Lazyass

Them are an opinion of a faceless stranger on the internet. The only Voice of the Industry you are is the voice in your head. A high performance bicycle. You personally would be no faster on a carbon or alu frame than a 531 steel frame of the exact same geometry. That is what is a fact. Which probably isn't exactly a record setting pace to begin with. The best material is the one that feels the best to the individual.

Campag4life

I am the Voice of the Industry which is clear and you obviously aren't including all the other noise in this thread from carbon bashers and other outliers that don't deserve a vote...lol.
There is a difference between showing up to vote and deserving one.
Your assertions are silly. A 531 steel frame is going to be a boat anchor compared to a top carbon frame if climbing the alps or even local hills on a competitive ride. Nor will a steel frame climb like a carbon frame in terms of energy transfer. So your fact is fiction and why you aren't the voice of the industry. The industry for those with insight can be easily extrapolated. Steel has been obsoleted just like digital music has replaced tape players and records. Of course there will always be wistful and mislead people that believe in yestertech like you. Steel makes good boat anchors and the industry puts out the best products based upon copious R&D based upon being comprised of thousands of engineers.
This conversation can even portend to late model pick up trucks. Top rated pick up? Ford F150, with a much higher aluminum to steel content. Lighter and with same power better power to weight. Tech moves on. Sadly, some people without insight get stuck in the stone age.

Maelochs

So much BS. Steel is a great frame material. So are CF, Ti, and aluminum. Different materials for different tastes and different applications.

Moreover, all the people ranting for or against one or the other know this, they are just choosing tio ignore their own best judgment to make an argument.

What the industry does is based on what is best for the industry. Al is easier to form into complex shapes, carbon can be formed into more complex shapes ... So for mass production, and for maximum racing performance, these two materials are good--For Industry. Good money-makers. Not "better" or "best" in general, just in terms of financial return for the industry. To the industry, if most of the buyers can be sold a frame of these materials, then these are good materials.

In fact, most people buy BSOs and couldn't care less about frame material. If the Industry could make frames more cheaply out of baked dog food or old toilet paper tubes, they would, to up profit margin. They'd sell bike made of dried snot if it helped the bottom line.

Look at the auto industry as a comparison. People buy pick-ups and SUVs. Are these "the best"? Only in terms of sales figures. Most of these are made of steel ... so steel must be "best," right?

Most high-tech, high-dollar sports cars use aluminum and CF.

Most people who buy sports car buy them for image. A really good driver in a well-tuned Fiat 500 (steel and aluminum) could obliterate most owners of those luxury sports cars .... regardless of frame material. But that has nothing to do with sales ... so the industry doesn't care. All the Industry cares about is the bottom line.

Most road-racing cars are all CF. Does this mean CF is "better?" Only for road racing on a closed track. Most oval racers are made of steel. Does this mean steel is "better?" Only in certain applications and for specific reasons which only pertain to those applications.

Go look at the "Beautiful Cars" thread and you will see muscle cars, modern sports car, vintage sports care, classics from 80 years ago .... And you look at what bike enthusiasts want, and you will find people who prefer Ti, steel or CF or aluminum. Shoot, talk to audiophiles about tube amps and analog ... The industry might be moving away from "Best" in terms of sound quality.

"Better" or "best" is what each thinks it is. We know that.

A CF frame might be better for some kinds of racing, but only the tiniest percentage of riders race. For a track sprinter, other materials might work as well. For a climber, CF is about the best we have right now ... but none of us are racing at WorldTour level anyway.

Steel might give unprecedented ride quality, but to make a really good steel frame takes a lot of skill, which means it is not as good for the industry ... but "Best" for a lot of riders.

CF is almost certainly the future---until an even lighter, stronger, more easily formed material is developed. I would imagine in time people will be downloading plans and making bikes on their one 3-D printers ... Not because that will be "better" but because it will be better for the industry.

Anyway, this discussion is really showing some of the seamier sides of people. We end up getting more polarized and more strident because our "opponents" do also, until we are just screaming nonsense at each other.

Yes, Al is the industry standard, and CF or other composites will be. But that has Nothing to do with "Better" or "Best."

(Sorry for rambling ... I haven't had time to drink enough coffee. But this is starting to get silly, and I don't want to see the posters I admire embarrass themselves.)

BillyD

Campag4life

Hilarious Billy. Is the fat lady warming up?

BillyD

I don't have a problem at this juncture, I'm not reading thru all that verbiage.

Just keep it at least semi-respectful.

Campag4life

Cool. That gif is really good.

McBTC

Here's a summary: "me steel, me no hurt ass, me no blow up with no warning." vs. "me cf and alloy, me kill butts, me no live long."

BillyD

I save it for special occasions.

