# Only carbon Frames ?



## pr0230 (Jun 4, 2004)

When I watch the races , half of me is watching the race, half of me is looking at the bikes that are being ridden... 

Are any riders on a NON- carbon bike ? Aluminum, Titanium? Other?


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

prolly not.


----------



## foxadam (Mar 3, 2007)

depends on which races you are watching


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

That's funny. I check out the equipment alot too.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

I do that a lot too. I really enjoy the mechanical side of cycling. 

I think that Ive seen a couple of non-carbon frames in the peloton. I think, as said before that it depends on the race and also the rider. I don't think that you're going to see a steel frame in the pro peloton anytime soon though; and if you did youd probably hear all about it.


----------



## huez (Mar 15, 2002)

what race would use something besides carbon? It's all carbon, all the time. Wait, Pinarello had/has a magnesium frame. Probably the only one.

Ti = whippy, heavy
steel = whippy, heavy
aluminum/scandium = slightly harsher, slightly heavier
carbon = ride characteristics easily tuned, lightest


----------



## Comer (Jan 13, 2009)

I believe some of the Cervelo rider's used the S1 in a race or two?!


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

Comer said:


> I believe some of the Cervelo rider's used the S1 in a race or two?!


I hear that it does the job just fine. The carbon version is not too much more comfortable or stiffer (reportedly.)


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

My friends and were talking about this, we think this maybe the first grand tour with no metal bikes, not even TT bikes are metal this year.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

If I remember correctly, the last team that was issued by their sponsors and raced on steel framed bikes in most races, was Vitalicio Seguros in 1999. The last 4 or 5 years, carbon has pretty much become standard. Until the early 90's steel was the standard with a few exceptions here and there. The 90's were kind of a transitional phase, with a lot of frame manufacturers trying out different materials and combinations of materials. In the late 90's and early 00's a lot of teams were riding on aluminum/alloy frames with carbon seatstays and/or chainstays. I'm guessing that in this day and age, you can make pretty much whatever you need out of carbon. The few exceptions are races like Paris-Roubaix, in which a carbon frame might be too brittle.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2009)

This is not hard to understand.

Bike racing is a means of advertising, that is it.

Same as Nascar or the NFL, it is a way to sell advertising.

Bicycle companies that sponsor teams provide their teams with the bikes they most want to sell. That means the ones easiest to mass produce and on which they earn the highest profit margin.

That means Carbon Fibre. These are the bikes that the mfrs can put copies of in every bike showroom all over the world, with the same graphics and equipment packages and sell them so that you "can be just like the Pros"

When some other material comes along that has a greater potential for mass production and profit margin than CF, then it will be in the pro ranks.

It has nothing to do with weight, whippieness or anything other than advertising.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

BAi9302010 said:


> The few exceptions are races like Paris-Roubaix, in which a carbon frame might be too brittle.


There were few if any who raced Paris-Roubaix this year with anything other than carbon frames.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

Cipo rode an Aluminum bike at the 2008 TOC. But that doesn't really count.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

huez said:


> what race would use something besides carbon? It's all carbon, all the time. *Wait, Pinarello had/has a magnesium frame. Probably the only one.*
> 
> Ti = whippy, heavy
> steel = whippy, heavy
> ...


Oscar P won the tour on it.


----------



## caterham (Nov 7, 2005)

tho there have probably been some special use exceptions since then,the last that i can recall where a major uci pro tour team used non carbon framesets for their regular team issue were the liquigas bianchi fg lites in 2006

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2006/probikes/?id=liquigas_bianchi_diluca


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Steel can be ridden as fast as anything else. Problem is you can't fit all those flashy logos on them like you can carbon fiber. You also can't sell a steel frame for $4K or more.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

really? name a 780 gram steel frame that is stiff enough for a Cavendish sprint?


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> really? name a 780 gram steel frame that is stiff enough for a Cavendish sprint?


I doubt it exists, but not because it is impossible. By adjusting thickness and tube diameter, some modern steels can be as stiff as aluminum (as steel is actually stiffer than aluminum anyway). However, steel carries a reputation of noodleness that is inescapable. There is no market for high-end mass produced steel race bikes, so the big manufacturers do not make them. It is very easy to make a stiff carbon superbike, and everyone believes that carbon is always better, so that is what the big companies make. some of the smaller custom builders have produced steel racing bikes, but I do not think that they have been very popular. The comfort crowd represents the steel market, so steel bikes are made for them. The comfort crowd wouldn't buy a stiff steel race bike because they do not want stiff bikes. Racers would not buy them because they would not believe that they would be stiff enough.
Why produce a bike that nobody would buy?


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

If a bike gives a racer a bit of an edge, you'd better believe they'll use it. To suggest that they're all using carbon fiber now just because "that's what makes the bike companies the most money" is patently ridiculous. Or because they can fit bigger logos on it?? Give me a break.

Carbon fiber can be done in any shape, it's easy to make one particular part of the frame thick and another thin easy to work with.... how can you argue that the racers should be using steel instead?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> If a bike gives a racer a bit of an edge, you'd better believe they'll use it.


then how come all riders on a specific team use a specific brand? Are they all hired based on their exact measures and the frames available? How can saxo bank change bike one season to the other? Are cervelo and specialized bikes identical?


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

den bakker said:


> then how come all riders on a specific team use a specific brand? Are they all hired based on their exact measures and the frames available? How can saxo bank change bike one season to the other? Are cervelo and specialized bikes identical?


And you're aware the bikes most of them use aren't the same ones spec'd by the manufacturer to sell to you and me? Do you believe another frame material should be used by these racers? Because if you know of some "better" material, please tell me and I'll start my own "racing team" and get some guys on these bikes right away.

It's fun to ***** and whine about the big, evil manufacturers, isn't it?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Nobody said the mfg'rs are evil. TMB pointed out, simply, that there's a profit motive (to sell bikes) and I have no problem with that. 

