# Do I "Need" Carbon?



## partyofone (Feb 8, 2012)

First, a little background. I'm new to cycling. Currently I ride a Scott CX Comp cyclocross bike. Here in PA, it was the right choice for my riding. Mostly road, some rails to trails and dirt roads.

I'm looking to buy a road bike in the near future. I have no plans to race. Century rides and daily fitness rides will be the usual.

Would you buy an Aluminum Frame with carbon fork with Ultegra or a Carbon with 105s if the price was the same?

I like the Scott Speedster S10 with Ultegra. Cost wise, it's the same as most carbon bikes with lower components.

Just looking for info.

Thanks,
Erik


----------



## 202cycle (Sep 13, 2011)

carbon with 105


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*Hell, no*

Buy the one that feels best to you when you ride it. There's nothing magic about frame materials.


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

> Do I "Need" Carbon?


Nooooooo, you need food, water and sleep. A job would be helpful too but you don't "Need" a carbon bike. Carbon is just the latest thing. The bike snobs will look down on if you don't get a "carbon framed" bike. Until you go zooming past them. It's not like you are going to be "faster than a speeding bullet" on a carbon bike and a slug on anything else. Get the bike that fits best, feels best.


----------



## davelikestoplay (May 27, 2010)

Short answer: no
Long answer: no, not really


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

I'd suggest test rides (a few miles, not parking lots) of several carbon and aluminum bikes in your price range. Variability, and what you decide you like, probably will not be limited to one material or the other. Lots of differences among both aluminum frames and carbon frames.

I have Klein Q Pro XX (aluminum with carbon fork and seat stays) and Look 565 (carbon) frames. Swap Ultegra 6700 and same wheels back and forth between them. Both very nice; I enjoy both equally. And have extensively test ridden Cannondale CAAD 10 aluminum, also liked it a lot. Would happily buy a CAAD 10 frame if something happens to both the Klein and the Look.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

I had a similar question not too long ago about comparing carbon to titanium. I have steel, aluminum, and carbon road bikes, and the difference is subtle but appreciable. What I choose to ride each day depends on my mood and the ride, roads, and other riders that are expected. I'd guess that if races are not in the equation, you will probably be okay with either choice? Good luck and keep the rubber side down!


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Luckily this is a hobby, so it's not about what is needed but what is wanted.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Ride a good alloy bike and you will know. I liked carbon and steel untill I triped over a CAAD10 last summer. Wow. Way better than cheepo carbon and on par with mid grade carbon.


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

My riding is about the same as yours, daily fitness and a century every couple months. I went carbon. Internet wisdom says steel is better for long rides, but I've no personal experience with steel. Might be worth evaluating, though.


----------



## tallywacker (Jan 25, 2012)

1. Steel and Carbon absorb road vibrations more than aluminum, which transfers to body fatigue over long runs with carbon absorbing the most (I went carbon due to preexisting health conditions due to vibrations)

2. Depends on if your looking to achieve a certain weight or stay under a certain weight. Are you into climbing hills or more of a flat lander that'll come into consideration as a it's easier with a light carbon bike, but have a little extra weight under you in cross winds is nice too

3. Carbon is strong no matter what anyone says. Is it as strong as Alu or steel? No, but you might take that into consideration if you crash a lot. In a 30 mph crash where a carbon could break depending on the impact angle, it would most likely only dent an Alu. Do Alu's break? Yes, but it takes a lot more force unless it's defective

4. 105 is more than enough if you're not racing and even adequate to start racing with, otherwise Ultegra is overkill for general fitness and has no value other than weighing less or a status symbol at that level. Does it function smoother? Yes, but for general fitness it's not necessary

5. Depends on what and where you're willing to spend your money. If you were to buy the Scott at you local REI for that same money you could get a really nice carbon from an internet retailer depending on size needed and for $300 than REI's price you could have a full carbon/Ultegra BMC from someplace like Competitive Cyclist, or full carbon 105 or Ultegra Sette from Price Point for less. 

6. See what your local LBS will do sometimes they'll compete and come somewhat close to internet dealers. Talk to several LBS's some will blow smoke up your ass what you need others will be more than willing to spend time educating you, helping you make a decision.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

velodog said:


> Luckily this is a hobby, so it's not about what is needed but what is wanted.


this.


----------



## jeeper006 (May 10, 2010)

You don't NEED carbon... I rode an aluminum Allez then switched to a carbon Tarmac. Both bikes have the same geometry... Both bikes feel great to ride. Tarmac is faster and just feels more solid... Now was it worth the $1700 price difference proooooobably not, but I'm very happy with it and was able to afford it at the time.... Whatever you buy, make sure it is what you want so that you don't start second guessing yourself... When I bought my Tarmac I was confident that's what I wanted and I've stuck by that...

Just be sure you have your mind made up 100% before you pull the trigger!


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Its just a bike. So long as they fit and don't break, its more what you do with them, then what they are made of.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Do you need a bicycle?


