Practical advantages of Carbon over Aluminum track frames (beyond aero)?
I'm struggling with the practical advantages of carbon over aluminium track frames, other than aero...which is an important factor no doubt.
First on me: I'm moderately experienced on road bikes, doing some road and TT racing, new to track racing, enjoying it immensely, geeking out on all of the gear, getting sucked down the rabbit hole. I generally build my own bikes, test and tune fit until things are dialed, and enjoy the process. I've swapped out nearly every part on my track bike, tweaking and tuning everything, the only thing stock (for the time being) is the seat post and headset. I'm using a Felt aluminum track frame currently (current TK2/3 series, with the seatstays that join in a single aero-shaped vertical member which hides behind the seat tube). The aluminum Felt frame is pretty darn stiff. The way the tube shapes have been formed and tapered for aero, it really looks influenced by modern tri or TT frame designs, pretty impressed with what they've done with a very affordable track frame. Looking at carbon track frames from Felt, Look, Cervelo, Avanti, BT, FES (gorgeous), etc, it would seem that the major advantage with those frames over aluminum ones (which are limited in tube shaping) is optimized aerodynamics. Beyond that, are they stiffer, or is there some other performance advantage that makes a difference? Ride quality would seem to be more of an issue on road, as carbon tends to be better at absorbing vibrations with tuneable layup orientation, tube tapers and shapes, etc, but I would think that perhaps it's not such a strong factor on track (granted, outdoor paved tracks may have more surface variability than wooden/indoor tracks, and a frame which absorbs vibration better may be more of a consideration in that case). Geometry can be an issue, but instead of being limited with the stock setup, I always swap out bars, stems, posts, seats, extensions and base bars, etc and dial in fit. I'm long-legged and armed (82.5 cm BB Center to Seat Surface), pretty flexible in the lower back, and am riding 58cm road and track frames, and Med TT frame. I can make nearly any frame fit with cockpit customization within reason, as long as I'm within a reasonable range with top tube length and front stack for my height, build and riding position. For now, I'm more focused on learning about practical performance differences in carbon VS aluminum frames (and definitely wanting to avoid quality problems as well, such as spreading rear dropouts on the DF4 referenced in another thread). Goals for my track frame of the future, in no particular order:
Thanks for your insights, really appreciate it. Fun learning about this. |
Yes, carbon frames can be made stiffer, more aerodynamic, and more durable than aluminum.
Whether you need anything more than the aluminum frame you have is another question. |
Originally Posted by topflightpro
(Post 20649536)
Yes, carbon frames can be made stiffer, more aerodynamic, and more durable than aluminum.
Whether you need anything more than the aluminum frame you have is another question. Going to carbon from aluminum on my road bikes was a significant step forward in several respects including vibration dissipation, ride quality and handling (plus acceleration and climbing with lower mass). I would imagine that even with far fewer surface quality variables on track versus road, the aero and acceleration performance improvements alone could be important considerations. I feel like this is somewhat of a recreational discussion, as the irrational gear-guy inner voice just says, "Who cares about proof of why they're better, they're obviously more aero, lighter and look killer, what more reason do you need? Just sell one of the kids and get carbon!" :D |
Originally Posted by Super D
(Post 20649495)
I'm struggling with the practical advantages of carbon over aluminium track frames, other than aero...which is an important factor no doubt.
There exist: - Noodly carbon frames. - Ultra-stiff steel frames. - Wind-tunnel superstar aluminum frames.
Originally Posted by topflightpro
(Post 20649536)
Yes, carbon frames can be made stiffer, more aerodynamic, and more durable than aluminum.
Whether you need anything more than the aluminum frame you have is another question. A rider who makes 1600W max doesn't need the same frame as one that makes 2,500W max. I think many budget conscious riders would benefit from swapping the suffix "-est" for the phrase "enough for me", as in: "I want the stiffest frame!" vs "I was the frame stiff enough for me!" There are no performance gains when a rider goes from a frame that is stiff enough for them to one that is stiffer. The only rider that gains is the one who goes from a frame that they personally flex to one that they cannot flex. Super D, I'm sure you'd have an opinion on this: Compare a CAT1/2 rider on a properly fitting and tuned aluminum Performance Bike bike with a 105 group with a CAT3 rider on a custom Madone with "the works" package. Who would perform better? I mean, we've seen Jens do it in the TDF :D (...and it wasn't even properly fitting!) https://cdnmos-bikeradar.global.ssl....oh-1200-80.jpg And I've seen countless elite racers do it at DLV and elsewhere. |
Originally Posted by Super D
(Post 20649591)
Is there bench-testing for modern track frames published anywhere, and additionally, have there been on-track tests comparing various racing frames? It'd be interesting to read such things.
