond instantly when you jump on the peddles.


Geometry plays an important roll and higher end bikes have only improved as the years pass. I like the posts where people use a sense of logic on why *FIT* is so important. Added to that your weight and how often you're riding and where. 

My TREK 2100 was a 56cm and maybe a slight bit too small for me. That would be a 53.5 cm centre to centre. The Cannondale is 58cm and 55 centre to centre. Maybe a wee too long a top tube but more comfortable in seat tube. Both bikes used my own training wheels and tires. That comparison being equal. I know for a fact that there are hundreds of guys out there sourcing out older Cannodale Synapse's and aluminum frames building them to the hilt with recent model top components. That type of loyalty to aluminum frames means something.

If you've ever ridden a GIOS Torino Super Record [steel frame] as I had for 15 years ....this discussion on stiff would start with that bike as the MOST stiff ever. In comparison to the GIOS, aluminum was luxury. 

Geometry 101


----------



## dasho (Apr 8, 2002)

*No difference for me*

I've owned a Trek 5200, Giant TCR, Specialized Roubaix and Look 281 in the carbon series.

I now own a Cervelo Soloist Team aluminum frame and cannot tell a difference although my tires are between 90 and 100 PSI


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

jupiterrn said:


> Hold that thought while I go get some popcorn.....this thread could get interesting.


Yeah, no kidding


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

What are good quality aluminum fames/makes out there today? 

Is there a builder that is making aluminum bikes that are comparable to mid-high end carbon/steel bikes?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

2ndGen said:


> What are good quality aluminum fames/makes out there today?
> 
> Is there a builder that is making aluminum bikes that are comparable to mid-high end carbon/steel bikes?


BMC comes to mind. :idea:


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

Just lol...Massive laughs at you mate. :mad2: 

Go on, buy up a storm.

Experience and knowledge lets me know otherwise.


----------



## Mark2.0 (Jul 31, 2009)

2ndGen said:


> What are good quality aluminum fames/makes out there today?
> 
> Is there a builder that is making aluminum bikes that are comparable to mid-high end carbon/steel bikes?



Cervelo S1


----------



## mwirwin (Jun 8, 2008)

Question for the forum (and who knows what kind of response/storm will ensue!).

Hypothesis: When I started riding many moons ago, wheelsets had 32/36/40 spokes and nowadays we see fewer spokes 28/24/20/18 in the name of lightness, better materials, or whatever. However, I always found the that more spokes felt more comfortable. I'm not an engineer, but it would seem that force is dissipated over a greater area with more spokes - and so the frame and rider are cushioned a bit. If there are any engineers out there that can qualify the physics out there, it's greatly appreciated and I will defer to your calculations.

The Question: Does anyone see this affecting our rides? If a carbon/aluminum/steel/titanium/bamboo/balsawood/denim/botox frame is more comfortable, but we are receiving less cushion from the spoke matrix, are we compromising the potential ride characteristics? Perhaps a question for a different thread.

Yeah, I know - something else to keep us all up at night. Now I have build the exact same wheelset with different spoke configurations. Anyone know where I can get same hub with 40/36/32/30/28/24/20/18 holes setup? Let's try a disc wheel while were at it.  

There! I've flamed myself! So don't even think about! :nono:


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

2ndGen said:


> What are good quality aluminum fames/makes out there today?
> 
> Is there a builder that is making aluminum bikes that are comparable to mid-high end carbon/steel bikes?


From what I've read the Cervelo S1 and the CAAD 9 are a couple of the best. Both have racing roots and are pretty stiff - but well engineering so they don't give one the most punishing ride possible.


----------



## T-shirt (Aug 15, 2004)

jupiterrn said:


> And of course it is painted red and white or white and red


...with yellow decals.


----------



## bwhite_4 (Aug 29, 2006)

arshak said:


> Curtlo in the Seattle area makes custom frames starting at $850. Turnaround time is was around 4 weeks


He recently quoted me a 16 week minimum. From what I've read. Take his time estimate and either double it or at least add 50%. Not a problem if you already have another ride and most of us understand that doing something right takes time.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*This also depends on body weight!*



California L33 said:


> There ain't no such thing as too stiff. That's what big tires, soft saddles, and iron butts are for.


The frequently overlooked question: how much is this bike going to get loaded? That used to be an important consideration of tire size, wheel spoking, rim choice, and frame strength (tr.stiffness) It's now possible with the wonders of CF technology, to build a super stiff frame that will explode in a 20 mph crash. Heavy riders should beware of superlight frames!

A guy over 200# can be quite comfortable, while also able to work to his potential, on a heavy, stiff frame, that would leave a 145# guy beat up after a long ride.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

I am an engineer and will give you a basic answer 

Yes, lower spoke tension over a higher spoke count will give a cushioned effect when compared to a 16 or 18 spoke radial design of today.

Even swapping a radial front to a 3x laced front wheel usually gives measurable changes in ride characteristics from the bum-o-meter due to the huge reduction in spoke tension however still taut rim torsion.

Spoke tension plays a big part as does wheel extrusion type or shape...


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Mark, AJL & Fredrico...thank you.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Hilarious!!*



2ndGen said:


> And me? I'd be a Shark.


Great picture! :9:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Ok:*



Cracka said:


> I cant believe someone said you can have a bike too stiff and light...LOL
> 
> Whipping the back out? Thats YOUR INABILITY to sprint. Not the bike. I can put 100% max power to the ground on a 6.1kg K3 without 'whipping the back' around, flicking it side to side etc. I can also make a 20kg steel mountainbike whip by hanging my knees out to the side whilst sprinting and not keeping the head tube as verticle as possible regardless what the rest of the bike does.
> 
> ...


I'm only a dilletante engineer, but anecdotal evidence over the years seems to confirm that a heavy rider can overcome the stiffness of a really light frame by his sheer mass. A frame with more mass itself, can handle the stresses satisfactorily and respond well to the riders inputs. The reverse is true for a light weight rider: He doesn't have as much weight to hold the wheel on the ground in an all out sprint, for one thing, nor to load up the bike sufficiently so it rides nice and comfortable.