And I agree with his assertion that if there were more profit per unit to be made in frames made of bamboo and toilet paper, you'd see the pro's on them.

(oh and btw, this is not a diss of carbon)


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> And you're aware the bikes most of them use aren't the same ones spec'd by the manufacturer to sell to you and me? Do you believe another frame material should be used by these racers? Because if you know of some "better" material, please tell me and I'll start my own "racing team" and get some guys on these bikes right away.
> 
> It's fun to ***** and whine about the big, evil manufacturers, isn't it?


right, they all get custom molds. (I can only think of a few riders). 
I don't think I said manufacturers are evil?


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

So if that's the case, I guess if they figured out there's more profit to be made marketing Tiagra over DuraAce, all the racers would be using that instead, right?

Are we saying that pro racers are a bunch of monkeys that just ride on whatever the manufacturer feels like spec'ing them with?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

If Tiagra and Dura Ace each sold at the same price point, then yeah, there'd be more money to be made in Tiagra.

And no, "we" are not saying that (if you include me, personally, in the "we")

Nobody's saying carbon bikes suck. They're awesome. That's not the point.


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

den bakker said:


> right, they all get custom molds. (I can only think of a few riders).
> I don't think I said manufacturers are evil?


My apologies - I wasn't intending that to be a personal attack on you. It just seems to me that is the direction this conversation is headed.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

pr0230 said:


> When I watch the races , half of me is watching the race, half of me is looking at the bikes that are being ridden...
> 
> Are any riders on a NON- carbon bike ? Aluminum, Titanium? Other?


Why would there be?!


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2009)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> So if that's the case, I guess if they figured out there's more profit to be made marketing Tiagra over DuraAce, all the racers would be using that instead, right?
> 
> Are we saying that pro racers are a bunch of monkeys that just ride on whatever the manufacturer feels like spec'ing them with?


I don't know why I let myself get drawn into these things, but ......

A bike mfr, such as Specialized, could easily pay, out of pocket as much as $2.0 million in one season in order to outfit - 1 pro team.

1 team.

The riders on that team are paid a salary to ride their bikes.

If you really, honestly believe that the rider gets a say in what bike they ride you are dreaming and I have a bridge to talk to you about.

This is about money and advertising - it is NOT about the rider having a choice in the bike they ride.

To a pro rider - a bike is nothing more than a tool.

Period.


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

rook said:


> That's funny. I check out the equipment alot too.


was that coad


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

you cant tell from looking at a bike if its carbon or not


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

toomanybikes said:


> This is not hard to understand.
> 
> Bike racing is a means of advertising, that is it.
> 
> ...


+1 sir, try telling that to 100 people here and you'll be lucky if you get through to 3 of them though..


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> Are we saying that pro racers are a bunch of monkeys that just ride on whatever the manufacturer feels like spec'ing them with?


oh oh ohhhh (halo noise of enlightenment) - the penny drops..
showing your age now :wink5:


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

muscleendurance said:


> oh oh ohhhh (halo noise of enlightenment) - the penny drops..
> showing your age now :wink5:


I'm too young to be that cynical. Check back with me in five years and I'll give you my opinion then.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

That is a gross oversimplification. Does the aerospace industry use CF for purely marketing reasons? No. From a materials science perspective, CF is far and away the best available material for bike frames. Not only does it have strength/weight properties orders of magnitude greater than steel, it is also anisotropic (giving us that stiffness/compliance we all want). 

If anything, the real profit margin in frame-building was back in the days of craftsmen with torches and steel. That's where Colnago was at its premium (its carbon premium is just running off the fumes of its steel history).


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

Thank you.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2009)

stevesbike said:


> That is a gross oversimplification. Does the aerospace industry use CF for purely marketing reasons? No. From a materials science perspective, CF is far and away the best available material for bike frames. Not only does it have strength/weight properties orders of magnitude greater than steel, it is also anisotropic (giving us that stiffness/compliance we all want).
> 
> If anything, the real profit margin in frame-building was back in the days of craftsmen with torches and steel. That's where Colnago was at its premium (its carbon premium is just running off the fumes of its steel history).


And this is exactly why I normally stay the hell away from these religious arguements. 

Tell yourselves whatever you like, whatever makes you happy and helps you sleep at night but you have just proven muscleendurance's point.

Have fun, fill your boots and convince yourselves the world is indeed flat. I'm sure you're right.


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

toomanybikes said:


> Bicycle companies that sponsor teams provide their teams with the bikes they most want to sell. That means the ones easiest to mass produce and on which they earn the highest profit margin.
> 
> That means Carbon Fibre. These are the bikes that the mfrs can put copies of in every bike showroom all over the world, with the same graphics and equipment packages and sell them so that you "can be just like the Pros"
> 
> When some other material comes along that has a greater potential for mass production and profit margin than CF, then it will be in the pro ranks.


TIG welded aluminum is the cheapest performance-oriented frame you can manufacture in quantity. Production can be _highly_ automated with very little human intervention. Or, it can be partially automated with fixturing into jigs done by hand and all welds by robot. Paint can be all or mostly robot-applied.

So if it were all about margin, you can be sure Cervelo, or whoever would be pimping 6061-tubed frames. They're not however. Why? Because a well designed carbon fiber frame is superior to just about any other well designed Al/Ti/steel frame you can think of. The material is just _that_ good.

Not everyone is willing to believe it, and I can see why. To a traditionalist eye, CF frames are damn ugly; massive joints, oddly shaped fat tubes, garish stickering,...... To some, there is beauty in function. To others, it's all about form. If you are a racer, probably function will win out. Then there is the cost. CF frames can cost an arm and a leg. How can a plastic frame cost so much?? Well, it ain't plastic, for a start. High end frames have always cost a lot of money. The material matters little. And yes, most of the 'cost' is margin (or, if 'Made in Italy': paint).