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

If you get carbon, just don't let it sit in direct sunlight because it will..................... Oh screw it. Get whatever feels good.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Went from full carbon to half carbon and called that an upgrade.


----------



## onthebottom (May 4, 2011)

I went from an old aluminum to a new carbon bike last spring... much more comfortable for me, and VERY light 15.7 lbs..... more important than material is fit, find a bike that fits you well then pick the model.... 105 will be just fine... 

OTB


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

IMO, if "need" were the sole consideration the majority of us should probably be riding Sora on unbranded alloy frames. 

There's nothing wrong with riding a carbon frame on rail trails. Carbon is a lot tougher than people give it credit for.


----------



## arm017 (Feb 10, 2010)

Of course you need carbon... We are cyclists, and that is what the pros do.


----------



## mtor (Mar 1, 2007)

JCavilia said:


> Buy the one that feels best to you when you ride it. There's nothing magic about frame materials.


I agree 100%


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

I love it how everyone jumps when people use the word “need”. 

If you’ll be doing long rides (centuries and such) people suggest carbon because it’s known to absorb more road vibration but there are different grades of carbon and aluminum. And an AL frame with carbon fork and 25 tires will simulate the effects of even a nicer grade of carbon. 

You should ride the bikes (for long test rides) – I took hr long rides when I was considering a new bike. Making the terrible assumption that they feel the same to you, I would go with the carbon and 105. And even though many people aren’t saying exactly which they would choose, I’d bet ya they would go with the carbon too. Yeah, it may not matter all that much but like some other post said, it’s the latest and greatest. And I wanna be the latest and greatest. Sure you can be the greatest on an AL or other frame, but you won’t be the latest! Why pass up on 50% of that wonderful phrase?


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

I'll go out on a limb here and say using good tires in an appropriate size with appropriate psi in them will go alot longer way to "reducing road vibration" and "improving comfort" than any frame material change will. There are too many factors at play for frame material to be the holy grail. And don't even get me started on geometry and the engineering put into 1 bike vs. another.

This whole "steel rides..." blanket statement stuff is such BS I can smell it through the computer.


----------



## Goldriverdude (Dec 10, 2011)

No question about it. Carbon is the way of the future. As in other sports, you would not see a tennis player go back to wood or steel racquets. Golfers would never go back to the clubs they played with 20 years ago. The only thing that should keep you away from carbon frames is price. I ride carbon now and I am reminded how good it is when I ride my old steel bike when the weather is bad. Not that steel or aluminum are bad, carbon frames are nicer to ride.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

Goldriverdude said:


> Not that steel or aluminum are bad, carbon frames are nicer to ride.


Your paint brush sir, is as wide as a push broom.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Goldriverdude said:


> No question about it. Carbon is the way of the future. As in other sports, you would not see a tennis player go back to wood or steel racquets. Golfers would never go back to the clubs they played with 20 years ago. The only thing that should keep you away from carbon frames is price. I ride carbon now and I am reminded how good it is when I ride my old steel bike when the weather is bad. Not that steel or aluminum are bad, carbon frames are nicer to ride.


I've ridden crappy carbon, aluminum and steel frames....I've ridden nice carbon, aluminum and steel frames..... material is a very small part of frame's ride quality


----------



## Unknown Arch (Aug 17, 2011)

velodog said:


> Luckily this is a hobby, so it's not about what is needed but what is wanted.


This, and I would also say frame material alone is not the be all end all.

Recently, when I was shopping for a replacement for my CAAD 8, I spent a fair amount of time riding both the CAAD 10 (aluminum) and the SuperSix (carbon). Loved both, had to sleep on it, ended up getting carbon because I wanted to try a carbon bike for a while. Beyond that, can't really say I had any other good reason because both bikes were so incredible.

(Also, for what it's worth now, I'm looking to do a build of a CAAD 10 frame set if I can get a deal on one my size. It's an incredible aluminum bike.)


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

Completely agree with those who said carbon is not needed. Frame material is highly over rated.

My two cents regarding carbon's "comfort" propaganda.

Tire size and pressure has big influence comfort. Run a 25c tire and inflate to the minimum and you have a smoother ride. Frame material cannot overcome a pothole, only suspension can. A tire is a form of suspension if you don't max out PSI. 

An aluminum bike with 25c tires at 100psi will feel much smoother than an all carbon bike with 23c tires maxed out to 120 or 130 psi.

I have ridden steel, carbon and aluminum and at the end of the day, tires play the biggest role in ride quality. I spent most of life on steel bikes and honesty can say that steel is not real for comfort. It is real for durability however.

Next comes contact points like bar tape and saddle. Get a bar tape that have at least medium density padding. And avoid racing saddles for a daily bike. I find bar tapes and saddles by Specialized in the medium padding range smooth out road buzz.


----------



## wotnoshoeseh (Apr 9, 2011)

Hhhmmm - I think that you need to try them out and decide.

Carbon is strong but you need to be careful with it. It is not the be all and end all. If you want the lightness of carbon coupled with the comfort of carbon and the strength of steel thne titanium is probably the way to go.
But you need to ride them to find out - fit is important!