Sure, I can whip my old steel racing bike wheel side to side in a sprint, but if I do it right, it accelerates like a rocket. Serious engineer types point out that steel has a "modulus of elasticity" unlike carbon or aluminum, that restores energy like a spring: in a sprint flexing just enough to keep the wheel from bouncing, then returning the energy immediately when the pressure is transferred to the other side.

The fact you can whip your two MTBs side to side only agrees with the idea that laterally stiff frames with big over sized tubes don't absorb, store, and return energy. They simply resist, and make the wheel lose traction. :frown2:


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

Cracka said:


> I am an engineer and will give you a basic answer
> 
> Yes, lower spoke tension over a higher spoke count will give a cushioned effect when compared to a 16 or 18 spoke radial design of today.
> 
> ...


Can you pls elaborate on wheel extrusion type or shape? As all wheels are circles, do you mean rim shape? What do you mean by extrusion?

TIA


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> Serious engineer types point out that steel has a "modulus of elasticity" unlike carbon or aluminum, ...


Actually, real engineers (such as yours truly) will tell you that _all _materials have a modulus of elasticity (which is simply the force per unit of strain), and that there is no fundamental difference between the three materials you mentioned.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Great picture! :9:


.


 




.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

You dont know what an extrusion is? Its what an aluminium wheel is made from. A channel of straight alloy, extruded through shaped dies (the same way an aluminium tube, aluminium door frame, etc) into a flat length of extrude, tempered (cooled) to whatever spec it needs to be, twisted until its straight, then cut to length (circumference) and rolled into a wheel shape.

So, this shape...be it a deep aero style aluminium extrude (which before it is rolled into a wheel shape, is just a 10 or 20 metre long section of 'A' shaped alloy) or a shallow box section [_] obviously give different characteristics for ride... 

It is far easier to bend a shallow box section than it is a deeper box section, as such a deeper section will not cushion or contort as easily. 

Then you mix in _rim torsion _[cumulative effect of rim shape and spoke tension and spoke pattern] (the effect of keeping the wheel round) combined with_ spoke tension _(the effect of pulling the wheel towards the hub).

So its actually quite basic in practice: that if you use a shallow box section aluminium rim, combined with the lowest spoke tension possible in a lacing pattern that allows the highest rim torsion (3x)....you increase the length and spread the load of the material connection from the hub to the rim circumference. 

Means your wheel is actually not round when you have rider load on it (flat on the bottom by an imperceptable amount) which is shock absorbtion as the rim is conducive to bending on these loads due to its box extrude design. Combined with load sharing over a higher amount of spokes which means lower tension per spoke and as such they can dissipate shock along the length of the spoke (in stretching) with every revolution and loading through road noise. Finally having a cross design means the load travells on a tangent compared to the radius of the rim, so a shock does not directly hit the hub on its datum and transfer up the lug - frame - rider. 

Also a cross design means the spokes are not straight...They bend around eachother which is an inherant shock absorbing and load sharing principle. They allow the spoke pattern as a whole to expand and contract with load, much like a weave. 

(with that said, I'm not getting into composite engineering and stress moments inherant in carbon cloth as its actually detrimental to the carbon to absorb loads...every bump on a bicycle is actually breaking the bonding down (not the cloth itself), as a strand of carbon expands and stretches due to a shock load it is literally tearing apart the bonding between itself, the resin, and the next strand.)

Comparing the above to a deep section alloy rim, with radial lacing and high spoke tension....The gains are:
Weight.
Reduced Inertia
Lateral stiffness (inline with the axle).

Detrimental effects are:
NVH (Noise/Vibration/Harshness)
'wind up'....you literally wind the read hub up and change the spoke angles when under power
Cross wind aero...

The deep rim does not contort like a shallow section does, nor does the spoke tension absorb any shock loading, and as a final stray they're so strung stiff that any failure severely reduces the integrity of the rim...(like a single broken spoke). 

Rim depth aside though, spoke tension and lacing has a huge impact on performance and comfort. Box rims with tight low count lacing and radial non drive flanges can be extremely light weight but are a surity to fail through the stresses involved.

Carbon rims a an entirely different kettle of fish. 2 Carbon deep section rims like a zipp 404 and any random 50 mm chinese copy can behave totally different. Its not something you can comment on without knowing the layup, material, density, bonding agents, etc etc etc.

So to answer in short: Google aluminium extrude pictures.
Some alloy wheels are designed not to be circles when loaded...

And once again, it isnt the frame material that is important in bike comfort...It does have a part to play though.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> Serious engineer types point out that steel has a "modulus of elasticity" unlike carbon or aluminum, that restores energy like a spring: in a sprint flexing just enough to keep the wheel from bouncing, then returning the energy immediately when the pressure is transferred to the other side.


This is totally incorrect. (returning pressure as you say)

Yes you can have a modulas of bending in any frame titanium, carbon, alum, scand, even a frame made from dried pasta glued together will flex and return to its prior shape.

This elasticity as you call it (its not elastic or an elastic effect really, its just a non destructive distortion of the materials form...this can happen through a temperature or pressure change too, and when external forces return to nothing, the resulting movement returns if it has not gone beyond its work modulas....only steel frames will not eventually snap though, aluminium has an exact and finite number of times it can be manipulated (by a shock in the road for instance) before it will fail. You cant stretch steel in a sense like an elastic effect, an elastic polymer for instance can be distorted to upwards of 95% of its breaking load and return. Steels tolerance is much lower (it'll just bend, fracture or snap) Carbon is the same as ally...it will break eventually due to its breakdown of the weaves mechanical bond to each strand etc, it is also susceptible to UV degredation, chemical abrasion, and unfortunately as the aesthetic layers are done to a bike post initial moulding it is the perfect concealing effect for any faults. You cant tell a carbon frame is about the snap from a visual inspection.