My LBS's motto: Ride what you dig. They're right.


----------



## irongustavius (Aug 17, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> That is a gross oversimplification. Does the aerospace industry use CF for purely marketing reasons? No. From a materials science perspective, CF is far and away the best available material for bike frames. Not only does it have strength/weight properties orders of magnitude greater than steel, it is also anisotropic (giving us that stiffness/compliance we all want).
> 
> If anything, the real profit margin in frame-building was back in the days of craftsmen with torches and steel. That's where Colnago was at its premium (its carbon premium is just running off the fumes of its steel history).


The aero industry mainly uses ally and ti (for military aircraft) for the structural members. Composite is used for skins and panels, more for ease in manufacturing complex shapes and radar reflectivity than any structural properties.

Having said that, I'm fairly confident that there is less load on a race bike than on a fighter, so the material properties of carbon may well be more suitable for a bike.

Although, I ride steel and ally bikes. So, slight bias here.


----------



## rhauft (Aug 8, 2006)

irongustavius said:


> The aero industry mainly uses ally and ti (for military aircraft) for the structural members. Composite is used for skins and panels, more for ease in manufacturing complex shapes and radar reflectivity than any structural properties.


The newest Boeing 787 Dreamliner's entire fuselage is constructed of carbon fiber, specifically Torayaca 50HM1K carbon fiber, the same spec as the 08/09 Pinarello Prince. This is the first time carbon fiber has been utilized in the construction of an entire airline's fuselage. Boeing and Pinarello have the exclusive rights to 50HM1K C/F mostly due to supply issues.


----------



## irongustavius (Aug 17, 2008)

rhauft said:


> The newest Boeing 787 Dreamliner's entire fuselage is constructed of carbon fiber, specifically Torayaca 50HM1K carbon fiber, the same spec as the 08/09 Pinarello Prince. This is the first time carbon fiber has been utilized in the construction of an entire airline's fuselage. Boeing and Pinarello have the exclusive rights to 50HM1K C/F mostly due to supply issues.


That's true, still I believe ~ 50% of the structural makeup is not carbon (ie ti, ally, steel, other composites).

My point is that a blanket of claim saying that the aero industry uses carbon so it must be great is erroneous unless you consider the actual use of the material and where it is being used.


----------



## identifiler (Dec 24, 2005)

> And you're aware the bikes most of them use aren't the same ones spec'd by the manufacturer to sell to you and me?


Really hahahahaha, please prove your point to me... there is sure a lot of bull in this thread. Bike riders ride the rig they get via mail, they usually get three, they get fitted at the spring training and THIS IS IT ! Stop living in another world, there is but a few riders that have anything custom, one being Tom Boonen and another guy in Astana who is about 8 foot tall and runs a aluminium copy of a madone.

Get over it, Specialised is a lean mean marketing machine and they will fit a body on a frame, maybe except Boonen will tell them to FOff.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

because the real truth is that most 'custom' frames setups can be replicated with a stock frame - custom is typically nothing more than a vanity frame in the US among amateur riders.


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

irongustavius said:


> My point is that a blanket of claim saying that the aero industry uses carbon so it must be great is erroneous unless you consider the actual use of the material and where it is being used.


I agree, with your statement; material usage is application specific. Also, price must be factored in.

But, CF is often used structurally.

The first 'industry' that comes to mind is F1: suspension wishbones, stressed safety tub/chassis. What about highly stressed parts like driveshafts? And surprising applications like brake rotors?

Another industry: sailing. Racing yachts use carbon fiber booms and masts. Those masts are often anchored to a - guess what? - a carbon fiber hull. Then, consider the sails: spun carbon fiber! Sails can be stiff and somewhat brittle, or highly flexible and not brittle at all. Usually the CF strands are spun with other nylon or poly fibers to provide a good balance of flexibility and stretch resistance.

I do enjoy reading curmudgeonly-type critiques on how CF is not all it's _cracked_* up to be. It is an extremely exotic material that outperforms Al/Ti/steel in high performance racing frames.


* _like that?_


----------



## huez (Mar 15, 2002)

thechriswebb said:


> I doubt it exists, but not because it is impossible. By adjusting thickness and tube diameter, some modern steels can be as stiff as aluminum (as steel is actually stiffer than aluminum anyway). However, steel carries a reputation of noodleness that is inescapable. There is no market for high-end mass produced steel race bikes, so the big manufacturers do not make them. It is very easy to make a stiff carbon superbike, and everyone believes that carbon is always better, so that is what the big companies make. some of the smaller custom builders have produced steel racing bikes, but I do not think that they have been very popular. The comfort crowd represents the steel market, so steel bikes are made for them. The comfort crowd wouldn't buy a stiff steel race bike because they do not want stiff bikes. Racers would not buy them because they would not believe that they would be stiff enough.
> Why produce a bike that nobody would buy?



Making a 780 gram steel frame is entirely possible (most ultra-light, modern steel frames are nearly double that weight), but riding it and making it more than a few miles would be the real test. It would be very flimsy, flexy, and dentable...

Carbon is for real. It's not just a marketing scheme. On top of it's strength and weight, the ride is extremely tunable.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

I have no problem with CF, but I have to wonder that if I can make a bike meet the minimum weight limit with a steel frame, am I really at a disadvantage? The only disadvantage, in my eyes, is me as the rider. I'd rather have lighter wheels and a "heavy" steel frame. Although I do think the price of some of these boutique steel frames (Independant Fab) is a bit rediculous.


----------



## huez (Mar 15, 2002)

88 rex said:


> I have no problem with CF, but I have to wonder that if I can make a bike meet the minimum weight limit with a steel frame, am I really at a disadvantage? The only disadvantage, in my eyes, is me as the rider. I'd rather have lighter wheels and a "heavy" steel frame. Although I do think the price of some of these boutique steel frames (Independant Fab) is a bit rediculous.



