Carbon with great road feel?

[sashae]

It's been years since I've owned my last carbon bikes -- I'm a dedicated metalhead (steel, Ti) and haven't really been tempted by carbon. The last bike I owned was a (late, lamented) Aegis Aro Svelte that was about as 'responsive' road-feel wise as a board -- fun bike to ride, relatively comfortable over long distances, but lacking the spring/zingy feel of metal bikes.

A couple years ago I rode a friend's top-of-the line Trek Madone, and another friend's BMC TeamMachine and both were absurdly, ludicrously stiff and again lacking in roadfeel and spring -- though the Madone was a bit more compliant than the BMC.

For me, part of the joy of riding metal bikes is that you can feel the energy you put into the pedals not just transferred to the road, but as the bb flexes springing back through your pedal stroke. To me, it's a more harmonious feel than the carbon I've ridden, which while powerful as a race tool is less pleasing.

I know that carbon has advanced a great deal since my main area of experience, and both the BMC and the Trek are reputed as extremely stiff bikes. Out of the carbon that's out there now, are there bikes that /do/ return more road feel/pedaling effort response to the rider than others? I've heard interesting things about Time for instance, but I query the wide breadth of riding experience here for feedback.

Whether that road feel/spring response is desirable or not (it is to me) I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be curious of opinions.

[FlashUNC]

Time.

Their stuff is leagues better than any other carbon bike I've ridden for road feel.

[1centaur]

You don't want a CF bike; the evolution of recent years has been to stiffer BBs with compliance coming from elsewhere. Year 1 Look 585 in XL has that kind of spring, which was fun but not intentional. IMO.

[Elefantino]

Look's 585 (XXL) is the only carbon bike I've ever ridden that nails of what you speak. The supposed "road feel" or "endurance" carbon from the big five all ride like rocks, IMNSHO.













I have been told by a higher power that I will never be allowed to sell mine.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . is perfect, as far as I'm concerned.

BBD

[christian]

C50 or 585 I think. I adore my Extreme Power, but it does not have the springiness of steel.

[OtayBW]

I ride a BMC ProMachine (SLC01) which predates your Road Machine, I think. Plenty stiff - yes - but wonderfully compliant and terrific handling. I think you need to try some other carbon frames. I'd love to try a Look 585 myself.

[christian]

You should borrow my Extreme Power when you get up here for a weekend. It's a good bike and if it feels good but a little overstiff, then you know a 585 or C50 would be in the ballpark.

[beeatnik]

Spring with steel, buzz with Ti. At least those are the impressions of my feet and bum.

Ride a Hi-Mod Evo for a few hundred miles; comfy like steel, buzzy like Ti. With deep carbon tubulars, the EVO feels silky like modern steel. With wide-rim alloy clinchers, it rides like a nice Ti bike.

As for stiffness, the power transfer is very efficient but standing on the pedals doesnt feel like pushing down on concrete. It's the right kind of stiffness. My Moots Compact Sl had spring at the BB but the whole frame was punishingly unforgiving. Every bump in the road was a hammer blow to my wrists and neck.

[distanc3]

I vouch for the LOOK's lugged carbon frames of earlier years 555/585/595.

Happy owner of a 585 at 180lbs its stiff where it needs to be but "springy" without beating me down. The LOOKs and Colnago C series (lugged carbon) have great reputation on this forum and other forums as well.

With carbon you'll lose some road feel, just matter of how much.

Whether if it is in the lugged carbon or not, opens another thread all on its own IMHO

[eBAUMANN]

Cant go wrong with a 585 ;)

I also enjoyed the Time RX Instinct I had a couple years back, but that definitely had more of a "modern carbon" feel to it.

[texbike]

As previously mentioned - C50, C40, Look 585. The greatest compliment that I can give these bikes is that you can't (or at least I can't...) tell what material they're constructed of. They just work and feel great. I'm 165 and detect a small amount of springiness in each of them but nothing bad at all.

Texbike

[Vientomas]

Having owned a C40 and now a Calfee Tetra, I think the Calfee has a very nice feel similar to the C40.