You can bend most basic steels to around 55% of breaking loads indefinitely and until it is heated beyond about 400d C or loaded past this point will retain 100% of its strength and form when it returns.. (high carbon steel for instance will just shatter..think hitting two hammers together).

But back onto elasticity...when you pedal hard, and the frame flexes, whats happening?

The bottom bracket is being twisted both clockwise along the seat tube (due to chain tension) and also adjacent to the bike with the pedal that is going down. When this spring effect returns to normal (almost instantly) you're NOT powering the frame forward, or rotating the crank, you're actually doing the opposite. Infact I'm no biomechanics expert in the slightest but I'd wager money on it being detrimental for your legs as towards the bottom of your stroke as power tapers off and the frame unflexes, it would be pushing upward with a big enough force to stall your leg speed and thus overload the muscle?? Any doctors here care to comment? 

A carbon frame does the exact same thing. And Aluminium frame does the exact same thing. However, if you can make it stiff enough that is does not, then this means you're putting all your generated power into the crank. Not wasting power bending a frame that will return to its position once its unpowered with translated forward movement as a result of that effect.

Also consider the heat load you create in bending something like that...

Also consider that obviously a human leg can not absorb power nor can a frame 'store it'...(spokes can though...see my above post regarding wind up, winding a hub forward will actually restore that wasted energy into forward movement), so wasting ANY power on flexing something is wasting calories of specific output otherwise used for forward...I know I dont want to waste a single calorie in a ride on not going forward as darn fast as I can...As such having any flex in my frames power transmission is a no no. (That said my crit bike flexes the BB in a sprint and as a result I bent my large chain ring two weeks ago like a taco  )

I think its important that people not only consider frame material for its weight or aesthetic, but its properties for power transfer in a bike frame, its lifespan, its impact resistance, etc. But as far as comfort goes its not the determining factor.


----------



## T-shirt (Aug 15, 2004)

Cracka,

You have a lot of interesting information. I've enjoyed reading your technical posts.

For me, a smaller person, noticing a difference in materials is difficult. Smaller frames seem to have less flex no matter the material, and over the years my body has become better at muting the terrain. Therefore, concerning a frame, geometry is the most significant factor for me.


----------



## roadbike_moron (Sep 22, 2007)

Cracka said:


> This is totally incorrect. (returning pressure as you say)
> 
> Yes you can have a modulas of bending in any frame titanium, carbon, alum, scand, even a frame made from dried pasta glued together will flex and return to its prior shape.
> 
> ...



You just talked me out of buying a new Carbon frame.


----------



## mwirwin (Jun 8, 2008)

Cracka,

Excellent! Thanks for the material dynamics analysis on the spokes and frames. Very interesting stuff.

So getting back to the orginal question posted by kjase1:

I just bought a Defy Advanced frame which is full carbon. I had compared it to a few aluminum/carbon frames but I was paying more attention to the fit more than anything else. After reading this thread of posts, maybe I should have given the AL/C frames a better chance: But when it came down to it, I liked the carbon frame. I still have a AL/C but after 3-4 hours in the saddle, I felt a little beat up.

I guess we need more context to answer your question: What are you concerned most about? Durability, ride characteristics, brands, price point? Have heard much from you - so this post is starting to go different directions...

But I'd like to draw your attention to the spoke issue I brought up: After Cracka's post, went back and looked at the spoke configurations on many of the bikes I had looked at.
Sure enough, the low end versions of a model have more spokes (dampening effect, less springiness) and the high end have less (more spring but less dampening). I had never considered this factor when I was looking at frames because I had brought my own wheels along. But for someone looking into their first roadbike, this is an often overlooked factor. For example, I had been looking at the Roubaix Pro Frameset. However, my LBS had only the Roubaix Elite in stock in my size (XS). Granted, carbon lay up is different. but I tried it out anyway. To me the ride felt sluggish and out of touch. However, the ride improved when I put my own wheelset on the bike (Cane Creek Aeroheads, 24 radial lace front, 28 racial/2 cross mixed lace rear). Looking at the Specialized website, they have a 28 on the front and a 32 on the rear (not sure about the configuation).

The point of my rambling thoughts: If you are concerned about ride quality, there are quite few considerations. Leaving the materials and durability issue aside, a good fit and your impression (not everyone else's!) of the ride are the starting point for the decision. I bring up the wheels and spokes because these are factors that a good LBS would be able to advise you. By the way, always ask a shop to check tire pressure and put the same amount of pressure in the tires from bike to bike. That may eliminate some of the variables in ride characteristics, but as Cracka points out, different materials/spoke configurations will still be there. Hopefully, the manufacturers actually take this into consideration instead of just slapping on whatever wheels they have in oversupply!


----------



## mwirwin (Jun 8, 2008)

To Kjase1: Oops! Meant to say that we haven't heard much from you.  

Hope you can give us some feedback on the postings so far!


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Cracka said:


> This is totally incorrect. (returning pressure as you say)
> 
> Yes you can have a modulas of bending in any frame titanium, carbon, alum, scand, even a frame made from dried pasta glued together will flex and return to its prior shape.
> 
> ...



Wow, that was interesting. So we've established that you're neither a structural engineering or biomechanical physiologist.  

Just a common misconception, steel does have a fatigue life, its just much longer and easier to predict than aluminum.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

Manufacturers give what they have told customers to want...At the moment thats mavic crap.

MAvic have to be the most annoying and terrible high end stock wheels on the market. Proprietry equipment? check
Poor Aero? Check
Poor Hub Life? Check
Require more maitanance than normal? Check
Heavy? Check

But...They're a brand name, they're big with punters especially in the states, and who would ever want to think some basic shimano hubs over any cheap rim and some lightweight spokes would be lighter, stronger, more comfortable, just as aero and be customisable in color than krysiums? You try convincing the market of that.


