# Carbon Fiber (CF) versus Steel



## AythanNyah09 (Jul 14, 2012)

I have been looking at all the threads and either Im missing it or its just not there. Im a new rider, "Big guy rider", 40+ years, in decent cardio shape (due to Jiu Jitsu) but want to cut weight to fit in those clothes so I dont have to buy new ones. (That was a joke. Haha):idea:

Possible commute to work (2x a week) 10miles each way. And mosdef a weekend ride. No clue on how long or how far.

The question:

Carbon Fiber or Steel?

As a new person to wanting to get into this hobby... its pretty overwhelming. So im asking if its just me or am I just really missing something?

Carbon Fiber has a lot of hype on being the best bikes out there and everyone wants one. Its supposedly lighter, smoother on rides, better made?, and 1.5x more expensive.

Steel is old school?, supposedly heavier, cheaper (in price), and not as desired.

But for me and all my test riding so far... Steel was A LOT more comfortable ride than CF frames. I say this because when I test rode a CF frame... the road seemed "rough" and very harsh. The CF frame was about 17lbs. The Steel frame made the road feel smoother and the ride was nice. And the frame was only 1lb more than the CF. (The weight maybe not the right numbers but just as an example.) Same tires and different group sets. Shimano 105s versus SRAM apex.

As a new rider (and a heavier one)... if im looking for weight then I can lose the weight myself. Is CF frames really that much needed for a new rider or is Steel frames a better option for the rider who wants to start this hobby? (The way I look at it... I can keep up Jiu Jitsu for ever and running will just screw up my knees... so riding is something that I can do with the kids for a longer time than the previous things. Other than hiking.)


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Wrong question*



AythanNyah09 said:


> IThe question:
> 
> Carbon Fiber or Steel?


You're asking the wrong question (and why did you leave out aluminum?). How harsh a ride is comes from a combination of factors but the material of construction of the frame is a secondary issue. Tire pressure is a primary issue, as is the geometry of the frame and how it transmits road shocks as a result. Ride some bikes and buy one that you like. It is NOT about choosing frame material.


----------



## aureliajulia (May 25, 2009)

Steel. Steel rides like butter. And if you are larger, will hold-up well and be comfortable.

I love steel! Not sure what you tested. But if you want to try some more consider a Jamis Quest. Great price. A lot of bike for the money. (Assuming it's within budget). They are around 1800.00


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

My perception of your post is that you're pretty much sold on steel, but confused by that considering the hype surrounding CF. 

My advice is to go with what suites your intended uses, fits and feels best to you. If it's steel, good. If it's CF, good. Alu? Good. Bamboo? Good.


----------



## AythanNyah09 (Jul 14, 2012)

I will admit i am kinda leaning toward steel because I finally found an LBS that isnt trying to get me in the most expensive thing possible. For example... I went to the local performance store... they asked what my budget was and it was "here is this bike for $1 less than your budget. It was always a CF frame racing bike... and I thought that was a good thing!

Once i rode the steel... it felt really good. Like "butter". Compared to the CF. Unless I can find a softer CF bike... it would be in the running.

@Kerry - Never really tried Aluminum... 
@aurelia - Tried Giant TCR CF, Defy, Bianchi Infinito, bianchi Vigorelli, Torelli (steel), Jamis Eclipse, and a Cannondale Supersix. They are all within budget but the Steel bikes just seemed smoother than the CF. But, maybe i should look at a softer CF bike but i have no clue what a softer CF bike is.
@PJ - I will agree 100% but Im just trying to gleen ideas off the people who know. I guess im playing the adage of... If I dont ask... i will never know or learn.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

AythanNyah09 said:


> @PJ - I will agree 100% but Im just trying to gleen ideas off the people who know. I guess im playing the adage of... If I dont ask... i will never know or learn.


Absolutely understand and you're smart for garnering others opinions.

All I'm saying is that there's no magic to any one frame material that everyone 'gets' and you don't. As has been mentioned, a number of facets enter into that smooth ride beyond frame material. 

