# Aluminum Vs Carbon



## los318 (Aug 4, 2005)

What are the main differances? I have a Trek 2200,mainly stock, and am trying to figure out what the best parts are. I've been looking at stems,seatposts and handlebars for now. But I seem to be confused as to what to buy. I dont "plan" on racing but that doesnt mean I wont. So back to my question. What are some up and downs to either.. Thanks!

Carlos


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

los318 said:


> What are the main differances? I have a Trek 2200,mainly stock, and am trying to figure out what the best parts are. I've been looking at stems,seatposts and handlebars for now. But I seem to be confused as to what to buy. I dont "plan" on racing but that doesnt mean I wont. So back to my question. What are some up and downs to either.. Thanks!
> 
> Carlos


Aluminum has that 'tink' feel to it. Carbon doesn't.. its more of a muffled/dead feel.

I have a Gary Fisher aluminum hardtail bike, and it tinks/jars me and feels rough..

I have the Madone 5.2 9 spd rear, oclv 120 carbon. Feels good for a road bike - was kind of 
middle priced for what I wanted to pay ($2600).. didn't want aluminum.. couldn't afford titatium at the time.. 

The madone 5.2 has aluminum handle bars, but carbon seat post and everything else carbon. I really love it.. I'd probably like an aluminum bike with carbon fork/rear maintstay and seat also.. I mean I have 6000 miles on my hardtail in 3 years and have enjoyed it..


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

depends on your preference.

I currently ride aluminum but have ridden carbon and the two bikes were completely different. I really liked the feel of carbon as I didnt feel that buuuuuuuuzz running through my legs. A carbon bike is next for me.


----------



## The Spider (May 12, 2005)

How about the adjectives 'absorbant' and 'solid' to describe carbon compared to aluminium?

My carbon feels smooth, solid and the aluminium feels stiff, hard...aluminium's a great thing when you have 4 inches of good quality travel provided by shocks.

With your upgrades....I strongly recommend Easton carbon, the bars and posts are brilliant and definetly add comfort to your ride.

Stems? Stick with aluminium at the moment....Deda, ITM, Ritchey....all good quality, tried and tested designs.


----------



## jibbah-jabbah (Dec 7, 2004)

*other than that...*

...consider the saddle, too. My 'old' road bike (98') is an all aluminum frame, with an aluminum seatpost, but I splurged on a "fizik aliante" saddle--complete with carbon rails and body. I don't feel any more buzzing than on my fancy new carbon/aluminum race bike, but then again I may just be insensitive to it. 

I figure that with most of your weight pressed down on the saddle, having a flexible carbon-fiber seat might be more noticeable than the handlebars.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Aluminum vs. Carbon*



los318 said:


> What are the main differances?


Well, Carbon is 6th on the Periodic Table of Elements, and Aluminum is only 13th, so Carbon must be better!

Sounds kind of silly right? But it isn't much sillier than some of the other arguments about why one is supposedly better than the other. There are many, many variables in the design and construction of a bike frame. Selection of material is only one variable (although it can affect other variables). Truly excellent and absolutely horrid bike frames can be built with either material. Look to how well the bike is designed to suit your particular riding style and how well it is built, not to what material it is made out of.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

Mark McM said:


> Well, Carbon is 6th on the Periodic Table of Elements, and Aluminum is only 13th, so Carbon must be better!
> 
> Sounds kind of silly right? But it isn't much sillier than some of the other arguments about why one is supposedly better than the other. There are many, many variables in the design and construction of a bike frame. Selection of material is only one variable (although it can affect other variables). Truly excellent and absolutely horrid bike frames can be built with either material. Look to how well the bike is designed to suit your particular riding style and how well it is built, not to what material it is made out of.


This is one of my greatest peeves. Answering a legitimate question with this jambalaya:
frame material doesn't matter. any material can be made build any bike.

Fact is different materials have very different properties. Each has qualities that the builder can take advantage of to make a bike suitable to the rider's tastes. Each material has it's weaknesses too.

los318 is not asking which material is better... just what the differences are. Very valid question cause very few people have the opportunity to personally ride the 4 main materials.

That being said, the responses to this thread have been spot on. Both materials are very light and are mainly used to build light bikes. They mainly differ in damping qualities. Aluminum trasmits power and vibrations very well while carbon damps vibrations. Carbon can be made to be very directional as well, by controlling how the fibers are laid and how much material is used in a specific frame location. For example, the bottom bracket can be made very stiff and a downtube can be made to flex on the up and down but not left to right. 

