# Has carbon fiber made "high end" bicycles more of a commodity now?



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

With carbon fiber, the bike design (and manufacturing) are becoming convergent. What do I mean by this? I mean bikes (from all makes) are becoming more and more cookie cutters with these features

- oversized tubes
- thin seat stays
- wide pressfit bottom bracket
- tapered heattube
- most being made in Asia from a few mega factories (countable on one hand)

And there is no real technical barriers to prevent the Chinese from building a knockoff that performs, for all PRACTICAL purposes, within 90% of the "real thing" but at 20% of the sticker shock. Note: I said practical purposes. So don't go tell me how your aero shaped headtube or stiffer bottom bracket now has made you dominate the weekend club peloton.

Honestly, I think the only area left that I think the "made in Italy" or "made in elsewhere except China" has a real advantage on is the paint job.


High quality steel bikes, eg., stainless steel. Now these still take real skills to build. Most likely will never reach commodity stage.


----------



## nirVELOvana (Mar 6, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> With carbon fiber, the bike design (and manufacturing) are becoming convergent. What do I mean by this? I mean bikes (from all makes) are becoming more and more cookie cutters with these features
> 
> - oversized tubes
> - thin seat stays
> ...


You forgot this one out of your list of cookie cutter features:


...
Devoid of all visual appeal (_a.k.a. matte black or 'stealth'_)
...


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> With carbon fiber, the bike design (and manufacturing) are becoming convergent. What do I mean by this? I mean bikes (from all makes) are becoming more and more cookie cutters with these features
> 
> - oversized tubes
> - thin seat stays
> ...


Nothing to do with carbon. The fact is that all the bike companies look to each other and emulate what sells. Plus you have the bike magazine publishers all touting stiff and aero. Story wouldn't be complete if you didn't mention Taiwain and China producing bikes for just about everyone. 

Similar thing occurred in wine, Robert Parker hawks surmature fruit bombs, the public reads Robert Parker and demands wine of this style. Each producer watches each other and sees how they make the wines and which producers get top dollar, the result is similar with more and more wines made in a similar way.

If steel were the dominant frame material, I think we'd see all the producers going to China and building similar looking frames. Nice to see there are some producers who go there own way, such as Colnago with lugs and now an innovative bottom bracket.


----------



## nirVELOvana (Mar 6, 2014)

nirVELOvana said:


> You forgot this one out of your list of cookie cutter features:
> 
> 
> ...
> ...


I should probably elaborate on my last post there. What I was trying to say is, going by the thousands of bikes with the "_no paint job for me_" look that you can see in thousands of posts on any of these links...


Velobuild
This forum's Chinese Carbon Thread...
 This forum's Chinese Carbon Picture Thread
...then, it seems like an outstanding or exceptional paint job has lost its appeal among masses of bike riders. People are voting with their feet against nice paint jobs. I mean, thousands (maybe millions) of bike riders are empowered to such a degree these days where they are sourcing, speccing, buying and building their own bikes. And even though they can have any paint job they want, millions of them are opting for no paint job at all!

That tells me paint jobs are meaningless to a LOT of people. No offense if matte black/stealth is your thang. I'm just sayin'...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Well I think it has everything to do with carbon. It's not hard for the Chinese to copy a mold and to make it. There is really no cost nor skill barriers to prevent this. Sure, one can always argue that a high-end S-Work or Felt or Cervelo frame (even if made in Asia) will still require the R&D and experiment with the layups that are done at the headquarters in North America, and that this is something the Chinese can't copy. This is true. But for practical purposes, it doesn't matter. It only matters much if you're weightweenie wanting the lightest and stiff frame. If you are ok with adding 150 grams (almost a meaningless figure), the Chinese can also make the same frame using lower modulus carbon fiber at 20% cost.

And guess what. In 4-5 years, your super carbon bike is now obsolete. And now you're having to justify to yourself that your obsolete carbon bike is still "good enough" (when in reality you want the latest but can't afford)..., just like all the carbon guys who have gone before you reasoned.

But a stainless steel frame, or a well built ti frame, well these material don't change much, the design doesn't change much, and the bike it'll always be a classic.

I have come to the conclusion that if I want a racing bike, a bike to thrash around, then that's when I buy a carbon frame, made in China. And if I want a keeper, then that's when I go stainless or ti from Europe or North America.

And because stainless steel tubesets from Reynold and Columbus are not cheap to buy even at wholesale, the Chinese will never going to build a quality stainless steel bike. Ti, this is a bit different since Chinese can source ti cheaper than they can stainless steel.

I have been in and out of the cycling scene since the 90s, and my keeper bike is a 1990s Casati made with Columbus Genius steel. I'm in the process of buying a Cinelli XCR stainless steel. I've had a few highend carbon frames, and am still riding one, but I have completely stopped with the lust over highend carbon frames because they are simply commodity to me. There are exception like the highend Colnagos C-series which have excellent paint job, but at the end of the day they're still fancy paint over plastic. I personally like the solid and cold feeling and the luster of stainless.

When the chinese can knockoff a frame using Columbus XCR at 20% cost of a Cinelli XCR, then I'll take notice.