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Yes, you need carbon.


----------



## maxfrm (Jan 15, 2012)

Ride both set ups and let your body tell you what you like better.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2012)

holy cromoly said:


> Completely agree with those who said carbon is not needed. Frame material is highly over rated.
> 
> My two cents regarding carbon's "comfort" propaganda.
> 
> Tire size and pressure has big influence comfort. Run a 25c tire and inflate to the minimum and you have a smoother ride. Frame material cannot overcome a pothole, only suspension can. A tire is a form of suspension if you don't max out PSI.


I went from a super-cheap-ass aluminum bike to a kinda-cheap-ass carbon with same fit, tires, and contact points .In both cases I ran the same tires with the rear at minimum recommended pressure, and the front BELOW minimum recommended (95/90 psi on 23s, I'm a lightweight). 

Difference in comfort was definitely quite noticeable. IMO more noticeable than the difference between 105 and Ultegra when actually riding. Given the choice at the same price I'd _definitely_ elect for carbon/105 over aluminum/ultegra. Note that all these differences are subtle but still noticeable, and for something I expect to spend thousands of hours using, spending a few hundred bucks more to get an appreciable improvement is worth it IMO.

I also currently have a commuter bike which is steel. I can't really compare that one fairly for ride smoothness as it has much larger tires at lower pressure. 



> An aluminum bike with 25c tires at 100psi will feel much smoother than an all carbon bike with 23c tires maxed out to 120 or 130 psi.


Agreed completely. I argue that cheap carbon still rides a lot smoother than cheap aluminum if both have the same tires at minimum recommended pressure. 



> I have ridden steel, carbon and aluminum and at the end of the day, tires play the biggest role in ride quality. I spent most of life on steel bikes and honesty can say that steel is not real for comfort. It is real for durability however.
> 
> Next comes contact points like bar tape and saddle. Get a bar tape that have at least medium density padding. And avoid racing saddles for a daily bike. I find bar tapes and saddles by Specialized in the medium padding range smooth out road buzz.


I actually found that using padded riding gloves can help as well. Most of the time I ride solo with a dorky fluorescent vest and dorky bright green fluorescent fingerless gloves (makes my hand signals more visible from a distance ) which have ample padding on top of the bar tape.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

arm017 said:


> of course you need carbon... We are cyclists, and that is what the pros *are paid to* <del>do</del> *use*.


fify.
.


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

Carbon is getting so good and so cheap that you could go through several frames for the price of one steel or Ti frame. Barring a crash or impact accident, carbon is tough stuff, so if the price is close to an aluminum model, don't even think twice. Aluminum had its time -- not a long-term player in road bikes, IMO.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

> Carbon is getting* so good and so cheap* that you could *go through several frames* for the price of one steel or Ti frame.


Yeah!


----------



## Chris Keller (May 19, 2008)

Mike Overly said:


> Carbon is getting so good and so cheap that you could go through several frames for the price of one steel or Ti frame.


But with titanium, you would never need another bike! I have a custom titanium ride with nearly 30,000 miles on it...rides fantastic. I also and fortunate enough to have a carbon bike with aluminum lugs and a full carbon bike. They all ride great with the right tires and pressures. I put on 5,000 miles last year and my ti bike saw a majority of those miles.


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

Chris Keller said:


> But with titanium, you would never need another bike! I have a custom titanium ride with nearly 30,000 miles on it...rides fantastic. I also and fortunate enough to have a carbon bike with aluminum lugs and a full carbon bike. They all ride great with the right tires and pressures. I put on 5,000 miles last year and my ti bike saw a majority of those miles.


I agree ... unless you break it. With the exception of the BD Le Champions, new Ti frames cost many times more than perfectly good low-end carbon frames, hence the actuary tables. It's rained or snowed non-stop 'round here and I too put most of my miles in on Ti this year. It's great stuff ... tougher in my _perception_ than carbon for sure ... just not getting any cheaper to produce.


----------



## mgringle (May 20, 2011)

Mmmm... Bamboo!


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

If you have to use big tires with low pressure to make the ride comfortable then something is wrong.


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

Carbon is better - period. (* This is an opinion.)

Not to mention it is really hard to weld everything on a bike so that it all points in exactly the same direction. (**This is a fact.)