[vqdriver]

there's so much that can be done with carbon that it really depends on not just brand and model, but year as well. from what i've ridden, the lugged time frames from about 5 years ago ride very nicely. i still have one as my main bike.
i've also had custom steel and ti, and fwiw, my upcoming custom is another steel frame. but i love love love my time.

but really, carbon is its own thing. if you like steel, ride steel. get carbon for its own merits and you'll probably enjoy it more.

[uber]

I am devout metal head too. The closest carbon frame to a metal like
feel was a Parlee. Cervelo r3sl of 2007 vintage is very pleasant for a carbon frame too.

[sashae]

As for stiffness, the power transfer is very efficient but standing on the pedals doesnt feel like pushing down on concrete. It's the right kind of stiffness. My Moots Compact Sl had spring at the BB but the whole frame was punishingly unforgiving. Every bump in the road was a hammer blow to my wrists and neck.

That's my feedback on riding a Vamoots RSL for a test ride as well -- the bike was insanely urgent when stomping on the pedals, a really racey machine, but compared to my old Vamoots was just too stiff for my liking.

[biker72]

My last carbon bike was a 2002 Trek 5200. Traded it in on a aluminum Trek 2100.

Just tried out a Specialized Tarmac. Very nice ride....:)

[Gern]

2014 TIME Fluidity here; coming from a Serotta Legend Ti 2003, the difference is remarkable. I LOVE the TIME. It has some spring but no harshness or "resonance."

[stien]

If you want the qualities of steel, ride it! How frames do comfort wise is soooo dependent on fit. I've ridden frames with awful reputations comfortably in a very aero position. And then road feel can have a lot more to do with geometry than material.

[beeatnik]

^That's a given. Bike fits; bike feels good. But Sashae has been on a lot of nice bikes and prolly has multiple wheel sets. So if he picks up another CF bike, it will fit and the contact points will match his Ti and steel steeds. And he'll probably use the same saddle type and swap wheels out. IMO, part of the fun of having multiple bikes is isolating the characteristics of each. I like riding a C40 for a week and then swapping the lightweight, low spoke count, aluminum wheels to my CAAD10. My fit on both bikes is dialed (bars, saddles, groups are comparable) so unique ride characteristics of each frame are obviously attributed to the material...all things being equal.

[sashae]

You should borrow my Extreme Power when you get up here for a weekend. It's a good bike and if it feels good but a little overstiff, then you know a 585 or C50 would be in the ballpark.

I will definitely take you up on that. I'm a bit heavier than you I'm guessing (~175) so it might be more forgiving. I'd be interested to try!

[makoti]

When I was looking for my CF bike, I went into a shop & asked about this very thing. I told the guy (older guy, too. Not some kid) I wanted to feel the road, that I didn't want to be isolated from the pavement the way my old Aluminium bike did. He says "Most people don't want to feel all the bumps". I asked him if he knew the difference between "road feel" and "road noise". He looked very confused. :rolleyes:

[martl]

As long as there is anything significantly softer than the frame in the chain of tire - wheel - seat post/stem - saddle/bars+tape - chamois, this is what will kick you in the wrists/balls/false teeth. Such are the laws if physics defined by mr newton who, of course, never had the privilege to talk to a veteran bike mechanic about such matters (if he had, he might have pursued a career in astrology, mind reading or production of snake oil)

What one actually feels from the frame is the effect of the geometry, which influences where the center of gravity is, and how the bike corners. Also, there is the kind of response you get from the bb area while pedaling hard. This is often confused with comfort ( a bike that feels soft sideways must be comfortable, right?).

a good bike will "answer" to your downstroke just at the right time, not too early as the alloy oversized ones like to do, and not too late as some ti frames can sometimes.
IMO, this is what distinguishes a good bike from a great one.

[Black Dog]

My two main rides (steel serotta and Ti litespeed) are 'all things being equal bikes' with the only difference being the frames. I had a carbon bike for a couple of years with the same setup. I love the different feel that each bike had. The carbon (Jamie zenith pro) was much more dead feeling. This is no doubt not true of every carbon bike as it is the engineering and not the material. I love the smooth ride of the steel and the firm ride of my Ti bike. It is nice to get on each bike and enjoy what the frame delivers.

