Steel - Carbon performance gap

[LegendRider]

I think it's fair to say that the "performance gap" between a top carbon frame (new Madone, S Works Tarmac, etc.) and a top handcrafted steel bike (Kirk, Zanconato, etc) is widening.

New carbon bikes are extremely light, oftentimes aerodynamic, have advanced carbon layup schedules that maximize performance and comfort, and so forth. Steel bikes may use more advanced tubing, but essentially they're still round tubes brazed or welded. They can compete on comfort and may win on aesthetics (I want a Motorola Merckx fixed gear!), otherwise they can't compete, no?

Does this matter to you?

[ANAO]

I think you're defining "perform" too narrowly.

To me, perform doesn't mean a singular, or even two-category, sweep.

"Performance", to me, is best defined by the best all-rounder. Hence, I vote steel.

[Dead Man]

Does this matter to you?

No.. I ride Ti

[ANAO]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro-bike-kristian-houses-condor-super-acciaio/

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2013/09/25/2/house01_670.jpg

[MattTuck]

Damn, you're right. Anyone want to buy my Kirk so I can buy a new fangled carbon bike? ;)


A bicycle is a mode of transportation. I'm pretty sure the efficiency measured on a new carbon bike vs. a steel bike are pretty darn close. And as for ride feel, well, my contention is that tires and wheels have an order of magnitude MORE of an impact on ride feel than the frame material.

To finish it off, let's be clear that there is only a small fraction of people who truly need the performance gains offered by the latest bikes. To everyone else, it is just wasted money.

It is 98% marketing, I'd say.

[warren128]

No, it does not matter to me, which is why I ride steel and ti.

Oh, and pass the popcorn please. :D

[Likes2ridefar]

I think it's fair to say that the "performance gap" between a top carbon frame (new Madone, S Works Tarmac, etc.) and a top handcrafted steel bike (Kirk, Zanconato, etc) is widening.

New carbon bikes are extremely light, oftentimes aerodynamic, have advanced carbon layup schedules that maximize performance and comfort, and so forth. Steel bikes may use more advanced tubing, but essentially they're still round tubes brazed or welded. The can compete on comfort and may win on aesthetics (I want a Motorola Merckx fixed gear!), otherwise they can't compete, no?

Does this matter to you?

Aero frames have pretty much no advantage and most don't ride very nice. Weight has been shown to only matter in the most extreme circumstances.

[berserk87]

My road bike it titanium and my TT and MTB are aluminum.

Once you are into a certain level of quality and price, the bike is not holding you back.

[benb]

I think things like weight, aero, etc.. can have major psychological gains.. that may be a (big?) part of it.

But aside from that if you can find a mainstream bike that fits your right it's probably going to be Carbon if it's a nice model, and you're going to be able to get your hands on it easily, and it might cost equal or less to what you can get in steel since Steel is mostly boutique now. And you might wait a long time for the steel. (I for one am not a fan of the hobby of collecting custom bikes for collection's sake.)

Easy to see how lots of riders will favor the carbon bike given the circumstances.

Personally I find it semi-laughable when you've got a steel bike with 100% carbon fork, carbon bars, carbon wheels, carbon stem, carbon cranks, etc.. to "get the weight down." If you're doing that you might as well just ride carbon.

[thegunner]

Aero frames have pretty much no advantage and most don't ride very nice. Weight has been shown to only matter in the most extreme circumstances.

sure if you're climbing alpine in 3:45... but most of us need those advantages haha

[AngryScientist]

To everyone else, it is just wasted money.



that's a tough argument to make for this particular question. when i look at the current prices for custom steel or titanium boutique bikes, we are right there with the cost of the carbon bikes, so cost is a wash in this case.

this forum is such a small subset of the cycling scene. to most serious cyclists, when they consider buying a nice bike, they want what the pros are riding, and the latest tech. most acknowledge that they don't NEED the latest aero whatever, but if you're buying state of the art, you get the current top of the line bike.

[Likes2ridefar]

sure if you're climbing alpine in 3:45... but most of us need those advantages haha

That was on a 17lb training bike. Man I wish I was in that shape now...

I stood up the entire climb redlined.

[tuscanyswe]

eI think things like weight, aero, etc.. can have major psychological gains.. that may be a (big?) part of it.

But aside from that if you can find a mainstream bike that fits your right it's probably going to be Carbon if it's a nice model, and you're going to be able to get your hands on it easily, and it might cost equal or less to what you can get in steel since Steel is mostly boutique now. And you might wait a long time for the steel. (I for one am not a fan of the hobby of collecting custom bikes for collection's sake.)

Easy to see how lots of riders will favor the carbon bike given the circumstances.

Personally I find it semi-laughable when you've got a steel bike with 100% carbon fork, carbon bars, carbon wheels, carbon stem, carbon cranks, etc.. to "get the weight down." If you're doing that you might as well just ride carbon.

99% of carbon bikes don't look half as good as steel bikes. Don't think its strange or laughable that many choose to put light modern components on steel frames at all. 99% of the performance but twice the asthetic appeal seem like a very nice "trade off". To me that is.

[LegendRider]

Aero frames have pretty much no advantage and most don't ride very nice.

I haven't ridden an aero road frame, but I've heard complaints about the ride quality of the Venge and certain Cervelos. But, the new Madone gets very good reviews for ride quality.

[kgreene10]

I've got a Serotta Colorado steel, a Seven Axiom ti, and a couple of carbon bikes made by Trek. I race and train to race. The performance gain of the carbon bikes with the same tires and wheels is strikingly obvious. I like the other bikes quite a bit, but when it's about racing fast and handling in a tight crit, carbon works for me.

I might hear the music when I ride carbon, but it's certainly not Coltrane. Steel will always speak to my soul.

[Avincent52]

As much as I love a great steel bike, I also see the benefits of carbon.
What's holding the "Gap" constant are the UCI rules that are essentially designed to keep road bikes looking like something that Eddy Merckx might have ridden.
If you toss those out, the form factor of carbon bikes would likely change radically in a way that steel can't match.

[benb]

e

99% of carbon bikes don't look half as good as steel bikes. Don't think its strange or laughable that many choose to put light modern components on steel frames at all. 99% of the performance but twice the asthetic appeal seem like a very nice "trade off". To me that is.

That's utterly personal style though. Personally I look at things on a case by case basis to decide if something is ugly.. lots of ugly steel/Ti/Aluminum bikes out there too.

What I was getting at is if it's a steel bike I'd rather see a steel fork and mostly metal components... there is something odd about going crazy weight weenie with a steel bike and refusing to consider carbon over looks.

[benb]

If you toss those out, the form factor of carbon bikes would likely change radically in a way that steel can't match.

Yep.. my guess is seatstays would disappear over night or something else equally radical.

[Waldo]

I think it's fair to say that the "performance gap" between a top carbon frame (new Madone, S Works Tarmac, etc.) and a top handcrafted steel bike (Kirk, Zanconato, etc) is widening.

New carbon bikes are extremely light, oftentimes aerodynamic, have advanced carbon layup schedules that maximize performance and comfort, and so forth. Steel bikes may use more advanced tubing, but essentially they're still round tubes brazed or welded. The can compete on comfort and may win on aesthetics (I want a Motorola Merckx fixed gear!), otherwise they can't compete, no?

Does this matter to you?

Go troll someplace else.

And Campy is better than Shimano.

[ANAO]

Yep.. my guess is seatstays would disappear over night or something else equally radical.

http://rcdn.roadbikereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-shot-2012-02-22-at-9.47.49-AM.png

[ANAO]

sure if you're climbing alpine in 3:45... but most of us need those advantages haha

Who...is this.

[SlackMan]

I like bikes to 'perform' well after being accidentally tipped over in the garage and after being in minor accidents. Sometimes carbon performs well in these scenarios. I think steel always performs well in these scenarios.

[LegendRider]

Go troll someplace else.


I hope you're joking.

[LegendRider]

I like bikes to 'perform' well after being accidentally tipped over in the garage and after being in minor accidents. Sometimes carbon performs well in these scenarios. I think steel always performs well in these scenarios.

That's a good point, but don't some of the ultra thin wall steel tubes dent easily? Maybe not catastrophic, but sure would be a bummer.

[ANAO]

That's a good point, but don't some of the ultra thin wall steel tubes dent easily? Maybe not catastrophic, but sure would be a bummer.

I'd rather have a dent than a crack.

[beeatnik]

fast is as fast does

[DRZRM]

This. I'm a 46 year old professor, 6'3" 220 lbs. I appreciate the longevity of metal and feeling confident in what I ride. I might feel differently if I was out racing, but given my general riding preferences (alone, relatively slow) the weight difference in the frame is a tiny percentage in my overall load.

Also, not to pick out anyones experience, but I was riding a Paceline ride with Bruce K when he had a pretty minor fall on a carbon CX bike crossing some RR tracks. Once he dusted himself off--totally uninjured I'll point out--his bike had a cracked seat stay. I know it is anecdotal, but I totally put me off carbon for a long time.

That said, I'm building up an Ibis Ripley because for the trails where I now live, it seems like the right bike for my needs. Certainly not as pretty as my Zanc 29er to my eye, but we'll see how I like the ride. I doubt it will have me putting my steel and ti frames on the block, but we'll have to wait and see.

I like bikes to 'perform' well after being accidentally tipped over in the garage and after being in minor accidents. Sometimes carbon performs well in these scenarios. I think steel always performs well in these scenarios.

[bobswire]

I'm a steelhead thru and thru but must admit sometimes I see CF that speaks to me like the Lemond SE made by Time or see something that is tempting like this (price wise) just to try a modern CF frame.

https://www.biketiresdirect.com/product/asylum-cycles-2015-meuse-cx-frameset

[AngryScientist]

there are definitely modern carbon frames that look perfect to my eye, like this recently posted team example:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/bf/a2/36/bfa236f74deb9be568d97c1f1d7eb467.jpg

[Mark McM]

Personally I find it semi-laughable when you've got a steel bike with 100% carbon fork, carbon bars, carbon wheels, carbon stem, carbon cranks, etc.. to "get the weight down." If you're doing that you might as well just ride carbon.


I too find it a bit of a oxymoron to call a bike a "steel" bike if it has a carbon fork and other components. But that doesn't mean that frames made from steel tubing don't have their place.

While carbon has advantages in many areas, there is at least one area that they don't do so well, and that is the ability to be economically customized. Most carbon bikes these days are made in molds, and these molds are expensive to make. Sure, you can amortize out the cost of the mold over many frames, but it is not economical to make a mold for a one-off custom geometry. This is where metal (steel, aluminum, titanium) tube frames have an advantage - modifications of geometry, or of mechanical fittings (axles, brakes, BBs, etc) are relatively easy and inexpensive to accommodate on metal frames.