Going with a steel frame and fork over CF would cost you about a 2.5 lbs, a little comfort (maybe), and a lot of lateral flex. The lateral flex would probably be fine if you weren't a sprinter... and the weight wouldn't matter if you weren't a climber...


----------



## dclee (Nov 16, 2004)

Ullrich used to ride a non-giant time trial bike when he was on T-mobile. Why? Because he decided that it was advantageous to do so. Top pros have the ability to decide what they want to ride if they want to, regardless of sponsor commitments.
If there was a perceived advantage to riding steel, pros would be on them regardless of sponsor commitments. The fact that steel has not been seen in the peloton since the 1990s tells one all they need to know about how pros perceive the performance benefits of that material.


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

Cipo rode a custom aluminum a when he rode for Rock Racing that one season (or was it a partial season?).


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

stevesbike said:


> because the real truth is that most 'custom' frames setups can be replicated with a stock frame - custom is typically nothing more than a vanity frame in the US among amateur riders.


Yeah, all the pros in the 80's and 90's riding rebadged customs were riding them for vanity reasons. Read your posts out loud before you hit send. That way you can hear how ridiculous you sound.


----------



## identifiler (Dec 24, 2005)

> Cipo rode a custom aluminum a when he rode for Rock Racing that one season (or was it a partial season?).


 Cipo rode his own brand of bike, cipo bikes, has nothing to do with material and frame quality. He could be fitted but with what, RR never had a TT agreement.



> Ullrich used to ride a non-giant time trial bike when he was on T-mobile.


 The godfather of today TT monocoque carbon frame is german and well known by all germans, in fact he was the designer for that superb Giant that Columbia had such a hard time getting ride of, technology is such that Scott was able to trun around and manufacture from the go a similar if not better farme and I am sure they will soon mass manufacture it. It is also the same german who fitted Gerolsteiner and at a certain time Milram. Why do people reference the 80s and the 90s, we are almsot in 2010, that's 20 years later, process, manufacture, design and fitting has changed a shiat load since then. 
And yes it is true that when you look at at a look frame for example, giving you 1 cm increments in frames, you have to wonder what kind of weird body shape one would to not fit a stock frame but I guess some people still think that racers actually get their own personnal mold technician live at their house for a few weeks and shave off carbon like a surf board dude ????




> Yeah, all the pros in the 80's and 90's riding rebadged customs were riding them for vanity reasons. Read your posts out loud before you hit send. That way you can hear how ridiculous you sound.


 Sorry to tell you that you are missing the point all together, there is a real battle out there for marketing presence, a movement that did not exist in the 80s and 90s which are by gone era BTW. Do you really think that Saxo and Quickstep signed on SPez because they make better frames... come on... The marketing is phenomenal, it even goes so far as to fake technical know how in bike articles like, info mercial. The bit about some Spez showing cancelara what kind of body position he should adopt is laughable at best (seen in Velonews), please, do you think some fat corporate guy is gonna tell Frank Schleck how to sit on a bike.... !!!!! Frank just wants the same old fit and wants to turn the pedals, that is it, that is all.

Do you think that if we look in Chris Vande Velde's garage, there will be personnal Felt bikes in there ????


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

toomanybikes said:


> This is not hard to understand.
> 
> Bike racing is a means of advertising, that is it.
> 
> ...


+1..............that ONLY reason that's all you see in the pro peloton...

If the pro bike sponsors decided tomorrow that unobtainium is the material of choice, the pros would all be riding it and than we'd have endless posts how unobtainium is the best frame material....laterally stiffer and more vertically compliant


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

Dave Hickey said:


> +1..............that ONLY reason that's all you see in the pro peloton...
> 
> If the pro bike sponsors decided tomorrow that unobtainium is the material of choice, the pros would all be riding it and than we'd have endless posts how unobtainium is the best frame material....laterally stiffer and more vertically compliant


#1

Most curmudgeonly post of the thread :thumbsup: 

You win a tubular gong made from Reynolds 531c tubing.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

identifiler said:


> Sorry to tell you that you are missing the point all together, there is a real battle out there for marketing presence, a movement that did not exist in the 80s and 90s which are by gone era BTW. Do you really think that Saxo and Quickstep signed on SPez because they make better frames... come on... The marketing is phenomenal, it even goes so far as to fake technical know how in bike articles like, info mercial. The bit about some Spez showing cancelara what kind of body position he should adopt is laughable at best (seen in Velonews), please, do you think some fat corporate guy is gonna tell Frank Schleck how to sit on a bike.... !!!!! Frank just wants the same old fit and wants to turn the pedals, that is it, that is all.
> 
> Do you think that if we look in Chris Vande Velde's garage, there will be personnal Felt bikes in there ????


What does any of your drivel have to do with my response to someone downplaying the benefit of a custom. Or the fact that many pro's used custom geometries. I believe Boonen still does. I bet there are others.


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> What does any of your drivel have to do with my response to someone downplaying the benefit of a custom. Or the fact that many pro's used custom geometries. I believe Boonen still does. I bet there are others.


Affirmative. Boonen and his former teammate, Gert Steegmans - http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2009/probikes/?id=tom_boonen_specialized_roubaix_sl2_09


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

I would like to clarify and add to my previous post:

-I have no problem with carbon bikes; I think they are awesome.

-I do not think that big companies are evil: I own a Giant and a Cannondale and really like both of them

-I was referring to some very recently developed steels. I do not think that carbon is a marketing scheme; I was just saying that it is physically possible now to make steel bikes that are lighter and stiffer than in the past. If it sounded like I was trying to say that carbon was a gimmick, I am sorry. What I was trying to say was that though it is technically possible to build a bike out of steel that is light and stiff enough for modern racing, it would not make sense to do so because it's properties would not exceed those of carbon, and producing a carbon fiber bike with those properties is much easier and cheaper. I think that it is therefore very wise for the companies to produce their bikes from carbon fiber and I do not believe that other materials are superior to carbon fiber and being withheld from us for marketing reasons.