----------



## cgrr (Mar 15, 2011)

My bike is matte black with very basic styling, I preferred it to the other bikes in the shop with ultra flashy, stripey, and in my opinion ugly graphics.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

nirVELOvana said:


> I should probably elaborate on my last post there. What I was trying to say is, going by the thousands of bikes with the "_no paint job for me_" look that you can see in thousands of posts on any of these links...
> 
> 
> Velobuild
> ...



And therein lies the brilliant marketting. Remember in highschool, it was cool to drive your dad's crappy car with primer paint? Or how about the matte camo truck? If you did that, you were the man. You were badass.

In cycling, if you go matte black, it's like you're telling the world that you know your stuff, that matte black will save you 100 - 150 grams over a lushious and elaborate paint job. Pretty and elaborate and exquisite paint jobs are now girlyman stuff.

All in the pursuit of the baddest lightest matte black tarmac terrorizer for the club ride. Oh yeah baby!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cgrr said:


> My bike is matte black with very basic styling, I preferred it to the other bikes in the shop with ultra flashy, stripey, and in my opinion ugly graphics.


yes a lot of them flashy graphics are butt fugly, just like those flashy graphics on the Japnese race replica motorcycles. But when done correctly, a nice paint job is exquisite. The problem is most guys who buy bikes can't imagine spending $300 - $500 for a nice paint job, and so manufacturers go with cheap decal paint job, and have their marketting department market the list of aforementioned cookie-cutter features.


----------



## nirVELOvana (Mar 6, 2014)

cgrr said:


> My bike is matte black with very basic styling, I preferred it to the other bikes in the shop with ultra flashy, stripey, and in my opinion ugly graphics.


I've been there and done that too. I owned a matte black carbon 2007 Specialized Sirrus hybrid. There weren't that many matte black bikes around then. At least I never noticed any other than my own back then. When it was stolen in 2009, I moved on to the next stage of adulthood and ticked "_own hip-looking matte black carbon bike_" off my todo list.

I also grew out of a penchant I once had back in the day for wearing all black clothes and black fingernails. That too eventually got old and boring to me.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

nirVELOvana said:


> I've been there and done that too. I owned a matte black carbon 2007 Specialized Sirrus hybrid. There weren't that many matte black bikes around then. At least I never noticed any other than my own back then. When it was stolen in 2009, I moved on to the next stage of adulthood and ticked "_own hip-looking matte black carbon bike_" off my todo list.
> 
> I also grew out of a penchant I once had back in the day for *wearing all black clothes and black fingernails.* That too eventually got old and boring to me.


you an ex-goth or something??


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> yes a lot of them flashy graphics are butt fugly, just like those flashy graphics on the Japnese race replica motorcycles. But when done correctly, a nice paint job is exquisite. The problem is most guys who buy bikes can't imagine spending $300 - $500 for a nice paint job, and so manufacturers go with cheap decal paint job, and have their marketting department market the list of aforementioned cookie-cutter features.


For the most part a nice paint job is a thing of the past. Very few frame builders still take the time


----------



## nirVELOvana (Mar 6, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> you an ex-goth or something??


No moreso than Richard Lewis :wink:

I did love that one Sisters of Mercy tune, "_This Corrosion_", though. But that's the extent of any association I had to Goth. 

But I digress...


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Paint jobs add grams and cost. To be competitive in the market, you eliminate the paint and tout the low frame weight. Advertise it enough and the public will believe that's what they want.

Anyway, manufacturers clearly aren't hiring the most artistic people to design the schemes for bikes that DO get painted. To me, Bridgestone was the last to paint bikes in understated two-tone schemes that didn't make me nauseous. A tip of the cycling cap goes to the old circa 1980's Treks with single colors as well as some iconic designs such as Klein and the Serotta fades.

Today, I think one low volume manufacturer that deserves mention is Independent Fabrications. Many of the other custom frame fabricators in steel, titanium, and carbon, have done wonderful things with paint and graphic finishes but that's what you get when you pay for a custom frame.

I do have to agree with the OP's observation that carbon frames have long since been assimilated into one piece of sameness. The one place the brands could differentiate themselves and make a market would be in paint and graphics but it doesn't seem anyone has read the memo yet.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Peter P. said:


> Paint jobs add grams and cost. To be competitive in the market, you eliminate the paint and tout the low frame weight.
> 
> Anyway, manufacturers clearly aren't hiring the most artistic people to design the schemes for bikes that DO get painted. To me, Bridgestone was the last to paint bikes in understated two-tone schemes that didn't make me nauseous. A tip of the cycling cap goes to the old circa 1980's Treks with single colors as well as some iconic designs such as Klein and the Serotta fades.


really do not like the all black bikes, especially since multiple sellers do it, the bikes all look the same. a good paint job can make the bike feel very personal. i get stopped all the time by people who notice my postal colors on my 5200.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

This seems like the usual neo-traditionalist thread where everything modern gets trashed.

Carbon frames are much more varied than steel frames were back in the day when you had the choice of 531 or the same tubing from Columbus, all the same diameter and all constructed the same way.

Now there's all sorts of "tube" shapes and placement. Many CF frames don't even have tubes, they're monocoque. And CF lets the builder put the material where he wants it. There's so much more variety in design than back in say 1983.