I think we all agree that the fit of a bicycle, for both the rider and the usage, is more important than material. The best carbon bike in the world doesn't do you any good if it doesn't fit. Carbon bike makers usually design their frames for the average proportions of the populations, and since most people deviate only a little from the averages, these frames can be fit to most people. But for those who deviate a bit more from the averages, either due to morphology, injury, or other special needs, these frames may not be ideal. For these people, metal frames may be the better option.

I guess what I'm saying is that carbon bikes may work for most people, and may become the majority of the marketplace, but they won't completely replace the metal tube frame. (Well, until they find a way to 3D print a custom carbon frame economically.)

[zmudshark]

I've got a Serotta Colorado steel, a Seven Axiom ti, and a couple of carbon bikes made by Trek. I race and train to race. The performance gain of the carbon bikes with the same tires and wheels is strikingly obvious. I like the other bikes quite a bit, but when it's about racing fast and handling in a tight crit, carbon works for me.

I might hear the music when I ride carbon, but it's certainly not Coltrane. Steel will always speak to my soul.

I agree, except I'm 65 YO and not getting faster and don't race.

I love Coltrane. :beer:

[gone]

Needs more logos.

there are definitely modern carbon frames that look perfect to my eye, like this recently posted team example:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/bf/a2/36/bfa236f74deb9be568d97c1f1d7eb467.jpg

[benb]

I too find it a bit of a oxymoron to call a bike a "steel" bike if it has a carbon fork and other components. But that doesn't mean that frames made from steel tubing don't have their place.

While carbon has advantages in many areas, there is at least one area that they don't do so well, and that is the ability to be economically customized. Most carbon bikes these days are made in molds, and these molds are expensive to make. Sure, you can amortize out the cost of the mold over many frames, but it is not economical to make a mold for a one-off custom geometry. This is where metal (steel, aluminum, titanium) tube frames have an advantage - modifications of geometry, or of mechanical fittings (axles, brakes, BBs, etc) are relatively easy and inexpensive to accommodate on metal frames.

I think we all agree that the fit of a bicycle, for both the rider and the usage, is more important than material. The best carbon bike in the world doesn't do you any good if it doesn't fit. Carbon bike makers usually design their frames for the average proportions of the populations, and since most people deviate only a little from the averages, these frames can be fit to most people. But for those who deviate a bit more from the averages, either due to morphology, injury, or other special needs, these frames may not be ideal. For these people, metal frames may be the better option.

I guess what I'm saying is that carbon bikes may work for most people, and may become the majority of the marketplace, but they won't completely replace the metal tube frame. (Well, until they find a way to 3D print a custom carbon frame economically.)

I agree with all this of course but what is always weird for me is I get the impression the folks who buy custom steel bikes to measure often change out their bikes WAY faster than any other segment of cyclists. Like several times a year frequent. It could just be from hanging around here but that impression is always weird to me. It seems like those kind of bikes should be the long term keepers.

[thegunner]

That was on a 17lb training bike. Man I wish I was in that shape now...

I stood up the entire climb redlined.

can we race alpine basin to the stop sign sometime? you on a MTB and me on the parlee?

[Likes2ridefar]

can we race alpine basin to the stop sign sometime? you on a MTB and me on the parlee?

Only if you drag our little one in a trailer behind you!

[thegunner]

Only if you drag our little one in a trailer behind you!

we should just both do road bikes with you bringing your toddler, it'll be my handicap.

[Likes2ridefar]

we should just both do road bikes with you bringing your toddler, it'll be my handicap.

Deal, gimme the winter to get back into decent fitness, set a date in early spring!

[cinema]

I like steel but I don't want to be slow. what should i do now that carbon bikes are so much faster? will i ever be fast?

[Lionel]

otherwise they can't compete, no?

That's correct.

[Waldo]

I hope you're joking.

I am, to a point. Statements in your original post are over the top and borderline trollish. And I have a custom carbon LandShark that's wonderful, and the best thing I can say about it is that it rides like a very nice steel bike.

[mg2ride]

....otherwise they can't compete, no?...

Correct

....Does this matter to you?

Not even a little bit.

[mg2ride]

there are definitely modern carbon frames that look perfect to my eye, like this recently posted team example:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/bf/a2/36/bfa236f74deb9be568d97c1f1d7eb467.jpg

There is at least one very nice "object" in that picture!

[jr59]

It's not about the bike!

Everybody knows this.

I ride because I like it. Not to race, I'm to old and broken for that.

Besides, I don't think anyone on this forum is pushing their bike to the limits. So ride what you like.

[ANAO]

It's not about the bike!

Everybody knows this.

I ride because I like it. Not to race, I'm to old and broken for that.

Besides, I don't think anyone on this forum is pushing their bike to the limits. So ride what you like.

Short of Chris Hoy, I don't think many, anywhere, are pushing their bikes to their limits.

I think the question is more, at the level of push, can steel offer similar gains?

[benb]

One of the things here is some people enjoy the whole game of ordering a custom frame and waiting for it and having to put everything together, talking about it, becoming part of the club and that whole scene.

For the rest of us that whole process kind of sucks. If you just want to buy a bike and be done with it there aren't a whole lot of awesome steel options.

[Waldo]

One of the things here is some people enjoy the whole game of ordering a custom frame and waiting for it and having to put everything together, talking about it, becoming part of the club and that whole scene.

For the rest of us that whole process kind of sucks. If you just want to buy a bike and be done with it there aren't a whole lot of awesome steel options.

Various Waterford offerings and Lemond Washoe are good choices.

[numbskull]

. The can compete on comfort and may win on aesthetics....., otherwise they can't compete, no?

Does this matter to you?

Your question presupposes speed is the defining factor for "performance".

A better metric is probably how much fun you had on your ride. Sometimes that requires speed, sometimes comfort, and sometimes aesthetics. Additionally, how you prioritize those factors likely will change over your lifetime.

[Peter P.]

there are definitely modern carbon frames that look perfect to my eye, like this recently posted team example:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/bf/a2/36/bfa236f74deb9be568d97c1f1d7eb467.jpg

Where's the bike in the photo?

[gemship]

It's not about the bike!

Everybody knows this.

I ride because I like it. Not to race, I'm to old and broken for that.

Besides, I don't think anyone on this forum is pushing their bike to the limits. So ride what you like.

One more shameless plug for Shimano 105 because it's a extreme value group that really lessons the gap year after year.

[Peter P.]

When talking about the "performance gap" between carbon and steel frames, I'm reminded of my related experiences.

Decades ago when I started racing, my friend and I had pretty much identical bikes; same custom brand, same Campy Nuovo Record group. But he was a beast on the bike and I could never close that gap.

One day I borrowed his bike to ride to the hardware store. After I was done with my business and I was unlocking the bike, I noticed his pedals were not the Campy Nuovo Record SL pedals (the ones with the black alloy cage), but Japanese copies which cost half as much. I had a revelation at that moment that the parts weren't that important to speed.

A couple years later I had given up on tubulars for racing and was going to use only clinchers. This was in the 80's and the racing fields were virtually all running tubulars. Problem was I was cheap, and my former training wheels had 25mm wire beaded clinchers on them. I wasn't about to swap them out for high end clinchers until these wore out.

So I entered my first training race of the year being the only one in the field not only riding clinchers but riding fat, wired on clinchers. I was worried I'd get dropped. Never happened. It was a revelation that day, too.

My point is, I don't think the performance gains between carbon and steel frames is significant enough to make a difference in most riders' results. As has been pointed out, steel still seems to retain the advantages of custom construction, durability to withstand the day to day banging around such as dents and scrapes, and in many cases, particularly TIG welded custom frames, the cost is lower.

Although I could afford it, I can't justify turning bikes over just to chase the latest and greatest such as trading from a steel frame to carbon for the purported performance gains. Even if I wanted to, I'd wait until my steel frame failed to justify the purchase as any gains just don't seem to warrant the expense.

[Ralph]

Professional racers don't usually pick a bike or frame that is slower than some other bike. If some are riding on steel frames (with Enve forks), you can bet they think it is not slowing them down. I don't see any performance gap with steel (with CF fork) and all CF.....with any rider.

[Anarchist]

there are definitely modern carbon frames that look perfect to my eye, like this recently posted team example:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/bf/a2/36/bfa236f74deb9be568d97c1f1d7eb467.jpg

Am I the only one to notice that she is wearing Nike branded shoes???

[Anarchist]

Professional racers don't usually pick a bike or frame that is slower than some other bike. If some are riding on steel frames (with Enve forks), you can bet they think it is not slowing them down. I don't see any performance gap with steel (with CF fork) and all CF.....with any rider.

Professional racers don't pick their bikes.

[Lionel]

Most people that think they will not see any difference between a steel bike and a modern high end carbon bike have never ridden the later.

[thegunner]

Most people that think they will not see any difference between a steel bike and a modern high end carbon bike have never ridden the later.

i've owned both, and i assure you i like the former better.

i think some builders like rob english can do some phenomenal things that are very much on the cutting edge.

[Likes2ridefar]

Most people that think they will not see any difference between a steel bike and a modern high end carbon bike have never ridden the later.

I have and think there is a difference. Just like carbon wheels, good ones anyways, ride different than al wheels.

Note I do not think the difference is time or speed. Handling, in my opinion, feels more stable especially at very high speeds on the best carbon bikes I've ridden, namely the cervelo r5, Neil pryde nazare, focus izalco team issue, and a parlee esx.

I've ridden the same courses enough times to easily see the time doesn't vary much and can post the same fastest times up climbs on a steel or ti bike given the same output and similar bike setup.

Tires and weather play a much bigger factor.

[beeatnik]

These threads they leave me all:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5728/22555800685_8483294d6a_o.jpg

Going fast on a bika is HAAAAAAAAAAAARD. Wind, gradient, road surface, bowel movements, sleep, mental state, FTP!!!!! all these factor in more than frame material for the average cat. I know this cos I don't go any faster on my MODERN carbon bika, my MODERN steel bika or my MODERN ti bika. And wheels haven't made me faster either. I only go really fast when the cat in front of me who raced in Europe is trying to drop me and for some reason (fear of abandonment?) I decide to stick to his wheel. I usually do this on a steel bika. I guess I'm "handicapping" myself horribly.

Hi TiDesigns!

Not the World Famous Rose Bowl, just some random sprint

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/640/22556269345_304489a8ce_b.jpg

[Lionel]

Just like carbon wheels, good ones anyways, ride different than al wheels.


This is actually a pretty good analogy.

[Gsinill]

There you have it!

http://i63.tinypic.com/zioj84.png

[Tickdoc]

Can't speak for Ti, but I have ridden al, carbon, and steel.

I like riding my steel bike best. I like riding my carbon bike fastest.

