robb webb

I have been riding my mountain bike (trek 4300) on the road for the past few months and enjoy the smooth ride. I have arthritus and although I enjoyed riding in the woods it caused my back to hurt. I am riding 40-50 miles per week and would ride more except for that bothersome work that takes up so much of my time. I borrowed an aluminum Cannondale road bike from a friend last week and really liked how smooth it rode and was suprised at how comfortable it was on a 20 mile ride. I also average 1 mph faster without even trying. I went to my LBS and tested a Trek 1600 and liked it a lot. I am going to go this weekend to another LBS and look at some OCR's. It seems a bike set up with the same components (ultegra/105) can be bought in aluminum with carbon forks and seat posts for about five or hundred dollars less than full carbon. Is the carbon worth the extra money and does it really help dampen the ride a lot better?

lesdunham

I purchased a Motobecane Immortal Force from Bikesdirect 2 months ago and am very happy with it. Upgraded from a Diamondback Interval. BD does what they say and are in no way a customer service lbs. But UPS was a bigger headache than the BD transaction. The IF is all carbon, light, compliant, is easy to assemble if you have any bicycle knowledge. Some people say check all fasteners and probably have the lbs give it the once over. The chinese knockoff pedals aren't worth using. Handlebars and saddle are a personal preference. Some have changed em, I have not and like them. Ultegra is great but with the triple up front may be overkill or information overload if you are really pushing your limit. Bottom line - do what is best for you.

NOS88

I've tried a bit of an experiment this last spring. I have three road bike that are the same size (wheel base, top tubes, head & seat tube angles, etc.) One is steel, another alum, and the third full carbon. I rode each over the same routes for a week without riding the others. I did this, because I wanted to know for myself if the carbon was really "that much better." IMHO, the carbon is the best ride of all three. I feel more comfortable, can ride longer and faster, and climb better with it. It is not, however, without it's negatives. In particular, the material has little margin for damage. I'm on my third carbon frame this year.

Raketmensch

In my opinion, a good carbon frame provides a much more comfortable ride than an aluminum frame. I've been riding carbon for about eight months now, and I find that the combination of light weight, crisp handling, stiffness, and (especially) vibration damping is exceptional. Even use of selected carbon frame elements (which is what my wife has on her bike) can lead to significant improvements.

Is it worth the money? That depends not just on how much you like the ride, but also on how much disposable income you have. Nobody can judge that but you. Bottom line: do exactly what you're doing... test ride, test ride, test ride.

Grampy™

I don't own carbon or Aluminum but I've ridden both and the carbon is a much nicer ride.... However! If you add Titanium to the mix........

Big Paulie

Or steel...inexpensive, durable, comfortable, and easy to repair. If it were introduced today as a new material, it would be hailed as absolute genius. You give up 2 or maybe 3 pounds in weight, and that's the downside.

will dehne

BP
Please, our airplanes would not fly very well without the new materials, our cars would guzzle even more gas, our camera's would be four times the weight, our TV you could not lift, our bikes (I shudder at the thought), etc, etc.
I just came off the CF Trek Madone and read your post.

centexwoody 

+ 1

To tell you the truth, CF scares me - somehow I envision splintering carbon fibers as I missjudge that speed bump and the fork breaks, the handle comes off in my hand, etc. So I'll just ride the real steel and be a Luddite about the new materials. Our roads built on expansive clays are so lousy that the delicacy of CF would not let me ride without a teeny bit of fear about midride fracturing.

As for aluminum, I had an aluminum crossbike in Germany for a month & that's the worst ride I've ever taken: every bump jarred my hands & arms, the frame was waaay unforgiving. I'll trade off the weight of steel against aluminum any day.

Altho must admit I've got a carbon seat post on my Surly and the ride is real comfy. My favorite wife is gonna go with an aluminum frame, CF front fork, CF seat post because her biggest issue outside proper fit is vibration hurting her shoulders & wrists but she wants a lighter bike to ride.

dauphin

well, I have a Bianchi that is alu/carbon...carbon fork and seat stays. Rides like a dream to me, but wth do I know?

rck

Having ridden only aluminum for the last 16 years, I cannot personally say if cf is worth the extra dough. That being said, I have read in any number of places that frame geometry and tire selection are the two primary components in ride comfort. I accept these comments as fact and continue to ride my old c-dale, thusly avoiding the agony of indecision created when one faces the which brand, which model, which material puzzle.