I'm thinking of using the following when you guys go too far:

Maelochs

Here is an accurate summary: "My favorite frame material is better than yours, because ... because."

Gif: "The bast$rd$! They killed Billy!"

dim

bottom line .... how 'safe' will a carbon frame be in 5 years time if you use it daily to commute?

same goes for the carbon forks...

would you buy a used carbon frame bike that has high mileage? .... I don't think that I will

the resale value will be ziltch

exime

I don't even care that much about the type of frame I get anymore. I just wish they would hurry up with the flat-mounted disc brake standard because it looks 10x better than the current disc brakes hanging out like a pair of saggy testicles.

lucien2

I'm grappling with this myself as I suffer from a moderate case of new bike fever. Or rather, I was. My current bike is modern steel and suits me fine; I'm not racing and I am competitive within my riding group. Still, I was impressed with a new carbon bike I test rode. Here's the rub though; to realize a tangible upgrade from my custom steel to a carbon bike, I"m going to have to spend some major dough. This steel bike weighs 18lb 10oz. A 56cm Roubaix Comp weighs 18lb 13oz. That's a $3k bike; I rode it and liked it, but not enough to pull the trigger. So I'm riding the Seven and loving it until the day comes when I can afford a tangible upgrade, and then it will be a treat just for me, not because I'm racing. And it will likely be carbon (although it sounds like I need not be close minded about AL when the time comes)

McBTC

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x31ew15

cruiserhead

Yup
All the carbon forks will blow up after 5 years. And the resale on these time bombs is zero. That's why you can get a 5 yr old top line carbon bike for nothing. They dont retain any value since they will blow up.

Safe for a daily commute? It's like riding a time bomb for sure.
SOmeone did a record of riding over 100miles a day, every day for a year on a carbon bike.But everyone knows if you let carbon cool down, it will blow up.

I say you go for steel frame, forks. Carbon is plain dangerous for anything other than a short term fling.

kc0bbq

I die every time I take out my Raleigh with its carbon fork. I just keep getting sent back from the Pearly Gates because they're not letting anyone through with 4400 Tiagra and early 2000s aluminum. It is really hard on the old ego, let me tell you.

McBTC

What could possibly go wrong?
Santa Cruz Bicycles - Test Lab - Pinkbike

DaveWC

Sure, but they should test the bikes by leaning them against a fence. Or mounting them on a bike rack. I'm sure the carbon frame would asplode immediately.

Maelochs

I was pretty much unmoved reading this thread ... until it occurred to me that humans are carbon-based life-forms.

Am I about to asplode?

kc0bbq

You know what else is carbon based? That's right, nitroglycerin. It's not a coincidence, and it's about as stable as carbon fiber.

Jarrett2

Big brands, you say? Like Specialized? Who has 4 different steel bike models in their line up and a steel frameset for 2016

I laughed about this thread today. A buddy and I were out on a long ride and happened on to a road that had construction going. Basically turning it to a white rock, gravel rock road. On my steel road bike, I just kept pedaling along, felt fine. My buddy on his aluminum bike was getting fillings rattled out behind me and dropping far back. Yep, steel sucks, I thought to myself as I laughed

cruiserhead

Why do you think we have giant openings up and down our bodies?
The problem is carbon bikes don't have giant sphincters to help regulate the explosive gases that build up inside.
That's part of the reason they will just explode one day

cruiserhead

My friend rides a steel track bike with 19c tires, steel fork, handlebars and steel rims.
pumps tires to 150psi and then follows me on the trails. I ride a full suspension 29er and he just flies past me because the steel just absorbs all the impacts.
He doesn't even need to do anything, just bombs the downhills with the magic of steel.

Bob Dopolina 

Before this hi-larious thread gets closed it think a reiteration is warranted.

As has been pointed out the ability to work aluminum has improved. Klien was perhaps the first to butt alloy tubing but even then it was limited to thinning the middle of the tubes, in a uniform fashion, while making the ends of the tube, the parts that were cut, mitred and welded, a little thicker.

This built a decent frame and allowed a modest amount of tuning.

Since then the ability to dramatically shape alloy tubes in a far more specific and focused fashion has become pretty well known.

What is less known are the additives and processes that have come to the fore in the last decade that have once again made aluminum a competitive frame material. So, to answer the original question, yes, today's alloy frames are superior to those made even a decade ago.

The rest off the stuff in this thread about carbon forks/frames failing for no good reason is the absolute height of confirmation bias and complete and utter BS. There are MILLIONS of carbon forks out in the wild and this has been the case since the 90's. If that doesn't describe a mature material and technology nothing does.

/thread.

Campag4life

Kind of a self indictment no? Why aren't you on the same kind of bike as your friend?
All 29'ers should be replaced with uber skinny and hard tired steel bikes