Originally Posted by
Super D
I'm struggling with the practical advantages of carbon over aluminium track frames, other than aero...which is an important factor no doubt.
Your gut is absolutely right. There is no huge difference...or any difference at all. It's more on the manufacturing techniques than "X material is better than Y material in terms of Z characteristics."
There exist:
- Noodly carbon frames.
- Ultra-stiff steel frames.
- Wind-tunnel superstar aluminum frames.
Originally Posted by
topflightpro
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.
Exactly.
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
(...and it wasn't even properly fitting!)
And I've seen countless elite racers do it at DLV and elsewhere.