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

tallywacker said:


> 1. Steel and Carbon absorb road vibrations more than aluminum, which transfers to body fatigue over long runs with carbon absorbing the most (I went carbon due to preexisting health conditions due to vibrations)


Say what you will but this is marketing hype. Being that most aluminum bikes are marketed as lower end, they are equipped as such. You can't expect a bike with lower end components to ride as nicely as one with higher end components. Aluminum is inexpensive because it's the most common raw material available on this planet. Wanna ride a harsh riding carbon bike, try a Felt F1 Sprint. That is a full carbon bike that will rattle your fillings out. Mine set me back $7,000 when I purchased it back in 2009.



tallywacker said:


> 2. Depends on if your looking to achieve a certain weight or stay under a certain weight. Are you into climbing hills or more of a flat lander that'll come into consideration as a it's easier with a light carbon bike, but have a little extra weight under you in cross winds is nice too


Weight? Look at a 2002-2005 Fuji Team SL (also rebadged as the Motebecane Le Champion SL). I had one in a 58 cm frame and it weighed in at 15.8 lbs. That was an Ultegra-equipped all- aluminum bike and the only thing carbon on it was the fork, crankset,and seatpost. Most Carbon bikes can't achieve that even by today's standards.



tallywacker said:


> 3. Carbon is strong no matter what anyone says. Is it as strong as Alu or steel? No, but you might take that into consideration if you crash a lot. In a 30 mph crash where a carbon could break depending on the impact angle, it would most likely only dent an Alu. Do Alu's break? Yes, but it takes a lot more force unless it's defective


 I have to agree with carbon being strong, but only in one direction. Ask any manufacturer about towing a kid's trailer on an carbon frame. I guarantee you that they don't recommend it. In fact most will void your warranty if you do so. Carbon isn't that versatile. With aluminum or steel, you can race in the morning and tow your kid's trailer on a casual family ride in the afternoon reliably on the same bike.



tallywacker said:


> 4. 105 is more than enough if you're not racing and even adequate to start racing with, otherwise Ultegra is overkill for general fitness and has no value other than weighing less or a status symbol at that level. Does it function smoother? Yes, but for general fitness it's not necessary


This is pretty accurate IMO except Ultegra doesn't shift any smoother than 105. Lighter? Sure, but not smoother. I made the mistake of upgrading a 105 bike I had to Ultegra. Dumbest thing I've ever done. I forked out money to save some grams and get flashier shifters.


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

Scott in MD said:


> Not to mention it is really hard to weld everything on a bike so that it all points in exactly the same direction. (**This is a fact.)


 Can you elaborate on this "fact"? I'm not clear on what constitutes this '_everything that's hard to weld_'. 

Oh, and to the OP: No, you don't need carbon.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Scott in MD said:


> Carbon is better - period. (* This is an opinion.)
> 
> Not to mention it is really hard to weld everything on a bike so that it all points in exactly the same direction. (**This is a fact.)


Yeah, its very hard to find a well aligned frame made of metal.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Scott in MD said:


> Not to mention it is really hard to weld everything on a bike so that it all points in exactly the same direction. (**This is a fact.)


Very few carbon frames are one piece..They are multiple pieces bonded in a jig just like metal frames...


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

PRB , I have experience in this stuff ... I don't want to bore you with a resume ... But two decades of relevant experience and education. (materials engineer, GM for aerospace welding factory, yada yada yada ...)

Welding a bunch of metal tubes held together in a jig fixture, some expanding differently as they heat up differently, into a perfectly aligned bike is not an easy thing to do and quality control is very important. As the tooling wears out, and with variation in operator skill and process control, it is even more difficult to hold the true position of all the tubes against one central datum. The resin transfer molding (RTM) process used for high end bikes is much more robust to variation in this regard. Not saying perfect welded alignment is impossible ... Just tricky.


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

Scott in MD said:


> PRB , I have experience in this stuff ... I don't want to bore you with a resume ... But two decades of relevant experience and education. (materials engineer, GM for aerospace welding factory, yada yada yada ...)
> 
> Welding a bunch of metal tubes held together in a jig fixture, some expanding differently as they heat up differently, into a perfectly aligned bike is not an easy thing to do and quality control is very important. As the tooling wears out, and with variation in operator skill and process control, it is even more difficult to hold the true position of all the tubes against one central datum. The resin transfer molding (RTM) process used for high end bikes is much more robust to variation in this regard. Not saying perfect welded alignment is impossible ... Just tricky.


 Thanks for the answer. I can certainly understand that it may require more skill, time and constant re-checking of alignment to make a good welded frame than it would to make a molded plastic one. Yet lots of people have managed to weld straight frames for years.....


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Scott in MD said:


> Welding a bunch of metal tubes held together in a jig fixture, some expanding differently as they heat up differently, into a perfectly aligned bike is not an easy thing to do and quality control is very important. As the tooling wears out, and with variation in operator skill and process control, it is even more difficult to hold the true position of all the tubes against one central datum. The resin transfer molding (RTM) process used for high end bikes is much more robust to variation in this regard. Not saying perfect welded alignment is impossible ... Just tricky.


Yet, it's something that's been done, en masse/worldwide, for over 100 years now. Sooner or later, ya figure it out, even if it is hard.

For instance, I'm sure it's hard to build automobile engines too (tight tolerances, tons of moving parts), yet that doesn't stop many manufacturers all over the world from turning out tens of millions of such things successfully, each and every year.

Of all the reasons I've heard for not buying a metal frame, "ZOMG, it might be crooked!!!" has to rank near the bottom of the list.
.