That is what I meant to say.

-


----------



## irongustavius (Aug 17, 2008)

dave2pvd said:


> I agree, with your statement; material usage is application specific. Also, price must be factored in.
> 
> But, CF is often used structurally.
> 
> ...


Loved it 

No argument from me that carbon offers significant advantages in certain applications. As an aerospace engineer, I'm all about the composites (although I hesitate to call carbon exotic). I daresay it's true that you can make lighter, stiffer race bikes out of carbon than you can from steel. I also know it's true that you can make more fancy shapes out of composites than out of metals (I know, you can get some fancy shapes from hydroformed ally, but it's easier with carbon). This may or may not make the bikes more marketable - but that would be the cynic in me talking 

Finally, what is best for a pro racer is not necessarily best for us mortal folk. I am reminded of a story about a journalist trying to drive a Group C rally car - stalled it 12 times before he managed to drive it out of the parking lot.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

dave2pvd said:


> I agree, with your statement; material usage is application specific. Also, price must be factored in.
> 
> But, CF is often used structurally.
> 
> ...


I think you are reading too much into the curmudgeonly-type carbon critiques... I don't remember ever seeing one post that says carbon is a bad material for bike frames...

My issue is the misconception out there that if it's carbon it must be better.......I have 2 carbon bikes....One has a teeth rattling stiff ride while the other is a great riding bike...I have steel bikes that have similar characteristics..One of my steel bikes is so stiff that it's very uncomfortable for anything other than an hour or so...

A good frame is more about design and proper application of the material.....

Carbon is a fine material for a bike frame IF designed properly..


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

Dave Hickey said:


> I think you are reading too much into the curmudgeonly-type carbon critiques... I don't remember ever seeing one post that says carbon is a bad material for bike frames...
> 
> My issue is the misconception out there that if it's carbon it must be better.......I have 2 carbon bikes....One has a teeth rattling stiff ride while the other is a great riding bike...I have steel bikes that have similar characteristics..One of my steel bikes is so stiff that it's very uncomfortable for anything other than an hour or so...
> 
> ...


OK; I'm with you. Lot's of folks don't understand that design counts for so much more than material choice. Generalizations like aluminum rides harshly/carbon can fail explosively/Ti gives the most comfy ride are nothing but ignorance repeated.

FWIW, my rides are:

2007 Fuji Cross Pro: 6061 alloy, filleted-lugged
2008 Bianchi T-Cube: CF, tube-tube
2005 Ghetto TT conversion: CF, lugged, with alloy stays
1985 Raleigh: Reynolds 531 steel

From a performance perspective, the T-Cube comprehensively beats all of the others. That's good design


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

what some posts neglect is the basic fact that DESIGN is heavily constrained by MATERIAL choice. From a design perspective, carbon fiber is a far more flexible material than alloys (steel alloys included). Not only does it have better intrinsic properties, but it is a much more flexible material to work with.


----------



## smoo (Sep 20, 2007)

All else being equal (design etc), CF is the best frame material for bikes being ridden in pro races. It ALSO happens to be far more easily mass produced than some of the other really good materials for frames, e.g. Ti, so it's no surprise that CF is used by the pros, that this is encouraged by the manufacturers, and that people want to buy CF frames. However, this doesn't mean that CF is necessarily the best material for bike frames, even racing bike frames, outside of the pro ranks. My Ti bike is under 16lbs, more than stiff enough for my 63kg, and less harsh than many otherwise comparable CF frames. Now, if I was a pro I might want a CF bike with these same ride qualities that was 0.75-1lbs lighter, but as I'm not, losing the 2 seconds or whatever that that might save me on a climb is a very small, dare I say undetectable, price to pay for a frame that is scratch & gouge proof, doesn't have paint to chip, and can be taken as luggage when flying without fear.


----------



## longcat (Nov 8, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> No. From a materials science perspective, CF is far and away the best available material for bike frames. Not only does it have strength/weight properties orders of magnitude greater than steel, it is also anisotropic (giving us that stiffness/compliance we all want).


This is not true, car-bone faibar has like 5-600MPa UTS, density 1.8kg/l or so. 
Good weldable steel: up to 2000MPa, density 7.8kg/l, and then there is much stronger steel, 
up to 6000MPa, this is more than 10 times stronger than plastic.

Steel is 4.3 times heavier than carbon plastic. Steel break even (strenght/weight) at 2500MPa or so if my math is correct.

I think the biggest reason they make CF frames is that they are disposables so they sell more frames.


----------



## smoo (Sep 20, 2007)

> I think the biggest reason they make CF frames is that they are disposables so they sell more frames.


There may be a grain of truth in that. Without being too cynical, clearly the manufacturers want to sell as many bikes as possible, which is why they are always trying to convince us that our bikes are obsolete by introducing another sprocket, new bearing systems etc. Even if CF isn't nearly as delicate as some people make it out to be, it has an IMAGE of disposability. This is helped by the very flexibility of the material that makes it good, i.e. the potential to come up with new and supposedly superior designs by using different types of CF, new manufacturing technology etc. So even if your CF frame is still perfectly solid after 3 or 4 years, it is obsolete and you will be itching to replace it with something supposedly better... The whole ethos of Ti and steel is anathema to this however; the idea of having that perfect hand-crafted frame that you will use for years and years. Clearly it is not in the big manufacturer's interests to encourage that, partially because they do not get their profits from making high-end stuff in very small quantities. 