My aero (albeit old aero ) cervelo s3 is very smooth, very comfortable, and on par with my steel. Not for feel, but For comfort. I am just as comfortable on it as I am steel, and way more comfortable on either than I ever was on aluminum.

The all carbon cervelo chattery at times, twitchy at times, and much more finicky overall, but very very fast, which I attribute as much to the fast and light enve wheels as much( or little) to the aero benefits.
Call me crazy, but it is noticeably faster. And I am slightly crazy.

Where I ride it is often flat and windy, and I feel like it gives me an advantage to be as aero as possible. Long stretches into the wind with me tucked in drops or laying on the tops is a huge advantage.


Many many factors determine the actual advantage, but for me, it is not a question of speed v comfort, but feel.

I ride em both, like em both, and both make me smile.

What was the question again?

Oh, and campy trumps anything from Shimano or sram ;-)

[Bob Ross]

Most people that think they will not see any difference between a steel bike and a modern high end carbon bike have never ridden the later.

Does ~8 years old count as "modern"? 'cuz I own both a custom handbuilt steel frame (with carbon fork) from 2010, and Cannondale's top-of-the-line all-carbon bike from 2006, and the only time I can tell a significant difference is when I'm lifting them over my head to hang them on the wall. If anything I'm faster on the steel frame; it seems to respond more immediately, so accelerations feel snappier...but I have no objective metrics to back up that suspicion.

[beeatnik]

Does ~8 years old count as "modern"? 'cuz I own both a custom handbuilt steel frame (with carbon fork) from 2010, and Cannondale's top-of-the-line all-carbon bike from 2006, and the only time I can tell a significant difference is when I'm lifting them over my head to hang them on the wall. If anything I'm faster on the steel frame; it seems to respond more immediately, so accelerations feel snappier...but I have no objective metrics to back up that suspicion.

Bob Ross, I like your eponymous style.

[Kirk007]

What's the point of the question?

The answer is yes, no, I dunno know or maybe depending on the definition of performance and a myriad other factors all particular to the rider. They can all be good.

But I gotta say, after test riding a C60 I was quite happy to ride away of my Mercelo and haven't looked back. Others will of course differ in their choices. And the bike I ride everyday, with its new cool dynamo hub front wheel, custom rack, fenders and 28 mm tires, that rides like a dream and descends like a banshee - titanium, and can't think of a single carbon bike on the market that would come close to its "performance" although I'm sure that a custom one could be built.

[Lionel]

Does ~8 years old count as "modern"? 'cuz I own both a custom handbuilt steel frame (with carbon fork) from 2010, and Cannondale's top-of-the-line all-carbon bike from 2006, and the only time I can tell a significant difference is when I'm lifting them over my head to hang them on the wall. If anything I'm faster on the steel frame; it seems to respond more immediately, so accelerations feel snappier...but I have no objective metrics to back up that suspicion.

2006 carbon vs latest greatest today, yes there is quite a bit of difference. At the end of the day legs are still 90% of everything here.

[Dead Man]

2006 carbon vs latest greatest today, yes there is quite a bit of difference. At the end of the day legs are still 90% of everything here.

You can lose a KOM by 1 second, dude.

[beeatnik]

You can lose a KOM by 1 second, dude.

Life or death, bro.

[Lionel]

Life or death, bro.


Totally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saab2000]

2006 carbon vs latest greatest today, yes there is quite a bit of difference. At the end of the day legs are still 90% of everything here.

This is the gist of my current Look 585 thing. It's 10-year old carbon. And my Giant TCR Advanced SL is about 4 year old carbon.

The Look feels like a fantastic steel bike. Just lighter and a bit stiffer and with a similar ride quality. My Giant is in another league.

I love my steel bikes and have 3 of the best - Serotta, Pacenti and Zanconato.

It's possible that if I could keep just one bike it would be the Zanconato because it's so good at everything. But it would be hard to give up my modern carbon bike. Or my Look 585. Thankfully, I don't have to do so.

Modern carbon is used essentially universally in pro racing for a reason and that reason is not just sponsorship. It's because it's actually better for pretty much everything. My Giant is a fantastic racing bicycle and is frankly fantastic at just regular riding too.

Yes, legs and fitness trump everything.

[thegunner]

ugh, everytime i read about the 585, i remember i had one and sold it. i would give quite a bit to get another one back. that's one helluva bike.

[hainy]

Comfort plus Efficiency = Performance

Whatever your bike is made up of this still applies and works.

I have only ever owned steel bikes and even when I raced I can't recall thinking that a bad day was due to the bike.

Hainy

[rePhil]

Yes it is:)



ugh, everytime i read about the 585, i remember i had one and sold it. i would give quite a bit to get another one back. that's one helluva bike.

[weisan]

Every now and then, this topic would come up and some of my pals would feel compelled to defend traditions or diehards, some would even get bent out of shape...

To me, it's like..."Ok, I see what you are saying, yes, there's a difference depending on what you are looking at...so what?! What's your point?" :fight:

I don't see us rushing out the door to dispose or incinerate our 20-yr-old Rolex or submariners, Kribies, Land Cruisers, V-Twin motors, 911s, waring blenders, remingtons, fender guitars, coleman burners, silca pumps, wusthofs... :D

Check out this thread:
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=175962

http://i.imgur.com/fyvkaq1.jpg

[thegunner]

Yes it is:)

it was a necessary move to spread the gospel of the 585 :) there's a new one on the 'bay, but way overpriced.

[rePhil]

I liked it so much I bought it's twin.



it was a necessary move to spread the gospel of the 585 :) there's a new one on the 'bay, but way overpriced.

[jzisk]

This is all after 45 years of hard riding... I found the Ridley Helium becoming less and less as satisfying than my old Masi GC, and not nearly as alluring as my Serotta Ti Legend (do not let me sound like a snot to these good readers). So I started riding over and over again the same 27 miles that ended on a 1.5 mile 12% grade, as I say, over and over and over again, switching between the Pegoretti, the IndyFab SSR, the Ti Legend and the Ridley. All are built essentially identically (I'm the wrench). All were of course exquisite in their own ways; all fast enough up the short climb; and each one subtly but distinctly unique. The outcome was I sold the Helium on eBay last month (Item 252086362018; a bit of a loss). I am much happier on the metal bikes. They spring. They are spritely and lively. All the hyped adjectives you ever heard from a fanatic about metal bikes are true. My old CAAD3 was a more of ball to ride than the He. Carbon is dead. And the Helium is a highly regarded, ostensibly compliant-but-stiff and lively-but-unerringly-tight...blah blah blah. I sold it. The metal frames, particularly the SSR, are all just as fast, if I'm not in the alps. And to back up the assertion it's not a placebo effect or wishful delusion, I also did the calculation for the weight penalty (with my Ph.D. in Analytical Chem from Cornell, I can claim authority on energy calculations), and at competitive speeds it came to a 9 second loss at the end of the ride. Steel for me.

[Climb01742]

In 95% of situations, for 95% of people, a well designed, well made bike of just about any material can perform beautifully. Where I think carbon has an advantage is that last 5%. In the hands of someone like Time or Giant, who weave/spin/lay-up/fabricate their own carbon, the potential to infinitely tweak almost every last mm of that frame give carbon a tuneability that can create things that metal tubes (probably) can't. The malleability of carbon creates an advantage at the extremes, I think. Whether that's meaningful to most or many riders? Their call. But personally, I'm most intrigued by where carbon can go next. Until then, I'm riding my Peg or Kirk.:D

[bcroslin]

All of the bikes in my garage are carbon and yet I lust after a Cielo and a Wraith. I honestly don't think I'd be slower on a steel bike. I know my buddy who kicked my butt last Sunday on his steel cx bike isn't slower than I am on my carbon bike.

It's the indian, not the arrow.

[soulspinner]

2006 carbon vs latest greatest today, yes there is quite a bit of difference. At the end of the day legs are still 90% of everything here.

Maybe more than 90 percent.

[jr59]

What's the point of the question?

The answer is yes, no, I dunno know or maybe depending on the definition of performance and a myriad other factors all particular to the rider. They can all be good.

But I gotta say, after test riding a C60 I was quite happy to ride away of my Mercelo and haven't looked back. Others will of course differ in their choices. And the bike I ride everyday, with its new cool dynamo hub front wheel, custom rack, fenders and 28 mm tires, that rides like a dream and descends like a banshee - titanium, and can't think of a single carbon bike on the market that would come close to its "performance" although I'm sure that a custom one could be built.

Glad you are enjoying it. :beer:

[Kirk007]

Glad you are enjoying it. :beer:

And that's the point right! A purposeful bike that does it right.

As to the original question posed - Could Nic Crumpton or someone build the equivalent to my Spectrum in carbon- probably, but that's not the bike he builds.

And when folks speak about the advantage of today's carbon at the margins, welll what about the advantage of a bespoke fit? With builders and buyers fretting over millimeter length differences and tenths of a degree on angles, how does one balance tailored fit metal vs make it do with stem length, spacers and seatpost setback on molded carbon (I know, I know you go see Nick or Slawta or get a new Hampsten squadra -but I don' t think those are the bikes the OP is talking about. I wasn't blown away by the C60 I tested because it wasn't light or stiff etc but by the fact that stock sizes don't fit me very well and I think the ride and handling reflected that.

[cinema]

like everyone is saying carbon is probably superior in the end by 3 seconds to every other material on the market when you test it with a pro in a controlled environment.

but the truth is most carbon options are off the shelf and offer poor user serviceability and personal dialing in and they are BEUACOUP BUXX for a cheap ass taiwainese mold. they often have press fit bottom brackets and integrated seat tubes, making it difficult to change your riding style as you get stronger or older or hurt your back at work. If you really think you're going to find a stock carbon frame that is as fast, easy to use and abuse or more comfortable than the caad 10 you are just mistaken.

[Joxster]

I don't like full carbon, it doesn't suit my riding style. I prefer an alloy/carbon mix.

[oldpotatoe]

I think it's fair to say that the "performance gap" between a top carbon frame (new Madone, S Works Tarmac, etc.) and a top handcrafted steel bike (Kirk, Zanconato, etc) is widening.

New carbon bikes are extremely light, oftentimes aerodynamic, have advanced carbon layup schedules that maximize performance and comfort, and so forth. Steel bikes may use more advanced tubing, but essentially they're still round tubes brazed or welded. The can compete on comfort and may win on aesthetics (I want a Motorola Merckx fixed gear!), otherwise they can't compete, no?

Does this matter to you?

Well, like aluminum, the reason manufacturers use carbon is cuz it's....cheap in comparison to metal. Plus they can do all sorts of shaping, layup, tube dimensions, and point to it and say, 'see, tuned to you', whomever 'you' is.

So, no frames in the professional peloton, no win on sunday, sell on monday.