CrossChain

Never really lived with a carbon bike so I'll forego an opinion. Everything being equal, which of course is hard to really find, I much prefer steel to aluminum. In short, the former goes twang and the latter goes clunk.

On a more affective level, my steel, lugged frames somehow put me in touch with those wooly, weathered riders squinting out at me from those old sepia photos.....and I like that.

Tom Bombadil

I have no personal experience with a CF, but in my research on bikes, I ran across tests conducted by a couple of bike companies and both stated that CF far outlasted steel. I remember one of them had two CF bikes in a test where both had over 130K miles on them and were going strong.

In another test, reported here:
https://www.bikeworx.net/Road%20Bikes.htm

The two carbon frames did extremely well, far outlasting all of the steel frames in the test. And compiling a better average than any other material.

I've seen others but don't have the references handy. And I don't know if the CF built in the 90s are as durable.

Shifty

I bought an all carbon Cannondale this spring, it is by far the most comfortable bike I've owned. I still own two steel bikes and one aluminium, I never ride the steel, still love the aluminium, but the carbon has been a joy to ride, I've racked up 3500 miles on it since March 1, 2006. Get the carbon.

Big Paulie

Wow, this is a unqualified statement that really needs qualifying.

Carbon fiber is great...until you get a nick in it, then the integrity of the structure can fail completely and without warning. I've used carbon fiber in non-cycling applications since the late seventies -- that's before it was even availabe to the general public -- and I can tell you from hard learned, first hand experience, that carbon fiber cannot be designed so well and built so carefully that the brittle nature of the material is totally compensated for...especially if light weight is the overriding design priority.

Saying carbon fiber outlasts steel may be justified in the lab, but in the real world, CF can be pretty unreliable. Especially when the marketing-driven burden of "being lightweight material" is added to the equation. Carbon fiber isn't light. It's stiff. So parts can be made with less material that are rigid enough to test-out as being "light and strong" in the lab. But that's not the same as being durable in long term, practical application. There are 40 and 50 year old steel bikes still out there, functioning safely. Composite construction hasn't been around long enough to understand the limits of the material, but 90's-era carbon fiber frames are already starting to degrade...so you do the math.

When you make carbon fiber parts that weigh below alloy construction to meet marketing expectations, you are pushing the envelope of reliablilty. Look at the 2 or 3 serious handle bar failures in the European pro peloton in the past two years. All of the bars in question were carbon fiber. These guys were riding the best available equipment that money could buy, with the fastidious maintanence carbon fiber demands, and they couldn't make it to the finish line with money and prestige on the line.

The problem with carbon fiber in something as light as a road bike is that the line between "light and sensitive" and "dangerously brittle" is blurred. The wall thickness of carbon fiber frame tubing is so thin relative to the outside diameter, the slightest flaw can lead to catastophic failure. The same holds true with carbon fiber handle bars. Conversely, a carbon fiber fishing rod, which has a small outer diameter but a proportionatley thicker wall, can bend and torque and still stay intact. Carbon fiber Formula One suspension parts are obviously functional and relatively safe, because the parts aren't so fragile that the slightest mar will render them useless. But the tubing on bike frames and handle bars has to be so thin and light to be of benefit, that the flaws of the material are bound to catch up with at least a few riders...and I don't want to be one of them.

And, interestingly enough, the ubiquitous "lifetime warrenty" that comes with carbon fiber frames only applies to the life of the frame, not the life of the cyclist. If my CF frame breaks at speed, and I kill myself, how much is the manufacturer going to pay my wife? The cost of replacing the frame!

I don't hate carbon fiber! It has a lot of great applications, and I'm the first guy to drool when I see a bike like a Colnago C50. And, I'm not saying it can't make a great feeling bike. Or that composites won't continue to improve. Or that you can't get hurt riding a steel frame with alloy parts. I just won't entrust my life to carbon fiber...and I don't care what some geek in a laboratory says, especially a geek hired by a bike manufacturer.

Big Paulie

They don't fly all the well with them, either...

https://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/7948/7948notw4.html

Obviously, any material can fail, but composites aren't the pancea they are cracked up to be.