Going to carbon from aluminum on my road bikes was a significant step forward in several respects including vibration dissipation, ride quality and handling (plus acceleration and climbing with lower mass). I would imagine that even with far fewer surface quality variables on track versus road, the aero and acceleration performance improvements alone could be important considerations. I feel like this is somewhat of a recreational discussion, as the irrational gear-guy inner voice just says, "Who cares about proof of why they're better, they're obviously more aero, lighter and look killer, what more reason do you need? Just sell one of the kids and get carbon!" :D If it makes you feel any better, I've had more money than sense when I came to bikes. I've owned: - 2 custom alu Tiemeyers - Dolan DF3 - LOOK 496 - Felt TK1 - Felt TK FRD - Custom Snyder Steel - Planet X Stealth Pro Carbon - Bianchi Pista - Bianchi Pista Concept And I can honestly say that the aluminum Tiemeyers and steel Snyder were on-par with the LOOK and Felts and the Dolan was soft like the Bianchis under my fat butt (and moderate torque output). But, it is to be noted that Mr. Tiemeyer and Mr. Snyder both took my weight and power output into consideration and beefed up the tubing accordingly to make them stiff enough for me. If I hopped on some other rider's Tiemeyer or Snyder, I might find them noodly as well. |
Go to this thread and start at the most recent page and work backwards. 50.1 has some nice new offerings (I'm not affiliated).
https://www.bikeforums.net/track-cyc...ete-bikes.html |
The biggest concerns when getting in to carbon track frames are:
- Proprietary seatposts that slip (even under lighter riders) - Proprietary stem systems The seatpost slipping thing is very real in the track world, even among some top frames. I've heard some chatter about it in the road world, but I'm not in those forums enough to know if it's at the same extent as track. |
Originally Posted by carleton
(Post 20649626)
...There are no performance gains when a rider goes from a frame that is stiff enough for them to one that is stiffer. The only rider that gains is the one who goes from a frame that they personally flex to one that they cannot flex.
Super D, I'm sure you'd have an opinion on this: Compare a CAT1/2 rider on a properly fitting and tuned aluminum Performance Bike bike with a 105 group with a CAT3 rider on a custom Madone with "the works" package. Who would perform better? I mean, we've seen Jens do it in the TDF :D In terms of the topic of getting more than you need (or more pointedly, getting more than you can exploit), I used to do a little auto racing and ski racing in younger years, and the same thought process applied in those environments. What good is getting something which offers better performance, if you don't have the ability or capacity to make use of it? How many skiers do we see on racing skis who can't buy a turn, or drivers on track piloting killer sports or racecars getting passed by someone in a much lesser car who has actual driving skills? :) For me personally, the road bike I ride (carbon framed) is:
|
Originally Posted by Super D
(Post 20649676)
Good perspective. Not all bikes, regardless of materials, are created equal (my Cannondale Evo Hi-Mod road bike is far superior in several ride quality and performance areas compared to my previous/older Scott Addict, for example).
In terms of the topic of getting more than you need (or more pointedly, getting more than you can exploit), I used to do a little auto racing and ski racing in younger years, and the same thought process applied in those environments. What good is getting something which offers better performance, if you don't have the ability or capacity to make use of it? How many skiers do we see on racing skis who can't buy a turn, or drivers on track piloting killer sports or racecars getting passed by someone in a much lesser car who has actual driving skills? ... Ben |
Super D, the real bang for the buck in terms of things that definitely make one faster are:
- Skinsuit - Bike fit with focus on aerodynamics - Helmet - Shoe booties - (certain) Aero Front wheel (Zipp 808 seems to be the best verified bang for the buck) 4 of those 5 relate to one's body. The body composes 90% of the things that make drag. The aero front wheel is most of that remaining 10%. The frame is mostly just the platform on which everything is attached. It must be stable. A frame being aero is only a small bonus when compared to the entire package. |
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
(Post 20649714)
Total aside but a fun story re: race car driving - my uncle race Formual Vees at Lime Rock, Conn when I was young. (Formula Vees are Volkswagon chassis and engines in an open wheel body.) Decades late, Audi came to Lime Rock to promote their race level hottest car by renting out driver time on the track. (Kinda like auto-school, with an instructor with override controls in the passenger seat.) The promoter got word of my uncle and looked him up. Offered him a ride. My unc got to seat himself in the hottest car he had ever been in to drive a track he hadn't seen for 30 years but that he knew better than the back of his hand. Took the first lap slow as he got used tho this completely different car. Next lap, faster, in fact a touch faster than the instructor had driven, Instructor didn't react but was clearly a little nervous. Next lap, my uncle just let it hang out. An ashen instructor asked him if he wanted a job doing what he was doing!