That aside, if you've found a LBS you like and rode a steel bike you like (and it fits well), there aren't many other details of much importance. Go with what feels right, go with your gut and go ride your new (steel) bike! :thumbsup:


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

aureliajulia said:


> Steel. Steel rides like butter.


Perhaps, perhaps not. My steel frame and steel fork Surly Pacer was painful on rough pavement until I dumped the steel fork and replaced it with a carbon fork. Now it rides like butter. A better steel fork might have improved the ride as well, who knows. Point being: "steel rides like butter" is a slogan that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

buy from the LBS you like and feel comfortable with. having a bike fit properly is critical. No need to feel you have bought an inferior bike because it is steel. Most of the commercial steel bikes will have a CF fork anyway. There are doggie bikes made of steel and doggie bikes made of CF and Al. There are great bikes made of all these materials as well. BTW you are better off with a doggie bike that fits than a great bike that doesn't.


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

AythanNyah09 said:


> Is CF frames really that much needed for a new rider or is Steel frames a better option for the rider who wants to start this hobby?


No, you don't have to have CF and in fact some of us still prefer the ride of steel even in this day and age. Buy what feels best to _you_, not what the marketing people tell you that you need.


----------



## SgtChang (Mar 28, 2012)

I just got into the game as well, I ride Aluminium. I'm staying away from CF for now, as a matter a fact, I drove my bike into the garage frame yesterday...had it been CF, I probably would have cried imagining how much it would have cost to replace it. For just a commuter and a weekend ride here and there, I love my bike. I think you'd like steel too, save the CF for when you want to get serious into riding and you'll probably appreciate it more.

Also, you are the first 40+ year old man for me to hear a "mosdef" from. Cool.


----------



## Kennyo (Jun 19, 2010)

Carbon fiber is highly engineered to make a very efficient frame- efficient in cutting through the air, requiring less power to get up the hill and along the road, less power required to accelerate; basically to help you become faster than you would be otherwise. All that engineering and expensive fabricating comes with a pretty significant price, which is arguably worth paying of you are trying to hone your performance.

It sounds like you need to ride rather inefficiently, in order to lose body mass. It also sounds like you value comfort on the road. Steel will do that. I'm not saying CF won't; it certainly can, but with CF, you'll be paying for a lot more than you're asking for. If you intend to race, or even just push your own limits of performance, then I say go for CF. There are well-engineered CF frames that will ride just like steel. I happen to own one of each. I think it's kind of like buying a corvette to pick up groceries. You could do it, and do it in real style, but why?

If you don't plan to do more than commute, ride with the family, and ride to get fit, with no major emphasis on pushing power thresholds or things like that, then why pay all the extra money for CF? If you have more money than you know what to do with, then why not? Most of us don't have that kind of money problem though. Steel is real. Affordable. People do in fact spend a lot of money on steel frames too, but I don't thing that is very reasonable to do. Steel is so much cheaper to fabricate than CF. You could buy cheap Chinese CF, but that gets scary.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I have a steel bike & a CF bike. If I could ride blindfolded & don't think I could tell the difference in the ride qualities. BTW, my CF bike is a Giant Defy Advanced. Get what ever feels best to you.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 4, 2006)

Kennyo said:


> Carbon fiber is highly engineered to make a very efficient frame- efficient in cutting through the air, requiring less power to get up the hill and along the road, less power required to accelerate; basically to help you become faster than you would be otherwise. All that engineering and expensive fabricating comes with a pretty significant price, which is arguably worth paying of you are trying to hone your performance.


Carbon fiber can be engineered to some of these things, but it doesn't inherently. I have a CF frame (Canyon Ultimate CF) that I'm pretty sure is less aero than most steel road frames. Even when it does accomplish some of those things, the gains are usually quite minor, assuming you are comparing similar the same class of bicycle with otherwise similar components.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Kennyo said:


> Carbon fiber is highly engineered to make a very efficient frame- efficient in cutting through the air, requiring less power to get up the hill and along the road, less power required to accelerate; basically to help you become faster than you would be otherwise. All that engineering and expensive fabricating comes with a pretty significant price, which is arguably worth paying of you are trying to hone your performance.