No offense intended, just one of my pet peeves...

francois


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Misunderstanding*



francois said:


> This is one of my greatest peeves. Answering a legitimate question with this jambalaya:frame material doesn't matter. any material can be made build any bike.


You either intentionally mis-read Mark McM's post or you're trying to make some point. What he said was "There are many, many variables in the design and construction of a bike frame. Selection of material is only one variable (although it can affect other variables)." And that is ABSOLUTELY true. The other variables largely swamp out the frame material choice as far as ride is concerned. It's true that for "constant durability" steel is at a disadvantage due to it's density, but there is so much tuning possible in design that material choice is only one of many factors. 

One of my greatest peeves is when people somehow suggest that the material is the dominant factor.


----------



## goldsbar (Apr 24, 2002)

Mark McM said:


> Well, Carbon is 6th on the Periodic Table of Elements, and Aluminum is only 13th, so Carbon must be better!
> 
> Sounds kind of silly right? But it isn't much sillier than some of the other arguments about why one is supposedly better than the other. There are many, many variables in the design and construction of a bike frame. Selection of material is only one variable (although it can affect other variables). Truly excellent and absolutely horrid bike frames can be built with either material. Look to how well the bike is designed to suit your particular riding style and how well it is built, not to what material it is made out of.


I don't think this answer is jambalaya at all. Though, questions like this are more about PIE than jambalaya.

Yes, all materials are different. However, by the time you get through all of the variables, there is no such thing as an optimal material (at least not yet; maybe carbon for forks?). Most benefits of any material are very much on the margin so choose the cheapest bike that fits correctly and weighs what you want it to.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

Kerry Irons said:


> You either intentionally mis-read Mark McM's post or you're trying to make some point. What he said was "There are many, many variables in the design and construction of a bike frame. Selection of material is only one variable (although it can affect other variables)." And that is ABSOLUTELY true. The other variables largely swamp out the frame material choice as far as ride is concerned. It's true that for "constant durability" steel is at a disadvantage due to it's density, but there is so much tuning possible in design that material choice is only one of many factors.
> 
> One of my greatest peeves is when people somehow suggest that the material is the dominant factor.


Sorry, I didn't mis-read the Mark's post. The question is what difference does the material (carbon or aluminum) make. Answering the question by saying that material doesn't make a difference is way off base.

You say that: "The other variables largely swamp out the frame material choice as far as ride is concerned". I'll have to disagree. Not violently, but vehemently. For example, just to state one, carbon fiber frames will damp vibrations more than aluminum frames. We can spin that any way you want but that is how it is. There are other differences.

I'm not even suggesting frame material is the dominant factor. I'm not saying what material is better or best. That just leads to religous wars. Materials have differences and I'm trying to shed light on them to help someone make a better decision.

I agree with you that there are other factors. No one refutes that. Stating those other factors and how one can assess a frame and make the right choice is helpful.

francois


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*trying to keep apples with apples*

IMHO

I personallr owned a Trek 1000 (all aluminium frame and seat post, even forks) and then I went all the way up to Trek Madone 5.9 (all carbon frame and seat post). The geometry and fit are similar between these two road bicycles. The weight is much reduced in Madone. The biggest difference I noticed (apart from reduced weight of Madone) was much improved ride comfort over its alloy brother. I am not much faster on Madone (~2 mp/h on average) but I can ride a lot longer on Madone (~40%) and still remain more comfortable at the end of the ride. Trek 1000 transmitted all road vibrations directly to me (I had a good S/I Flite saddle on Ti rails on both bicycles) which made it harder to ride longer and faster.

So for road riding "distances" I really think carbon is superior frame material to aluminium in all *practical road applications* but it also costs more. Having said this - perhaps aluminium frame with carbon forks and carbon seat and chain stays and a great saddle will give you the best compromise between comfort, price and performance? (I have no steel or Ti frame experience).

If you ride on perfect (very smooth) roads then aluminium may well be good enough but who has perfect roads? 8^)


----------



## KeeponTrekkin (Aug 29, 2002)

*Recent test ride on a Van Dessel*

road bike with aluminum main triangle, carbon fork, seat and chain stays... All my bikes have been steel, carbon or steel/carbon.

Loved the bike. Very fast, precise, etc. As comfortable as my Trek 5500. The bike felt stiff when climbing out of the saddle, yet no buzziness, vibration or harshness. And, did I mention light!

I think the hybrid construction puts the materials with the desired characteristics where they provide the desired performance most efficiently and in this case, the generalizations apply (carbon for flexibility and damping, aluminum for stiffness.)