Except for the Chinarellos the majority of Chinese frames are not copies. They are what's known as open mold frames. The factory designs them on spec and small bike "manufacturers" can buy them, get them painted and sell them. For example Ritte. The same frames are sold direct to consumers through trading houses like HongFu. These frames are made to a fairly high standard which is improving at a rapid rate. The FM066SL I have is up to the construction quality that my 2006 Cervelo was (there is much visible UD layup on both frames)... except the BB shell hasn't come loose like the Cervelo's did. It weighs the same as that R3 did (920g in 56cm).


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

ericm979 said:


> This seems like the usual neo-traditionalist thread where everything modern gets trashed.
> 
> Carbon frames are much more varied than steel frames were back in the day when you had the choice of 531 or the same tubing from Columbus, all the same diameter and all constructed the same way.
> 
> ...


difference without a distinction. agree with the original poster, there's clearly are several trends, larger down tube, press fit bottom bracket thinner seat stays. and while there are some differences, i can see similar design cues between the canondale evo black, urgestalt light and cervelo rc5.


----------



## Mckdaddy (Feb 8, 2014)

cgrr said:


> My bike is matte black with very basic styling, I preferred it to the other bikes in the shop with ultra flashy, stripey, and in my opinion ugly graphics.


This was the same for the Spesh Expert I bought last week. Matte black was my preference over gloss (same thing for the rash of matte helmets that have proliferated cfb over the last 2-3 years vs gloss helmets.....I like the matte finish for some reason). 

I prefer fewer graphics, loud colors, flashy, etc. just not my style. It was when I was younger, say high school and college aged, but as I've aged (I'm 40 now), I prefer more subtle styling. But to each their own and I wouldn't criticize those liking louder colors and graphics.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

Bike colors are "the flavor of the day". When the day of the week changes, so do bike colors. So, what was "in" yesterday, is gone today. They all seem to vary the graphics and color schemes from year to year. I had a gloss white 2011 Giant Defy Advanced 1. It had Giant's name all over that bike, too many times in my opinion. I guess they wanted everyone know from every angle that it was a Giant. Then they made it a dull grey and blue. WTF, over?

I've gotten away from buying the carbon fiber flavor of the day designs and colors. I now ride a plain bright brushed Lynskey R255 road bike with just the name "Lynskey" on the downtube, and "R255" on the top tube. Nothing fancy. No flavor of the day schematics or color schemes. Just titanium in its finest natural element. Hand built, one at a time, right here in the USA.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

With all due respect, this is silly. Do you choose to ride a given bike because you like how it rides and how it looks to you, or because it has some symbolic value based on where it was made, or how many other people buy it, or whether or not it's a "commodity" whatever that means? It really sounds like you're much more hung up on lusting after equipment (and deciding what you should lust after) than the people you're effectively calling shallow.

NTTAWWT. Ride what you want. But the criticism of what others choose seems kind of unnecessarily defensive. You've gone through a lot of bikes for being "in and out of the cycling scene since the 90's" (I've been riding since the early 70's - I probably bought my last road bike about the time you bought your first).

And what's with the fixation on 'stainless steel'? The great majority of good steel tubesets are NOT stainless (including your Genius). 

Anyway, I sincerely hope you enjoy riding all your bikes.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Honestly, I think the only area left that I think the "made in Italy" or "made in elsewhere except China" has a real advantage on is the paint job.
> 
> 
> High quality steel bikes, eg., stainless steel. Now these still take real skills to build. Most likely will never reach commodity stage.


How do you figure? Is if really that hard to weld tubes together?

I understand design is a big deal but so it is with carbon.

Had the global economy gotten to this point 30 years ago I really don't imagine some chinese guy couldn't be trained to weld tubes together like some Italian guy could.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Zillions of steel bikes were mass produced for many many years. With the right equipment and a bit of training it's quite straightforward.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

looigi said:


> Zillions of steel bikes were mass produced for many many years. With the right equipment and a bit of training it's quite straightforward.


And that was done in communist China, no less.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Had the global economy gotten to this point 30 years ago I really don't imagine some chinese guy couldn't be trained to weld tubes together like some Italian guy could.


The Chinese guy had to do it out of basic necessity, since that was their main mode of transportation because Chairman Mao said so.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

High end carbon makes little sense to me from a purely practical standpoint. If I were racing crits these days, I'd buy a couple cheap FM-XXX frames and call it a day.

However, it needs to be said that this very high level of performance similarity between high end and low end frames is really nothing new. The decision on which farme to buy is not usually driven by pure practicality. For example, back in the late eighties I started racing on a Miyata 912 made out of own brand splined tubing. It was really a terrific bike for the money but I wanted something flashier. I saved up a bunch of money mowing lawns and bought a Tomassini made out of Columbus SL. The Tomassini frame alone cost more than the complete Miyata and was not any better as a racing bike if I'm honest. Did I ever regret buying the Tomassini? Hell no. With that chrome rear triangle, chromed lugs, chromed and engraved fork and insane "quattro colore" paint it was worth ever penny.

Of course, few modern frames are constructed with the care and aesthetic flash of that old steel Italian frame. Don't me wrong, carbon frames are definitely the best option these days, they just all look the same and very few manufacturers do anything really nice with paint.

Another point: if you're buying everything retail, going with a Chinese generic and buying a group, a saddle, some wheels, a cockpit, some pedals etc isn't going to save you much of anything compared to simply going to a store and buying a bike off the rack. If you're swapping out a frame and keeping everything else, Chinese generic can be a good way to go, if not... just go buy a complete bike. 