[tiretrax]

A few years back, I tried a lot of CF bikes. I bought an Orca, which felt great until I was on a trip and rented a 585 (1st year with the integrated seatmast). I was offered the bike at a great price, but I had already committed to the Orca and wasn't ready to take a bath on it. The Look did have too many decals - 28, if I remember correctly. Kind of obnoxious, but what a great bike.

I tested a BMC recently (race machine?), and it was nice, too. It might not have felt as harsh to me as I outweigh you. Cervelo RS (?) is nice, too.

[charliedid]

Go test ride a BMC GF01

[R2D2]

I ride a BMC ProMachine (SLC01) which predates your Road Machine, I think. Plenty stiff - yes - but wonderfully compliant and terrific handling. I think you need to try some other carbon frames. I'd love to try a Look 585 myself.

I agree. Plus I've beaten the crap out of mine and keeps rollin..............

My steel CIOOC would give you numb hands at 50+ miles. So any material can be way stiff.

Each bike is unique.

[Bob Ross]

When I was looking for my CF bike, I went into a shop & asked about this very thing. I told the guy (older guy, too. Not some kid) I wanted to feel the road, that I didn't want to be isolated from the pavement the way my old Aluminium bike did. He says "Most people don't want to feel all the bumps". I asked him if he knew the difference between "road feel" and "road noise". He looked very confused. :rolleyes:

You probably confused him with that comment about Aluminum.

I have never heard anyone make that claim; 99% of the Aluminum frame feedback I've heard from cyclists is 100% opposite of yours!

[kgreene10]

a good bike will "answer" to your downstroke just at the right time, not too early as the alloy oversized ones like to do, and not too late as some ti frames can sometimes.

This is very nice. It gives words to exactly what I have perceived too.

Re the OP: many of the cf frames mentioned are lugged. I had a lugged Time that was sublime and a later Time with a monocoque front triangle that was stiffer but less sublime. I haven't tried some of the newest monocoque like the C'Dale Evo Hi Mod but the claim is that it and other recent models gives you the feel of lugged with the responsiveness of monocoque.

[54ny77]

call me ig'nant or not that picky, but wheels & tires make all the difference in world to the way my bikes feel, not frame material (assuming the latter has all the right points in the right places). i've had very long days in the saddle of a tarmac s-works, for example, which could be considered a ballbuster of a frame to some. yet with well made 32 spoke alu or carbon rims with nice 25mm tires at the right pressure, it's plenty comfy. with a set of super light wheels i've used on it, it's built for speed and def. not comfort.

then again, that's the fun part of bike stuff--try and try again, it's a fun process.

[r_mutt]

a poster reccomended the Cannondale Evo. i heartily concur. i had a 2012 bike and i sold it to fund a team bike - mistake. that bike was great! compliant and surefooted.

[SteveFrench]

"road feel" and "road noise". He looked very confused. :rolleyes:

That has gotten me confused.

[buddybikes]

Firefly carbon/ti

[makoti]

You probably confused him with that comment about Aluminum.

I have never heard anyone make that claim; 99% of the Aluminum frame feedback I've heard from cyclists is 100% opposite of yours!

I found my old Trek to be pretty dead. Smooth, but not much feedback. Guess I'm the 1%.

[makoti]

That has gotten me confused.

Really. Was that you? ;)
He was talking about getting a cushy ride, smoothing over every bump. I wanted something that gave a bit of feedback & feel. He was surprised that anyone would want to feel that. But these days, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[wallymann]

call me ig'nant or not that picky, but wheels & tires make all the difference in world to the way my bikes feel, not frame material (assuming the latter has all the right points in the right places). i've had very long days in the saddle of a tarmac s-works, for example, which could be considered a ballbuster of a frame to some. yet with well made 32 spoke alu or carbon rims with nice 25mm tires at the right pressure, it's plenty comfy. with a set of super light wheels i've used on it, it's built for speed and def. not comfort.