----------



## goldsbar (Apr 24, 2002)

acid_rider said:


> IMHO
> 
> I personallr owned a Trek 1000 (all aluminium frame and seat post, even forks) and then I went all the way up to Trek Madone 5.9 (all carbon frame and seat post). The geometry and fit are similar between these two road bicycles. The weight is much reduced in Madone. The biggest difference I noticed (apart from reduced weight of Madone) was much improved ride comfort over its alloy brother. I am not much faster on Madone (~2 mp/h on average) but I can ride a lot longer on Madone (~40%) and still remain more comfortable at the end of the ride. Trek 1000 transmitted all road vibrations directly to me (I had a good S/I Flite saddle on Ti rails on both bicycles) which made it harder to ride longer and faster.
> 
> ...


Yes, the geometry may be the same. But, you're comparing bikes in **completely** different price ranges. In addition, your sample size is all of 2. Try some higher end AL and your opinion may be different.


----------



## twelvepercent (Nov 7, 2004)

*Fatigue life....?*

Is it true that aluminum has a ltd. life in terms of fatigue...it seems that many mfrs. will actually measure how long a frame will last until it's fatigue life is at an end...they will put the frame on a machine that will repeatedly flex the frame back and forth in an attept to mimmick a racer riding for 100,000 or 300,000 km....or more
It has been said that CF does not have the ltd. "fatigue life" of aluminum.....
What is up with the "fatigue life" of a frame, and what happens when this point is reached?
Does the frame become a "noodle" or is it a gradual process?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

twelvepercent said:


> Is it true that aluminum has a ltd. life in terms of fatigue...it seems that many mfrs. will actually measure how long a frame will last until it's fatigue life is at an end...they will put the frame on a machine that will repeatedly flex the frame back and forth in an attept to mimmick a racer riding for 100,000 or 300,000 km....or more
> It has been said that CF does not have the ltd. "fatigue life" of aluminum.....
> What is up with the "fatigue life" of a frame, and what happens when this point is reached?
> Does the frame become a "noodle" or is it a gradual process?



Every material has a fatigue life. Carbon fiber reinforced polymer fatigues, as do steel, aluminum and titanium. There is a theoretical fatigue limit to some materials, but to build a bike out of steel and stress the frame to below the fatigue limits would necessiatate building the frame excessively heavy, likely in the tens of pounds, which nobody would want. If a frame is built correctly, it will have a life that is long enough that it will never fatigue significantly in the owner's lifetime. Some crazy light frames, or old frames might be a problem, but they would have a problem no matter what the material is. If the frame, on a relatively normal sized bike, weighs over about 2 pounds, it probably won't be a problem. CFRP may be able to go lighter than that, but we are talking about some seriously expensive frames at that point.

If the fatigue life is reached, the frame would become extremely flexy, then a crack would start to form. The crack would grow, and eventually the frame would break.

Aluminum does not have a fatigue limit like steel, but don't worry about it.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

twelvepercent said:


> Is it true that aluminum has a ltd. life in terms of fatigue...it seems that many mfrs. will actually measure how long a frame will last until it's fatigue life is at an end...they will put the frame on a machine that will repeatedly flex the frame back and forth in an attept to mimmick a racer riding for 100,000 or 300,000 km....or more
> It has been said that CF does not have the ltd. "fatigue life" of aluminum.....
> What is up with the "fatigue life" of a frame, and what happens when this point is reached?
> Does the frame become a "noodle" or is it a gradual process?



This is a pretty good resource on the subject:

http://www.ibike.org/library/bikeframe.htm#builders

The most common scenario for a fatigued aluminum frame is it cracks. I've seen dozens and dozens of these (mostly mountain bikes). I don't have first-hand experience of an aluminum frame becoming a 'noodle' or becoming 'dead' through time.

I really don't know what happens to carbon fiber. My suspicion is it doesn't crack as much but it will shatter if you whack it.

francois


----------



## No Circles (Feb 12, 2005)

*I will put in my 2 cents*

I don't think it is the material but rather the fit on the bike. I work PT in a shop and encounter people who have bikes that I would consider archaic at best but they ride centuries and just love them. The bikes fit regardless of the material. I would suspect that people who have upgraded to a more expensive bike have also had the advantage of having it fitted or were lucky. A change of 2 mph over a 30-40 miles ride is a lot. I work very hard to get 1/2 mph over 25 miles on our evening rides. I rode a Colnago Master X Lite for 5 years and thought it was great until I got a bike that was fitted for me from the ground up, not retroed to make it fit. What a difference! Now if I could just get younger....