----------



## mwirwin (Jun 8, 2008)

Y'know there really aren't very many brands of rims out there on the mid-priced bikes - Mavics, Shimano (ugh!). I'm a true believer in working with LBS' that will swap out parts and charge/credit the difference. It really is a lost art in this era of marketing. I remember my first entry level racing bike was Paramount (good old steel!) and the bike tech brought the price down after recommending an Araya wheelset over the stock set (don't remember what - it was back in the early 80's). He said they were a better set than what came with the bike - and I wasn't even quibbling over the price! Road those Araya's for years on other frames. Some shops still take this attitude but not a lot - and most are trying to move you up in price not down! But some will recommend better wheelsets without pushing the price margin too much. Unfortunately - and Cracka, correct me if I'm taking your point in the wrong direction - the mid to high/mid level stock bike components don't leave much for the LBS to bargain with. How much quality can you trade up into without adding $500+ to the MSRP? Not much.

So kjase1 - Here's your dilemma as I see it: At $1200-1500, I would see my options as:

1) Decent Aluminum/Carbon Hybrid - mediocre components - upgrade later
2) Decent Carbon Frame - NO components (sorry, I wouldn't recommend any fully built carbon bikes in that range - I'm sure others have their opinions)
3) Low end Aluminum/Carbon Hybrid - Decent components (Maybe even Ultegra) - Upgrade the frame later (I road a Scattante once at Performance Bike with an Ultegra group, carbon fork and seat stays - It was mediocre at best but I almost bought it as rain/commuter bike and for the Ultegra group!)
4) Low, Low end Carbon with Decent components - I don't like this option.
5) Used Aluminum or Steel with decent components - I like this option, especially since used steel still has a good life span. I wouldn't buy used carbon - you never know if it's been stressed. Aluminum - Some people like Cannondales! There's a lot of them out there but get a later model. With steel and aluminum, a good LBS could check out the frame and advise you before you buy. Hard to do that with carbon.

Or I would wait a little longer, save a some more money, and try to buy something in the $1800-2500 range where there is a jump in the level of quality.

Another thing: The 2010's are coming in and there may be some bargains on 2008 or 2009 models. I would get out there start riding and looking.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

mwirwin said:


> Y'know there really aren't very many brands of rims out there on the mid-priced bikes - Mavics, Shimano (ugh!).


You know the funny part of that comment? For 8 or so years now shimano have had some of the best hubs on the market, and any shimano wheel dollar for dollar right now fights a whole price bracket above its mavic counterpart.


----------



## mwirwin (Jun 8, 2008)

It sounds like you're partial to shimano wheels. I like the Dura-Ace setups but I've seen more bikes come out with the low-end wheelsets. I tried out a set of my friends R500's (?) training sets and wasn't really impressed - I spent more time than I wanted truing them up. I agree on the hubs - Shimano hubs are bulletproof. Wouldn't mind trying out the new tubeless Dura-Ace wheels.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Cracka said:


> (with that said, I'm not getting into composite engineering and stress moments inherant in carbon cloth as its actually detrimental to the carbon to absorb loads...every bump on a bicycle is actually breaking the bonding down (not the cloth itself), as a strand of carbon expands and stretches due to a shock load it is literally tearing apart the bonding between itself, the resin, and the next strand.)


Not every bump, depends on the load - different resins have different levels of flexibility and adhesion - and effective modulus. This effect is reminiscent of breaking down the crystalline structure in Aluminum (e.g. fatigue).

It's no wonder that the increasingly high modulus thin walled carbon bikes that the pros crash, shatter like they are made of hardwood. The first person who develops a practical 'self healing' resin will be mutli-millionaire.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Cracka said:


> The bottom bracket is being twisted both clockwise along the seat tube (due to chain tension) and also adjacent to the bike with the pedal that is going down. When this spring effect returns to normal (almost instantly) you're NOT powering the frame forward, or rotating the crank, you're actually doing the opposite. Infact I'm no biomechanics expert in the slightest but I'd wager money on it being detrimental for your legs as towards the bottom of your stroke as power tapers off and the frame unflexes, it would be pushing upward with a big enough force to stall your leg speed and thus overload the muscle?? Any doctors here care to comment?


In this case the force is primarily deflecting the seat tube laterally (wrt to the rider) and placing the down tube and chain stays under load (torque) through the BB. If the rider is sitting, then moment around the BB is huge, if not, the the whole bike can flex back and forth (as anyone who rides can attest to). In either case, the "stall" force would be negligible, especially at the bottom of the stroke. Additionally, the down tube and the chain stays do not exist in a vacuum - they are part of the front and rear triangle, which history has shown to be a very strong structure indeed. No doctors needed :wink:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Wager a few pounds?*



Cracka said:


> ...When this spring effect returns to normal (almost instantly) you're NOT powering the frame forward, or rotating the crank, you're actually doing the opposite. Infact I'm no biomechanics expert in the slightest but I'd wager money on it being detrimental for your legs as towards the bottom of your stroke as power tapers off and the frame unflexes, it would be pushing upward with a big enough force to stall your leg speed and thus overload the muscle?? Any doctors here care to comment? ...
> 
> ...However, if you can make it stiff enough that is does not, then this means you're putting all your generated power into the crank. Not wasting power bending a frame that will return to its position once its unpowered with translated forward movement as a result of that effect.
> 
> ...


Hey, man, if you tacoed yer big ring, you got a flexy bike, or maybe you should develope a smoother wind-up! :biggrin5:

Your comparisons of materials pretty much agrees with I said. I have to conceed that if the bike flexes under pedaling loads, energy is stolen for sure. But how do you define stiffness? Steel is so nice because a well brazed frame flexes a small amount meeting the impacts, whether road surface or pedaling torsional flex as in honking up a hill or sprinting, but is stiff enough to follow the energy transfer, to transmit the forces to the wheels IMO, as well as carbon or aluminum, which doesn't flex like steel. This is what riders report after a long ride.

I also have to conceed that a very rigid frame on very rigid wheels theoretically transfers force more faithfully. But don't forget the human engine is made of muscles, which have true elasticity as you define it! This will immediately be appreciated when hitting the road in a crash.