then again, that's the fun part of bike stuff--try and try again, it's a fun process.

theres alot of truth to this.

everyone raves about steel, as do i, but i did a double century on a very aggressive steel somec (sub 40cm chainstays, steep 74/74 angles, and skinny 20-section tires) a few years ago and i felt absolutely beat to sh*t after that event. having learned my lesson...in the several years since for this event ive ridden my all-day-comfortable yet still-very-lively C40...every year!

http://www.majortaylorcycling.org/events/2011_tosrv/IMGP0369.JPG

[beeatnik]

Firefly carbon/ti

No

[thwart]

call me ig'nant or not that picky, but wheels & tires make all the difference in world to the way my bikes feel, not frame material (assuming the latter has all the right points in the right places). i've had very long days in the saddle of a tarmac s-works, for example, which could be considered a ballbuster of a frame to some. yet with well made 32 spoke alu or carbon rims with nice 25mm tires at the right pressure, it's plenty comfy. with a set of super light wheels i've used on it, it's built for speed and def. not comfort.

then again, that's the fun part of bike stuff--try and try again, it's a fun process.
Yep. Parlee Z4 with Campy Hyperons/23 mm Conti Sprinters… not. Way stiff.

Same bike with Reynolds Attack clinchers/23 mm Corsa CX's… now we're talking an all day ride.

[54ny77]

Yep I had a Z4 and now a Z5, so I know of what you speak.

Z5 with basic open pro or DT (forget the model, RR something) 32 spoke double butted 3x with 4000s 25's or Vittoria CX's at ~95 psi = plush.

With my other super light DT setup (front is radial) or Enve carbon, hit a teeny bump and I'll feel my belly bouncin' and wonder whatdaheck is going on.

In other words, plush wheels can smooth out aggressive geo frames. Neutral geo frames get even that much nicer with plush wheels.

Yep. Parlee Z4 with Campy Hyperons/23 mm Conti Sprinters… not. Way stiff.

Same bike with Reynolds Attack clinchers/23 mm Corsa CX's… now we're talking an all day ride.

[fogrider]

Really. Was that you? ;)
He was talking about getting a cushy ride, smoothing over every bump. I wanted something that gave a bit of feedback & feel. He was surprised that anyone would want to feel that. But these days, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

feed back informs the rider about the road; slipperily, smooth, grippy, or rough for example. road noise is when the feedback becomes too loud. I think many carbon bikes absorbs much of the buzz out of the road, the question is can the rider tell the difference between different road conditions. I've ridden carbon that has been harsh and carbon that has been cush. And wheels and tires does matter but frame material does matter. Much of it has to do with stiffness.

[Nags&Ducs]

C40 reminds me of a steel ride. Just the right amount of flex, and super smooth. Great road feedback. There is a noticeable difference between my Ext C and C40. The 40 is smoother. I've always said it felt like a steel bike- just lighter.

[George Ab]

The French know how to build a carbon bike. I own a Time NXR Instinct and it is outstanding. I am sure the Look bikes are also quite good.

[soulspinner]

A few years back, I tried a lot of CF bikes. I bought an Orca, which felt great until I was on a trip and rented a 585 (1st year with the integrated seatmast). I was offered the bike at a great price, but I had already committed to the Orca and wasn't ready to take a bath on it. The Look did have too many decals - 28, if I remember correctly. Kind of obnoxious, but what a great bike.

I tested a BMC recently (race machine?), and it was nice, too. It might not have felt as harsh to me as I outweigh you. Cervelo RS (?) is nice, too.

Ive got an RS that rides very close to my steel custom Strong. Cervelos seem to be less wooden than older Madones, for instance. It was this or a Look 585 optimum(first choice) and I couldn't find one in my size at the time. I know they aren't cool to some on this board but I really like the Cervelo.

[stephenmarklay]

Well now I have to go find a 585. Always something.

[TomNY]

I have bikes in the house. My R3 is my favorite. Smooth, climbs and carves, very stable. Trek 5200 that I changed drive to new 105. That made that bike feel completely different. It was like a new bike. Very responsive to pedal stroke. I'm not a stomper, but I can really sense the difference between two BB/crank designs.