Mr. Jones said:


> Carbon fiber can be engineered to some of these things, but it doesn't inherently. I have a CF frame (Canyon Ultimate CF) that I'm pretty sure is less aero than most steel road frames. Even when it does accomplish some of those things, the gains are usually quite minor, assuming you are comparing similar the same class of bicycle with otherwise similar components.


+1. I'd go a step further and offer that Kennyo's take on CF is essentially 'marketspeak'. Makes for good ad copy, but little else.


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

Comfort is dependent on geometry and wheels and tires IMO. This is of course dependent on price. If you are looking at a price of <$1500 (about) you are likely to get a better ride out if steel or aluminum. If you spend more than $1500 you will sew some great rides in steel, titanium, and CF. 
They can all ride good and can all ride bad it harsh depending on tube shape, quality of metal, geometry, etc

Since you are just getting into it I suggest getting whatever feels and fits good in your price point. If you really get into it it won't matter what you buy now cause you will want something else in a year or so anyways


----------



## lolpierandom (May 19, 2012)

Main problem with CF is it's so hyped you can hardly find any Ti or Steel frames by big name manufacturers like Trek, Cdale, Giant, etc.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

You're absolutely right, steel is a very comfortable material. I think the reason it lost its appeal is due to it's frame flex. 
Carbon has a great ride without the flexing of the tubes. 
Simply put, if you want a great ride, go with steel.


----------



## AythanNyah09 (Jul 14, 2012)

Kennyo - What CF frame do you have?
Mr. Versatile - I tried the Giant Defy and I did like it quite alot.

Thanks for everyones input. In terms of pricing... tbh... I have a healthy budget. I wouldnt say money to burn but money that has been saved for specifically this one reason. To purchase a bike.

I am gleening a lot of information from all of you and I appreciate it. Without having a true defined path... it is always difficult to choose and so many great choices. To give more insight on assistance, I do have a healthy budget and lets say I would like to keep EVERYTHING (bib, shoes, pedals, and if needed upgraded wheels) under 4k. That is the luck of playing hold'em a little bit too much. 

Overall, Im definitely not trying to race anyone or to "shave" ounces or seconds off of my ride... but my true end goal is to ride centuries for charities. Its kinda like wanting to run marathon... one of those things that I want to check off that bucket list. But, Im looking for a century or two under my belt. I dont plan to do one in the next month but I do have that 12-18month plan... and then I can do the charities. 

Secondly, even though I am a "returning "beginning rider... (i used to ride long distances when I was younger, in the military 20 years ago). I often think that it will be easy for me to get the bug again... especially since i had it before. I am not sure of getting the lower end bike and then the year or two later... get another bike to hit those centuries... or to just get the bike that I can do a century now. Is it truly worth getting the better bike now versus later scenario?

For example... my dream bike has always been Colnago. Yes, high profile name and probably not worth the price for a beginning rider... I truly considered those frames once I have test ridden them. On the other hand, do I get that bike that I would consider 24 months from now versus just build up the strength now and get a Al or Steel bike?


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

"Nags" are great bikes. No doubt about that, but they're racing machines. Many modern day bikes look alike. You see a lot of carbon fiber, sloping top tubes, similar components, but the devil is in the details. My steel De Rosa is a race bike...period. If you rode it casually over a long period of time you'd (at least I would) be less comfy than on a bike that looks nearly identical, but is, in fact, built with slightly different geometry (angles), and perhaps more compliant tubing. 

I just completed a supported tour that went from San Diego to Bethany Beach Delaware. Vans carried everything for us so we could ride with just an under seat wedge bag. I wouldn't have dreamed of taking my De Rosa on a trip like that. I love my De Rosa but that's just not what it's made for. My Giant Defy Advanced is, IMO, the prefect bike for a long unloaded trip like that. LOL. Just happen to think...would I ever take a Colnago on a trip like that. HAH! Not on your life.