The point is though that they don't _need_ to pull the wool over our eyes to sell CF; it genuinely is a great material for bike frames. It's less hassle for them to make a profit by telling the truth overly loudly than by lying. But they're still not going to admit that the _practical_ difference in performance between CF and some other materials, assuming the right design and that cost isn't an object, is minimal or non-existent and often outweighed by other considerations.


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

longcat said:


> This is not true, car-bone faibar has like *6,000*MPa UTS, density 1.8kg/l or so.
> Good weldable steel: up to 2000MPa, density 7.8kg/l, and then there is much stronger steel,
> up to 6000MPa, this is more than 10 times stronger than plastic.
> 
> ...


Fixed it for you.

Also: what steel that can be used in bicycle frames has a tensile strength of 6,000MPa?


----------



## longcat (Nov 8, 2008)

dave2pvd said:


> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Also: what steel that can be used in bicycle frames has a tensile strength of 6,000MPa?


You seem to be unaware that the fibers have a specific strenght, and that the fibers are in a weave, and only 1/4 of them is in the "right direction" at any given time, 1/4 totally useless (theyre at a 90° angle), and 2/4 at a 45° angle. And that like 50% of the composite is epoxy.

A fiber or strand is a whole different thing compared to a finished component.
If it was 6kMPa a frame would weigh 300g.

What steel could be used? Well that depends on you level of manufacturing, and how much it can cost, it will cost a lot, there is probably 100 or so high speed steels capable of 5500MPa+ UTS, to weld them without cracking you need to weld them neat austenitizing temps (around 9-1100°C or so or maybe lower, depending), maybe theyre weldable at lower temps maybe as low as 5-600 who knows, then heat treat them.


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

One could start to wonder how long those ultra light carbon race frames actually last at the top professional level. There are all sorts of crashes and incidents that could damage these frames in one day of hard racing. The frames must be replaced if any doubt is present...and I'm sure the public does not have privey to any of this information or how many bikes the team actually goes through.

We've all seen crashes on video lately and a lot of time the bike breaks (or as some say, explodes ). That is the main argument for steel and other alloys. It's durability and safety factor and when crashed, typically has less risk of catastrophic failure. The way carbon breaks is the issue for most carbon bashers.

Under normal use, barring impacts, etc. a carbon frame will last a long time, but in it's bike frame configuration there is not a lot of bending before breaking. So as a best "all around frame material" it has some flaws.


----------



## smoo (Sep 20, 2007)

I would say it's more of a durability than a safety issue though. If a CF frame breaks as a result of a crash (as opposed to causing the crash), then that's not so obviously a safety issue. Durability is important for most of us though. You can bet that if the pros were only allowed one bike for the duration of a major tour and had to do all repairs themselves like in the early days of the TdF, we would see a lot more steel & Ti frames... 

Actually, it would be interesting to know if CF frames occasionally breaking on impact in a crash was good or bad safety wise. There is presumably the risk of being impaled on the sharp end of a broken tube, but on the other hand there could be a "crumple zone" effect in situations where the force of the crash is being transmitted through the frame to the rider.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

before CF was all the rage, light aluminum alloys were getting pushed pretty far - super thin walled tubes. Didn't take much more than a rock flung up from a tire or dropping a tool on a tube to ding it pretty good. Once dinged, the tube was compromised like a pop can you've pressed in with your thumb. I'll take CF over some super-worked, hydro-formed, ultimate thin walled pop can.


----------



## huez (Mar 15, 2002)

smoo said:


> There may be a grain of truth in that. Without being too cynical, clearly the manufacturers want to sell as many bikes as possible, which is why they are always trying to convince us that our bikes are obsolete by introducing another sprocket, new bearing systems etc. Even if CF isn't nearly as delicate as some people make it out to be, it has an IMAGE of disposability. This is helped by the very flexibility of the material that makes it good, i.e. the potential to come up with new and supposedly superior designs by using different types of CF, new manufacturing technology etc. So even if your CF frame is still perfectly solid after 3 or 4 years, it is obsolete and you will be itching to replace it with something supposedly better... The whole ethos of Ti and steel is anathema to this however; the idea of having that perfect hand-crafted frame that you will use for years and years. Clearly it is not in the big manufacturer's interests to encourage that, partially because they do not get their profits from making high-end stuff in very small quantities.
> 
> The point is though that they don't _need_ to pull the wool over our eyes to sell CF; it genuinely is a great material for bike frames. It's less hassle for them to make a profit by telling the truth overly loudly than by lying. But they're still not going to admit that the _practical_ difference in performance between CF and some other materials, assuming the right design and that cost isn't an object, is minimal or non-existent and often outweighed by other considerations.


None of the ultra light race bikes from any material is built to withstand much more than standard, hard riding. The thing most people forget is that carbon does not fatigue like metal. Maybe that's why the aerospace industry likes it. Check out how the Trek carbon outlasts titanium and nice steel frames...by far:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm


----------



## huez (Mar 15, 2002)

smoo said:


> I would say it's more of a durability than a safety issue though. If a CF frame breaks as a result of a crash (as opposed to causing the crash), then that's not so obviously a safety issue. Durability is important for most of us though. You can bet that if the pros were only allowed one bike for the duration of a major tour and had to do all repairs themselves like in the early days of the TdF, we would see a lot more steel & Ti frames...
> 
> Actually, it would be interesting to know if CF frames occasionally breaking on impact in a crash was good or bad safety wise. There is presumably the risk of being impaled on the sharp end of a broken tube, but on the other hand there could be a "crumple zone" effect in situations where the force of the crash is being transmitted through the frame to the rider.



I don't know. Carbon is pretty easily repaired too. But I say that living close to Calfee and Kestrel where they can fix stuff for dirt cheap, fast, and you can hardly even tell any work was done. And no big oxygen or acetylene tanks were even needed.