----------



## T-Doc (Apr 4, 2002)

of course, everyone needs carbon


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

krisdrum said:


> I'll go out on a limb ...
> 
> This whole "steel rides..." blanket statement stuff is such BS I can smell it through the computer.


And you have a steel bike?


----------



## jrnyc (Feb 23, 2012)

*New Bike Choice?*

Hi everyone, 

New to the group (good reason: new to cycling -- in fact, not even in the club yet). Anyway, I am struggling with the same question, but have a bit more specific question. I want to get into cycling primarily for training and weekend group rides. I am being told at LBS (and I agree) that I should get a bike one level up from entry. I don't want to be back at the shop in 3-6 months buying again. From what I've seen, that basically puts me into the $1200 threshold. I do not want Sora components (the shifters are particularly bothersome). Tiagra is probably fine, but would prefer 105. At around $1200, it seems that you can get a pretty good bike from any number of brands, all aluminum, carbon fork. In this group, I am leaning towards the Bianchi Via Nirone, a Trek 2.3 or a Jamis Race Ventura (also considering Felts and Fuji). However, I have just seen a steal of a deal on a leftover 2011 Kestrel Talon with 105 set. If this is the group to select from, should I go with the Kestrel? It seems like a deal that may be too good to be true. Any guidance/suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks!


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

jrnyc said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> New to the group (good reason: new to cycling -- in fact, not even in the club yet). Anyway, I am struggling with the same question, but have a bit more specific question. I want to get into cycling primarily for training and weekend group rides. I am being told at LBS (and I agree) that I should get a bike one level up from entry. I don't want to be back at the shop in 3-6 months buying again. From what I've seen, that basically puts me into the $1200 threshold. I do not want Sora components (the shifters are particularly bothersome). Tiagra is probably fine, but would prefer 105. At around $1200, it seems that you can get a pretty good bike from any number of brands, all aluminum, carbon fork. In this group, I am leaning towards the Bianchi Via Nirone, a Trek 2.3 or a Jamis Race Ventura (also considering Felts and Fuji). However, I have just seen a steal of a deal on a leftover 2011 Kestrel Talon with 105 set. If this is the group to select from, should I go with the Kestrel? It seems like a deal that may be too good to be true. Any guidance/suggestions would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!


If the bug bites you'll be back at the store in a year to upgrade anyway.


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

ddimick said:


> If the bug bites you'll be back at the store in a year to upgrade anyway.


... Because carbon is better - period.


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

Scott in MD said:


> ... Because carbon is better - period.


 Thanks for the.....


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Scott in MD said:


> ... Because carbon is better - period.


It's good you've got an opinion, but it ain't necessarily a fact.


----------



## MikeLord (Nov 22, 2010)

get both!


----------



## thegr8bambino (Feb 23, 2012)

I think this is one topic that can be debated all day everyday. Let me share my back story and as it has said before it happens to us all.

So I was new to cycling two years ago and just wanted to get my feet wet, so I bought a specialized Secteur Sport. Got a great deal at $800 bucks. Aluminum frame and crap components (eventually upgraded them.) Then I started getting where I was riding about 300-400 miles every few weeks and doing a few races. I then started checking on what it would take to get into a CF bike. After doing some research and looking at all the latest and greatest models I was hooked. I wanted one so bad. I ended up buying a frame and building it myself. The fact that i am trying to make is there is a lot of hype about CF and being better. Is it really? well it depends on who you ask. However FOR ME and my situation I can honestly say I wish I would have went CF in the first place. I should have just saved some more $$ and it would have saved me $800 bucks in the long run.

I think that once you start riding and riding serious you then will realize who much you want the "better" ride and who much you would benefit from it. It may save you some $$ in the long run. That is all I am saying. As my bike shop mechanic told me you will never regret upgrading to higher grade anything. It is when you go down you really start to notice the differences. So start where you feel most comfortable and get what feels best to you. If AL feels better for you, go for it.


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

As someone who rides a ti/carbon frame and has just ordered a custom steel frame, I can honestly say that the very best material for a frame is... carbon.

Nothing can match the very best carbon frames, in my opinion. But almost nothing can match their price tag, either. The planning, tooling and ley-ups required to get the most out of carbon (not to mention the best carbon itself) is hilariously expensive. And as you come down in price, you find carbon bikes that aren't necessarily as well put together or thought out as an alloy, ti, or steel frame for the same price. Maybe they are, maybe not.

When I moved from a new race carbon frame (Kestrel Evoke SL) to a second hand ti/ carbon (Colnago CT1), I found the bike had gained about a pound, but I wasn't any slower. The Colnago is much more comfortable on long rides, though, plus it looks nicer imo. 

Really nobody needs anything more than a Huffy. What you want is probably about a grand more than you can afford, regardless of whether you're a carbon man or a ti boy.


----------



## vladvm (May 4, 2010)

Cycling is cheap sports relative to others like hockey, golf, motor racing, kayaking.

Buy it one time. Get the best carbon frame with the best components and best wheels and call it a day. This will save you $$$ and headache in the long run.