My legs can power a slightly flexible bike more efficiently than a super stiff one, for the very reason you say that a spring returning energy resists the next power stroke. Whether your leg resists the crank or follows through with it, is a matter of technique, on any frame. I find a small amount of flex is easier to follow through with than no flex at all. :biggrin5: It works like my slow twitch muscle fibers. The loading and uloading curves are shallower. Power is delivered by following the crank around at high rpms. A dedicated sprinter might naturally prefer a stiffer frame to handle his more powerful strokes, his more extreme torsional flexes.

What I mean by returning force, is the lively feel of steel as it meets your legs on each pedal stroke, as it works with your body. When carbon and aluminum try to do that, they feel "dead." Like you say, under heavy, repeated torsional load they break, while steel just goes on and on. :thumbsup:

BTW, the only heat I've ever been able to generate was on the rims, braking through switchbacks on extremely long descents--and in my head!


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Cracka said:


> Also consider that obviously a human leg can not absorb power nor can a frame 'store it'...(spokes can though...see my above post regarding wind up, winding a hub forward will actually restore that wasted energy into forward movement), so wasting ANY power on flexing something is wasting calories of specific output otherwise used for forward...I know I dont want to waste a single calorie in a ride on not going forward as darn fast as I can...As such having any flex in my frames power transmission is a no no. (That said my crit bike flexes the BB in a sprint and as a result I bent my large chain ring two weeks ago like a taco  )
> 
> I think its important that people not only consider frame material for its weight or aesthetic, but its properties for power transfer in a bike frame, its lifespan, its impact resistance, etc. But as far as comfort goes its not the determining factor.


Sorry, but the above is mostly nonsense. 

First of all, generally speaking, I would strongly advise anybody to not try and engage in empty speculation regarding the detailed kinematics and dynamics of power transfer on a bicycle. I am not sure if anybody has ever done a detailed study of this problem, but I'll guarantee you that the kind of naive arguments you present above are certain to be wrong. The detailes of this process are far too complex to be understood by simple intuition.

Second, as any theoretical mechanicist would understand, there is a much easier way to try and assess the effect of frame flex on power transfer, which is simply to look at the energy balance. If you do that, you realize that the pertinent question really is whether any energy is lost due to frame flex. The answer to that is very simple, and negative: Since the deformation of the frame is almost exactly elastic, no energy is lost, so frame deformation is irrelevant to the efficiency of power transfer. I might add that experiments have shown the same thing. Inane marketing blather in bicycle magazines notwithstanding, a stiffer frame does exactly nothing for the performance of a rider.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> I also have to conceed that a very rigid frame on very rigid wheels theoretically transfers force more faithfully.


It depends what is meant by "faitfully", but in any case the relavant question is whether _power_ is transferred completely. The answer is, it is.  



Fredrico said:


> My legs can power a slightly flexible bike more efficiently than a super stiff one, for the very reason you say that a spring returning energy resists the next power stroke. Whether your leg resists the crank or follows through with it, is a matter of technique, on any frame. I find a small amount of flex is easier to follow through with than no flex at all. :biggrin5: It works like my slow twitch muscle fibers. The loading and uloading curves are shallower. Power is delivered by following the crank around at high rpms. A dedicated sprinter might naturally prefer a stiffer frame to handle his more powerful strokes, his more extreme torsional flexes.


Excellent point. Like I said, don't even try to speculate about the biomechanics of power transfer, unless you really know what you are talking about. I repeat, when all is said and done, frame stiffness doesn't matter (within reasonable limits, of course).

P.S.: Of course, the above cuts both ways: A steel frame isn't inherently any more efficient than a frame made of aluminum, titanium, or carbon, and vice versa.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Pirx said:


> It depends what is meant by "faitfully", but in any case the relavant question is whether _power_ is transferred completely. The answer is, it is.


The laws of thermodynamics have been repealed! Declare an international holiday :wink:

I'll have to find my thermodynamics prof, walk up to him and just say 'HA!' :lol:


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Cracka said:


> Some alloy wheels are designed not to be circles when loaded...


I'll just note that this post is wildly inaccurate as well. _No_ bicycle wheels are circles when loaded. You might benefit from reading Jobst Brandt's book on bicycle wheels. For example, absolute spoke tension has no effect on load distribution.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

AJL said:


> The laws of thermodynamics have been repealed! Declare an international holiday


Nonsense. Yes, all materials, including metals, do have some hysteresis in their stress-strain curve, and as a consequence will dissipate some energy during load-unload cycles. However, the amount of energy lost in this process is minute, and completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of power transfer on a bicycle. As an aside, fiber composites, including carbon fiber, typically are more nonlinear than metals, and thus dissipate more energy, which exactly corresponds to the otherwise much touted damping qualities of carbon fiber. But again, the amount of energy lost in this process is too small to have a noticeable effect.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Pirx said:


> Nonsense. Yes, all materials, including metals, do have some hysteresis in their stress-strain curve, and as a consequence will dissipate some energy during load-unload cycles. However, the amount of energy lost in this process is minute, and completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of power transfer on a bicycle. As an aside, fiber composites, including carbon fiber, typically are more nonlinear than metals, and thus dissipate more energy, which exactly corresponds to the otherwise much touted damping qualities of carbon fiber. But again, the amount of energy lost in this process is too small to have a noticeable effect.


Nonsense, you missed the wink  Obviously, wrt frames the practical situation is that efficiency of the frame can be taken out of the equation for almost all situations [Pro level sprints would be a special case because of the significantly higher loads and small margins of victory].

Thanks for pointing out the behaviour of carbon fiber, I think it's an important point for those interested to understand.

Frames aside, bicycles are very efficient as a study by John Hopkins makes plain: Bicycle drive train efficiency.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

AJL said:


> Nonsense, you missed the wink


Yeah, sorry about that...  



AJL said:


> Thanks for pointing out the behaviour of carbon fiber, I think it's an important point for those interested to understand.