Having had to replace a fork on another bike - aluminum frame, I think the fork also have a big influence on ride quality. There are a lot of variables that can change how a bike "feels".

I had - have metal bikes, CF is my favorite.

BTW - look how CF has replaced metal materials in other sports.

[Johnnyg]

It's been years since I've owned my last carbon bikes -- I'm a dedicated metalhead (steel, Ti) and haven't really been tempted by carbon. The last bike I owned was a (late, lamented) Aegis Aro Svelte that was about as 'responsive' road-feel wise as a board -- fun bike to ride, relatively comfortable over long distances, but lacking the spring/zingy feel of metal bikes.

A couple years ago I rode a friend's top-of-the line Trek Madone, and another friend's BMC TeamMachine and both were absurdly, ludicrously stiff and again lacking in roadfeel and spring -- though the Madone was a bit more compliant than the BMC.

For me, part of the joy of riding metal bikes is that you can feel the energy you put into the pedals not just transferred to the road, but as the bb flexes springing back through your pedal stroke. To me, it's a more harmonious feel than the carbon I've ridden, which while powerful as a race tool is less pleasing.

I know that carbon has advanced a great deal since my main area of experience, and both the BMC and the Trek are reputed as extremely stiff bikes. Out of the carbon that's out there now, are there bikes that /do/ return more road feel/pedaling effort response to the rider than others? I've heard interesting things about Time for instance, but I query the wide breadth of riding experience here for feedback.

Whether that road feel/spring response is desirable or not (it is to me) I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be curious of opinions.

Love the Stork Fascinario 0.7 amazingly light and stiff but I never feel beat up after a long ride.

[El Chaba]

I think the Colnago C40 sets the standard for a lot of things....road feel is definitely one of them...

[aaronka]

I've had a Cervelo R3, Parlee Z4, and now my CF bike is a Super6 HM team. The I've found the Super 6 geometry to be very similar to both the Cervelo and Parlee, but with better ride characteristics...stiff in BB but vertically compliant, does not beat me up. Compared with my Moots Psychlo it's stiffer and racier feeling.

[happycampyer]

"Great road feel" is very subjective. The 585 and the C50 are pretty safe bets as a reference, and the 585's can typically be found for $700-800 despite their popularity.

It was great meeting you the other day—if/when you make it up this way, we can go for a spin and you can check out my Cyfac and MeiVici. I have owned dozens of carbon bikes and have not found one that rides as well as the MeiVici (including the Extreme Power that I sold to christian), but that's my personal preference. The next closest was a secondhand Crumpton that I had, but the geometry wasn't ideal for me so I sold it.

Tires and tire pressure can obviously make a difference, but if you set up different bikes with identical contact points and components (especially saddle, handlebars, wheels and tires) one can definitely notice a difference in ride quality.

[sashae]

Thanks, same here! I actually move next Sunday (the 6th) so you'll be seeing me 'around the neighborhood' shortly ;)

For me, the biggest problem I've had with most carbon bikes is that -- regardless of wheels -- they feel like riding an ironing board. ZERO lateral movement (which translates for me to feeling unpleasant) and near zero vertical movement. Carbon as a material seems to absorb more shock in general, but riding a steel frame you can visibly see how much the forks for instance move to absorb shock. I find that dynamism appealing.

What's also interesting to me is that so many people do seem to find the ride qualities of good metal bikes so appealing, yet most of the big carbon manufacturers seem more fixated on maximizing stiffness in favor of anything else. Certainly, for race frames this makes sense -- you want to translate every ounce of exerted power to the road -- but for non-race riding it's more fatiguing, IMO.

I've not had the desire to try many carbon bikes after having had less than great success with the ones I've tried, and so much fortune in terms of the steel and titanium bikes I've ridden. Part of the fascination about cycling for me is the different experiences you can get (and different /enjoyable/ experiences you can get) from riding very different bikes -- be it materials, geometry, whatever.

