Yet another try at "Is carbon faster?"
07-16-14, 09:26 PM
#126
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I know my months of timing the same route on different bikes has already been dismissed, but, I would like to state the ride experience I am enjoying from my carbon bike.
High frequency bumps are muted so I can focus on pedaling. Big jolts don't knock the bike around as badly, and the bike quickly settles thus allowing me to get back on power quicker. Lighter weight, seems to accelerate, climb and sprint more aggressively. Cornering and high speed descents seem more stable, allowing me to push harder. But again, this is the only what I have noticed while riding. YMMV
High frequency bumps are muted so I can focus on pedaling. Big jolts don't knock the bike around as badly, and the bike quickly settles thus allowing me to get back on power quicker. Lighter weight, seems to accelerate, climb and sprint more aggressively. Cornering and high speed descents seem more stable, allowing me to push harder. But again, this is the only what I have noticed while riding. YMMV
07-16-14, 09:29 PM
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I don't know, but my guess is somewhat educated. I can tell you how stiff an oversized steel tube bike is in general having owned one, and ridden several.
Rodriguez didn't magically change the charecteristics of steel. The tubes on that bike are not particularly oversized, and there's no unusual shaping. To get to the frame weight claimed, they've got to be using very thin walled tubing (which also btw is not terribly durable due to denting issues).
So very thin walled steel tubing that isn't particulary over dimensioned, and doesn't use any exotice shaping in all probability is going to be way more flexible than a modern CF bike.
It's also somewhat telling that the y sell the bike on weight and comfort, with no claim as to stiffness, and no mention that I can see of any special techniques to increase stiffness.
And the reason many people find steel bikes to be comfortable is because they're flexy.
Rodriguez didn't magically change the charecteristics of steel. The tubes on that bike are not particularly oversized, and there's no unusual shaping. To get to the frame weight claimed, they've got to be using very thin walled tubing (which also btw is not terribly durable due to denting issues).
So very thin walled steel tubing that isn't particulary over dimensioned, and doesn't use any exotice shaping in all probability is going to be way more flexible than a modern CF bike.
It's also somewhat telling that the y sell the bike on weight and comfort, with no claim as to stiffness, and no mention that I can see of any special techniques to increase stiffness.
And the reason many people find steel bikes to be comfortable is because they're flexy.
07-16-14, 09:55 PM
#128
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,604
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3917 Post(s)
Liked 1,973 Times
in
1,408 Posts
I'd like to interject a funny story here:
I was shopping specifically for a carbon bike. I came across a review of one, where the reviewer said something like, "One of the noticeable things about this bike is that when you're seated and climbing hard, your legs loaded with lactate, and you come out of the saddle, this bike doesn't hurt you, it just accelerates." I thought that was some of the rankest BS I'd ever read in a bike review, though that comment stuck with me.
But you know what? I wound up buying that bike, nothing to do with that review, but the guy was right. Beats me. Something about what's compliant and what's stiff. The bike just goes. Designing a frame to go fast is a complicated thing. Not really much to do with the weight of it, though every .01 second counts in competition, rather more to do with putting power to the asphalt without hurting the rider. I've been on perfectly nice major brand bikes that simply wouldn't go for me.
I was shopping specifically for a carbon bike. I came across a review of one, where the reviewer said something like, "One of the noticeable things about this bike is that when you're seated and climbing hard, your legs loaded with lactate, and you come out of the saddle, this bike doesn't hurt you, it just accelerates." I thought that was some of the rankest BS I'd ever read in a bike review, though that comment stuck with me.
But you know what? I wound up buying that bike, nothing to do with that review, but the guy was right. Beats me. Something about what's compliant and what's stiff. The bike just goes. Designing a frame to go fast is a complicated thing. Not really much to do with the weight of it, though every .01 second counts in competition, rather more to do with putting power to the asphalt without hurting the rider. I've been on perfectly nice major brand bikes that simply wouldn't go for me.