----------



## AythanNyah09 (Jul 14, 2012)

Awww... well my knowledge of current frames are pretty much non-existant. So, if I had to re-ask the question... then I would love to ask any recommendations to get me up to centuries?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

AythanNyah09 said:


> Kennyo - What CF frame do you have?
> Mr. Versatile - I tried the Giant Defy and I did like it quite alot.
> 
> Thanks for everyones input. In terms of pricing... tbh... I have a healthy budget. I wouldnt say money to burn but money that has been saved for specifically this one reason. To purchase a bike.
> ...


A couple of thoughts re: the (key, IMO) bold statements.

First, price range. Simply put, I think even though your could easily spend up to 4k, it's not at all necessary. You could find a quality frameset (full CF, steel) with 105 or similar groupset for well under 3k, leaving the remainder for the accessories you mentioned. And I don't think you'd lose much dropping your bike budget down to the low 2k's. You'd just get a lower end groupset (Tiagra/ Apex) which both suite recreational riders needs.

Re: the (seeming) correlation between needing a 'better' bike to ride centuries, that's just not the case. As long as a bike suited the intended purpose, fit well and was geared appropriately, you could ride a century on an entry level bike just as easily as you could on a mid-range bike. The latter might be a little lighter and have a slightly better groupset and wheels, but none of those things trump fitness. And the 'motor' (you) is what's ultimately going to power you through a century.

re: the last statement, I think it's nothing more than the "do I buy better now to avoid upgraditis, or go lower in the event I don't pursue the sport". Other than to say no one avoids upgraditis and almost everyone ends up with more than one bike (we all _need_ that rain/ commuter/ trainer bike), I'd say... you're money, your call. FWIW, similar to what I offered under price range above, I'd lean towards going lower for now. It won't hold you back, will be easier to sell if you decided to and could always serve as that second bike if/ when you decide to upgrade.


----------



## Shynloco (Jul 20, 2012)

Like you, I'm new to this blog, but have been riding for enjoyment for over 8 years and to try and keep this "OLD body" in shape. Based upon my experience, BIG GUYS often end up with back problems in their "senior years." Being 65 now, I'm not big but do occasionally experience back issues with the slightest of movement thats NOT on my bike. And I have usually ridden an aluminum framed bike which treats my back pretty nicely. But something I've also learned over the years, when you ask a questions about brands or whats the "best", you'll get 10 different answers from 10 different guys. Each stands by what they ride as they should simply because it works for them. In terms of the beliefs of the differences between a carbon fiber frame and say an alumium or metal frame bike, from my studies of the materials, the CF frame will in all likelihood provide the "softest" ride because the CF frame have a reputation for better shock absorbsome. To me, that translates to it'll save my back for more rides. In a literal sense, it also translates into costing you more $$$. So might I suggest you do some reading and investigating into the materials bikes are made of and learn the pros and cons of each. Might help you a little more in finding what YOU are looking for and not what others have already found for their needs. And that is not meant to be disrespectful of anyone else's ideas on what they think might be the best for you. Good luck and safe riding.


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

> In terms of the beliefs of the differences between a carbon fiber frame and say an alumium or metal frame bike, from my studies of the materials, the CF frame will in all likelihood provide the "softest" ride because the CF frame have a reputation for better shock absorbsome. To me, that translates to it'll save my back for more rides. In a literal sense, it also translates into costing you more $$$.