Big Paulie

I'm very sorry to be so negative -- this forum certainly isn't the place to take things so seriously -- but the lockstep faith in carbon fiber and composites just aren't warrented. And, cycling CAN be dangerous when parts fail.

Again, I sincerely apologize. I hate sounding like a troll.

pastorbobnlnh 

I'll go Big Paulie, centexwoody, and CrossChain one better--- vintage steel. So what if the bike weighs about 20 lbs, that's only 3-6 lbs heavier than CF? I guess if you are racing in the TdF, the Olympics, or across the USA like our hero Will Dehne, etc., those pounds make a huge difference, but you are riding 50+ and who do we have to show up? No one! What could look as classy as a vintage Paramount? New Rivendells and Waterfords do. But if you have the money, I suppose you could buy that $23,000 bike featered in Bicycling Magazine this issue.

robtown

Pastor Bob - you have caused your bother to sin. I shall not covet, I shall not covet.

On topic - I'd like to give CF a try, maybe for my 50th next week....

linux_author

- get the bike that's most comfortable for you in your price range... if you're 50+ what do you care about the bike lasting more than 30 years?

:-)

NOS88

It would be foolish to believe that steel or alum. don't fail either. If I remember when Cannondale first started to market their alum frames, there was discussion (not unlike that heard here and now) that the material just wasn't safe; it would fail quicker than steel; it was too light to be reliable, etc. The fact of the matter is that all of biking has potential danger and the possibility of equipment failure. I think about the incredible number of miles that professional riders have put on all three of those materials with relatively very few failures. In terms of the original post, the question was related to the ability of carbon to dampen the ride, and in that area carbon does a very nice job.

Grampy™

I should never have opened this can of worms...... I apologize to the original poster. The original question concerned CF and AL. I should have just said , Yes.





Bad Grampy™!!!! Bad!

DnvrFox

I went riding with a friend who was riding a Trek CF bike.

A part of the route includes a trail over a dirt road with a bit of gravel.

My friend refused to go on any dirt or gravel in the hope of avoiding any kind of nick from a rock in his carbon frame, for fear of failure.

I have absolutely no problem with going on any trail with my roadie (700x25) Lemond Reynolds 853 steel.

I would hate to have to be so cautious and limited in the riding I do.

stonecrd

While I have not ridden an all CF bike my AL bike does have CF seat post, fork and stays. If something is going to fail it will most likely be one of those parts as they take the most stress. With that said I ride with no worries as AL can corrode and may fail, steel can rust and may fail and both can have bad welds that may fail. No sense worrying about what MAY happen, I have a better chance of the women in the SUV on the cell phone running the light than I do of component failure.

Now back to the question, my riding partner was on CF and switched to Ti. He much prefered his CF ride. So do most people I speak with.

pastorbobnlnh 

Carbon Fiber, Aluminum, Titanium, Unobtainium, Bambo, Steel, Wood, Fiberglass, Anytanium--- as long as it has two wheels and a set of brakes--- go for it. The ride is in the butt of the beholder.

Where's Digital Gee? Doesn't he need a new bike?

bcoppola

I am not an engineer, metallurgist, or materials scientist. But I have read convincing articles, such as the one on Sheldon Brown's site, arguing that the ride quality differences of various materials is vastly overstated among cyclists (and by bike company marketeers). What matters is how the materials are used: tubing diameters, frame geometry, etc. In other words, a frame can be engineered for just about any ride characteristic with almost any of the commonly used (and maybe a few uncommon ones, like bamboo!) materials.

Therefore, I suspect that how comfortable a bike is mostly due to how well it fits the rider, the frame geometry, and how stiff or forgiving the frame was designed to be (or wound up being) regardless of the material used. Of course, "designed to be" implies the designer was up to the task of using the chosen materials optimally.

So to the OP I say: forget about materials and simply buy the bike that feels best to you within your budget. I'd be leery of papier mache, though.

FWIW, my all aluminum/carbon fork Giant OCR is a comfortable, quick ride. As is my lugged steel vintage Schwinn World Sport FG conversion. I do like the shorter top tube of the Schwinn a bit more, though.

Like the preacher said: "The ride is in the butt of the beholder".