----------



## zender (Jun 20, 2009)

In my personal experience, the following things made my riding faster, and made me want to ride more and ride harder in this order:

1. Riding with people faster than me
2. Powertap
3. Pro bike fitment, pedal shims etc.
4. Light wheelset with soft but fast wearing tires
5. Compact drivetrain
6. Shifter components
7. Frame material
8. Shaving my legs

I currently have 2 carbon frames, one Ti frame and have ridden Alu and steel in the past with good results.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

We're a carbon based life form according to Star Trek. 
Of course we need carbon.


----------



## hanzo111 (Jun 9, 2011)

JCavilia said:


> Buy the one that feels best to you when you ride it. There's nothing magic about frame materials.


x200

I have a frame in Carbon (road) 29er (steel) Ti (mtb) and think they all have their place, If budget allows to get carbon but still keep your components on the upper side of the spectrum then go for it. If you will get a carbon frame but buy junk components then go with aluminum. 
a carbon frame with 105 is probably the best combo i have seen for $$ to performance value I purchased a older gen Scott Cr1 and am loving it, but I loved my old bike as well for different reasons.



Hanzo


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

vladvm said:


> Get the best carbon frame - This will save you $$$ and headache in the long run.


Really? I've sure read about a lot of expensive "carbon" headaches on this forum.:mad2: I think you have some research to do.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

I'm glad everyone else wants carbon frames. I just picked up a custom-made titanium frame for a song and a dance! Keep selling those crappy aluminum, steel, and Ti frames off cheap, my boys are still growing.


----------



## jtrand (Feb 28, 2012)

Carbon


----------



## Soundtallica (Sep 24, 2011)

If you can, get carbon. Since you will be doing centuries, carbon will be more comfortable for you, and as a bonus it will be stiff enough for fitness rides. If cost is an issue, then maybe get a carbon seatpost with an aluminum bike to damp out road buzz.


----------



## Jumpo (Feb 29, 2012)

I've had steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon bikes. They're all good. Well, maybe not the aluminum at distances over 60 miles. You don't 'need' carbon but like so many things in life, if you can afford it, why not?


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

Jumpo said:


> I've had steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon bikes. They're all good. Well, maybe not the aluminum at distances over 60 miles. You don't 'need' carbon but like so many things in life, if you can afford it, why not?


I've done seven centuries on an aluminum bike. They work just fine.


----------



## elviento2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Nobody NEEDS carbon. But why not, if you can afford it? 

If you have a tight budget, you can get a low end alu bike to start the riding for sure. Just enjoy the riding part, no need to stress over the material. 

Besides, just pray the carbon bug doesn't bite you, coz that'll costya.


----------



## MixMastaPJ (Feb 24, 2012)

Thanks for all the advice in this thread. I'm making the jump in December!


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> I've done seven centuries on an aluminum bike. They work just fine.


Yep, I did Seattle-to-Portland in a day (just over 200 miles) on an aluminum bike. I was dead tired at the end but I'm pretty sure I'd have felt that way on any bike. 

Carbon frames can be lighter than other frames (although not all are). Otherwise it's just another material for making bikes - it's not magic.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Goldriverdude said:


> No question about it. Carbon is the way of the future. As in other sports, you would not see a tennis player go back to wood or steel racquets. Golfers would never go back to the clubs they played with 20 years ago. The only thing that should keep you away from carbon frames is price. I ride carbon now and I am reminded how good it is when I ride my old steel bike when the weather is bad. Not that steel or aluminum are bad, carbon frames are nicer to ride.


Like I said earlier, try a high end bike like my Felt f1 Sprint- which is full carbon and full Dura Ace including wheels, then ride a 2005 Fuji Team SL- full aluminum and weighs in at under 16 lbs in a 58 cm size. Despite only having a carbon fork and crankset, this full aluminum Fuji will ride nicer than the full carbon F1 Sprint. Carbon being nicer to ride is all in your head.


----------



## jwk (Jun 17, 2011)

jrnyc said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> New to the group (good reason: new to cycling -- in fact, not even in the club yet). Anyway, I am struggling with the same question, but have a bit more specific question. I want to get into cycling primarily for training and weekend group rides. I am being told at LBS (and I agree) that I should get a bike one level up from entry. I don't want to be back at the shop in 3-6 months buying again. From what I've seen, that basically puts me into the $1200 threshold. I do not want Sora components (the shifters are particularly bothersome). Tiagra is probably fine, but would prefer 105. At around $1200, it seems that you can get a pretty good bike from any number of brands, all aluminum, carbon fork. In this group, I am leaning towards the Bianchi Via Nirone, a Trek 2.3 or a Jamis Race Ventura (also considering Felts and Fuji). However, I have just seen a steal of a deal on a leftover 2011 Kestrel Talon with 105 set. If this is the group to select from, should I go with the Kestrel? It seems like a deal that may be too good to be true. Any guidance/suggestions would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!


