rubiksoval

Haha. Wut? No.

Haha. Really? You think 30-50 year old bike racers base their bike purchases on what pros do or ride? No. Most definitely not.

Your "ridiculously priced" hyperbole and your infatuation with $10,000+ bikes is completely irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed. It's like this is the first time you've ever heard of capitalism and have been completely blinded to the fact that every single consumer product available has high-end, expensive alternatives. Welcome to 2020. A god help you if you ever discover art, automobiles, watches, liquor, tech products, or whatever else you can't conceive of being more expensive than whatever your arbitrary price limit is. Might blow your mind.

rubiksoval

Nice quibble over semantics. Types of fibers, types of resins, the layup, the fiber orientations, the shapes, the joints, etc., etc. can all be changed, i.e., manipulated.

Crappy anything is crappy. Given two frames at the same price point, I'll take the carbon and its inherent superiority every time.

Maelochs

Value is n't fixed.

if all my bikes were given to me free, what would be the difference in "value" between one or another?

For people actually paying for their bikes, the tiny potential benefits of carbon over aluminum (benefits really only realized at peak levels of performance) might not be worth the cost.

If someone tells m, "If you ride this bike as hard as you can over a 40-k loop, and then ride this other one equally hard the next day, this one will get you to the end 25 seconds quicker .... " I have already wandered off. I could not care less, because I am not racing, pretending to race, training to race, and I ma not that interested in PRs.

For some riders, getting that 25-second advantage means a lot ... but that is not the only way to judge a ride, and there is no "best" way to ride a bike.

As the guys in the video said, get the Al frame with the better build over the CF frame with lower-end components ... but if you can afford the CF with the better build kit, of course get that .... if saving 300 grams is worth $700 dollars to you.

A lot of the folks on weight Weenies might say, "Obviously" but I try to stay with the $1 per gram limit---Just kidding, ti is a loose rule, but at what point do you stop trying to build the lightest bike? or the most aero for the weight? Why not save up for those $10,000 wheels?

For most folks there is a limited supply of cash and more places to spend than money to spend ... and saving $700 for a bike which weighs 3/4 of a pound more means ... whatever .... a new $700 wheel set? A lush weekend vacation with the significant other? I am saving for some new photographic equipment, because I have my bikes as built as I need them ....

I could always send more on the bikes .... thing is, would I Enjoy them more? Would that mega-dollar wheelset which was 100 grams cheaper really be worth it, considering my current wheels are around 1400-1500 grams? Considering I am about 70 pounds overweight on top of that? I could get Dura-Ace instead of 105 and Ultegra---but would I even notice any difference when out riding?

To me .... in part because I have a couple pretty light CF bikes already---the added cash for another would be a waste. And for me, considering how much I like my Al-framed Fuji Sportif, it would seem ridiculous to buy the CF version. I could not enjoy it more by adding or subtracting Any component---frame, brakes, drive train, wheels, are all right where I want them. I could buy the CF version (Gran Fondo) and swap over all the best parts and it would not be a "better" bike.

But for the next guy it might be.

Hate to break it to everyone, but "value" is subjective,.

Maelochs

Thing is for two frames of equal quality, the CF frame will cost More.

If the AL and CF frame cost the same, the CF frame probably won't perform as well.

Say ... you should watch that video.

rubiksoval

But performance isn't.

rubiksoval

In the video, both would take the carbon frame over the aluminum.

Ahem...

WhyFi

2007 called - they want their "low-end carbon" argument back.

Seriously, since carbon has been available in the enthusiast realm, people he-men-carbon-haters have been making the same tired argument, "sure, high-end carbon is the best, but good aluminum is better than low-end carbon, hur hur hur." Never mind that, in the last decade plus, manufacturers have stepped up their high end carbon framesets and moved the outgoing high-end stuff down to their second and third tiers and they've done so multiple times. At this point, all of the major manufacturers have outstanding "entry-level" carbon frames that are better than the best of the not-so-distant past, yet y'all are still trying to peg 'em as low-end.

Schlafen

OP is looking at 2 aluminium bikes here.
He didn't mention carbon at all.

One important thing to consider: you WILL drop/crash your first road bike at some point as a freshie, aluminium is a good choice here.

Everyone I know sold their first road bike as they naturally progressed, don't sweat it.
Also, aluminium is still used heavily in criteriums.

rubiksoval

Al is better for crashing your bike? Why? Aluminum doesn't dent? Welds don't brake?

I've crashed probably 30+ times in training and racing. Haven't broken any bikes in a crash, carbon or al.

However, I have had two different frames break, and they were both aluminum and both developed cracks, one an 8 month old Colnago. Eh.

Also had an aluminum stem. It cracked. Had two different aluminum wheels that developed cracks around the spoke holes (not even light wheels).

"Heavily used"? Not in crits around here or in the 10+ states I race in. I see the occasional Allez and Trek al, but certainly not that many, and most definitely not "heavily". Carbon rules the roost from juniors to masters, from cat 5s to cat 1s. Must be pretty decent performance and value if you go by what people actually buy and use.

Schlafen

Yes ALUMINIUM IS BETTER when you crash and want piece of mind without having to x-ray your bike every time it tips over. It will dent but most casrs you can still ride it home.
If the crash is bad enough, no matter if carbon, steel, alloy, ti, whatever, you probably need a new bike, and that is the least of your worries at that point.

I didn't say aluminium doesn't dent but aluminium doesn't crack that easily.
I'm sure as hell carbon doesn't dent though, it cracks or delaminates, the worst part is that most times you don't even know that it has failed.

Your anecdotal evidence is useless in this situation as there are too many variables to consider. Regardless of material, with heavy use it will wear/fail quicker and racing is the worst possible stress on any material. Not everyone is racing, the world of cycling is much bigger than racing. Racing and performance anything is literally the smallest slice of the cycling pie.