Although I agree with what you said for the most part I disagree with the above. The issue here is that you are looking at the material as it stands alone on basic properties and not the material as it works within the system.
Based on your suggestions Alu would ride terribly but I have ridden some very nice Alu bikes and some incredibly bone jarring CF bikes that made me miserable after 15 miles. 
A good bike is built to maximize certain properties of materials. Good builders and designs in tubes and geometry can make any bike ride very smooth. 
Because of budget of OP he will probably be looking at CF as it us the most mass produced bikes one is likely to find in your LBS today. 15 years ago it was mostly titanium, aluminum and steel with some CF. Just because the market changes does not mean its right. If the market change to almost all CF in your LBS was right you would not have all these custom frame builders with 3-5 year wait lists.
Also, if you want smooth and are not concerned with weight or a little frame flex nothing beats steel IMO. However CF or Titanium offers the best mix of all qualities with metal bikes lasting longer and more easily repaired should something happen 

Either way OP should get something in the $1500-$2000 range as it will be a very nice bike regardless of material. No one walks into this sport/hobby knowing everything or even that much. After a year or two (maybe less) he will know better what kind of rider he is. Strengths, weaknesses, likes and dislikes. He will probably want something else that will suit his goals, and riding needs better.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 4, 2006)

lolpierandom said:


> Main problem with CF is it's so hyped you can hardly find any Ti or Steel frames by big name manufacturers like Trek, Cdale, Giant, etc.


I fail to see the problem...


----------



## AythanNyah09 (Jul 14, 2012)

@PSY - I agree with you 100%. And being new to the forums and having this as one of my first questions is always difficult to understand needs vs wants. I am planning on sticking with the $2k budget or maybe $2.5k and looking specifically for endurance "long distance" bikes. Especially since my plan is to ride for charity in a 12 month+ period. I think Cervelo RS (type of bike) is a great example and if I can find it in my price range... then at least I can get out there and ride!


----------



## maxfrm (Jan 15, 2012)

Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist

information you may study


----------



## scorchedearth (Mar 22, 2012)

I recently went shopping for a new bike to complement my MTB. Since I was putting a lot of road miles on my Kona, I decided that I needed something a little more roadworthy.

In my test rides, I tried out all kinds of nice bikes. Some were CF, others were steel or aluminum.

The CF bike (a Bianchi Sempre) was fast, light and a great ride but rather jarring. I could feel every little nubbin on the road on that thing.

I settled on a steel framed Bianchi Volpe because it felt more comfortable and I enjoyed the ride more. It was also much cheaper than the Sempre and the Sempre felt like too much bike for me at the time.

In the next year or two, my perspective may change but right now, I couldn't be happier with my decision. 1100km later and I'm still going strong.

If the steel felt better, get that bike and most of all, ride it!


----------



## vladvm (May 4, 2010)

steel beat the hell out of me, not responsive and heavy 23lbs.

i've been daily commuting 20km one way on a full carbon fiber bike for 3 years now. very comfortable, doesn't rust, resposive and light less than 17lbs, easy to climb up and down the stairs.

get carbon fiber.


----------



## thebludoc (Aug 21, 2012)

Steel is a tried and true material, and tends to be (tends) cheaper than CF.


----------



## Mottleydude (Sep 7, 2011)

Aythan. Don't know if you made your decision yet on steel or CF but I ran across your thread here and found it interesting and thought I'd give it my two bits from an engineering perspective.

Any given material can be used to create a bike with a desired ride quality depending on the geometry and components used. There are some real advantages and disadvantages to steel and carbon frames.

The real advanage for steel is that it is the strongest material you can use for a bike frame. Don't listen to the market hype about CF being stronger. It isn't. CF can have stronger tensile strength than some steel alloys depending on the number of fibers and how it's oriented but CF does not come even close to having the absolute or compressive strength of steel. Steel also has the highest modulus of elasticity of materials used for bike frames which gives steel that wonderfull springy quality. CF and Aluminum have virtually no modulus of elasticity. This essentially makes steel frames more robust than CF or Aluminum as they can take a higher degree of deflection under stress or an accident than Al or CF with out permanently deforming or breaking. Steel is also a mature technology with far more being known about its real world applications than CF. It's also far easier, though more labor intensive, to customise a steel frame than an Al or CF frame. These are significant advantages for steel. Steels two biggest disadvantages are it's density (it is nearly double the density of aluminum) and it corrodes. 