Also, the differences between a given manufacturer's "low end" carbon frame and "high end" carbon frame is pretty small these days. Bike makers have been very aggressive about "trickling down" the latest designs as well.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

The Chinese guy could never achieve the same level of craftmanship as the Italian guy because he just cant grow a decent handlebar mustache. Case closed


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

DaveG said:


> The Chinese guy could never achieve the same level of craftmanship as the Italian guy because he just cant grow a decent handlebar mustache. Case closed


That's because the Chinese guy was welding those frames in a state run factory, whereby the Italian guy was doing it mostly in his own workshop. The work environment caused the difference in quality, not the worker.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> High quality steel bikes, eg., stainless steel. Now these still take real skills to build. Most likely will never reach commodity stage.


You really can't even compare what it takes to build a carbon frame to what it takes to build a steel frame. The carbon frame is all about engineering and layup. LOTS of engineering, and a nifty CNC machine to cut your carbon pieces to the shapes you need. Then a couple of fairly skilled employees that can read a layup schedule that is not unlike the instructions for a plastic model kit. 
Once the frame comes out of the mold there is obviously a bunch of finish work, mainly sanding and attaching housing stops, etc. Then paint. Done. 

You are correct about the steel frame requiring skill...cutting tubes, filing them to fit perfectly. Then either welding, brazing or soldering lugs to put the tubes together. I've always been impressed by a nice weld, or how an guy w/ years of experience w/ a torch can manage heat and make brass do exactly what he wants.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

myhui said:


> And that was done in communist China, no less.


It was also done in England, and France, and Italy, and the U.S. (millions of bikes were mass-produced right here in Hartford, Connecticut, starting way back in the 1890's)


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> ...
> 
> And guess what. In 4-5 years, your super carbon bike is now obsolete.....
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with the long-term classic-ness of a well made steel or ti frame and that a CF frame could very well be "superceded" by something with real or imagined benefits in a couple of years.

But is your classic steel bike really "better" than even a "outdated" (real or imagined) CF bike? Does it ride better? More comfortable? Better handling? Does it really last longer if both are well cared for?

I'm not being argumentative, just wondering. I have bikes made of aluminum, steel and CF (no ti _yet_), but the CF bike is in absolutely no way inferior to any of the other bikes, even though it's 5+ years old.

Is it a "classic"? no not really, but I think the discussion really is of function and enjoyment per dollar spent, not classicness.

I don't know if it's a good comparison, but I've been a fairly casual, camera enthusiast for around 40 years. In the "old days" if you bought a high end or even middle Nikon camera body, it would be leading edge for many, many years. Nowadays if you buy a high or middle Nikon digital SLR, it's an excellent camera, but you can be damn well sure that within a year or two, there will be cameras on the market with better specs. There is no longevity to "leading edge" in camera bodies anymore.

But given that, the DSLR I bought several years ago is still an excellent camera and I have no need to get rid of it. It is depressing though because it didn't retain it's place on the quality spectrum like the film camera I bought in the late 70s.

Like a good CF frame vs. a good metal frame - the metal frame will definitely keep it's place in the spectrum of "quality" because it's old technology. The CF frame will not because it's developing technology. But that does not make it worse in any way to the metal frame at any given point in time.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ericm979 said:


> This seems like the usual neo-traditionalist thread where everything modern gets trashed.
> 
> Carbon frames are much more varied than steel frames were back in the day when you had the choice of 531 or the same tubing from Columbus, all the same diameter and all constructed the same way.
> 
> ...



you pretty much summarized what I have said. Carbon bikes are becoming convergent, and a commodity (despite touting carbon's unlimited possibility in designs). A Hong Fu, a Stradelli, a Motobecane, a Ritte, etc.. will work just as well as a Specialized or Cervelo, getting you the same race results or performance results (I'm assuming you're interested in performace, as that's what being pushed by the marketers to the consumers of carbon bikes).

When I say "convergent", i don't mean just knockoffs or open mold. I mean the design of the bikes, the material used, the similar characteristics, etc. Think "Japanese 600cc race replicas from Suzuki, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki". They're mostly the same bikes design (twinspars aluminum frame) with a 600cc inline four engine sandwiched between. They all share similar characteristics to each other, and their track performaces are probably within tenths- of a second of each other.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Camilo said:


> I don't disagree with the long-term classic-ness of a well made steel or ti frame and that a CF frame could very well be "superceded" by something with real or imagined benefits in a couple of years.
> 
> But is your classic steel bike really "better" than even a "outdated" (real or imagined) CF bike? Does it ride better? More comfortable? Better handling? Does it really last longer if both are well cared for?
> 
> ...