As a simple experiment (well, if you have both a steel and a carbon bike at hand), try wheeling your bike over a sharp bump (like the one from your driveway into the garage) on its rear wheel only, while lightly holding it by the handle bars (the bike being somewhat upside down, like pushing a wheel barrow), and observe how the rear wheel will hop over the bump, and how it will keep bouncing a bit after that. The steel bike will be more "springy" than the carbon bike, because of the inherently higher damping of the carbon fiber structure. For this experiment to be significant, you should have the same rear wheel on both frames.



AJL said:


> Frames aside, bicycles are very efficient as a study by John Hopkins makes plain: Bicycle drive train efficiency.


Thanks for the pointer!


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Pirx said:


> Sorry, but the above is mostly nonsense.
> 
> First of all, generally speaking, I would strongly advise anybody to not try and engage in empty speculation regarding the detailed kinematics and dynamics of power transfer on a bicycle. I am not sure if anybody has ever done a detailed study of this problem, but I'll guarantee you that the kind of naive arguments you present above are certain to be wrong. The detailes of this process are far too complex to be understood by simple intuition.
> 
> Second, as any theoretical mechanicist would understand, there is a much easier way to try and assess the effect of frame flex on power transfer, which is simply to look at the energy balance. If you do that, you realize that the pertinent question really is whether any energy is lost due to frame flex. The answer to that is very simple, and negative: Since the deformation of the frame is almost exactly elastic, no energy is lost, so frame deformation is irrelevant to the efficiency of power transfer. I might add that experiments have shown the same thing. Inane marketing blather in bicycle magazines notwithstanding, a stiffer frame does exactly nothing for the performance of a rider.


So 100 percent of the energy of bending a frame is recovered when it bends back, and it all goes into propelling the bike forward? Seems to me if energy is spent deflecting the frame to the side, it would be 'recovered' when it regained it's natural shape, but that 'recovery' would not drive the bike forward.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

California L33 said:


> So 100 percent of the energy of bending a frame is recovered when it bends back, and it all goes into propelling the bike forward?


Yes, pretty much, neglecting slight material damping, as mentioned above.



California L33 said:


> Seems to me if energy is spent deflecting the frame to the side, it would be 'recovered' when it regained it's natural shape, but that 'recovery' would not drive the bike forward.


That intuition is wrong. A simple question to ask is, where does the energy go? Think about it, and try to avoid speculating about details neither you nor anybody else, mind you, really understands. I can't tell you through what mechanism the deformation energy is fed back into the system, but I don't have to worry about that, since in the end, the energy balance is all that matters.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

California L33 said:


> So 100 percent of the energy of bending a frame is recovered when it bends back, and it all goes into propelling the bike forward? Seems to me if energy is spent deflecting the frame to the side, it would be 'recovered' when it regained it's natural shape, but that 'recovery' would not drive the bike forward.


Rebound would not directly propel the bike forward. It's force is not in the same plane as the wheels. But it would increase the efficiency of the pedaling mechanics, which would in turn propel the bike forward. The key here obviously is pedaling technique that works with this flexing and rebounding. :thumbsup:

A quick and sure rebound also keeps the two wheels in the same plane. That WOULD directly affect forward motion!


----------



## MANTEIGA (Sep 26, 2008)

*....*

READ THIS.
http://desperadocycles.com/The_Lowdown_On_Tubing/Crispin_Mount_Miller_Frame_Rigidity.pdf


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

MANTEIGA said:


> READ THIS.
> http://desperadocycles.com/The_Lowdown_On_Tubing/Crispin_Mount_Miller_Frame_Rigidity.pdf


Very interesting, thanks for the pointer! Executive summary: Of the order of 1% of the total pedaling energy is invested into elastic deformation of the frame. My contention is that almost all of this energy is recovered when the frame "unwinds"; the authors of the article promise a follow-up where they apparently want to argue that "some" of the energy is wasted, but we're left to guess how much that is. Looking forward to the continuation of this article...


----------



## ErinRD (Jun 19, 2009)

kjase1 said:


> I am looking to buy my first road bike this week, i'm not new to riding but new to paying attention to specs and wanted some experienced opionions on the pros/cons, advantages/disadvantages on aluminum and carbon. Any advice would be much appreciated.
> 
> Thank You all!



Personally I LOVE LOVE LOVE my Fuji Team Pro. Its C-4 Carbon frame, not as expensive as Fuji’s higher end C-7 Carbon frame, but possibly less likely to melt in the heat  It has Shimano Ultegra front and rear derailleurs, front and rear breaks and shifters. The cassette and Chain are Shimano 105 so a bit lower end components there. Also Mavic Kyserium Elite wheel set, which are pretty high-end. This bike is fast, light (~18lbs), and has some real get-up-and-go (of course I contribute a lot to that  ). My only complaint is the seat, which is uncomfortable after a while. Going from a mountain bike with lots of shock absorption to this bike, it’s a bit more jarring of course, but not too bad. I’m a 5’7” 130# female rider so not sure how weight/height factors in (as a poster mentioned earlier), but the bike does not tire me out on rides, I feel like it almost gives energy if that’s possible. Of course I was trying to use my mountain bike as a road bike for a while and that will suck up a lot of the energy you put into your ride. 
I bought this bike at Performance on sale (end of season). The MSRP listed price is $3,000, and I got this one for $1800 with an added discount for being a Performance Bike member. I’ve seen the bike other places on sale for $2300 – 2500. It’s a bit out of your price range, as it was mine, but SO worth it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

I didn't read the entire thread so sorry for any repeating.
I'd probably focus on comparing one bike to the other.....not just a blanket carbon v. aluminum comparison. Presumably even if one is better than the other when in the hands of a great frame maker that wouldn't mean one material is always better than the other across the board. And "which is best carbon or aluminum" becomes an entirely different question when you add "in the $1200 to $1500 price range" to it.