Carbon Fiber has several advantages. The primary ones being you can build up layers of carbon where strength is needed, and use less where it is not or even apply it to be more aerodynamic. That way a frame can be created that is strong where it needs to be and compliant where it needs to be at a lower weight. The disadvantage of carbon is that a carbon frame just simply does not have the durability of a quality steel frame. A steel frame can be easily protected from corrosion by caring for it properly but a CF and Al frame will suffer fatigue failure with use over time and if your involved in an accident the odds of a CF or Al frame having a catastrophic failure are far higher than with steel. The second disadvantage to CF over a steel frame is that a comparable quality CF frame cost substantially more.

So to sum it up. 
Steels advantages - stronger, more durable, easier to customise and cost less. 
CF advantages - lighter and is more flexible in creating performance specific designs than steel.

So what does this mean for you? If you are competing at the highest level and need the lightest bike possible that is customized into your dimensions so as to have superior handling and ride quality and cost is not an isuse. Go with CF. 

If on the other hand you are riding for fun and fitness and you want a top end bike that will last a life time and is customised or designed to provide you with superior handling and ride characteristics at a lower cost but will weigh a pound or two more, go steel all the way. The fact of the matter is, steel bikes are built to last. Al and CF bikes have their advantages but they simply do not have steels strength and durability and with todays modern steel alloys you'll only be at a pound or two disadvantage. Since you won't be racing against Andy Schleck up Mt. Ventoux. That shouldn't be a deal breaker.

My suggestion in your case, as you described it, is go with a good quality steel frame. Something made with high end Reynolds, True Temper or Columbus steel tubing would be hard to go wrong.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Mottleydude said:


> Carbon Fiber has several advantages. The primary ones being you can build up layers of carbon where strength is needed, and use less where it is not or even apply it to be more aerodynamic. That way a frame can be created that is strong where it needs to be and compliant where it needs to be at a lower weight. The disadvantage of carbon is that a carbon frame just simply does not have the durability of a quality steel frame. A steel frame can be easily protected from corrosion by caring for it properly but a CF and Al frame *will suffer fatigue failure with use over time* and if your involved in an accident the odds of a CF or Al frame having a catastrophic failure are far higher than with steel. The second disadvantage to CF over a steel frame is that a comparable quality CF frame cost substantially more.


a properly designed, engineered, and constructed carbon frame has a fatigue like? really? you sure about that?


----------



## ibeamcarver (Jul 1, 2011)

*Gunnar*

Try out a Gunnar Sport.
Great steel frame, comfortable geometry, will fit a 32mm tire or a 28 with fenders in case you ever want to commute in the rain. Very versatile bike.


----------



## Mottleydude (Sep 7, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> a properly designed, engineered, and constructed carbon frame has a fatigue like? really? you sure about that?


Quite sure. http://www.coe.montana.edu/composites/documents/AIAA 2012 fatigue of composite materials.pdf


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Mottleydude said:


> Quite sure. http://www.coe.montana.edu/composites/documents/AIAA 2012 fatigue of composite materials.pdf


i could be reading that incorrectly, but everything i see in that paper about materials lists what is basically fiberglass. i'm quite sure it has a different fatigue life than carbon fiber.


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

On September 6th while riding my custom steel Schneider I had a bad crash. Off to the ER. Was knocked out for 3 minutes according to my friends and there is around an hour I don't remember. And this was with a helmet! The handlebar apparently hit the toptube and I now have a two inch long and very deep dent in the tube. The paint is not broken and the tube is not going to fail-still safe to ride. If this had been CF or Al the frame would likely be toast. When i want to spend the money the toptube can easily be replaced as it is a lugged frame and the frame repainted. I had a Look I liked a lot until I crashed it out. Humm seem to be a pattern here. Maybe it could have been repaired if sent to Calfee (spelling?) but I didn't want to be thinking about it imploding or not on a hammerfest ride or flying downhill.


----------



## Mottleydude (Sep 7, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> i could be reading that incorrectly, but everything i see in that paper about materials lists what is basically fiberglass. i'm quite sure it has a different fatigue life than carbon fiber.