And you have reinforced my notion of "convergency", "cheap and widely available material (carbon fiber),.. leading to "commoditization" of a product. And this is even more true in leading or bleeding edge products. The features of a $3000 DSLR of 8 years ago can be covered with a sub-$400 consumer cam. And furthermore, the fastest technological growth, or features being pack into, is in the cheap sub-$400 camera segment. It was the faster growth and feature packed of the consumer segment that created the "prosumer" segment. And with carbon bikes, this is exactly what I'm seeing. From a performance point of view, there is absolutely nothing the latest Hong-Fu can't do compared to my carbon Serotta, and in fact I would even say the Hong-Fu would even surpass the Serotta. But I will never trade the Serotta in for the Hong-fu.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> you pretty much summarized what I have said. Carbon bikes are becoming convergent, and a commodity (despite touting carbon's unlimited possibility in designs). A Hong Fu, a Stradelli, a Motobecane, a Ritte, etc.. will work just as well as a Specialized or Cervelo, getting you the same race results or performance results (I'm assuming you're interested in performace, as that's what being pushed by the marketers to the consumers of carbon bikes).
> 
> When I say "convergent", i don't mean just knockoffs or open mold. I mean the design of the bikes, the material used, the similar characteristics, etc. Think "Japanese 600cc race replicas from Suzuki, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki". They're mostly the same bikes design (twinspars aluminum frame) with a 600cc inline four engine sandwiched between. They all share similar characteristics to each other, and their track performaces are probably within tenths- of a second of each other.


Was there any difference among the quality and performance of steel bikes of, say, anytime between 1975 and 1995 (given a certain price point)? I'd say that there is very little difference among the respected brands in those days (given a price point) and also very little functional and technological difference between the 1975 bike and the 1995 bike.

Today, it's still probably still true that there's little or no difference between brands, but we can maybe even eliminate the "price point" criterion. 

But I doubt that we can say that in another 20 year period, say between 2005 and 2025, that there will be little or no difference in quality and price between the older bike and the newer one. I've seen pretty large changes in the quality, weight, aesthetics, and price options for excellent CF frames in the past 10 years, and would expect similar in the next 10.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> You really can't even compare what it takes to build a carbon frame to what it takes to build a steel frame. The carbon frame is all about engineering and layup. LOTS of engineering, and a nifty CNC machine to cut your carbon pieces to the shapes you need. Then a couple of fairly skilled employees that can read a layup schedule that is not unlike the instructions for a plastic model kit.
> Once the frame comes out of the mold there is obviously a bunch of finish work, mainly sanding and attaching housing stops, etc. Then paint. Done.
> 
> You are correct about the steel frame requiring skill...cutting tubes, filing them to fit perfectly. Then either welding, brazing or soldering lugs to put the tubes together. I've always been impressed by a nice weld, or how an guy w/ years of experience w/ a torch can manage heat and make brass do exactly what he wants.


And as I have acknowledge, the bigs like Cervelo and Specialized and Cannondale do have actual R&D put into their product. But at the end of the day, on the PRACTICAL side of things, a cheapo Hong-Fu can pretty much give the same performance results for most riders racing a 30-60 crit, or even a non-pro century road race. But with carbon fiber, what the Chinese lack in R&D, they can almost make it up for just adding more carbon layers (at a weight penalty that is almost meaningless for anyone except perhaps pro racers). Yes there is real engineering, but the barrier is not something insurmontably high to workaround. 

And this was my point. If a product can be copied easily or replicated to give "almost" the same performance, well then we have have a product becoming more and more commoditized.

to me, the last "great" engineering in the bicycle world was the Lotus bicycle. Now that's something to behold.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

JCavilia said:


> With all due respect, this is silly. Do you choose to ride a given bike because you like how it rides and how it looks to you, or because it has some symbolic value based on where it was made, or how many other people buy it, or whether or not it's a "commodity" whatever that means? It really sounds like you're much more hung up on lusting after equipment (and deciding what you should lust after) than the people you're effectively calling shallow.
> 
> NTTAWWT. Ride what you want. But the criticism of what others choose seems kind of unnecessarily defensive. You've gone through a lot of bikes for being "in and out of the cycling scene since the 90's" (I've been riding since the early 70's - I probably bought my last road bike about the time you bought your first).
> 
> ...


I did not start this thread to offend anyone. It's a thread about what I seem to be noticing about the commoditization and convergency of a general class of product (a carbon fiber bicycle frame). Did you miss this?

But like most OPEN PUBLIC forums on the WEBZ, discussions will get understandably sidetracked, digressed, and comments and opinions start to pile in, and this is all ok with me. But if there is anyone who is being a little defensive, I think it's you sir, not I.

You probably have ridden more steel bike than me, so perhaps you can chime in the difference between a Columbus Genius and Columbus XCR or Reynold 953 and give us your opinions how they are all "the same" too, just like what I'm saying about how most carbon fiber bike are pretty much the same.

And I do enjoy all my remaining bikes that I consider "keepers". And you know what, NONE of them are what can be called the latest-and-greatest techwiz, but they are definitely keepers. 2 of them are steel, one a ti-carbon mix, one a full carbon.


----------



## nirVELOvana (Mar 6, 2014)

Another analogy that I think supports the OP's position is that of the humble wolf berry (_a.k.a. goji berry_). It's indigenous to China. It's been used in Chinese traditional medicine for centuries. Given its abundance and availability in China it is, indeed, a commodity product. You can buy tons of it very cheaply there.

But in the West, goji berries are marketed as a "_Super Food_" in the same way that "_high-end_" carbon fiber bikes are marketed as some kind of "_Super Commodity_". Health food companies buy container loads of goji berries at pennies per ton, then sell them to people who believe the health claims for 50 times what it cost to buy the same commodity in China. 