----------



## smoo (Sep 20, 2007)

> None of the ultra light race bikes from any material is built to withstand much more than standard, hard riding. The thing most people forget is that carbon does not fatigue like metal. Maybe that's why the aerospace industry likes it. Check out how the Trek carbon outlasts titanium and nice steel frames...by far:
> 
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/E...tigue_test.htm


The failures of Ti in that article were down to bad welding, and I think techniques (and awareness) have improved a lot in the 12 years since it was written (Ti was still quite a new material then). Also big advances in Ti tubing profiles mean that it no longer suffers to nearly the same extent from the trade-off between stiffness and durability referred to. 

If it is welded properly Ti _effectively_ doesn't fatigue either (it does but it takes such a long time as to be insignificant). 

For me one of the big advantages of Ti is durability in the face of wear and tear when not being ridden - not havving to worry about scratches or gouges.


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

longcat said:


> You seem to be unaware that the fibers have a specific strenght, and that the fibers are in a weave, and only 1/4 of them is in the "right direction" at any given time, 1/4 totally useless (theyre at a 90° angle), and 2/4 at a 45° angle. And that like 50% of the composite is epoxy.
> 
> A fiber or strand is a whole different thing compared to a finished component.
> If it was 6kMPa a frame would weigh 300g.
> ...


First of all, a well designed and engineered structure using carbon fiber or any other fiber will NOT have fibers placed in a useless directions. You are missing the whole point. The engineer has total control over the fiber direction and therefore the mechanical properties of the structure. Rather it is the steel that has equal strength in all directions, some of them irrelavent to the critical stresses that need to be dealt with. This makes a steel bike frame less "efficient" structurally. 

Secondly, UTS (ultimate tensile strength) is not what the engineers are concerned with when deciding between the use of materials in bike frames. They are concerned with the Modulus of Elasticity. This is where carbon fiber kicks every other material's butt. Under load (Stress) is has very little elongation (Strain). Steel has much more elongation under a given load than carbon fiber. To make a frame with equivalent stiffness, you would need much more steel than carbon. Also, in frames of equivalent strength, the steel frames would be much more flexible. In both cases, the carbon frame will be lighter.

Along with the great material properties of carbon, it is easily workable to whatever geometry the designer wishes it to have. The sections of the various tubes that make a bike frame can be optimised for geometric stiffness or aerodynamics. Metallic frames with hollow tubes are much more difficult to form in the same way being very labor intensive.

In the hands of competent engineers and designers, Carbon Fiber is always superior to steel. You could even build a carbon fiber frame that replicates the properties and feel of a steel frame exactly if you wished.

On the plus side for steel is cost and durability. That is all.


----------



## longcat (Nov 8, 2008)

Your point is??

Btw its a weave it has fibers in 2 different directions whether we like it or not. No matter how you orient the weave its still a weave.

You get stiffness from the geometry, at what angles and where the tubes intersect and how the profile looks since it matters a lot more than choosing another material.

You can hydro-form or superplastic-form steel/Ti, complex shapes are no problem.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

longcat said:


> This is not true, car-bone faibar has like 5-600MPa UTS, density 1.8kg/l or so.
> Good weldable steel: up to 2000MPa, density 7.8kg/l, and then there is much stronger steel,
> up to 6000MPa, this is more than 10 times stronger than plastic.
> 
> ...


first, good luck working with that steel. Second, no steel will have better strenght/weight ratio than CF. It is less strong than CF by a large factor. carbon nanotubes are over 60,000MPa, and less dense by a large factor. 

CF does not have to be a weave - lots of unidirectional CF being used in bike industry - designer can align fibers along load paths etc (probably more important for components like rims). Resin with carbon nanotubes not a problem. The reason weaves are used is because even a sub-optimized CF technology is superior to steel.

Name an industry where strength/weight ratio is important that is not heavily invested in CF...


----------



## longcat (Nov 8, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> first, good luck working with that steel. Second, no steel will have better strenght/weight ratio than CF. It is less strong than CF by a large factor. carbon nanotubes are over 60,000MPa, and less dense by a large factor.
> 
> CF does not have to be a weave - lots of unidirectional CF being used in bike industry - designer can align fibers along load paths etc


Its not that unidirectional then is it?

Yeah those nanotubes seems like a good idea, in theory.

I like post #9 with pics and all http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=462123

info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube I like the health aspects/toxicity, seems like a real nice material.

This is the sh1t 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckypaper

_Buckypaper is one tenth the weight yet potentially 500 times stronger than steel when its sheets are stacked to form a composite._

wait thats 500x10=5000 times the stength to weight ratio of "steel". With my math I calculate a frameweight of (lets say compared to a heavy frame, steel 2000g) of 0,4 grams, now were talking!

You could probably build a whole bike under 4 grams.


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

longcat said:


> Your point is??
> 
> Btw its a weave it has fibers in 2 different directions whether we like it or not. No matter how you orient the weave its still a weave.
> 
> ...


In the best carbon fiber layups it is only the inner most and outer most layers that are woven. Usually it is a very lightweight twill. These woven layers make a minor contribution to the overall structure. Mostly they protect the uni's and provide a superior surface to apply finish to.The rest of the layers will be uni directional in accordance with a specific laminate schedule. Stiffness comes partly from geometry and partly from fiber orientation. For instance, you could design a section that is very stiff in bending but by using fibers oriented +-30deg instead of +-45deg you could alow for more twisting. Conversely, if you decided to use no 0deg fibers, you would still be fairly bendy even with a fairly large section.

Working metals to similar shapes will be more epensive without a doubt.


----------



## unclesam1973 (Jan 27, 2008)

*Metal Is Better For Me*

_"In the hands of competent engineers and designers, Carbon Fiber is always superior to steel"_

That may be, however, I am not an engineer; I am a bike rider. Steel and Ti frames are better for me (and probably for most non-pros who are able to get over their delusional beliefs that they belong in the pro tours) for the following reasons:

1) Steel and Ti frames are better for the environment. My steel bike was made in the state where I live. It did not have to travel far to get to me. Almost all CF frames are shipped from places like Taiwan and China where environmental laws are lax. Moreover, My steel frame did not have to be placed in a polluting trans-pacific container ship. My frame will not clog a landfill for 100,000 years or more. CF frame manufacturing require raw products like Benzine which comes from oil (I like to call oil Jihad Juice).