Question is, what drives what? I think manufacturers see the expense of using carbon, and sponsor accordingly. And then offer accordingly, and sell 'em.

Most frame builders I know all say the best 'combination' of what you are looking for in a bicycle frame, is still metal. In terms of weight(not the lightest but not 'heavy'), ride quality, longevity, crash worthiness, ease to make a custom, cost. They also only deal in metal...so YMMV.

But 'compete', to narrow, with the sponsor in peloton fuzziness added in.

[shovelhd]

Did one of the CNBC debate moderators hijack your account?

[Formulasaab]

... otherwise they can't compete, no?

Does this matter to you?

I think I've read through all the replies but forgive me if someone already mentioned this...

The parts of your original post that I've quoted above sort of conflict with each other I think.

The first part suggests international level competition I think, because (and I am making a generalization here) I don't think regional level athletes are optimized enough to effectively realize the fractional advantages that a specific aero design or chainstay stiffness might offer.

The last line, "Does it matter to you", removes the international competition and brings it back to regional level competition and recreational riding. At which level, of course it doesn't matter since at that level, everyone has a day job.

That being said...
Can't compete at what?


A world championship time trial, spring classic, hour record, or grand tour stage? Probably yes, you are right.

But in a BMX race, cyclocross race, or criterium? I don't think it matters at all, even on an international level.

As I like to tell people when they act surprised at how many bikes I have... A specific blade for every cut.

I don't think mountain bikes need to be carbon either, but they've gone that way because the trend-makers are the full suspension rigs and it is so much easier integrate the various shapes and mounting points using "fluid" carbon than extruded metal.

[christian]

Does this matter to you?

I'll answer this way:

My all-rounder, where tire clearance, fender usage, and comfort is key, is a Hampsten Strada Bianca.

My road bike is a carbon Colnago from 2007. It is appreciably better than the steel bike that preceded it. But I don't feel an urge to upgrade a 2007 carbon bike to a 2016 carbon bike.

My mountain bike is a carbon full-sus bike with 1x11 and carbon rims.

So yeah, it matters (a lot) depending on the usage envelope. The delta between my Hampsten and a carbon fibre version of the Hampsten wouldn't be so great. The difference between a carbon full-sus MTB and a steel hardtail is big. And widening.

[benb]

I feel like it's pretty faulty to make generalizations in this thread if you haven't rode a whole bunch of Carbon fiber bikes.

I'm not sure I believe the differences between various metal bike designs are anywhere near as drastic as how much carbon fiber has changed.

I'd even venture that the typical high end Ti bike is not that different than the typical Steel bike, and aluminum might feel a little different but not too far out.

But carbon has just changed so much.. you ride a late 90s Trek OCLV, then ride something from 2004-2005, then something from 2010, and then a 2016 bike and the progress is immense.

To me those late 90s Treks were stiff enough but dead, personally the Carbon bike I rode in 2004 was lively but not stiff enough, stuff circa 2010 was ungodly stiff and starting to be pretty damn comfortable, and stuff circa 2015 is just ridiculous in feeling amazing when you stomp on the pedals and yet seemingly absorbing a huge amount of road buzz & hits.

[nicrump]

I was gonna stay out of this but I have to lay down a couple facts.

Ounce per ounce raw PAN and pitch carbon fiber(filiment) is more expensive than steel or aluminum. Add in processing(combing, weaving, sizing, resin impregnation) and it goes higher.

Aluminim ~ $.74 per lb
Steel ~ $.10 per lb
Commodity metals price(all the things to make great cromo) ~ $.08 per lb
Raw intermediate mod fiber ~ $1.10 per lb

All of these require further processing to create the bulk material for tube drawing/forming as well as UD and woven broad goods(and resin impregnation)

I dont have that data but call it a was.

Machines make metal tubes. A few people can run machines that make miles and miles of tubing per day if not per hour. Shaping of metal tubes is the same. Most popular today is hydroform. One operator can form better than 50 tubes an hour.

Carbon tubes and or monocoques are hand laid piece by piece. Even in the most sophisticated of factories. There can be as many as 500 pieces in a single frame depending on laminate strategy. Further processing into a frame is far more complicated than a metal frame. This is hours of hand work per frame in cutting and laying before even stuffing into a mold. The world has far more history with metal and that should speak volumes.

Bottom line carbon is more expensive from the ground up factoring in raw material, material development to final production and man hours.

If this were not true then you would all be driving around in 60mpg carbon chassis $20k cars.

In closing I am not defending the benefits of one material vs another. I am just trying to shut down this myth about how "they push carbon because its cheaper"

Stop disseminating the bull ····e and go do the research.

[AngryScientist]

bottom line carbon is more expensive from the ground up factoring in raw material, material development to final production man hours.

if this were not true then you would all be driving around in 60mpg carbon chassis $20k cars.

in closing i am not defending teh benefits of one material vs another. i am just trying to shut down this myth about how "they push carbon because its cheaper"

stop disseminating the bull ï½·ï½·ï½·ï½· and go do the research.



Nick -

I see your math above, and certainly you know better than anyone here, but just to be clear, are you saying that, if a company such as trek, assuming they properly tooled up for it could produce 10,000 high performance steel framesets/year cheaper than they could the same for a carbon frame?

[nicrump]

Nick -

I see your math above, and certainly you know better than anyone here, but just to be clear, are you saying that, if a company such as trek, assuming they properly tooled up for it could produce 10,000 high performance steel framesets/year cheaper than they could the same for a carbon frame?

absolutely.

[thegunner]

that's counterintuitive to me, but i for some reason feel like you know this arena much better than i do haha

[AngryScientist]

absolutely.

thanks Nick for your professional input here. i would not have guessed that either, but i appreciate you clearing this up.

[54ny77]

Nick, what do you suppose is the driver for someone like Trek (or any other ginormous bike firm) to do so many of their bikes in carbon en masse, if the per unit cost in alu or steel would be cheaper? Is it simply because the market demands the latest & greatest (carbon), and economies of scale in asian factories is the only viable way to get it done?

Really like your detailed comparison of the economics. That was interesting factoid.

absolutely.

[Bostic]

I love my Steve Rex custom steel and ride it constantly. In fact I'm getting a steel fork made up for it to replace the carbon Enve it's currently running. The bike is everything I thought it would be and more. I have about 5000 miles on it in the little over a year I have had it so I know how it handles.

Comparing it to the carbon bikes I've had, it's very neutral. It doesn't have the kick of my old Tarmac SL2 comp. It can't carve corners like the Tarmac or reward immediate acceleration from stomping on the pedals on a climb. That's fine, I wasn't expecting it to. That's where the carbon difference is.

This past weekend I did the same ride two days in a row. First on the Rex, the next on my carbon Volagi Liscio. The Liscio is way stiffer and climbs faster. However it doesn't descend anywhere near as nice as the Rex. It was designed to be an endurance bike and it excels at that.

I sold a few of my bikes in the garage to make room for a new carbon bike for the days I want a pure all out speed demon. I don't care how punishing stiff the ride is. I miss that when I got rid of the Tarmac.

[nicrump]

Nick, what do you suppose is the driver for someone like Trek (or any other ginormous bike firm) to do so many of their bikes in carbon en masse, if the per unit cost in alu or steel would be cheaper? Is it simply because the market demands the latest & greatest (carbon), and economies of scale in asian factories is the only viable way to get it done?

Really like your detailed comparison of the economics. That was interesting factoid.

I cannot give my complete opinion on that without entering the debate of the OP.

[54ny77]

I'll start a thread if you want, or just post your reply here as it's an evolving discussion--no need to address the "debate," as it were. Besides, since when do thread topics regularly stay their intended course? ;)

I cannot give my complete opinion on that without entering the debate of the OP.

[thegunner]

I'll start a thread if you want, or just post your reply here as it's an evolving discussion--no need to address the "debate," as it were. Besides, since when do thread topics regularly stay their intended course? ;)

+1 i would love to hear the perspective on this mainly because it seems to me that economies of scale would at some point push cost of fab for carbon lower than that of steel.

[nicrump]

+1 i would love to hear the perspective on this mainly because it seems to me that economies of scale would at some point push cost of fab for carbon lower than that of steel.

It will eventually. Thats where all the big money is being spent in composites at the moment, to drive costs down in an effort to meet future fuel economy needs.

It will take a while for that shift. We been taking hand held torches to steel for over 100 years so this carbon thing is still relatively new and being sorted out.

You have to admit the quality and performance advances of carbon bikes frames has changed more in the last 10 years than in steel over the last 25 years(or more)

[ANAO]

It will eventually. Thats where all the big money is being spent in composites at the moment, to drive costs down in an effort to meet future fuel economy needs.

It will take a while for that shift. We been taking hand held torches to steel for over 100 years so this carbon thing is still relatively new and being sorted out.

You have to admit the quality and performance advances of carbon bikes frames has changed more in the last 10 years than in steel over the last 25 years(or more)

Yes, but has it changed more than steel from year zero to year 25 (as is the case with CF, essentially)?

I don't remember - wasn't around then.

[benb]

+1 i would love to hear the perspective on this mainly because it seems to me that economies of scale would at some point push cost of fab for carbon lower than that of steel.

Relatively speaking while it seems that more and more bikes are made of carbon fiber in the big picture most "things" are still made of steel, very few things are made of aluminum, and almost nothing is made of carbon fiber.

The bike industry has got to gain some economy of scale for steel since most of the real world is still tooled up for steel.

Now if you could figure out how to make injection molded plastic bicycle frames or rotation mold plastic frames (like plastic kayaks) that would probably be really, really cheap.

[nicrump]

Now if you could figure out how to make injection molded plastic bicycle frames or rotation mold plastic frames (like plastic kayaks) that would probably be really, really cheap.

Carbon/epoxy is apples to oranges compared to the thermoformed plastics you are talking about.

Though they are working on short fiber thermoplastic injection molding. But that will never get you a 900g bike frame that can compete on performance with what is available today

[thegunner]

You have to admit the quality and performance advances of carbon bikes frames has changed more in the last 10 years than in steel over the last 25 years(or more)

for me going from a 585 to a z5 to various cervelos and scotts and cannondales, i didn't get that huge 'damn, this is incredible' advancement - and that is on the order of about 10 years.

i will also admit i've never ridden a truly top tier carbon bike (in the sense that i've never owned an argonaut, alchemy, or you know... a crumpton), so i can't make an apples to apples comparison.