I've recently been riding a reasonably short loop in Pound Ridge that has a variety of surfaces, plenty of up-and-down, and just overall a nice ride. I've done it on a Rivendell Atlantis with upright bullmoose bars, a Zanconato and a Moots -- and with each, the ride has been totally different. From stop-and-smell-the-roses on the Rivendell (wonderful!) to ROAR MUST GO FASTER on the Moots (*gnashes teeth*) -- none is better or worse than the other, just different. Being lucky enough to try different stuff really gives one a sense of how different one bike is from another.

[Climb01742]

Love the Stork Fascinario 0.7 amazingly light and stiff but I never feel beat up after a long ride.

It's interesting that Storck has a following in Europe but very little here. Always been curious about the bikes but I've never met someone who rides one to ask. How did you decide on a Storck and what made you choose the Fascinario? Glad you're digging it.;)

[beeatnik]

Sashae, if you find the right frameset, you'll love it. As you're aware, a lot of people avoid carbon due to a bias which has nothing to do with ride feel or performance. They simply think of the material as disposable. You're not stuck in that mode of thinking so it's just a matter of aligning your expectations.

Oh, and, C40s do ride like steel Colnagos (with better handling/descending/climbing manners).

[fuzzalow]

The best steel-bike riding carbon frame I have experienced was the original DeRosa King. The next best steel-like riding carbon frame after that was the non-B-stay Colnago C-40.

I hold that many of the original early generation of carbon frames were the most lively and enjoyable frames to ride because the frame (excuse bad pun) of reference in those days was the feedback and feel of a good steel racing frame. Just as Ugo and Ernesto had done all their lives in the ferrous world of materials in the time that preceded the rise of carbon as the new wonder material. Either the King or the C-40 was not overbuilt because there was then no actual need to blindly chase stiffness as the soon to be new paragon of advancement in the making of road race bikes. Either of these two esteemed Italian builders already knew bikes pretty well and by the time carbon made headway as a mainstream bicycle fabrication material, the knowledge of how to ply carbon weaves was not news. So they did not build in stiffness because the carbon technology was limited in stiffness properties they could impart to their frames; the bikes Ugo and Ernesto were building were not spindly bikes as like the Alan carbon frames from the dawn of carbon fiber. But rather, they did not make their frames ride woodenly stiff because they recognized there was no need to do so.

Soon enough, every bicycle brand came to offer their own version of the carbon bike. And it is here that the two Italian brands came to be overrun and swept under from behind by many of the lessor brands that followed. Because the message from a mere brand could not better against the intangibles of a fine riding racing bike built by builders that truly understood bikes and how they rode. The message became one that extolled the virtues, whiz-bang and high tech applied materials modernism of the carbon fiber material.

Perception is reality and if enough marketing spin & drivel is applied, it is possible to force an alteration in the perception of what makes a great bike. Then eventually customers value advanced qualities in manufacture like stiffness instead of all the arcane geometry relationships inside Ugo DeRosa's head that makes for a great riding bike. And in being overrun from behind does the futility of fighting against the tide cause the modern DeRosa and Colnago carbon bike to fight the same stiffness trench warfare as does everybody else in the carbon battlefield. Better to survive and live to fight another day.

For me, my interest in carbon frames has diminished as the modern carbon frames chase ride qualities that I have never valued. There will always and forever be steel bike frames. And for very good reasons. It just takes a few dalliances with the siren seduction of carbon to discover for oneself the truth based on your own riding rather than the empty promises in ad copy.

[Vientomas]

Well said.

[katematt]

Since no one has mentioned it, Calfee Tetra Pro best all around of all materials I've ridden.

[timto]

Since no one has mentioned it, Calfee Tetra Pro best all around of all materials I've ridden.

My feeling also. This is after brief flirtations with C40 bstay, C50, Extreme C, Serotta HSG. Those other ones were very planted, firm, stable but the Calfee was lively. Really spun up to speed easily and in a 'fun' way that the other bikes never did.

The calfee was a joy to ride. The other ones didn't elicit the same thrill. In Steel, the equivlanet bike that was a joy to ride is my now sold steel Alliance in standard dia tubing.

These bikes made it feel like I was dancing up hills.