gif4445

I've ridden a few shorter brevets (200, 300, 360 km) on a carbon frame Roubaix. I've ridden a double century plus (230 miles) on my Surly LHT also. Both are ok. Takes a little longer on the LHT. Tires of course are different (28 mm on Roubaix, 38 on LHT) Looking at purchasing an up-grade. Steel, carbon, Ti. My question and wanting your opinions: On the long rides (up to 1200 km), with all other things (tire size etc) being fairly equal, what material do you want your frame to be made of? And why, of course.

Machka 

Personally ... I've done one 1200K with aluminium, and all the rest with steel. I like steel.

79pmooney

I've done up to 175 mile days and 800 mile weeks on steel. 135 days and 500 mile weeks on ti. Both work well. (I prefer ti on the rougher roads but had no difficulties on steel before there were many options.) Never owned carbon or aluminum. On both steel and ti I have observed that tubing choices and geometry matter a lot.

Ben

vwchad

I've done the same 200 mile ride on my carbon fiber bike and my steel bike. At the end of 200 miles on my carbon fiber bike I was done and wanted to chuck in off the nearest cliff and never put another mile on it again. After that same ride but on my steel bike I felt like I could ride another 100 miles. My average speed was within .1 mph between the two, so speed was a non-issue.

To be fair, there are more differences between these bikes than just frame material. The carbon fiber bike has 23mm tires and the steel bike has 42mm tires. There are also differences in geometry, saddle, handlebars, etc. Hopefully this is somehow helpful.

unterhausen

that's funny, because whatever length of ride I do, I always feel like I couldn't do another mile. 200k, 300k, 400k, 600k. Actually, there was one 1200k where I felt so good at the end, I wanted to keep going. It's never been the bike though, I'm just worn out. Sometimes my butt is worn out.

The simple answer is that I ride steel because I make my frames myself. The high end steels are an excellent material for making bikes. I feel like there isn't enough difference to really worry about. The advantage steel has is that it can be customized, and there really aren't any carbon bikes that are what I would want for long distance. The only one I know of that is aimed at long distance is the Volagi, but that isn't quite the same. I want a front rack, larger tires, lights and fenders, hopefully without kluges and compromises.

kingston 

There were about 12 of us on the 600k I did this year. I think there was 1 fast guy on a carbon frame. Everyone else was on a steel bike. It's easy enough to finish on a steel bike and a lot easier to add fenders, racks, and lights, so I don't see the advantage of carbon fiber for the average person who is just trying to finish under the time limit. I also tend to carry a bunch of extra crap which would easily negate the weight savings of a carbon frame. Ti seems like a similar unnecessary expense to me.

ThermionicScott 

Give me a carbon bike with relatively low trail, a fork that isn't too stiff, clearance for fatter tires, and the ability to mount fenders, and I probably wouldn't ride anything else.

bikemig 

My guess is that tires and tire volume has more to do with comfort than frame material.

pdlamb

A bike frame is a bridge truss with a fork stuck in the front. The fork can soak up some shock, if it's built to do that. The frame material doesn't make much difference in ride quality. If you want ride quality, go for lightweight, flexible, big tires. So pick a frame material that can handle that kind of tire. (Hint: it's the frame design, rather than the frame material!)

gif4445

Thanks for your responses. What I take from them is that material doesn't matter as much as geometry and wheel/tire selection. Tire selection, as long as it is not limited by what will fit, is a relatively easy change, while geometry will be locked in basically when the purchase decision is made. I've been considering a custom build, but that's a question for another thread. Personally, frame material does matter to me, only if it may mean a difference in weight. On my 360 km Flèche, I needed to keep up with my riding partners and I'm sure if I had my LHT I wouldn't have done it. No doubt there are steel options much lighter than the LHT, but that was my only steel option with the bikes I had. Next steps IMO, will be to address the geometry concerns, with the ability to accommodate wider tires.

unterhausen

the truth is, if I had a giant building to hold bikes and no budget constraints, I might have a carbon distance bike. But I probably wouldn't ride it on anything longer than a 300k, or maybe a 400k if I figured I was going to have a faster than normal ride. Reason being, there is a better chance of the bike taking a beating on longer rides.

Having said that, roads in Eastern Pennsylvania have been very bad for the last 4 years or so, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to expect a big improvement any time soon. That's just not carbon-friendly. I'm moving towards bigger tires as a result, and steel seems like a good idea.

Low trail might be an issue, I barely keep up with carbon forks. But there are plenty of carbon cx bikes that probably will take fenders and decent sized tires. I think there are a couple of 55 mm rake carbon forks for those bikes, so that would be mid-trail. Or at least better than all of the 45mm rake forks

FBinNY 

I don't think distance is the key. Conditions are more important, and there are situational considerations. If riding on good roads then CF should certainly hold up well enough, but then again the small weight penalty of a steel bike with similar geometry shouldn't make much difference.