[Kirk007]

I would really love to and perhaps someday will have a made to measure Crumpton so I can do my own comparisons ( it is the only bike on my wish list) yet I' ve been through enough bikes including carbon pro Pelton level frames from 2010 and earlier to really wonder if there is any real objective differences between high end bikes of the same type, for instance road racing machines. Subjective, sure I can feel the stomp on the pedals sensation difference between my Peg and my Spectrum. But are times going down on climbing Alpe d'huez on carbon bikes vs alloy? Is it making a difference on the hour record? Are rec riders PR s significantly (i.e. removing all other variables but the frame/fork) faster? I think if you are riding the caliber of bike we are talking about, of any type material, you most likely have a fantastic ride and it's not the frame that is holding you back, if indeed you feel held back and are yearning for the latest and greatest 100 gram lighter frame to give you that last bit of competitive edge.

[downtube]

I have a C 40 HP and a Della Santa, I will be honest I like riding both but the Della is my favorite. It delivers power, it handles like it is on rails, it is unusually smooth even on rougher roads. Because it is steel it also has a weird connection to my youth, it's how I remember bikes feeling, although my Della is by far the nicest bike I have ever ridden. Don't worry though the C40 still gets at least 50% of my road miles, it has not been left hanging on the wall.
chuck

[Dead Man]

No offense to Mr. Crumpton, here... but uh... he's talking about HIS frames. And similar.

But McTrek and Speshuled, et al, aren't making frames like Nick Crumpton. They're making them in Chinese factories that are also selling unlicensed knockoffs for $300. You can make the argument that these frames aren't as good as a Crumpton ( ;) ), or even the licensed versions they're making for McTrek... but man, I sure do see a hell of a lot of them around the local race scene - they must be producing a halfway decent product.

And if they can make them, paint them, and ship them to Ann Arbor Michigan and still make a profit (and probably a tidy one), then.... that ····'s gotta be "cheap."

[thegunner]

No offense to Mr. Crumpton, here... but uh... he's talking about HIS frames. And similar.

But McTrek and Speshuled, et al, aren't making frames like Nick Crumpton. They're making them in Chinese factories that are also selling unlicensed knockoffs for $300. You can make the argument that these frames aren't as good as a Crumpton ( ;) ), or even the licensed versions they're making for McTrek... but man, I sure do see a hell of a lot of them around the local race scene - they must be producing a halfway decent product.

And if they can make them, paint them, and ship them to Ann Arbor Michigan and still make a profit (and probably a tidy one), then.... that ï½·ï½·ï½·ï½·'s gotta be "cheap."

he wasn't though. there was a comment earlier referencing the big box manufacturers (specifically trek) and he made the statement that broad scale steel manufacturing could in fact be cheaper. we do have far more history at an industrial scale working with alloys vs. composites, so maybe that hasn't tipped yet.

[cinema]

i thought those brands were made in taiwan* not china. chinese carbon coming out of those cheap factories has been shown to be inferior to high end carbon coming from spec/trek/giant etc in taiwan*

either way, let's actually look at the numbers available to consumer on ultra low end. you can get a bottom barrel cheap carbon frame from a ····ty chinese factory for like 350 unbranded on ebay. same thing in alu or steel from china is like 100 from nashbar and ebay so at least 3x expensive for ultra low end factory frames

[sparky33]

I've run out of popcorn. Could someone get me a refill?

That is all. Carry on.

[Hermes_Alex]

i thought those brands were made in thailand not china. chinese carbon coming out of those cheap factories has been shown to be inferior to high end carbon coming from spec/trek/giant etc in thailand.

either way, let's actually look at the numbers available to consumer on ultra low end. you can get a bottom barrel cheap carbon frame from a ï½·ï½·ï½·ï½·ty chinese factory for like 350 unbranded on ebay. same thing in alu or steel from china is like 100 from nashbar and ebay so at least 3x expensive for ultra low end factory frames

There's next to no carbon frame manufacturing in Thailand, to my knowledge. There's a little bit in Vietnam, but not on trek/specialized/Giant's scale.

[Joachim]

i thought those brands were made in thailand not china. chinese carbon coming out of those cheap factories has been shown to be inferior to high end carbon coming from spec/trek/giant etc in thailand.



Taiwan?

[Dead Man]

But who is buying a $350 unbranded carbon frame?

Who is buying a $100 steel Nashbar frame?

There's NO Nashbar frames out on the crit course, but plenty of un-branded black carbon frames decked out with 5600.

The fact that one sells for $100 and the other $350 is no indicator of production cost, only who is buying. Dudes buying $100 Nashbar frames are building up townies and 3-mile commuters, and that's all they're about. Dudes rolling $350 crashable frames on Saturday are riding $3000-5000+ bikes on Sunday. With exception, of course - I'm sure there's dudes on here rolling both. But that's gonna be a pretty consistent divide, no?

Do you think you could make a steel frame stiff and light enough to appeal to Freds/MAMILs/amateur racers like us, whether for a cheap crashable race bike, or a Sunday afternoon leisure bike, and sell it for $350? No way. You need high quality bike-specific steel tubing, people who actually know how to TIG or braze well, good paint and paint techniques, etc... sucker has to be built well and that jacks your production costs way up.

Carbon, on the other hand.... what difference does it make on the production end of things whether you're using $.05/sheet layup or $.20/sheet layup for your seat stays, or whether you paint in more of them? It's all the same thing to the 60-year old Chinese woman who stands at the seat-stay station for 12 hours a day, day after day.

So my hypothesis: The difference between crap steel and quality steel is pretty big.... crap steel might have a decent margin, if you can pump them out and sell them by the thousands. Quality steel - stiffer, lighter and/or rides well steel - the margin drops way off. Conversely, or rather inversely - carbon production is probably about the same whether you're making high-end or low-end carbon. The difference with carbon is engineering/design. And sure... that costs more. How much more, averaged out per bike produced? Enough to affect price, sure... but not $3000/ea. That's margin.

So at the extreme bottom end, steel is gonna beat carbon any day. But somewhere above $75 Walmart bike level, but below $350 unlicensed carbon level, I think there's an crossover where margin/cost flip between the two. What's the margin on a $75 Walmart bike? It's better than a $75 carbon bike would be, for sure. But I'm betting steel can't even come into the same ballpark as carbon for margin at the upper end of McTrek carbon frames.

Mostly conjecture, for sure. Feel free to rip it up. :beer:

[tuscanyswe]

But who is buying a $350 unbranded carbon frame?

Who is buying a $100 steel Nashbar frame?

There's NO Nashbar frames out on the crit course, but plenty of un-branded black carbon frames decked out with 5600.

The fact that one sells for $100 and the other $350 is no indicator of production cost, only who is buying. Dudes buying $100 Nashbar frames are building up townies and 3-mile commuters, and that's all they're about. Dudes rolling $350 crashable frames on Saturday are riding $3000-5000+ bikes on Sunday. With exception, of course - I'm sure there's dudes on here rolling both. But that's gonna be a pretty consistent divide, no?

Do you think you could make a steel frame stiff and light enough to appeal to Freds/MAMILs/amateur racers like us, whether for a cheap crashable race bike, or a Sunday afternoon leisure bike, and sell it for $350? No way. You need high quality bike-specific steel tubing, people who actually know how to TIG or braze well, good paint and paint techniques, etc... sucker has to be built well and that jacks your production costs way up.

Carbon, on the other hand.... what difference does it make on the production end of things whether you're using $.05/sheet layup or $.20/sheet layup for your seat stays, or whether you paint in more of them? It's all the same thing to the 60-year old Chinese woman who stands at the seat-stay station for 12 hours a day, day after day.

So my hypothesis: The difference between crap steel and quality steel is pretty big.... crap steel might have a decent margin, if you can pump them out and sell them by the thousands. Quality steel - stiffer, lighter and/or rides well steel - the margin drops way off. Conversely, or rather inversely - carbon production is probably about the same whether you're making high-end or low-end carbon. The difference with carbon is engineering/design. And sure... that costs more. How much more, averaged out per bike produced? Enough to affect price, sure... but not $3000/ea. That's margin.

So at the extreme bottom end, steel is gonna beat carbon any day. But somewhere above $75 Walmart bike level, but below $350 unlicensed carbon level, I think there's an crossover where margin/cost flip between the two. What's the margin on a $75 Walmart bike? It's better than a $75 carbon bike would be, for sure. But I'm betting steel can't even come into the same ballpark as carbon for margin at the upper end of McTrek carbon frames.

Mostly conjecture, for sure. Feel free to rip it up. :beer:

This would be pretty much would i woulda guessed too. But I've been wrong before .. :D

[EDS]

But who is buying a $350 unbranded carbon frame?

Who is buying a $100 steel Nashbar frame?

There's NO Nashbar frames out on the crit course, but plenty of un-branded black carbon frames decked out with 5600.

The fact that one sells for $100 and the other $350 is no indicator of production cost, only who is buying. Dudes buying $100 Nashbar frames are building up townies and 3-mile commuters, and that's all they're about. Dudes rolling $350 crashable frames on Saturday are riding $3000-5000+ bikes on Sunday. With exception, of course - I'm sure there's dudes on here rolling both. But that's gonna be a pretty consistent divide, no?

Do you think you could make a steel frame stiff and light enough to appeal to Freds/MAMILs/amateur racers like us, whether for a cheap crashable race bike, or a Sunday afternoon leisure bike, and sell it for $350? No way. You need high quality bike-specific steel tubing, people who actually know how to TIG or braze well, good paint and paint techniques, etc... sucker has to be built well and that jacks your production costs way up.

Carbon, on the other hand.... what difference does it make on the production end of things whether you're using $.05/sheet layup or $.20/sheet layup for your seat stays, or whether you paint in more of them? It's all the same thing to the 60-year old Chinese woman who stands at the seat-stay station for 12 hours a day, day after day.

So my hypothesis: The difference between crap steel and quality steel is pretty big.... crap steel might have a decent margin, if you can pump them out and sell them by the thousands. Quality steel - stiffer, lighter and/or rides well steel - the margin drops way off. Conversely, or rather inversely - carbon production is probably about the same whether you're making high-end or low-end carbon. The difference with carbon is engineering/design. And sure... that costs more. How much more, averaged out per bike produced? Enough to affect price, sure... but not $3000/ea. That's margin.

So at the extreme bottom end, steel is gonna beat carbon any day. But somewhere above $75 Walmart bike level, but below $350 unlicensed carbon level, I think there's an crossover where margin/cost flip between the two. What's the margin on a $75 Walmart bike? It's better than a $75 carbon bike would be, for sure. But I'm betting steel can't even come into the same ballpark as carbon for margin at the upper end of McTrek carbon frames.

Mostly conjecture, for sure. Feel free to rip it up. :beer:

If you look at a company like Giant as an example, they make their high-end bikes in one factory (in Taiwan) and the more affordable carbon options are made in a factory in China.

[cinema]

Man there is so much unchecked conjecture in your monumental reply I can literally say nothing that would mean or address anything remotely factual. The trolls win this one im out

[benb]

Yes it's ridiculous if you think the steel frame requires super high skilled labor and anyone can do the carbon manufacturing.