----------



## GFord (May 28, 2012)

I am getting a carbon this week. I have ridden an Aluminum bike for 5 years


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

GFord said:


> I am getting a carbon this week. I have ridden an Aluminum bike for 5 years


When you started riding your aluminum bike 5 years ago this thread had already been dead for 2 years. Just saying...


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

Carbon is better for road racing bikes.


----------



## jiznake (Jan 24, 2012)

twelvepercent said:


> Is it true that aluminum has a ltd. life in terms of fatigue...it seems that many mfrs. will actually measure how long a frame will last until it's fatigue life is at an end...they will put the frame on a machine that will repeatedly flex the frame back and forth in an attept to mimmick a racer riding for 100,000 or 300,000 km....or more
> It has been said that CF does not have the ltd. "fatigue life" of aluminum.....
> What is up with the "fatigue life" of a frame, and what happens when this point is reached?
> Does the frame become a "noodle" or is it a gradual process?


Engineering answer: They both have a fatigue life. Every material has a fatigue life. Some materials like steel have a fatigue limit, a lower limit where the material will no longer become weaker, and other materials like aluminum have no fatigue limit, and given enough cycles there is an 100% chance of failure. For aluminum, the properties that effect riding will not change as the material weakens, it will still have the same stiffness and damping properties. The number of cycles it take to fail an aluminum frame is likely to be much higher than the average cyclist could put on a bike in a lifetime (although I'm sure it has been done). Fatigue failures are most often brittle failures which requires significant weakening of ultimate strength, so it takes awhile. 

I don't know carbon fiber properties as well as aluminum's, but I believe its fatigue properties are significantly different, being a composite material. I believe that properties that effect the ride, such as stiffness do degrade over time because of weakening in the resin, and perhaps in the bonds between the fiber and the resin. From reading on here people have definitely noted these effects. However, it seems there are also a lot of other people who have had carbon fiber frames last a long time with no noticeable degradation.

Edit: Just noticed some people already beat me to most of this information, by about 7 years. Oops.


----------



## greg12666 (Mar 29, 2012)

My wife has an aluminum Cannondale and I have a Cervelo S2. She rode my bike and will not get back on het Cannondale ever again. The ride on my Cervelo is very smooth.


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

Scott in MD said:


> Carbon is better for road racing bikes.


While that is typically true (simply because most companies are only using carbon for their highest level race bikes) the CAAD10 is every bit as good of a race bike as just about any carbon bike out there. I would actually prefer one to a significant number of carbon race bikes.

Just remember that the bike companies are building carbon bikes because we are buying them. We buy them because we were told they were better and the tour pros use them. If Peter Sagan started racing and winning on the CAAD10 I guarantee that there would be a ton more at your local races. 

The riders would be saying, "Carbon is for centuries, aluminum is for racing." And they would feel justified in doing so because we associated tour success with something that will improve our riding experience, whether or not it is true. 

(FWIW I ride a carbon uberbike and I love it, but I would trade if for a custom Gualzetti if given the option.)


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

greg12666 said:


> My wife has an aluminum Cannondale and I have a Cervelo S2. She rode my bike and will not get back on het Cannondale ever again. The ride on my Cervelo is very smooth.


The older Cannondale aluminum bikes (early CAAD especially) were among the stiffest riding bikes in the world. The Cervelo S2 is much better, but is still one of the stiffer riding bikes out there. If your wife were to ride an aluminum Specialized Roubaix she would probably never want to ride your Cervelo again.

Edit: Not meant to be rude, but people throwing out their anecdotal evidence based on such a limited scope doesn't really prove anything other than some aluminum bikes ride worse than some carbon bikes. The current CAAD10, to me, rides better than the S2. That would imply that I think aluminum > carbon. However, I find that my S3 rides better than the CAAD10. It isn't as simple as many people attempt to make it sound.


----------



## rf37 (Jul 13, 2010)

I rod my alum bike/carbon fork for 2 years and loved it but right at about 40-45 miles into rides I was constantly adjusting body for comfort. It was not unbarable enough to stop ride but it was at best very uncomfortable. I now have given that bike to my 19 year old and now I ride and alum with carbon fork carbon saetstays and carbon chainstays and the differrence was remarkable. A very noticable comfort difference for the better. I dont know all the engeneering aspects or laws of physics or any of that stuff but I will say that I was pleased at the difference it made with the carbon. Will I ever go to full carbon? I dont know. But I do know there was a deffinate improvement with the carbon for my riding style. And for the record the 2 bike frames are very similar in geometry. Not completly the same but not enough difference to be a factor.

Just my opinion
rf37


----------