2) My frame will last longer as a bike ("As a bike" is different then "a space occupier in a landfill") CF is very weak when it comes to puncture resistance. I am not a materials engineer. As stated above, I am a bike rider and as a bike rider my experiences have shown that CF frames will more likely crack before a metal frame will fatigue. I have seen it on the race course and I have seen it on my own bikes. Maybe my observations over 25 years of riding are a coincidence, but I have seen way more CF frames fail than metal frames. Some believe that CF will last longer as a bike because it will last longer in a landfill. I don't follow that logic.

3) TI and steel look much cooler than CF. I know this is somewhat objective. I can only say that the metal bikes I have seen at the handmade shows remind me of works of art. The CF frames I have witnessed look nice at first, but I can't get over that plastic spring water bottle feeling I get. When I tap on CF the feeling gets even stronger. Sometimes when I tap on CF, I think about images of sea turtles swimming around the ocean with six pack plastic rings around their necks. That one might just be me. When I tap a Reynolds 753 steel frame, my heart flutters a little.

4) Steel and Ti feel better. This one is hard to explain too, but after I rode my new S-Works CF Stumpjumper for the first time it felt, well for lack of a better description, like a piece of plastic. The vibration damping was fine. It was stiff and compliant, but it still felt like plastic. CF may be better for the pro tour riders, but I am not trying to win a pro tour. I just try to have fun on my bikes and remain competitive in an occasional armature race (repeat: I am not a professional bike racer, I am not a professional bike racer, I am not a professional bike racer. Ok. I feel better now). 

In the 90s I rode metal. A couple years after the dawn of the new millennium, I rode CF. I am now back to metal, and I finally know what I like. CF may work for some of you, and I will not knock you for that choice. I just know what I like.


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

I understand what your saying unclesam 1973. My statement was a bit too broad.

I ride a steel bike myself and understand the "feel" issue well. It like the difference between sailing on a wooden boat or a fiberglass boat. One is a work or art and the other is a big plastic tub. For some reason, people cannot warm up to plastic. 

I agree with your post.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> Yeah, all the pros in the 80's and 90's riding rebadged customs were riding them for vanity reasons. Read your posts out loud before you hit send. That way you can hear how ridiculous you sound.


Well, stevesbike actually wrote "custom is typically nothing more than a vanity frame in the US among amateur riders", so you've made quite a leap in attacking him on the grounds that 20 years ago, professional riders did something different. I would be curious, though, as to how many frames from the big "custom" shops are being used for a fit that couldn't be accommodated on a stock frame. 

For what it's worth, my general impression (which is all it is) is that within the racing community in my area, custom frames are fairly rare. It's a very wealthy area, though, and I do see a lot of custom brands (although I can't really tell if the frame is truly custom) under recreational riders.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Team Skil-Shimano will be competing the TdF this year on Koga FullProScandium frames.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> Yeah, all the pros in the 80's and 90's riding rebadged customs were riding them for vanity reasons. Read your posts out loud before you hit send. That way you can hear how ridiculous you sound.


Probably be wise to read posts more carefully befor replying to them. So he maybe missed a comma.

Most "custom" fits could be achieved on a stock frame with a bit of thought. And many amateur riders I encounter stumped up for a custom frame, not because they needed it, rather because they wanted it. IE vanity!


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

unclesam1973 said:


> _"In the hands of competent engineers and designers, Carbon Fiber is always superior to steel"_
> 
> That may be, however, I am not an engineer; I am a bike rider. Steel and Ti frames are better for me (and probably for most non-pros who are able to get over their delusional beliefs that they belong in the pro tours) for the following reasons:
> 
> ...


I think it's a cycle we are going through.CF and AL was hot in the 80's. I rode/raced Kestrel, Cannondale and Giant Cadex and I thought they were all very nice riding bikes. Later, Steel got hot followed by Ti (push from Spectrum, Litespeed and Merlin). I believe AL was very popular after that. I think this is why a frame builder who used to specialized in one material now produces many types (like Serotta - who used only produce Steel bikes). Otherwise they may go out of business. Now CF is hot now but if I have to guess, Steel will be next material to get hot follow by Ti and AL.....


Just my opnion...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Undecided said:


> Well, stevesbike actually wrote "custom is typically nothing more than a vanity frame in the US among amateur riders", so you've made quite a leap in attacking him on the grounds that 20 years ago, professional riders did something different. I would be curious, though, as to how many frames from the big "custom" shops are being used for a fit that couldn't be accommodated on a stock frame.
> 
> For what it's worth, my general impression (which is all it is) is that within the racing community in my area, custom frames are fairly rare. It's a very wealthy area, though, and I do see a lot of custom brands (although I can't really tell if the frame is truly custom) under recreational riders.


you'll typically see custom frames under guys who ride for 'team Starbucks' - guys who ride to the nearest Starbucks, sit there sipping their lattes for a couple of hours, waiting for other riders to ask them questions about their custom geometry. 99.9% of the pro peloton manages to ride stock frames just fine. I have nothing against someone who wants to go custom, but it's silly trying to justify a 58.1 cm top tube on the basis of fit when it's really just a vanity frame.


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

FYI, carbonLORD, the link in your signature goes to http://www.carbonlord.com/cranks.html, a page which no longer exists.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> FYI, carbonLORD, the link in your signature goes to http://www.carbonlord.com/cranks.html, a page which no longer exists.


Thanks man, yet again evidence I need to update things.

Cheers :thumbsup:


----------