Have you seen how beautiful some of these "McTrek" frames are?

(Not talking about the $350 ebay carbon frames, I've never actually seen one of those up close.)

[stuckey]

Come on! I ride custom steel and have carbon bikes.
The cheap $350 frames are nasty compared to the big name brands. They are full of nasty flash and garbage inside the tubes. The finish on them is sub par... It is kind of like so many new steel builders frames compared to the old guard.

[Dazza]

Snipped
"have advanced carbon layup schedules that maximize performance and comfort"

I hear, read this all the time, but how is this measured? What is this compared against, the base line?
Leaving every thing out but the frame, some one show me some real data where frame 'A' has lower loss of energy transfer from the pressure on the pedal to the torque twist at the rear hub than frame 'B'.
If so where did the energy disappear to? Heat?

WHY? because the heat losses are so minute if measurable it makes not a scrape of difference.

I hear the comfort /compliance thing rolled out. To have any compliance one has to have movement, suspension. I read and ride some frame sets that claim that the material absorbs shock but that alone is nonsense. Take the springs out of your car and put carbon blocks in and see how that works.
Then there is rebound, how do you measure that in bike frames and how does that effect the ride? Crikey, I have ridden some carbon frames that shake one's Kidney stones out. They claimed Hi Tech ....................
What are we comparing it to? I think the base line of what is a nice riding bikes is being lost. This year is faster and lighter and more comfortable than last years model hyperbole.

Yes, frames are lighter (that can be called a performance gain), definitely more fragile, but besides what is in most cases just aerodynamic styling, ACTMCO bike frames are not faster than 10 -20-30 years ago. Lighter yes, but more efficient, no! There is no measurable heat loss in the frame that can be measured in any meaning full way from pedal to hub.
We could go into Hookes law but..........................
If there was real facts then manufacturers would be sprouting their data
besides weight and some dodgy wind tunnel data.
PS. I worked for many years as a Aussie national team mechanic , living in Europe, so I am looking at this from a high performance sport back ground.

I think it's fair to say that the "performance gap" between a top carbon frame (new Madone, S Works Tarmac, etc.) and a top handcrafted steel bike (Kirk, Zanconato, etc) is widening.

New carbon bikes are extremely light, oftentimes aerodynamic, have advanced carbon layup schedules that maximize performance and comfort, and so forth. Steel bikes may use more advanced tubing, but essentially they're still round tubes brazed or welded. They can compete on comfort and may win on aesthetics (I want a Motorola Merckx fixed gear!), otherwise they can't compete, no?

Does this matter to you?

[nicrump]

I hear the comfort /compliance thing rolled out. To have any compliance one has to have movement, suspension. I read and ride some frame sets that claim that the material absorbs shock but that alone is nonsense. Take the springs out of your car and put carbon blocks in and see how that works.


With great respect for a builder who I admire and who's work I love.

Recall that CF is not an isotropic material and thus replacing the springs in ones car with blocks of carbon is not a fair or realistic analogy.

By creating a tube with less or zero axial(0* relative to the tube length) fiber orientation and all angled at say 45*, you actually have a measurable difference that, especially in the main tubes of a bike frame will provide a noticeable feel of "suspension". With the added benefit of incredible stiffness in torsion due to all those angled fibers. Like how they make carbon drive shafts.

Conversely if you build that bike with tubes made mostly with 0* fiber angle and no angle between 0* and 90* you will get a very jarring bike that is also interestingly a noodle from axle to axle(freaking dangerous on a hairy descent).

I've built both bikes and just about everything in between, when you take the laminates to these extremes it is very noticeable by folks in tune with their bikes.

And that's the rub, carbon bikes are highly tunable flat out. More so than a structure made from metal tubes. This is an undeniable fact. But it doesn't make one better than the other. And it can lead to some really crappy riding bikes.

Ps, not to mention fiber quality/modulus and all... There is tremendous variety available to composites engineers.

[54ny77]

Nick is carbon fiber a commodity so long as it's in spec, or is there nuance in quality between the big (or relevant) manufacturers?

And by the way, love having Dazza's input here. Hot damn can that guy wield a torch and tools! :D

[Climb01742]

With great respect for a builder who I admire and who's work I love.

Recall that CF is not an isotropic material and thus replacing the springs in ones car with blocks of carbon is not a fair or realistic analogy.

By creating a tube with less or zero axial(0* relative to the tube length) fiber orientation and all angled at say 45*, you actually have a measurable difference that, especially in the main tubes of a bike frame will provide a noticeable feel of "suspension". With the added benefit of incredible stiffness in torsion due to all those angled fibers. Like how they make carbon drive shafts.

Conversely if you build that bike with tubes made mostly with 0* fiber angle and no angle between 0* and 90* you will get a very jarring bike that is also interestingly a noodle from axle to axle(freaking dangerous on a hairy descent).

I've built both bikes and just about everything in between, when you take the laminates to these extremes it is very noticeable by folks in tune with their bikes.

And that's the rub, carbon bikes are highly tunable flat out. More so than a structure made from metal tubes. This is an undeniable fact. But it doesn't make one better than the other. And it can lead to some really crappy riding bikes.

Ps, not to mention fiber quality/modulus and all... There is tremendous variety available to composites engineers.

nick, thank you for posting to this thread multiple times and for sharing your knowledge. the best most of us can contribute are our highly subjective personal experiences. you can add knowledge that's much more concrete.

[Coalfield]

As I'm not a racer or even a Strava KOM guy, 'performance' takes on the broader meaning (as stated by many others). Tires and wheels mean the most in my riding experience. Al tubular wheelsets have been a productive upgrade over clinchers. My next 'performance' upgrade might be to carbon wheels. I'm riding steel, Ti & older carbon (Calfee Tetra) frames.

But for all the racers out there, please go buy latest and greatest because you guys provide the market for the cutting edge technologies. What you buy today trickles to me tomorrow. Besides, you can lose a sprint by the width of a tire.

More than anything when buying a new bike, I support buying from American craftsmen, regardless of the frame material.

[beeatnik]

PS. I worked for many years as a Aussie national team mechanic , living in Europe, so I am looking at this from a high performance sport back ground.

Dazza, I like your DOWN (in the trenches) UNDER style.

[Lionel]

Interesting read on material. As Nick said, carbon has made a lot of progress in the last 10 years. State of the art carbon frames are much nicer today than they were 10 years ago. For instance I sold my C50 quickly after getting my Crumpton, the Crumpton was doing everything so much better. About a year ago I got an F8, this bike is just incredible, I honestly was not expecting to like it as much. While I still very much enjoy my Sachs or my Spectrum they really cannot "compete:. Every person who describes the F8 as a "mass produce Chinese piece of plastic" should really go a try one.

[beeatnik]

Lionel, you have the same groups and basically deep carbon on all your bikas. Why can't your Spectrum compete with your F8?

[Lionel]

Lionel, you have the same groups and basically deep carbon on all your bikas. Why can't your Spectrum compete with your F8?

Just go and try one out, it's hard to put in words ;)

[Dazza]

With great respect for a builder who I admire and who's work I love.

Recall that CF is not an isotropic material and thus replacing the springs in ones car with blocks of carbon is not a fair or realistic analogy.

By creating a tube with less or zero axial(0* relative to the tube length) fiber orientation and all angled at say 45*, you actually have a measurable difference that, especially in the main tubes of a bike frame will provide a noticeable feel of "suspension". With the added benefit of incredible stiffness in torsion due to all those angled fibers. Like how they make carbon drive shafts.

Conversely if you build that bike with tubes made mostly with 0* fiber angle and no angle between 0* and 90* you will get a very jarring bike that is also interestingly a noodle from axle to axle(freaking dangerous on a hairy descent).

I've built both bikes and just about everything in between, when you take the laminates to these extremes it is very noticeable by folks in tune with their bikes.

And that's the rub, carbon bikes are highly tunable flat out. More so than a structure made from metal tubes. This is an undeniable fact. But it doesn't make one better than the other. And it can lead to some really crappy riding bikes.

Ps, not to mention fiber quality/modulus and all... There is tremendous variety available to composites engineers.

Full agreement from me with you Nick, yes you can tune Carbon no end, but most brands do not. They write some marketing and say they do. And what are we measuring it against or from? Identical bike geo, equipment? My point about springs is a lump of steel or carbon is going to not absorb unless as you mention you tune it. Make it do the stress and strain thing!
The material alone does not make the magic. You have to have use practical skill in design and construction.
Ride feel is very perceptive to most punters.
but
"have advanced carbon layup schedules that maximize performance"
What performance?
less power loss from pedal to twisting the hub?
Some one show me how? I have seeked this for 35 years.
I have never seen any real data from correct testing anywhere to compare frames, no measurements of frames heating up more than the other from their "excessive flexing".
I see the same fork used under riders that weigh 55kg as the 95kg rider, that does not seem correct if the builder is tuning.
Wheel tracking under substantial pedaling loads and bike handling feel when keeling over rough corners, that can be perceived and is real.
If I was a young man starting bespoke frame building today and living the life of bike racing, I would make carbon bikes, because it is now, it can be done well. if I had the energy of youth, I would be emulating what Nick does!
I am sincere in that comment.

[Dazza]

nick, thank you for posting to this thread multiple times and for sharing your knowledge. the best most of us can contribute are our highly subjective personal experiences. you can add knowledge that's much more concrete.

Hear hear
now
Some one show me data
just how one frame is more efficient with transferring energy from the pedal pressure to the twisting of the rear hub?

or to put it another way

where did the energy go in the slower frame?

Heat or some other form?

[beeatnik]

Just go and try one out, it's hard to put in words ;)


Well, I think that bike may earn me a pro contract or get me to the Olympics (for a third tier cycling nation, tho) at my advanced age. :beer:

[jr59]

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the exchange of ideas between Nick and Dazza has been well worth the reading of this thread.

Thanks guys!

[Kirk007]

IWhile I still very much enjoy my Sachs or my Spectrum they really cannot "cocmpete:. Evc cec ry person who describes the F8 as a "mass produce Chinese piece of plastic" should really go a try one.

Let me know when those bikes, particularly the Spectrum, need rehomed. :beer:

[nicrump]

Hear hear
now
Some one show me data
just how one frame is more efficient with transferring energy from the pedal pressure to the twisting of the rear hub?

or to put it another way

where did the energy go in the slower frame?

Heat or some other form?

sweet company and lucky me as i have never claimed anything about power transfer. ;-)

Cheers Dazza!!

Ps, i am older than you think and am right on your heels.

[Lionel]

Let me know when those bikes, particularly the Spectrum, need rehomed. :beer:

actually not any time soon. I enjoy the diversity. The F8 is actually seeing most of the miles but not all of them!