Well, I cannot speak for anybody else but prior to buying my Synapse 5 Aluminum Cannondale, I could not make up my mind whether to go with carbon frame version or aluminum. I loved the way Carbon felt as it was softer and more comfortable. However, the Aluminum was not as soft and the ride was a bit harsher, but the Synapse 5 regardless is compliant, it was still a good ride. I also decided against carbon fiber because if the bike shop tightened certain components too tight like bike seat, it could crack the frame. For peace of mind, ease of maintenance I stuck with the aluminum frame.


----------



## __PG__ (Jan 25, 2012)

I'm riding an 18-year old custom steel bike (Reynolds 531 tubing with lugged construction) and I'm looking to upgrade.

I was initially thinking just carbon... or maybe Titanium if my budget could afford it. I ride only recreationally and I'm just after a nice light bike that helps me climb mountains. My current bike is about 10.5 kgs.

I spoke to the shop which built my first bike and I was amazed by how light a modern steel frame is. They said that an unpainted steel frame, welded with Columbus tubing would be under 1 kg. And it would be very easy to build a custom steel bike with SRAM Force components in my size that would be under 8 kg. 

Of course it would cost about $1000 more than a Trek Madone 5-series.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

__PG__ said:


> I spoke to the shop which built my first bike and I was amazed by how light a modern steel frame is. They said that an unpainted steel frame, welded with Columbus tubing would be under 1 kg.


While it's possible to make light frames out of steel, they are not approaching 1 kg just yet. In a smaller frame size it's likely possible to build a frame using high-end race tube sets True Temper S3, or Columbus Spirit) to 1.5 kg, but there aren't too many of these around.

I have a 58cm frame built from Columbus Life (not as light as Spirit, but still plenty light) and it weights a little under 1.7 kg with paint. I'd think that for a typical higher-end non-race specific frame that's a more typical frame weight. If you're looking to go sub 1000g, carbon is the one option currently.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

jwk said:


> Well, I cannot speak for anybody else but prior to buying my Synapse 5 Aluminum Cannondale, I could not make up my mind whether to go with carbon frame version or aluminum. I loved the way Carbon felt as it was softer and more comfortable. However, the Aluminum was not as soft and the ride was a bit harsher, but the Synapse 5 regardless is compliant, it was still a good ride. I also decided against carbon fiber because if the bike shop tightened certain components too tight like bike seat, it could crack the frame. *For peace of mind, ease of maintenance I stuck with the aluminum frame.*


And clown wheels. What made you pick those things? No cross winds in your town?


----------



## __PG__ (Jan 25, 2012)

laffeaux said:


> While it's possible to make light frames out of steel, they are not approaching 1 kg just yet. In a smaller frame size it's likely possible to build a frame using high-end race tube sets True Temper S3, or Columbus Spirit) to 1.5 kg, but there aren't too many of these around.
> 
> I have a 58cm frame built from Columbus Life (not as light as Spirit, but still plenty light) and it weights a little under 1.7 kg with paint. I'd think that for a typical higher-end non-race specific frame that's a more typical frame weight. If you're looking to go sub 1000g, carbon is the one option currently.


Sorry I should clarify he was talking 'triangles' only for 1 kg (no paint), not including fork.


----------



## kendal (Feb 1, 2010)

Get what you want and the best you can afford. That way you will spend ur time riding and enjoying ur new bike and not on second guessing ur purchase.

Just fyi BMC made the slx01 that was part alum. and part carbon, it was a nice price point on the frame.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

__PG__ said:


> Sorry I should clarify he was talking 'triangles' only for 1 kg (no paint), not including fork.


Yep. So was I.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

laffeaux said:


> Yep. So was I.


For reference: Columbus Tubi

Columbus gives the weight of their tubes cut and mitered for a 54cm frame. The Spirit tubeset is 881g. This does not include the dropouts, brake bridge, water bottle mounts, seat clamp, or cable guides. Getting a small frame under 1500g shouldn't be too difficult.


----------



## GFish (Apr 4, 2011)

partyofone said:


> I'm looking to buy a road bike in the near future. I have no plans to race. Century rides and daily fitness rides will be the usual.


Test ride as many bikes as you can; aluminum, steel, carbon and Ti. See what feels and rides best for you. 

Since you're planning daily rides along with centuries, consider a bike that can accommodate fenders and larger tires to adapt to changing weather and road conditions. 

When you start test riding bikes, ride bikes of different frame materials over the same roads (use rough and smooth surfaces). You'll be able to tell rather quickly which bikes actually feel and ride better. If one bike feels and ride rougher then another, expect to have this feeling amplified as the miles increase.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

laffeaux said:


> I have a 58cm frame built from Columbus Life (not as light as Spirit, but still plenty light) and it weights a little under 1.7 kg with paint. I'd think that for a typical higher-end non-race specific frame that's a more typical frame weight.
> 
> If you're looking to go sub 1000g, carbon is the one option currently.