07-19-14, 01:18 PM
#129
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lund, Sweden
Posts: 323
Bikes: Ridley Noah, Trek Emonda, Colnago C59, Colnago Master, 1980 Colnago Super, Wilier Blade
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I have been riding road bikes for 30 years and have a couple of CF bikes including a Ridley Noah and Specialized Tarmac as well as a Mercx Aluminum frame with CF seat stays, a Colnago Master 11 speed and a Colnago Super 7 speed. Since I am 55 my performance is mediocre at best (my FTP is around 220watts) but I ride weekly club rides averaging 20-23mph over 30-200 miles. I have all my personal performance statistics in Training Peaks and enjoy analyzing my performance. I used the Ridley Noah for racing and time-trials and it definitely gave me my best results, but that is over a 6-20 mile time trial running at 90% of my max pulse (185) for the entire race where the aerodynamics and 2lb advantage over my Colnago make a difference. Unfortunately the top-tube broke in a crash during my first crit, and has been repaired but not restored to service. The Tarmac is probably similar in performance, only about one pound heavier than the Ridley. So in a race I would probably go with CF. But in our weekly club rides, riding with cyclists 20-30 years younger than myself, it does not make any difference which frame material I use. I keep up, and produce the same number of watts (have power meter on Colnago and Tarmac) and have the same pulse. Last week while riding the Colnago during a 40 mile club I was at the front with another rider my age, we were asked to slow down a bit. I even managed 6 Strave PR's on this regular club route on the Colnago Master that same day. I prefer the Colnago for the ride since I am able to squeeze in 29mm Panarace Grand Bois tires and it makes for a more comfortable ride on poor roads. I have also checked the performance versus the 7 speed Colnago Super, and I am maybe .5mph slower... At the end of the day it's the motor that counts and not the frame...
07-20-14, 01:41 PM
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 194
Bikes: Ax Lighntess Vial EVO D (+ Paduano Fidia)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have been riding road bikes for 30 years and have a couple of CF bikes including a Ridley Noah and Specialized Tarmac as well as a Mercx Aluminum frame with CF seat stays, a Colnago Master 11 speed and a Colnago Super 7 speed. Since I am 55 my performance is mediocre at best (my FTP is around 220watts) but I ride weekly club rides averaging 20-23mph over 30-200 miles. I have all my personal performance statistics in Training Peaks and enjoy analyzing my performance. I used the Ridley Noah for racing and time-trials and it definitely gave me my best results, but that is over a 6-20 mile time trial running at 90% of my max pulse (185) for the entire race where the aerodynamics and 2lb advantage over my Colnago make a difference. Unfortunately the top-tube broke in a crash during my first crit, and has been repaired but not restored to service. The Tarmac is probably similar in performance, only about one pound heavier than the Ridley. So in a race I would probably go with CF. But in our weekly club rides, riding with cyclists 20-30 years younger than myself, it does not make any difference which frame material I use. I keep up, and produce the same number of watts (have power meter on Colnago and Tarmac) and have the same pulse. Last week while riding the Colnago during a 40 mile club I was at the front with another rider my age, we were asked to slow down a bit. I even managed 6 Strave PR's on this regular club route on the Colnago Master that same day. I prefer the Colnago for the ride since I am able to squeeze in 29mm Panarace Grand Bois tires and it makes for a more comfortable ride on poor roads. I have also checked the performance versus the 7 speed Colnago Super, and I am maybe .5mph slower... At the end of the day it's the motor that counts and not the frame...
09-23-14, 02:27 PM
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126
Bikes: Steel 1x's
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Here is some terrible anecdotal evidence for you 
I have been riding a 2013 Specialized (AL frame) Secteur Expert Disc for the last year. My average on my daily 20 mile ride was around 15 MPH.
A few weeks back, I bought a 2014 Specialized (CF frame) Roubaix Elite and started riding it on the same daily ride. My average speed on the first ride on the same 20 mile stretch, 17.2 mph. Second ride, 17.1 mph. Third ride, 17.4 mph. And so on...
The only thing that changed was the bike. Why am I now going 2+ mph faster on the new bike? No idea. Bikeforums.net tells me it has nothing to do with the bike. I'm just glad I made the purchase.
I have been riding a 2013 Specialized (AL frame) Secteur Expert Disc for the last year. My average on my daily 20 mile ride was around 15 MPH.
A few weeks back, I bought a 2014 Specialized (CF frame) Roubaix Elite and started riding it on the same daily ride. My average speed on the first ride on the same 20 mile stretch, 17.2 mph. Second ride, 17.1 mph. Third ride, 17.4 mph. And so on...
The only thing that changed was the bike. Why am I now going 2+ mph faster on the new bike? No idea. Bikeforums.net tells me it has nothing to do with the bike. I'm just glad I made the purchase.
Last edited by Jarrett2; 09-23-14 at 02:31 PM.
09-23-14, 02:30 PM
#132
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
Carbon is probably faster, it's just not as good looking.