You can get the same benefit claimed for goji berries by eating any number of other (_cheaper _) commodity products with similar nutritional properties. Likewise with "_high-end_" carbon bikes. You can get the same benefits from cheaper bikes with properties that are *close enough* to the _high-end_ bike.

Both carbon fiber bikes and goji berries are commodity products, both exported from China, both then sold to believers for whatever the market will bear.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> to me, the last "great" engineering in the bicycle world was the Lotus bicycle. Now that's something to behold.


A shop I worked at a long time ago had one in the window for a bit. One of our customers managed to get his hands on one of the track bikes. Single sided rear end and single blade fork...super cool!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> A shop I worked at a long time ago had one in the window for a bit. One of our customers managed to get his hands on one of the track bikes. Single sided rear end and single blade fork...super cool!


Back over a decade ago when I was still into motorcycling, I had a Honda 600cc race replica, then a Suzuki gixxer 750cc, then a Yam 1000cc (notice a pattern here? I was always chasing the latest whizbang). But I've always thought the design of the Ducati 916 with its single swingarm to be the coolest thing, even though I know a Suzuki 750cc was way cheaper and in capable hands would demolish the 916. So I kept saying to myself, "forget the 916 (and all the Duc fanboys)". In hindsight, what I chased and purchased was 3 commoditized Japanese motorcycles, great and reliable motorcycles!,.. but generic and commoditized nonetheless. After the 916, the latter Ducatis weren't nearly as appealing. 

there are things that we call "keepers" in this world. The Lotus track pursuit bike is one of them. The Ducati 916 is also one of them. I'm hoping that my currently-on-order Cinelli Xcr will also be one of them! I used to dislike Chinese Hong Fu and their kinds a lot, but now I'm starting to see them as quite a useful and accessable commodity for the poorman racers! But the highend superduper carbon bikes from the big makes... probably will not purchase one again. See I learned my lesson from my motorcycling years.. never chase the lastest whizbang! because they will go out of style at some point!


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Totally agree, I just saw a really clean 916 the other day and I still want one. Timeless. I'd settle for a 748. In yellow.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> Totally agree, I just saw a really clean 916 the other day and I still want one. Timeless. I'd settle for a 748. In yellow.


always thought of the 748 as the "baby 916". Ducati screw the pooch with the 749, same with the 999!


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> Ducati screw the pooch with the 749, same with the 999!


What did they do wrong? Back in 1996 I had a Ducati calendar with fourteen pictures of race prepped bikes. That was a gorgeous collection of photos.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

myhui said:


> What did they do wrong? Back in 1996 I had a Ducati calendar with fourteen pictures of race prepped bikes. That was a gorgeous collection of photos.


Well technically, they did nothing wrong. The 749 and 999 were faster and superior bikes on the track when compared to their predecessors. Though the 749 was never really a threat on the track to the Japanese.

But it's my opinions, and the opinions of a lot of motorcycle enthusiasts and purists and traditionalists (call it whatever you want!), that the 916 (and 748) were beautiful and elegant bikes. The 916 was classic Tamburini elegance. It was the bike that brought Ducati back from the brink; the bike that made Ducati revelant again. And when Tamburini left Cagiva group (which included Ducati), Ducati also lost him too. The 749 and 999 were not his babies. At least that is what I seem to recall from memory (it's been a long time since I'm in the moto scene, so I could be wrong about the history).

And I believe at some point, Tamburini was so tired trying to keep pace with the fierce Japanese technological onslaught that he and the Japanese factory bosses were about to have a "gentlemen agreement" involving the Japanese telling him ahead of time if they were going to release a newer model. This is so he could have time to react to the changes. The Big Four of Japan absolutely loved Tamburini and what he had done for the bike industry, not just for Italian bike industry; they had great respect for him and his work as a designer. So this goes to show you even the technology-driven Japanese knew a great artist when they saw one and appreciated him.

I have this question, what would it be like if Honda had asked Tamburini to design their RC51. The RC51, to me, had a great engine, lovely sound, and a streetable bike. The RC51 design was not bad at all, and a classic in its own right, but if had it been thru the hands of Tamburini, I have no doubt that the RC51 would reach iconic status today too (not 916 iconic, but iconic).

I always wanted a 916 but at the time never had the money to afford it. Now I have the money for it, but my motorcycling time has long passed. But if back then I knew that I would grow old one day, that I would grow into adulthood at some point, that I would want a more "artistic" piece of hardware (rather than just all out performance).. for sure I would have not bought 3 Japanese race replicas and instead would have tried to save money for 1 Duc (916 or 748). It's one of those things in life that you don't really appreciate until you're older and more mellow.

Transferring the thinking to bicycle. I'm done with buying high end carbon bikes. If I'm paying for any bike over $6000, it'll be because i want a piece of rolling art first. If i want something to perform and thrash around, it'll be some Chinese made carbon frame. I cannot imagine myself spending $6000+ for a super carbon bike, and then take local crit racing. A Hong Fu would do this fine here.