I'm sure it does but that's not the point. It's not the carbon fiber that fatiques. It's the resin it's embedded in. Some resins/cf combos are certainly superior to others where fatigue life is concerned which brings me right back to the point I was making about steel. It has the highest modulus of elasticity and the highest yield strength of any material used to construct bicycles. Carbon fiber composits don't come close to steel in terms of absolute strength, modulus of elasticity or yeild strength. Where CF does have big advantages is in directional strenghth, that is you can apply strength when and where you need it in frame design and it has a substantially lower specific gravity than steel. That means you can make a frame that is lighter than steel, strong and responsive or one with unique applications like an aero time trial frame, but it simply will not have steels durabilty or springiness. Nor is steel as suseptable to catastrophic failures like CF composites and aluminum. Steel will bend before it fails. CF and Aluminum, when they fail tend to do so suddenly and catastrophically. Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down CF as a frame building material. The fastest lightest bikes in the world are made from CF composites but they are more expensive than a quality steel bike and they are not as durable. As with most engineering solutions you make compromises depending on which design properties you wish to prioritize.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Mottleydude said:


> As with most engineering solutions you make compromises depending on which design properties you wish to prioritize.


Since we're talking about bike frames/ materials, that's the crux of the matter, not controlled studies, abstracts or white papers that are unrelated to bicycle frames and their methods of design. 

That said, I agree more than disagree with what you offer, but some is arguable. 

For example, it's not a given that steel is stronger or more durable than CF. It depends on exactly _what_ steel and its makeup and the CF construction in question. Depending on the layup and CF grade used, CF_ can_ be stronger (than steel) _directionally_ and it almost always has a higher STW ratio. 

Another example - Reynolds (basically, 4130 chromoly), Tange Prestige and Tru Temper OS (to name three) have (IMO) proven to offer a good balance between durability and (relatively) light weight. But higher end steel such as True Temper S3 which (by design) is light by steel standards, is more prone to denting. To a lesser degree and IME, Columbus Nivacrom is another.

Point being, to generalize and say steel is _always_ more durable than CF would be inaccurate, because (ironically) lower end CF bike frames having more material (resin/ epoxy) not only adds weight, but provides a level of durability as well. Due to their inherently different properties, they'll fail differently (as will alu), but that (partly) relates to fatiguing.

Here's something that (IMO) tells a buyer most of what they'd need to know about frame materials and their inherent advantages/ disadvantages.
http://www.caree.org/bike101framematerials.htm


----------



## Mottleydude (Sep 7, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Since we're talking about bike frames/ materials, that's the crux of the matter, not controlled studies, abstracts or white papers that are unrelated to bicycle frames and their methods of design.
> 
> That said, I agree more than disagree with what you offer, but some is arguable.
> 
> ...


Yes, I do agree with you there and I think I did make a couple of points you have, particularly about CF's versatility and directional strenght. In general though, IMHO, if you're not racing and you have a limited budget I believe you'll get more bang for the buck with a high end modern steel bike than you will with a CF composite bike.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Mottleydude said:


> Yes, I do agree with you there and I think I did make a couple of points you have, particularly about CF's versatility and directional strenght. In general though, IMHO, if you're not racing and you have a limited budget I believe you'll get more bang for the buck with a high end modern steel bike than you will with a CF composite bike.


Not arguing your opinion, but if you apply your statement _"you make compromises depending on which design properties you wish to prioritize"_ to the consumer rather than engineer, if my priority were weight and optimizing STW, CF trumps high end steel in most any price range. So again, arguable. :wink5:

Just for the record; I like steel, but I like CF as well. For various reasons, I prefer both to alu, but recognize that all have advantages and disadvantages. Key (IMO) is weighing both, then applying the excerpt above to a purchasing decision.


----------



## wallaby (Jul 23, 2006)

We really need a religous board.

Steel vs CF.

Campy vs SRAM vs Shimano.

XC vs Road.


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

Screw CF and steel. Get titanium!


----------