Wouldn't some Ti frames be sub-1000g, or pretty close? Or are we just not seeing Ti frames like that anymore? :idea:

I remember the old Litespeed Ghisallo frames coming in at sub-2 lbs, with claimed weights anywhere from 770g to 910g, but IIRC some bigger riders felt they were too whippy.
.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

SystemShock said:


> Wouldn't some Ti frames be sub-1000g, or pretty close? Or are we just not seeing Ti frames like that anymore? :idea:
> 
> I remember the old Litespeed Ghisallo frames coming in at sub-2 lbs, with claimed weights anywhere from 770g to 910g, but IIRC some bigger riders felt they were too whippy.
> .


Hmmm... it does look like the Ghisallo is under 1kg. The weight weenies web site lists quite a few light frames, and not that many of the are below 1kg.

Weight Weenies - Road Frames

And it looks like someone did get a custom steel bike down to 1140g. Likely for climbing only.  All the other steel frames are in the 1500+ range.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

No. Nobody "needs" carbon except for the people who are given it - i.e. pro racers.

I will say my least favorite frame material is over-sized tig-welded aluminum. However, old Cannondales make great crit bikes and current Cannondales are probably the epitome of tig-welded aluminum.

Personally, I love my vintage lugged steel (Reynolds 531P, Columbus TSX and SL), and my second generation Madone 6.9.


----------



## Kareltje71 (Feb 26, 2011)

It will allways be a personal question, based on experience, feeling, budget, etc. I would prefer carbon btw....


----------



## country road (Feb 3, 2012)

Wouldn't an aluminum bike with carbon fork and seatstays be a big improvement over all aluminum? I have a steel road bike now and have all kinds of mixed feelings about what to look for when I replace my Schwinn Tempo.

Mike


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

country road said:


> Wouldn't an aluminum bike with carbon fork and seatstays be a big improvement over all aluminum? I have a steel road bike now and have all kinds of mixed feelings about what to look for when I replace my Schwinn Tempo.
> 
> Mike


Carbon stays were mostly a gimmick and are getting harder to find.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

T K said:


> Carbon stays were mostly a gimmick and are getting harder to find.


Agreed. Cannondale CAAD 10 (aluminum stays) has much smoother ride than the Blue Competition RC5AL (aluminum frame with carbon stays) I used to own.


----------



## merlin3008 (Jul 6, 2007)

Nobody needs anything. But I will tell you that the ride that I most prefer these days come from carbon bikes. See if you can take a few out and see what works for you.


----------



## vismitananda (Jan 16, 2011)

I know that best equipment has the best rides. But It really doesn't matter whether you're riding Carbon, Aluminum, etc. You could still win races w/ Aluminum if you trained well.

Its all in the legs, not with the bikes.


----------



## pRoto (Jun 17, 2007)

1. If you want later to upgrade your bike (and you will, everyone wants ), so better to have 105 and carbon frame, you will change those 105 components to something like ultegra, sram...

2. You should choose the bike which fits better to you.

3. If you want to be faster, upgrade legs other then bike.


----------



## 4joseluis (Feb 17, 2012)

Make sure that you ride some carbon, alum, and good steel back to back at the store....see if you can fee a difference in surface vibration. Repair work on the former two difficult and on steel good...with perhaps little weight penalty :>


----------



## aqualelaki (Sep 5, 2011)

Depends if it's high modulus carbon or not. In the past I compared CAAD10 with Synapse, then I don't understand why people buy Synapse, but when I compared CAAD10 with Evo then carbon is the way to go.


----------



## Backflush (Jul 7, 2011)

If you are going to be doing a lot of riding, I would invest in a carbon frame. They now have entry level carbon frames that are price pretty low. The only difference is a slighty heavier frame, and lower end components, thus a heavier bike. Only taking about 2-3 pounds difference over a $5000 bike.


----------



## bernatv (Jul 30, 2011)

Steel frame, carbon fork, light and reliable wheels.


----------



## 87rocket (Mar 14, 2012)

I rode CAAD 8 and Giant Defy Advance back to back and frankly I liked the CAAD 8 better than the carbon bike.


----------



## Steelguy (Apr 25, 2010)

*Maintaining carbon bikes*



jwk said:


> I also decided against carbon fiber because if the bike shop tightened certain components too tight like bike seat, it could crack the frame. For peace of mind, ease of maintenance I stuck with the aluminum frame.


The posts in this thread contain lots of good advice. But difficulty of maintenance is rarely mentioned. Carbon bikes need more care, more precision. If you are not comfortable with bike maintenance and repair, you might do better with a metal bike. For the kind of detail involved, see the third edition of Lennard Zinn's "Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance." I never thought I'd use a torque wrench for bikes. Few of us need carbon, but most of us want it. Good luck.


----------



## rayovolks (Dec 13, 2007)

carbon is just the go-to material these days...but as others have pointed out, a fine riding bike can be made out of steel, Ti, and aluminum. 

same thing with components such as the stem, seatpost, and bars. the "ticket" seems to be carbon versions of these, but the top-shelf aluminum versions from the big brands are arguably more durable and get close to the carbon ones in terms of weight.

so no, IMO carbon isn't a must-have.


----------