I'm a fan of metal, and prefer bonded aluminum or Ti for lightness and steel for durability, but have no issues with CF. However if I were riding someplace in the 3rd world steel would be a no brainer because it's the most field serviceable should the need arise.

dim

I have 3 bikes ....

A Giant TCR full carbon

a Specialized S-Works Transition E5 (aluminium with carbon forks, carbon seat stay and carbon drop handlebar)

a Surly Long Haul Trucker (steel with 26 inch wheels)

on straight level roads, there is not much between the Giant and the S-Works as far as speed is concerned (they both weigh very similar ... approx 8kg on my bathroom scale)

however, the Giant is faster on hills, but I think it is due to the fact that the geometry is different (longer handlebar stem), and I generate more power when standing and pedaling... on the straights, the speed is very much similar and both are very comfy (both fit me very well) ....

The Surly rides like a Cadillac, but is very slow .... as it stands, it weighs approx 19kg (stainless steel mudguards etc) I use this as my Winter commuter.... I would not use this for a 200km+ ride

if I were to do a long ride with lots of climbing, I'd use the Giant .... but saying that, my favourite bike is the S-Works

cs1

I'm sure CF would work for you if someone made it in the proper geometry with enough tire clearance. Maybe one of the so called carbon gravel grinders might be close. Good luck on the search.

vwchad

Agreed.

vwchad

Someday I'd like to try my hand at building a frame. That alone is enough reason to prefer steel.

gif4445

As a matter of fact, I have been looking at a Specialized Crux. Mostly for gravel ( I live in a rural area, 4 miles to the closest pavement), but possibly long distance. Can take tires up to 40mm I believe. The whole geometry deal is something I need to research further though.

manapua_man

I've been using my carbon CX bike with 35mm tires for some pretty long rides recently, and I've done some (very) light touring on it.

IMHO there's really nothing wrong with carbon or any other material as long as the bike fits well and can hold what you want to carry. I wouldn't be all that concerned about durability either. Even carbon road frames are a lot tougher than most people here would make you think. I figure anything that ends up trashing my frame is probably going to land me in the hospital at the same time, regardless of what it's made out of.

clasher

I did an entire SR on my carbon roubaix and would gladly do it again. I hope to ride a 1200 on it next year. I run 28mm tires, vittoria open corsa right now... I also do a fair bit of "gravel grinding" with my roubaix, never worried about it breaking or anything. No room for fenders though. The only thing I wish I'd done is bought a carbon CX bike so I could run 32 or 35mm tires. If work picks up in the new year I might do just that. I find my carbon bike more comfortable than my steel road bike, swapped the wheels to compare the rides. I would take 953 or Columbus stainless over titanium these days, seen many cracked Ti frames but there's a lot fewer stainless frame out there to compare to so I dunno. Many modern steel frames are pretty sweet too.

Carbonfiberboy 

You might have a look at Volagi: Liscio II | Volagi Cycles
This is a carbon bike purpose built for long distance. Ragsdale rode one on RAAM.

I've ridden my '99 carbon Trek 5200 on a number of brevets and other long distance rides, running 23mm tires at 140 lbs. I never felt beat up and was pretty fast for my age and ability. My legs would get tired, but everything else was fine. My goal in rando is to get off the saddle ASAP. I like to move right along.

StephenH

The #1 guy in RUSA miles rides exclusively titanium (and has ridden carbon and steel in the past).
The #2 guy in RUSA miles rides carbon, titanium, steel, mainly the first two, and don't know if he has a preference.
The #4 guy in RUSA miles rides exclusively carbon.
The #1 lady in RUSA miles rides titanium, steel, carbon, any of the three.
The #2 lady in RUSA miles rides mainly carbon, some titanium.
The #3 lady in RUSA miles rides exclusively titanium.
The #4 lady in RUSA miles rides mainly carbon now, has ridden a lot on titanium.


Note that "all other things" aren't equal, though, as steel is available in a greater variety of geometries, often at lower cost; steel and titanium are easier to get in custom frames, etc. Many of the rando riders on steel bikes have features that are not available on carbon bikes. So the "ride" enters into it, but there's a lot of other things, too.

gif4445

Interesting. I guess it just goes to show that frame material should appear a little further down the preference list, below geometry and tire size.

gif4445

I should probably start another thread, but since I have the ears of some intelligent people, I will ask it here. I got no response on this question over in the bike fit forum.

"A lot of people have talked about choosing the correct frame geometry. All I know from the bikes I have owned, the longer wheelbase has made the ride more comfortable. After that, I don't know. I have peeked at the custom builders websites and know they have you take some personal measurements that they use in part to build the frame. Does anybody know how those measurement correlate to frame dimensions? By taking those same measurements and comparing them to a stock frame, what's the odds that the stock frame would be close or close enough to what you would need without going the custom route?"

Carbonfiberboy 

I just replied to you over there. See my post 20 here.

gif4445

Thank you for referring me to that site again. I briefly browsed it earlier, but just now spent some time there and found the bike fitting chart. Good stuff. Now I need to make the measurements and see where it takes me.