BillyD

I've never broken a steel bike either, and back in the day I rode some pretty rough urban streets, with potholes you gotta hit to avoid swerving out into traffic. And at 6'5 I've never weighed less than 200 pounds.

. . .

But I digress, we're talking about aluminum vs CF.

Trsnrtr

All but one of the bikes that I've broken in the last 34 years was when I was racing crits as a Cat 2 in the 80s. I weighed between 145 and 160#. My memory isn't perfect so I might miss one or two.

All of the following were steel unless otherwise noted:

1984 Gianni Motta - broken at BB/seat tube
1985 Raleigh Pro - broken at BB/seat tube
1980 Cinelli knock-off - broken at head tube
1987 Nishiki Comp III - broken right rear drop out
1988 Nishiki Team Pro - broken through down tube at the water bottle braze-on
1990 Albert Eisentraut - broken seat stay at seat tube
1990 Albert Eisentraut - broken head tube/down tube
1988 ALAN CX - broken head tube/ down tube (Aluminum)
1988 Trek 460 - broken seat tube/BB

and, finally, 2005 Specialized Roubaix Pro - twisted out the BB sleeve.

So, that's 10 bikes, 80% were steel. Hope that i didn't miss any.

IcySmooth52

If the thread topic is going towards frame material durability, I'd like to share the bikes that've snapped under me.

Both carbon frames, but I was hit by riddiculus drivers who's insurance couldn't argue with their fault. Of course they were both broken, but I was astonished at how little they were broken with the forces they got. Carbon bikes aren't delicate like some think. Maybe the über-duber light ones, but not Jamis Xeniths or Fuji Altamiras.

big john

Impressive list, Dennis. I've only broken 4 frames, 3 of which were steel.
Now if you want to count broken wheels.....

DaveLeeNC

FWIW, 5 non-rotating pounds is always 5 non-rotating pounds. It doesn't matter what you/bike weigh, if you want to climb a hill at a given speed and you add five pounds the additional power required to maintain that speed is the same regardless of bike weight. And it isn't a huge amount, either.

And FWIW you will descend faster on the heavier bike!

dave

spdracr39

Buy the bike that pleases you the most. Groupsets and frame material have some small differences but overall not really that noticable. I shop in this order 1 Comfort and feel 2 Aethetics 3 Value. Having the upper end groupset on a carbon bike has its benefits in making you "fit in" to the club scene but how you ride the bike speaks more for you in the end than what you are riding.

SevenTwentyNine

Yes. You must still get the total of your weight plus that of your bike up that hill. If your bike is lighter, you have less cumulative weight to drag up against gravity - but it's deeper than that.

The weight difference between a carbon bike and aluminum bike isn't as important as the components each bike has/the totality of what the bike is made up from; gruppos, wheels, etc.

To make carbon frames more accessible to the general public manufacturers have a habit of dumbing down the groupset that comes with it. I've seen full carbon bikes with Tiagra and Apex groupsets. If you know your groupset tiers then that's just ludicrous and honestly the weight savings you're getting isn't worth it in that case but some people are so fixated on carbon carbon carbon they don't see there's more to it and they get a rush of blood to the head because they have a carbon bike now.

There's also no point chasing carbon this and carbon that to save weight on your bike when you can lose weight to increase your watts/kg which is what really counts.

I smile and nod when I see people touting the micrograms they've saved on their bike but yet they're walking around carrying the weight of up to two UCI compliant bikes around their midsection and thighs - that's 14.99lbs x 2 which is basically 30lbs.

You'd be better off with a top of the line aluminum bike with Ultegra(105 too) or SRAM Force than a carbon bike for $500 more with dumbed down components.

And considering the difference between the aluminum bike and the carbon bike you're looking is roughly $400-$500 I suspect this is the case here.

greenlight149

The frame actually doesn't even weigh much compared to the complete bike. For example, a 18 pound bike is not super light, but the frame only weighs 2.5 pounds, saving a few hundred grams off the frame won't make much if any difference. There's a lot of weight in the components and wheels etc. Weight difference between aluminum and carbon frames aren't much at all in the grand scheme of things.

Tiglath

I would get an aluminum bike. Carbon has been a disappointment for me. I had a Pina Prince and good bike as it was, it had a rough ride on anything but the best road. I though that it was because of the not so good wheels and 23 tires, but now I have an F8 with good wheels and 25 tires, and much better as it is, it's nowhere near my Cinelli Supercorsa, with it's Rolls Royce ride quality. The F8 is not even as comfortable as my Cannondale CAADX 105, which is a superb alu bike, with a great ride and feel. I would certainly take that above any carbon bike I've tried. Maybe there are carbon bikes out there with a plush ride but I have not tried any yet.

I am talking about racing bikes, not leisure ones. Both the F8 and the Supercorsa have aggressive geometries, yet the Cinelli seems to have also the greatest ride.

Cannondale alu bikes are something else. Apparently they feature some of the most advanced engineering using aluminum and bear no resemblance to the typical alu bikes of the past. As for weight, a light bike does feel better, so if that is important get a light bike, but performance wise the difference will be negligible for a heavy rider.

I've been riding for decades and I have never broken a frame. It must be because I don't race. I ride hard though, and I only like racing bikes. I can't imagine what you have to do to crack a frame without crashing. You guys are abusing those poor machines

eyewannabike

Get a carbon bike and something with a relaxed geometry. More weight means more strain on your joints and the carbon will absorb more of the bumps. Get a used bike. You'll be able to sell it for what you paid if you end up not liking it. Specialized Roubaix, Trek Domane, Cannondale Synapse are all examples of endurance type bikes that are more made for comfort. Try to get at least 105 components.

Weight is weight. A lighter bike means less weight going uphill. Hills are pure physics. There's no form that avoids moving X weight up Y elevation. That said, there's a cost to really light bikes and it's not likely to make a noticeable difference.

Vexxer

I think I have settled on aluminum, probably with Tiagra, but 105 If I can find the right deal. I test rode a Ridley Carbon bike today with Ultegra, and a Fuji Aluminum with 105, and actually preferred the Fuji, both were race geometry, and I did did not fell that was right for me, so Im gonna look at endurance bikes, unfortunately they did not have any in my size to test ride, in fact, none of there stores within 50 miles did.

Tiglath

A suggestion, if I may: The Cannondale CAADX is a cyclocross bike that comes with knob tires. However if you substitute Conti GP4000 II 28s, the bike takes a new character. The 105 works flawlessly and because it's a CX bike it has more clearance. The result is an excellent all-rounder. The Conti 28s have great rolling resistance, and can do road and gravel equally well, In all, it's a great any day bike rain or shine, It's also sturdy enough for a big fellow, and at around 20lb with a compact 105 it climbs really well. And, the CAADX is superbly engineered to absorb road chatter better than a stiff carbon bike. Test ride one if you have the chance, even with the big 35 knob tires it's a prize package.