Old 11-05-18, 02:09 PM
  #1  
Super D
Full Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 227

Bikes: Canyon Road, Argon18 TT, DF Track

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
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:
  • All-in-one frame, to be used for sprint and endurance events, with stem/bar swap-outs for different race types.
  • Durable, easy to live with, racing on a budget, so no fragile, finicky frames that are best left to pros who get them at no cost.
  • Affordable as possible, sub-$1000 used most likely (or might be best bang for the buck to get a complete used bike, even though I'll swap out parts later).
  • Aero as possible within reason.
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. It could be that the major life-changing advantage of a carbon frame for a racing hobbyist is more aesthetics and psychological/emotional satisfaction from beautiful carbon bike designs over practical performance? We shall see...

Thanks for your insights, really appreciate it. Fun learning about this.
Super D is offline