But if buying an expensive bike, I want to make sure I buy something that will grow with me as I get older too. I don't want to buy a fleeting commodity. An expensive bike like the Sworks Tamac, Evo, Venge,.. these will not be able to grow with the person (just like the Japanese replica racers).. they're commodity. A custom steel with great paint and detail works,.. now this will grow with you. That's what I'm saying in this thread about carbon bikes being commodity.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

In motorcycles, three improvements in my view have historical significance:

Ducati's desmodronic valve actuators

Honda's oval engine cylinders

BMW's variable length intake trumpets for the engine

I thought motorcycle buyers at the consumer level aren't nearly as addicted to frills and comfort features as automobile buyers.

Your long ago history of chasing the latest spec Japanese bikes surprises me. The only obvious trend in your quest was that the engine displacement keeps getting bigger.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

nirVELOvana said:


> You forgot this one out of your list of cookie cutter features:
> 
> 
> ...
> ...


you forgot another

ridiculously over priced


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

I can't imagine buying Carbon for racing Crits. Crits = crashes and carbon breaks. You can get such great deals on Alu that is close to the same weight and 1/3rd the cost

There's about $300 to make a CF frame and fork in China. Every other penny you spend is paying for profit, research, design and marketing. The bike mfrs are making a good $ on CF bikes


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

atpjunkie said:


> You can get such great deals on Alu that is close to the same weight and 1/3rd the cost


Can you suggest a few manufacturers?

I have a set of one year old, good quality Alu wheels that I put onto my old bike with Shimano 105 gruppo that dates back to 1994. I can move those wheels, with old brakes and seat onto a new Alu frame, and get some cheap SRAM controls, cassette, rear der, chain, and I'll have a sturdy new bike. I even have an extra CF handlebar with integrated stem that'll look weird on an Alu steerer tube but it'll work just fine.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

myhui said:


> Can you suggest a few manufacturers?
> 
> I have a set of one year old, good quality Alu wheels that I put onto my old bike with Shimano 105 gruppo that dates back to 1994. I can move those wheels, with old brakes and seat onto a new Alu frame, and get some cheap SRAM controls, cassette, rear der, chain, and I'll have a sturdy new bike. I even have an extra CF handlebar with integrated stem that'll look weird on an Alu steerer tube but it'll work just fine.


Fuji, Cannondale or find one of the Aluminum Cervelo frames


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

atpjunkie said:


> Fuji, Cannondale or find one of the Aluminum Cervelo frames


But they don't sell frames separately.

Fuji has some very nice aluminum framed bikes for a very competitive price.


----------



## Neb (Sep 8, 2012)

myhui said:


> But they don't sell frames separately.
> 
> Fuji has some very nice aluminum framed bikes for a very competitive price.


I don't know about Fuji or Cervelo, but Cannondale definitely sells frames separately. You just have to ask the dealer.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Neb said:


> Cannondale definitely sells frames separately.


Or buy one from China direct? They will probably tell me it's not worth the shipping cost.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> I did not start this thread to offend anyone.
> 
> And I do enjoy all my remaining bikes that I consider "keepers". And you know what, NONE of them are what can be called the latest-and-greatest techwiz, but they are definitely keepers. 2 of them are steel, one a ti-carbon mix, one a full carbon.


Cool. Ride on. I'm not offended; just commenting. And I probably have not ridden more steel frames than you. Since I tend to keep things a long time, I haven't really owned all that many bikes considering I've been riding >40 years. None have been latest-and-greatest, and none the top of the line. All have served me well.

I'm still not entirely sure what is meant by saying carbon frames have become a "commodity" any more than the majority of steel frames were and are. Unless you have a custom frame made, even most hand-made frames are produced according to one of a fairly limited set of design parameters. 

Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion, and sorry if my initial post was offensive. In retrospect it does read a little snotty.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

> Transferring the thinking to bicycle. I'm done with buying high end carbon bikes. If I'm paying for any bike over $6000, it'll be because i want a piece of rolling art first. If i want something to perform and thrash around, it'll be some Chinese made carbon frame. I cannot imagine myself spending $6000+ for a super carbon bike, and then take local crit racing. A Hong Fu would do this fine here.
> 
> But if buying an expensive bike, I want to make sure I buy something that will grow with me as I get older too. I don't want to buy a fleeting commodity. An expensive bike like the Sworks Tamac, Evo, Venge,.. these will not be able to grow with the person (just like the Japanese replica racers).. they're commodity. A custom steel with great paint and detail works,.. now this will grow with you. That's what I'm saying in this thread about carbon bikes being commodity.


Everything in the first paragraph makes perfect sense to me, but I honestly don't know what you mean by "grow with you" in the second. Are you just suggesting that because of how you think about the 2 classes of bikes, you'll get tired of one of them, but not the other? Or is there something more than that?


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Or consider a titanium frame from Lynskey.

Already discussed here on RBR: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bikes-frames-forks/lynskey-ti-284781.html

Now on sale for $1168.50 for their lowest-priced frame: https://www.lynskeyperformance.com/store/rouleur.html

Add a carbon fork and Cane Creek headset for $500 more. Or go crazy and pay $199 for their Ti seatpost (I wouldn't).


----------



## nirVELOvana (Mar 6, 2014)

JCavilia said:


> ...
> I'm still not entirely sure what is meant by saying carbon frames have become a "commodity"...