Ben |
Originally Posted by Super D
(Post 20649495)
The conclusion might be that, being budget-limited, even though my road and TT bikes are carbon, there is no justification for racing track on anything other than the Felt aluminum frame I'm already on.
|
Originally Posted by carleton
(Post 20649790)
Super D, the real bang for the buck in terms of things that definitely make one faster are:
- Skinsuit - Bike fit with focus on aerodynamics - Helmet - Shoe booties - (certain) Aero Front wheel (Zipp 808 seems to be the best verified bang for the buck) 4 of those 5 relate to one's body. The body composes 90% of the things that make drag. The aero front wheel is most of that remaining 10%. The frame is mostly just the platform on which everything is attached. It must be stable. A frame being aero is only a small bonus when compared to the entire package. It would be interesting to see for a given rider, with all of the elements you mentioned, which frame designs are additive in terms of aerodynamics in some meaningful way. And, for the same rider, which frames provide other advantages beyond aerodynamics, whatever measurable factors those may be. As you rightly pointed out, having an ultra stiff frame which can transmits energy from a massively strong sprinter isn't necessary for someone who doesn't put out that level of power. |
Originally Posted by gl98115
(Post 20649855)
There's your answer.
|
Originally Posted by Super D
(Post 20649868)
That's what it seems like. I'm still curious learning about frames (because it's fun to understand how the different pieces of gear work, just like other speed sports), but I realize that the biggest factor in improving speed is improving me, and that will be the case for quite a long time, maybe forever. :)
Not forever. Just when knowing what you want, desire, and have extra cash to make it "justifiable" to "upgrade". Part of the fun of track racing is dialling your race rig to what yiu want, as well as honing yourself. And as another reason to allow that, it drives the small economy behind the track equipment scene. |
Originally Posted by taras0000
(Post 20649958)
Not forever. Just when knowing what you want, desire, and have extra cash to make it "justifiable" to "upgrade". Part of the fun of track racing is dialling your race rig to what yiu want, as well as honing yourself. And as another reason to allow that, it drives the small economy behind the track equipment scene. |
Originally Posted by carleton
(Post 20649790)
Super D, the real bang for the buck in terms of things that definitely make one faster are:
- Skinsuit - Bike fit with focus on aerodynamics - Helmet - Shoe booties - (certain) Aero Front wheel (Zipp 808 seems to be the best verified bang for the buck) 4 of those 5 relate to one's body. The body composes 90% of the things that make drag. The aero front wheel is most of that remaining 10%. The frame is mostly just the platform on which everything is attached. It must be stable. A frame being aero is only a small bonus when compared to the entire package. |
Originally Posted by Godsight
(Post 20650203)
Shoe booties are illegal for indoor track racing IIRC
|
Originally Posted by Super D
(Post 20650215)
I think you're right, only mid-calf socks are allowed. I use aero shoe covers in outdoor time trials only.
*UCI focusing on the big issues in racing. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Super D
(Post 20649868)
That's what it seems like. I'm still curious learning about frames (because it's fun to understand how the different pieces of gear work, just like other speed sports), but I realize that the biggest factor in improving speed is improving me, and that will be the case for quite a long time, maybe forever. :)
|
Originally Posted by topflightpro
(Post 20650454)
I'm going to disagree with this some. Track is the first place where I truly felt the frame made a difference, notably in the handling, which means I'm going faster.
What you were riding at first, what did you switch to, what was different materially and structurally, and what did the new frame/bike feel like in detail versus the previous one? What do you like most about it, and (other than price if that's a friction point), is there anything you don't particularly like? I've felt differences in road bike frames and tires, tennis racquets and strings, snow skis and boots, sports car suspensions and tires, skateboard wheels and trucks, etc. In track bikes, with such a limited range of surface variables, I would bet that the differences in frames could stand out to an experienced rider, so it's going to be interesting hearing your reflections on this. Now...I'm aware that I don't "need" a different frame, and my abilities as a rider are the most important things to improve, but understanding the differences in frames can help if I eventually try to find a better one during an irrational time of obsession...That never happens with bike gear for any of us, does it. :D |
Because of the *multiple* angled surfaces of the track, different head tube angles and fork offsets have dramatically different effects on handling. And that’s on a single velodrome. If the rider travels to other velodromes of different dimensions, there will be different experiences. ...then factor in rider speed. I would imagine that this is similar to adjusting caster and camber on a race car. When it’s right, it’s awesome. When it’s not, then confidence plummets. |
Originally Posted by carleton
(Post 20650838)
Because of the *multiple* angled surfaces of the track, different head tube angles and fork offsets have dramatically different effects on handling. And that’s on a single velodrome. If the rider travels to other velodromes of different dimensions, there will be different experiences. ...then factor in rider speed. I would imagine that this is similar to adjusting caster and camber on a race car. When it’s right, it’s awesome. When it’s not, then confidence plummets. This is an important point I haven't asked about, geometry. Looking at Felt for example, my alu frame VS the TK1 carbon frame, it's more than just a different animal with tube materials and structural design; the TK1 is long and low in its geometry, completely different handling. I'd imagine it's more stable at speed. |
Stick with what you have for now. You will know when it is time to purchase a new frame. I would take the money you would have spent on a carbon frame and buy a powermeter. That would be money well spent that could move from bike to bike. |
Originally Posted by colnago62
(Post 20651087)
Stick with what you have for now. You will know when it is time to purchase a new frame. I would take the money you would have spent on a carbon frame and buy a powermeter. That would be money well spent that could move from bike to bike. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:15 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.