But anyway OP, I had about the same budget as you and also wasn't new to biking but was new to real road bikes and paying attention to specs like you and I got a Cannondale CAAD 95 (aluminum) and couldn't be happier. If carbon would have felt even better, for the extra money to get one with equal componants, I'm not interested. 

Not that I really know what I'm talking about or anything but regardless of which is the best on an absolute basis when you factor in carbon being all the rage and the premium price attached to that I think you can get a much better bike in your price range by going aluminum.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

I didnt want to talk anyone out of buying carbon....

Carbon is awesome...Just there are SO MANY other hugely and FAr more important factors in comfort.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

Also this bullsh*t about energy and 
frame wind up is just that..bullsh*t.

You pedal. The frame in the msot simplest of terms (its 2am here) bends down at the BB towards the road as a pivot between the chainstays and down tube, and also rotates on an axis along the BB axle towards the powered crank arm.

This flex CAN NOT, EVER, 100% NEVER, EVER, be suddenly change itself into ROTATING THE f**KING CRANK. Wake up people.

Just f**king think about it for half a second. Seriously, a 3rd grader could tell me that it would be physically impossible. How come when I jump up and down on the pedals my bike doesnt just suddenly shoot forward? _Of course the example is different as your equally loading the crank datum, however the principle is the same._

What you're saying is that lifting the bike up and down on the ground with a slight turn left and right, *AS THAT IS THE ISOLATED NET FORCE ON THE BB IF IT FLEXES* (and thats a f**king fact), that my crank should magically just start rotating providing power to the wheels?

No. The power is lost. ANY power not spent on rotating the crank is LOST EFFORT. It's lost through heat, stress, elasticity, kinetic losses through your musculoskeletal system...lost. That power is a specific amount of energy. Those joules of energy spent twisting the bb shell are not returned back through some sort of magical kinetic planetry gear system of hope and dreams that rotates the crank.

Infact if you really break it down, flexing the BB acrually increases the friction loading on the BB bearings as when it returns to a neutral position it will be rotating back against the rotation of the bearings within the races...Probably an unrealistically worthy of mention amount, but technically its happening. 

Flexing the BB creates at MOST an amount of give thats probably not bad for your legs, but once again, I know mechanics, not biology 

And yes, I taco'd my big ring on a slightly flexy frame on an almost full cluster cross angle from 53 to 23 when winding up a full sprint up hill. Combination of the worst possible events caused it, not my uber strength (lul).


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Cracka said:


> Seriously, a 3rd grader could tell me that it would be physically impossible.


I'm sure he could, given that your understanding of physics is at about a third-grade level, apparently.

The rest of your post is just naive nonsense. But I realize it would be a waste of my time going into any details of why, so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

If I understand that rant correctly I should have just bought some good cranks and components and thrown them on one my neices Barbi bike and saved myself the price of a CAAD.

Regardless of the physics, I won't pretend to have an understanding there, the difference in power transfer from one frame to the other felt pretty obvious to me when testing out bikes with the same components back to back. Regardless of the reason....I'm going out on a limb and saying you're wrong and frame does indeed matter.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Hank Stamper said:


> If I understand that rant correctly I should have just bought some good cranks and components and thrown them on one my neices Barbi bike and saved myself the price of a CAAD.


Well, if your saying that your niece's Barbi bike frame fits you well, and if its weight is reasonable, then you should give this thought some serious consideration. You'll be the talk of the day at any race you show up as well...  



Hank Stamper said:


> Regardless of the physics, I won't pretend to have an understanding there, the difference in power transfer from one frame to the other felt pretty obvious to me when testing out bikes with the same components back to back. Regardless of the reason....I'm going out on a limb and saying you're wrong and frame does indeed matter.


Well, feeelings can be highly misleading. Like I said, ProCycling magazine had an article not long ago, where they had a couple of pro riders ride both a 20-year-old steel frame and a modern carbon bike up a hill. They were faster on the carbon bike, but the differences in average speed can be explained from the weight difference and different gearing alone. As far as I know, there is no evidence at all, anywhere, that frame stiffness has any effect at all on performance.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

Pirx said:


> Well, feeelings can be highly misleading. Like I said, ProCycling magazine had an article not long ago, where they had a couple of pro riders ride both a 20-year-old steel frame and a modern carbon bike up a hill. They were faster on the carbon bike, but the differences in average speed can be explained from the weight difference and different gearing alone. As far as I know, there is no evidence at all, anywhere, that frame stiffness has any effect at all on performance.


I won't dispute that. Sure feelings could be potentially missleading, but they are still important to me as a rider. But anyway, that experement with that outcome isn't even worth mentioning is it? If they put some weight on the carbon bike and had the same components, okay then, but I don't see the point in even publishing that really.


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

I really think that this is one of those almost-unmeasurables. Reminds me of the bottom bracket thread, where someone is extolling the virtues of ceramic ball bearings.

When you have very small losses in a dynamic system, it's can be VERY difficult to measure them. How would you start here? Strain gauges on each crank arm? Powermeter (straingage) rear hub? More strain gauges on individual chain links? Displacement sensors measuring bottom bracket deflection? Even then, you can't clearly extrapolate bottom bracket friction as distinct from chainring friction, crank windage (!), pedal axle friction,....and so on. 

So, in my opinion, the difference between energy in and energy out does not correspond to frame flex losses. In the first instance, how do you measure energy in??

Even well learned mechanical engineers can differ on whether frame flexing constitutes a measurable loss.

One thing I do know: with a super stiff frame, sprinters may have to be more careful putting power down. The rear wheel will jump around more due to any less-then-smooth inputs from the rider. The "well, learn to sprint better" advice ought to be carefully used - the sprinter in question may well be faster than you (except on the internet, of course).