[soulspinner]

I want a bike from Nick AND a Dazza. Is that so wrong?:rolleyes:

[AngryScientist]

i love this forum. a thread that could have easily gone sideways has been very informative and respectful. lots of great information here.

[benb]

FWIW it's not too hard to go watch some videos of carbon frames on Youtube and after a while you'll actually see some slow motion shots where you can see the frame noticeably flexing on bumps. I know I've seen at least one Specialized video where it's visible.

A lot of this probably doesn't matter depending on where you ride. If the roads are super smooth who cares. I've lived most of my riding life in New England where the roads suck but I've certainly visited places where I know I wouldn't care about "compliance" if I lived there. I'm usually blown away by the smoothness of the roads when I travel to other areas of the country.

[roydyates]

I hope you're joking.

Your 2900+ posts make a difference; if you were a newb making this post, I think everyone would conclude you were trolling.

In any event, you should get some credit for starting one of the most interesting threads I've read in some time.

[feta99]

Everyone I know who has an F8 loves the ride quality. I've lusted over one but can't seem to make myself spend the $$$$ on a stock frame.

My question to you Lionel is if you had to get a custom carbon bike and wanted it to ride like an F8, how would you describe those properties to the builder? Is it possible for a custom builder like Crumpton or Parlee to build a bike that rides like the F8? My guess is that Sarto could do one similar to that(they probably do some custom work for Pina anyways)...

Just go and try one out, it's hard to put in words ;)

[Lionel]

Everyone I know who has an F8 loves the ride quality. I've lusted over one but can't seem to make myself spend the $$$$ on a stock frame.

My question to you Lionel is if you had to get a custom carbon bike and wanted it to ride like an F8, how would you describe those properties to the builder? Is it possible for a custom builder like Crumpton or Parlee to build a bike that rides like the F8? My guess is that Sarto could do one similar to that(they probably do some custom work for Pina anyways)...

I'd describe the ride as stiff, fast, precise, aero and comfortable ;) In other words a grand slam. I am not sure if a custom can be made to ride like it, I sort of doubt it. But Nick can build you a fantastic riding bike as well.

I think Pinarello aslso had some sort of exclusive access to the latest Toray fiber they use in the F8.

[mecse]

I think it's fair to say that the "performance gap" between a top carbon frame (new Madone, S Works Tarmac, etc.) and a top handcrafted steel bike (Kirk, Zanconato, etc) is widening.

New carbon bikes are extremely light, oftentimes aerodynamic, have advanced carbon layup schedules that maximize performance and comfort, and so forth. Steel bikes may use more advanced tubing, but essentially they're still round tubes brazed or welded. They can compete on comfort and may win on aesthetics (I want a Motorola Merckx fixed gear!), otherwise they can't compete, no?

Does this matter to you?

Just ride whatever you like; I'm really enjoying my steel bike right now. However, though, on a paceline ride with 10 folk on thursday I was the only one on a steel bike.

It's no big deal. Things change. Just ride whatever. I'm told that my power may be dissipating into flexing. Maybe. But i'm super comfy and I don't care, and my income doesn't depend on being the fastest guy out there, but rather, I make an income so I can enjoy being on my bike.

[Russell]

"Does this matter to you?"

No, I just like riding my bike

[thegunner]

I'm told that my power may be dissipating into flexing.

god this statement makes me irrationally angry.

also, it feels good to be the fast guy a steel bike on team rides when everyone else has a plastic wunderbike.

[mike mcdermid]

Nick -

I see your math above, and certainly you know better than anyone here, but just to be clear, are you saying that, if a company such as trek, assuming they properly tooled up for it could produce 10,000 high performance steel framesets/year cheaper than they could the same for a carbon frame?

I was going to stay out of this because it could turn very argumentative very quickly its a forum afterall but if you go to the right factory its very difficult to actually construct a bad bike, construct meaning manufacture, i actually worked for factories in taiwan on the carbon side of things but also know what a steel frame (and not a cheap ···· frame) comes out of one of the premium factories,

you cant buy the carbon for the cost of a fully painted decaled frame with very low MOQs

But The question Asked is there a steel carbon Gap ,I have now gone back to my old role in composites engineering which is kind of a long winded story but I work right on the very cutting edge of this stuff again and what you do find is that companies will research ways to reduce labour costs not necesarily advance the product technically but provide more bang for buck there are fabrics and prepregs coming at much lower (think steel costs) problem is they need time to take hold

It was only a few years ago taiwan never had access or the foresight to shift in 200tg resin sytems

the last actual bike led project I did was involved rims, process time and labour, and see that's the achilles heel now LABOUR , Workers dont know come for free almost like they did in the past over there and so the costs of things go up , there's several ways these knockoffs come into the marketplace but thats a whole other story and follows many of the same tales of european grey imports etc etc Yada yada


I have no doubt technically the taiwanese will wipe the floor with any one man shop in terms of what they can or might process and that isnt just the bike makers ,theres a whole raft of very well educated people coming out of our universities going back to work for technology companies who in the same way then transfer tech in a trickle down fashion, I know this because we taught some of the aerospace guys but bike companies also have sizeable budget and customers and R&Dp lus they do call on companies with budgets the same as the annual spend of some small towns

but

a lot of these are coming from other industries Automotive for example there have been several projects i have worked on to reduce the costs of structures as weight is key to fuel economy, gluing lines of cars rather than welding them, scramping composite parts , hell we have process for curing composites which are literally still under patent development but bring it down to minutes rather than hours and not thermoplastic or comingled or any of the 10 year old tech lots of carbon builders think they know enough about but it sounds great when they waffle poop about it

However one thing that struck me when i worked with a guy on the Carbon BMWs was they spent 10s of millions developing a chassis just to be the first there it seemed at the time (obviously it wasn't) but the reality of it is the next big leap in processing wouldn't come from some big massive multinational as they are too big and slow to do it (trust me i worked in wone of the most advanced facilities in europe and saw this first hand) but it might come from a guy in a shed with enough foresight to go "i know lets try some different ····"

That process is how we did it 25 years ago and its how we do it now in some places,

so is the technological gap huuuuge between factories and the one man guy , yes IME it is but i wouldnt be building carbon bikes anymore if there werent tricks up sleeves and those tricks migh not be completeley carbon

composite doesnt just mean Carbon it can mean mixed materials and thats where i think theres still a lot of milage and ride quality to be had

[beeatnik]

good stuff, mike

[Dazza]

hear hear, good post by Mike mcdermid and the reality is that marketing blurrs, even removes a lot of reality and or fact
and marketing works. If you believe it is working, it is working.

"what you do find is that companies will research ways to reduce labour costs not necesarily advance the product technically but provide more bang for buck"

[Dazza]

Just ride whatever you like; I'm really enjoying my steel bike right now. However, though, on a paceline ride with 10 folk on thursday I was the only one on a steel bike.

It's no big deal. Things change. Just ride whatever. I'm told that my power may be dissipating into flexing. Maybe. But i'm super comfy and I don't care, and my income doesn't depend on being the fastest guy out there, but rather, I make an income so I can enjoy being on my bike.

when some one tells you
"that my power may be dissipating into flexing"
ask them where the energy went to ?

A hot frame?
Heating up the air around the frame?

How did they measure this besides their own perception.
Ask them about Hookes law of Springs.

[Bstone]

One of the fun things about used steel bikes is that they can often be bought on the cheap. And there are few worries about fatigue life.

Using used parts, you can build a really nice bike inexpensively.

I have a Lemond Zurich, a KHS 880 Flite and an Allez steel bike.

853, 853 and Tange Prestige.

Frame prices were $200, $180 and $60.

If you were to buy equivalent modern steel bikes of similar quality, they would be pretty expensive.

To each his own, of course, but there is something satisfying about scoring someone else's cast off stuff and putting it all together into a fun package.

[martl]

when some one tells you
"that my power may be dissipating into flexing"
ask them where the energy went to ?

A hot frame?

mostly.
Ask them about Hookes law of Springs.
Picture a leaf spring fixed at one end. Bending that down will cost me power, but if i just pull my hand off then, it will just flap a bit without giving me my power back. But that'S neither here nor there. The frames job is to keep the positions of the wheels, BB, and the rest of the bits where the designer of the bike indended them to be, not an inch left of it. The better the frame does this job, the better the frame is.

[steamer]

mostly.


Not so sure about that. Look at the elastic hysteresis loss (damping) coefficient of metals. They follow Hooke's law pretty darn closely. So very little heat is generated in the material. I dunno where the energy loss goes (assuming you are correct about there being significantly losses), but I am pretty sure it's not into the frame itself. The only other possibility is into the rider's body.

Hard metals in simple shapes that are being elastically deformed have damping ratios in the range of 1%. Something slightly more complicated like a bike frame will be a little higher, methinks. So where does the other 99% go?

Here is one reference:

http://syont.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/damping-properties-of-materials.pdf

(see 'flexural loss factor' on page 2)

[54ny77]

The loss of energy can be measured using a base plate of pre-famulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings are in a direct line with the panametric fam. The latter consists simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling is effectively prevented.

This guy was a pioneer in the study.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ac7G7xOG2Ag/hqdefault.jpg


Not so sure about that. Look at the elastic hysteresis loss (damping) coefficient of metals. They follow Hooke's law pretty darn closely. So very little heat is generated in the material. I dunno where the energy loss goes (assuming you are correct about there being significantly losses), but I am pretty sure it's not into the frame itself. The only other possibility is into the rider's body.

Hard metals in simple shapes that are being elastically deformed have damping ratios in the range of 1%. Something slightly more complicated like a bike frame will be a little higher, methinks. So where does the other 99% go?

Here is one reference:

http://syont.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/damping-properties-of-materials.pdf

(see 'flexural loss factor' on page 2)

[Black Dog]

The question is where the energy that is put into flexing a frame goes when the frame flexes back. If it returns to the rider in way that does not work against the rider then it is a zero sum effect. Should be easy to measure. Put a crank based or pedal based power meter on a bike and a rear hub based meter. Get two frames. A "flexy" frame and a "stiff" frame with all else being the same. If there is a loss of power between the pedals and rear hub that is greater on one frame over the other then you will have the answer.

[Arklatex]

Forgive me for adding a reality based comment to this lunacy.

In reality there is no performance gap. Period.

Components are the heaviest portion of a bicycle, not the frame. Add in the rider and any weight difference is meaningless in reality. Unless you've won a TDF mountain stage, don't bother disagreeing.

Aero advantage? Meaningless in reality. Again the most inefficient, least aerodynamic part of a bicycle is the rider.

Any performance 'gain' someone claims to 'feel' is from the components or is psychological.

You can theoretical argue anything. You can successfully argue that your car won't go as fast, or gets worse gas mileage, with a bag of groceries in the trunk. But it is meaningless in reality. Period.

[Waldo]

mostly.