Give it a rest now with the carbon propaganda, some people prefer other materials, don't have the budget for carbon or simply don't want to baby a high maintenance bike.

There's a plethora of very good choices available, and OP can do whatever he /she wants.
It is what it is, it ain't what it ain't.

Sy Reene

Not really vested in the CF/Alu debate itself, but perhaps some of the reason for the higher prevalence of CF now is because you can no longer get much in the way of AL bikes with any of the better drivetrains. A look at eg. the 2014 Trek archive tells me you could buy a AL Madone with Ultegra for $2100 MSRP. Today, the 'entry level' SL6 runs you $4700

rubiksoval

So to be clear, you assert that with heavy use, aluminum or carbon or any material will fail, and I've seen that first hand with aluminum (though not really with heavy use, just regular use), but my anecdotes are useless, because having two al wheels crack, two al frames crack, and an al stem crack through normal use while not ever having anything made of carbon do the same doesn't matter in the least. , though you assert it can happen with any material. So which point are you trying to make again?

Performance is one of the biggest reasons for anything cycling related. Either going faster, going longer, or doing both with more comfort and ease, etc. That you've stumbled on this website with hundreds of threads devoted solely to improving performance through purchases, training, or technique but still fail to grasp that is very intriguing!

rubiksoval

Sure. As carbon manufacturing improved, people wanted the better bike. Makes sense to me.

An Emonda AL5 is $2000, though, while the SL5 is $2600. Not sure why you're trying to compare a Madone, which is one of the most proprietary frames available, with a run-of-the-mill no frills al frame. Of course that's going to be substantially more expensive.

Sy Reene

No, I'm saying that in 2014, you could buy a AL Madone, kitted with Ultegra componentry for $2100. Today, there is no AL option for a Madone whatsoever and the entry level model is more than twice that price, so just perhaps people are only just buying now what the manufacturers have to sell?

Yes, you can get an AL Domane or Emonda at a lower pricepoint, but not with any level of drivetrain above 105 level or decent wheels. Meanwhile you can get an entry level CF Domane with Tiagra for $2400 but no CF model available with Sora or Claris like is possible with the ALR. Likewise, it appears eg. that Trek has removed from their website, the option of purchasing the current ALR Domane frameset only for those who might have considered building up their own.

mstateglfr 

OP- hi, please help clarify the differences and benefits of these two aluminum frame road bikes.
37 posts later, an argument over carbon continues.

rubiksoval

Yeah, I get that, but you're again comparing two completely different frames. The 2014 carbon madone (I had one) just had a Kamm tail downtube and a little "fairing" type thing over the rear wheel. Otherwise, there wasn't a whole lot going on with it.

The Madone since then is absolutely crazy with 14 layers of integration, ISO decoupler whatevers, massive aero tubes, etc., etc. You couldn't make an aluminum bike in any way comparable to that. So of course there isn't an aluminum model.

There is, however, for the Emonda, because the emonda carbon and al frames "seem" much more similar (although the carbon is vastly superior, obviously).

rubiksoval

Obviously there's a performance/function/pricing issue Trek is promoting through their offerings, perhaps on the basis of "if people didn't buy it in the first place, why would we want to continue offering it?"

Schlafen

Your anecdotes are useless because besides what you replied, I don't know anthing else about your situation, how you treat your bikes, you could be 300lbs and throw your bikes off the roof off your car when you get to a race.
It's unfortunate what happened.to you, I have to agree, but doesn't really mean anything to me. Faulty unit? Bad luck? Maybe you bought used components? This is what I mean by too many variables.
So yes, with use and abuse, any material will fail.

Performance is not the main reason everything cycling related. The biggest cycling consumer is commuting, followed by mtb and fitness.
Racing wannabees are a very small percentage. Racing wannabees who spend a lot of money is ridiculously small.

This forum and it's users is a negligible percentage of the worlds cyclists population and what they prefer.
The most used chainset across the world is shimano 7/8/9 speed with a triple crank, just to put it in perspective.
The Netherlands alone has probably more cyclists than this forum has members, not even considering big countries like China.

Sy Reene

I think it's more because offering lower pricepoint drivetrains wouldn't work with the way that Trek wants to prop up the pricing in their lineups. A Claris AL Domane goes for $550 less than the Tiagra version. Take $550 off of the Tiagra SL4 Domane which is $2400, and you'd end up with a $1,850 Claris CF Domane, which would be less than the $2000 they list the SL frameset for.

Schlafen

hehe, true.

As I initially replied, the Rose bike, in the size available, only comes with 27.5/650b/c wheels.
Which would be very good if OP is short.

If OP doesn't.mind 700c wheels, he should pick the one he/she likes or the cheaper one as they seem to be specc'd quite close.
The only difference I can see is wheels.

rubiksoval

See how hard you had to try and qualify your nonsense? 300 lbs? Throwing bikes off roof racks? It's comical the lengths you're going to in order to try and validate your erroneous assertions.

But wait, there's more! From racing wannabes to commuting in the Netherlands! Talk about regressing to the point of silliness.

I'd say "good try," but it really wasn't at all. You clearly have a penchant for posting nonsense when you have nothing else to proffer.

Schlafen

Listen guy, I've only replied to your statements.
Your statements are broad, you got broad replies.
Couldn't care less if I win an argument on the internet, it's not worth sh÷t anyways. You keep doing you guy.

I hope OP got his answer.

rubiksoval

No, you made ridiculous assertions and then retreated from those assertions with increasingly irrelevant statements that have nothing to do with anything.

But hey, at least you get to post again to say how much you don't care about posting again.

Het Volk

Steel is real.

znomit

Carbon, aluminium and titanium I can find on the periodic table. Steel?