Before ever reading the OP's post, I had also arrived independently at my own conclusion that carbon frames are a commodity. But I don't "_bemoan_" that development. Au contraire! It's *a positive* in my book. And in my book I define a _commodity_ as having the following properties:


a commodity is produced in surplus abundance
commodities offered by brands with the biggest market share are usually those ones that outsource to low wage-paying countries
there's often a *HUGE* gulf between the producer's costs to produce the commodity and what it costs a consumer to purchase the commodity
because a commodity's production costs are very low, marketeers justify high *retail* price tags by inflating a commodity's worth with the magic of the intangible "_added value_"
at the most essential level (_that is, minus marketing's "added value"_) one brand's offering of a commodity is *functionally* indistinguishable from the next brand's offering of the same commodity
it is always possible for those not susceptible to the _added value_ spell cast by marketing, to purchase the commodity at a cost very close to the producer's cost
That last point is why I see the commoditization of carbon bike frames as *a positive*.

My take on it might not be how the OP would characterize a commodity. But if you think of any other everyday commodity (_agricultural produce, gym shoes, computer memory_) they all - along with carbon fiber bike frames - share the above properties.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

There are some undeniable trends showing up on carbon road bikes, namely larger diameter tubes, thinner walls and a moves away threaded bottom brackets, tapered head tubes, thinner seat stays, etc. With the vast majority of road bikes adopting most if not all of these ideas its hard not to feel that frame are being comoditized. We all know the producers all buy carbon from just few sources and specs for carbon are not driven by bike, but by airline and other higher volume users. We also know that production is usually outsourced to a few companies in Taiwain or China.

So yes, there's a lot of truth to what the op is saying.


----------



## Hollywood (Jan 16, 2003)

Trek_5200 said:


> For the most part a nice paint job is a thing of the past. Very few frame builders still take the time


I'm happy with my open-mold, over-priced Ritte. Custom paint by Ritte here in SoCal too.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

It seems like you are selective with the things you notice as "convergent bike design"
I've been riding road bikes since the early 80's, and BMX before that, and I was always questioning why the bikes of that era always looked the same, and basically rode the same. I see modern bikes having tons of improvements and innovations, and even though I dislike most of the different headset and BB options available now, I see them as advancements in bike design. There doesn't have to be a standard. 

If you think carbon bikes all look the same, maybe you don't give them a close enough look. I took me a long time to filter through and decide what my next bike was going to be like with all the choices, shapes, geometries, and unique engineering, available today. Go flip through a Colorado Cyclist mail order catalog from the 80's and all the road frames look identical except for paint and brand decals. I considered bikes from that era very "cookie cutter". The Fuji and the Colnago both had rifled tubing, and similar geometry, but one was definitely "prettier" than the other.

A modern carbon bike with all the available engineering and technology we have today, wasn't even possible for the mass market in the 80's. The cost to engineer a monocoque carbon fiber bike frame was huge, back then.

The current proliferation of boring all black bikes, is due to the amount of unimaginative people buying them. It became cool to see the carbon fiber showing through the clear coat, and it didn't take any thought to come up with an interesting paint design of your own. I don't like the all black look either.

I like a nice classic steel frame bike as much as anyone, but a modern carbon bike is what I imagined my dream bike could be like when I was younger, and had nothing else different to choose from. (except maybe a Vitus, lol)
I own a super nice Ritchey Road Logic from the 90's, but the only reason it gets ridden is purely for nostalgia.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

Trek_5200 said:


> There are some undeniable trends showing up on carbon road bikes, namely larger diameter tubes, thinner walls and a moves away threaded bottom brackets, tapered head tubes, thinner seat stays, etc. With the vast majority of road bikes adopting most if not all of these ideas its hard not to feel that frame are being comoditized. We all know the producers all buy carbon from just few sources and specs for carbon are not driven by bike, but by airline and other higher volume users. We also know that production is usually outsourced to a few companies in Taiwain or China.
> 
> So yes, there's a lot of truth to what the op is saying.


The bicycle industry has ALWAYS followed trends and the manufacturers ALWAYS had similar bike frame designs since day one. MTB's are the one big thing that caused a divergent shift in bike design. There's far more variety, and advancement in bike design today than there ever was.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

myhui said:


> Or go crazy and pay $199 for their Ti seatpost (I wouldn't).


You could also track down an early 2000s Campagnolo Chorus titanium seat post (The Record is mechanically identical but costs more because it's stamped "Record". Some years' Chorus posts are also missing the Campagolo shield logos).

It's the correct color to go with a titanium frame, somewhat more yellow than a bluish "silver" alloy post.


----------



## jaggrin (Feb 18, 2011)

I think there are really nice carbon bikes out there. I prefer Bianchi because of the geometry and now I am hooked on celeste. To me that makes them stand out from some of the other brands. I get a lot of compliments on how my pretty my Infinito looks. I agree that most brands have the boring bland paint jobs. I'm not sure how practical it would be to offer an R3 in eight different colors. Most shops don't have the capital to stock up on 54, 56, 58 and 60 cm size bikes in a bunch of colors. Trek offers custom paint choices with their project one. I think that Felt does something similar. I have three carbon bikes and know that I have already decided my next bike is going to be a steel Pegoretti. My boss has already signed off on it, she is an artist and loves the paint schemes. I'm not sold on buying the generic chinese frames from ebay or deng-fu. Yugo's were cheap too.


----------