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*You're there!*



ErinRD said:


> Personally I LOVE LOVE LOVE my Fuji Team Pro. Its C-4 Carbon frame, not as expensive as Fuji’s higher end C-7 Carbon frame, but possibly less likely to melt in the heat  It has Shimano Ultegra front and rear derailleurs, front and rear breaks and shifters. The cassette and Chain are Shimano 105 so a bit lower end components there. Also Mavic Kyserium Elite wheel set, which are pretty high-end. This bike is fast, light (~18lbs), and has some real get-up-and-go (of course I contribute a lot to that  ). My only complaint is the seat, which is uncomfortable after a while. Going from a mountain bike with lots of shock absorption to this bike, it’s a bit more jarring of course, but not too bad. I’m a 5’7” 130# female rider so not sure how weight/height factors in (as a poster mentioned earlier), but the bike does not tire me out on rides, I feel like it almost gives energy if that’s possible. Of course I was trying to use my mountain bike as a road bike for a while and that will suck up a lot of the energy you put into your ride.
> I bought this bike at Performance on sale (end of season). The MSRP listed price is $3,000, and I got this one for $1800 with an added discount for being a Performance Bike member. I’ve seen the bike other places on sale for $2300 – 2500. It’s a bit out of your price range, as it was mine, but SO worth it! :thumbsup:


Shimano 105 casette and chain is fine. These components wear out within a year or so, and have to be replaced relatively frequently, like tires. You might consider finding a wider saddle. Terry makes a few for women specifically, but there are others out there, made by Selle Italia, Fizik and others, same as standard racing saddles, that are slightly wider in back and shorter in length.

Your comments about the bike "almost" giving energy back is what a few of us are talking about, with reference to "modulus of elasticity" and "springyness." Dave Hickey was the first to say it: this quality can be designed into a frame made of steel, carbon, or aluminum and make it a great ride! :thumbsup:


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Shimano 105 casette and chain is fine. These components wear out within a year or so,


I had 4,300 miles in one season on 105 components and ...well ...they are not worn. The chain was replaced. That's normal. But the rear cassette, derailleurs and shift levers never gave up the ghost. I was running lowest standard Bontrager Select lowest quality rims and hubs and they were still pretty good as well.

I think to answer these decade old questions on components is to wonder what we were riding and raving about two-decades earlier in Dura-Ace and the comparison to now a day 105 components. I think the now a day components are infinitely superior in 105 then decade earlier Dura-Ace. That's just coming from a guy who's running 34 miles average over 216 days since February.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Oops.*



EverydayRide said:


> I had 4,300 miles in one season on 105 components and ...well ...they are not worn. The chain was replaced. That's normal. But the rear cassette, derailleurs and shift levers never gave up the ghost. I was running lowest standard Bontrager Select lowest quality rims and hubs and they were still pretty good as well.
> 
> I think to answer these decade old questions on components is to wonder what we were riding and raving about two-decades earlier in Dura-Ace and the comparison to now a day 105 components. I think the now a day components are infinitely superior in 105 then decade earlier Dura-Ace. That's just coming from a guy who's running 34 miles average over 216 days since February....


I meant to say "these components," referrring to rear cog clusters and chains, rather than specifice 105 components. You mentioned one chain change before 4,300 miles. Race mechanics change chains after about 2000 miles to save wear on the rear wheel cogs. I used to run chains forever, 6000 miles, and then always had to change the freewheels too, because the new chain would jump on the most worn cogs. Now I can get 10,000 miles on one freewheel, going through 4 or 5 chains.

No question rear derailleurs are built better than ever. They have to be, to click-shift through those narrow spaced ten gears. I guess the shifters should go well above 10,000 miles, too, depending on how much abuse and crashes they endure. So yeah, I'd have to agree, 105 or up, should last a very long time, longer than their predecessors. :thumbsup:


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I meant to say "these components," referring to rear cog clusters and chains, rather than specify105 components.


My fault. I read it completely wrong. You're correct. 

To keep with the thread, I'm short 41 miles to 7,000 miles running total during this season. Today marks the hurdle to seven-grand.:thumbsup: 

The carbon frame I'm running has made those miles a luxury and joy on some of the worst roads a person could find. Best ride I've owned. The more I think about the geometry of the Super Six it brings me back to my old Gios Torino Super Record. The bike is tight. 


My roads

I enjoy it so much it's parked out on the front lawn for others to appreciate. LOL


----------



## kjase1 (Sep 12, 2009)

*i made the original post.....*

Well, it has all been overwhelming, i think my biggest concern was the durability of the bike itself and aluminum seems to be the answer to that.
I am very athletic, big powerfull legs, ive played just about every sport competitively since i was 12 (36 now) i've been doing 50 mile rides Sunday mornings on a Cannondale bad boy ultra which is marketed as a hybrid with no pain during or after the ride. so all the stiffness, responsivness etc that was talked about was kinda secondary to me.
i searched just about every LBS in the greater Los Angeles area and a ton in the surrounding cities. I eventually narrowed it down between a 2009 Specialized allez ellite and a 2010 felt z85. They both have aluminum frames with carbon forks and seatpost, both have 105 components, comparable wheels and are both dead smack in my price range. I test rode both of them multiple times, under slightly different weather conditions (hard to do in a L.A summer), at different times of day and after a good 3 hours in test rides i really couldnt feel the differnce between the 2.
At this point i went into nit picking, trying to figure out what the better deal is for my money, eventually it dawned on me that i wouldnt be getting a huge advantage or disadvantage one way or the other and it was really came down to which bike looked better to me, the charcoal gery Specialized or the matte black Felt. My snowboard is solid black, my truck is solid black, my Cannondale is solid black so i think you can all guess what i went with??? yup the matte black Felt.
It's been smooth and a ton of fun to ride, and for my money and preference i made a good purchase.
it was fun reading all your advice, (i even enjoyed the arguing you all did off topic with each other) it was all helpful and very informative.
I just happened to stumble upon this site and now im hooked on it, one can never have to much info.
Happy cycling all!!!!!

THANKS


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

kjase1 said:


> i've been doing 50 mile rides Sunday mornings on a Cannondale bad boy ultra which is marketed as a hybrid with no pain during or after the ride.
> THANKS


Great


----------