Picture a leaf spring fixed at one end. Bending that down will cost me power, but if i just pull my hand off then, it will just flap a bit without giving me my power back. But that'S neither here nor there. The frames job is to keep the positions of the wheels, BB, and the rest of the bits where the designer of the bike indended them to be, not an inch left of it. The better the frame does this job, the better the frame is.

Except that your feet are affixed to the pedals, which are affixed to the cranks, which are presumed to be stiff, so one can argue you're likely receiving most of the power back. We are treading dangerously close to discussing planing here ;)

[steamer]

The loss of energy can be measured using a base plate of pre-famulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings are in a direct line with the panametric fam. The latter consists simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling is effectively prevented.

This guy was a pioneer in the study.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ac7G7xOG2Ag/hqdefault.jpg

Nice.

[Mark McM]

Forgive me for adding a reality based comment to this lunacy.

In reality there is no performance gap. Period.

Components are the heaviest portion of a bicycle, not the frame. Add in the rider and any weight difference is meaningless in reality. Unless you've won a TDF mountain stage, don't bother disagreeing.

Aero advantage? Meaningless in reality. Again the most inefficient, least aerodynamic part of a bicycle is the rider.

Any performance 'gain' someone claims to 'feel' is from the components or is psychological.

You can theoretical argue anything. You can successfully argue that your car won't go as fast, or gets worse gas mileage, with a bag of groceries in the trunk. But it is meaningless in reality. Period.

The differences in weight and drag may be small in comparison to the total weight and drag, but the meaningfulness of the differences are up to the user to decide.

If the state Time Trial champion regularly beats you by less than 30 seconds over a 40K, is the difference between a (round tube) steel frame and an (aerodynamic) carbon frame meaningless?

If your closest rival beats your time up the local mountain by under a minute, is the difference between a (heavier) steel frame and a (lighter) carbon frame meaningless?

Both questions are highly subjective, but not meaningless.

Personally, I ride hilly centuries on a (round tube) steel bike, and race criteriums on an (aero) carbon bike. The steel bike has a custom geometry and is more comfortable over long distances, not to mention that it has better fittings for practical attachements like water bottles, pumps, bags, fenders, etc. The (aerodynamic) carbon bike is (slightly) better at riding at high speeds over limited terrain courses.

[weisan]

Forgive me for adding a reality based comment to this lunacy.

In reality there is no performance gap. Period.

Components are the heaviest portion of a bicycle, not the frame. Add in the rider and any weight difference is meaningless in reality. Unless you've won a TDF mountain stage, don't bother disagreeing.

Aero advantage? Meaningless in reality. Again the most inefficient, least aerodynamic part of a bicycle is the rider.

Any performance 'gain' someone claims to 'feel' is from the components or is psychological.

You can theoretical argue anything. You can successfully argue that your car won't go as fast, or gets worse gas mileage, with a bag of groceries in the trunk. But it is meaningless in reality. Period.

Can one of the Mods please fast-track Ark pal's promotion from a "Junior" to "Senior" Member, please? I don't have the power, but if I do, i would do it in a heartbeat...not so much for his content but for the temerity to emphasize reality. Does he not already know that some of us come here precisely to escape the harsh reality of life?!

[Arklatex]

Same rider, same position, same wheels - only diff is round tubes versus aero, is not going to get you 30 seconds over 40k.

Your conclusion also ignores about a million other variables. Wind, weather, human variables, tires, tire pressure, wheels, what the dude had for breakfast. Convincing folks that one tiny variable produces real world results is the realm of advertisers & salesman.

[Mark McM]

Same rider, same position, same wheels - only diff is round tubes versus aero, is not going to get you 30 seconds over 40k.

The wind tunnel would beg to differ:

http://www.socalttseries.com/p/time-trial-aerodynamics.html

** Maximum time savings for these upgrades over 40K:

Frame (Reference: J Cobb, Martin/Cervelo)

From: To: Savings:
Round tubing Airfoil chainstays, down/seat tube & post 30 secs - 2 Minutes

[Dazza]

mostly.

Picture a leaf spring fixed at one end. Bending that down will cost me power, but if i just pull my hand off then, it will just flap a bit without giving me my power back. But that'S neither here nor there. The frames job is to keep the positions of the wheels, BB, and the rest of the bits where the designer of the bike indended them to be, not an inch left of it. The better the frame does this job, the better the frame is.


The mistake is the spring/frame is still connected to the whole system
if one keeps the chain tension positive through out the 360 crank rotation it goes back.

Picture a pole vaulter's pole, that energy is stored and goes back to the pole vaulter's mass as the stress comes off.

An oar in the water, during the pull the stress is applied and the strain is the oar flexing, as the stress reduces the strain comes off/the oar straightens, that returns the energy to the blade. (a oar has other complications as the blade angel to the water changes through the stroke)

If stiff frames were faster, we would make frames as stiff as granite.

The same for pulling a bow, the energy from the muscles is conveyed to the arrow. How much heat loss in the bow's material is small, it is there.
A frame flexing will have some heat created in the material.
How much? Show me the data!

[benb]

Your conclusion also ignores about a million other variables. Wind, weather, human variables, tires, tire pressure, wheels, what the dude had for breakfast. Convincing folks that one tiny variable produces real world results is the realm of advertisers & salesman.

On a given day you have the ability to alter the values of some variables and not others. The bike you ride is a variable you can change, so lots of people are going to want to control that.

[Arklatex]

QUOTE=Mark McM;1853886]The wind tunnel would beg to differ:

http://www.socalttseries.com/p/time-trial-aerodynamics.html[/QUOTE]





no the guy that wrote that blog post disagrees

[Dazza]

The question is where the energy that is put into flexing a frame goes when the frame flexes back. If it returns to the rider in way that does not work against the rider then it is a zero sum effect. Should be easy to measure. Put a crank based or pedal based power meter on a bike and a rear hub based meter. Get two frames. A "flexy" frame and a "stiff" frame with all else being the same. If there is a loss of power between the pedals and rear hub that is greater on one frame over the other then you will have the answer.

it's been done!
And the reason it is not published? Because the findings showed no difference.
That data is not public for commercial reasons, a shame but it would ruin their marketing so it is all forgotten about.

I would like to see independent studies done properly.

If brand X could prove their product dissipates less energy than the brand Y
they would all over it in moment
but it is not done
so some one show me the data

[Dazza]

Except that your feet are affixed to the pedals, which are affixed to the cranks, which are presumed to be stiff, so one can argue you're likely receiving most of the power back. We are treading dangerously close to discussing planing here ;)


if one reads the planning claims , then the rider becomes more biomechanically efficient or their anaerobic thresh hold is lifted
which I do not believe occurs.

[Dazza]

The wind tunnel would beg to differ:

http://www.socalttseries.com/p/time-trial-aerodynamics.html

I worked with the lads at the A.I.S and all the tunnel stuff was fed back to me from my good colleagues I used to work with.

I am told, when it just a bike that is in the tunnel
The data is fun
When the bike and a static rider is in the tunnel, the data is fun.
When the bike and rider are pedaling with the same wattage approx required for the air speed then start to take real notice of the data.
Even when the rider is fatigued the data changes.
Then there is biomechanical efficiency verses rider position to generate 400-600 watts for periods.

When the rider moves and moving legs churn up the air flow in huge amounts, deflecting air flow every where, the drag meter is vibrating all over. only parts that hit clean air is the fork, F/W and parts of the handle bars and head tube. It is not a steady drag state so very hard to get clear readings.
Take the rider on and off the bike a few times and your get different readings which they average out.

Bike rider tunnel data is difficult (outside of Uni grad studies or marketing motivations) as is not a steady state like a unmoving aeroplane airfoil or a car or what ever in the air stream.
Even the wind tunnel mobs want to sell their product/hire!

[Tickdoc]

I'm no scientist, and hell, to be honest I am a mediocre rider at best, but I notice significant differences between bikes.

Same route, same wind, same time of day. I see consistently better times by xx min on my regular "time trial" route between my most awesomest ever steel ciocc, and my newish all carbon cervelo.

splain that to me?


CYCLING
duration
01:18:09
distance
22.01 mi
avg. speed
16.9 mph
energy
1434 kcal
max. speed
38.7 mph
ascent / descent
1273 / 1260 ft
Heart rate
average
168 bpm
maximum
182 bpm
5
00:25:164
00:50:573
00:00:562
00:00:181
00:00:41Rest

CYCLING
duration
01:06:42
distance
21.95 mi
avg. speed
19.8 mph
energy
1333 kcal
max. speed
41.2 mph
ascent / descent
1184 / 1188 ft
Heart rate
average
155 bpm
maximum
167 bpm
5
00:00:004
00:23:243
00:02:512
00:00:061
00:00:13Rest00:00:37

[Arklatex]

I'm no scientist, and hell, to be honest I am a mediocre rider at best, but I notice significant differences between bikes.

Same route, same wind, same time of day. I see consistently better times by xx min on my regular "time trial" route between my most awesomest ever steel ciocc, and my newish all carbon cervelo.

splain that to me?


CYCLING
duration
01:18:09
distance
22.01 mi
avg. speed
16.9 mph
energy
1434 kcal
max. speed
38.7 mph
ascent / descent
1273 / 1260 ft
Heart rate
average
168 bpm
maximum
182 bpm
5
00:25:164
00:50:573
00:00:562
00:00:181
00:00:41Rest

CYCLING
duration
01:06:42
distance
21.95 mi
avg. speed
19.8 mph
energy
1333 kcal
max. speed
41.2 mph
ascent / descent
1184 / 1188 ft
Heart rate
average
155 bpm
maximum
167 bpm
5
00:00:004
00:23:243
00:02:512
00:00:061
00:00:13Rest00:00:37

Are the positions on both bikes exactly the same? How about components, specifically wheels? And what are you using to measure wind?

[Dazza]

Are the positions on both bikes exactly the same? How about components, specifically wheels? And what are you using to measure wind?

Humidity also
wind direction
Clothing
Chain wear
the list can go on

however if one thinks it is working
it is working

[Tickdoc]

Are the positions on both bikes exactly the same? How about components, specifically wheels? And what are you using to measure wind?

position is more relaxed slightly on the cervelo ie less aero, but the wheels and tires are vastly different.


cervelo = sram red, enve 3.4 clincer on conti 4000s 23
ciocc = campy mech mix, mavic reflex on vittoria corsa cx 23

I'd have to cross check weather between these two rides for temp, wind, etc.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/Handgod/7B83A830-4442-4AF9-B2CE-F59BA5D5F1E3_zps1m9zkpqx.jpg

[Arklatex]

Nice bikes!!

[Mark McM]

QUOTE=Mark McM;1853886]The wind tunnel would beg to differ:

http://www.socalttseries.com/p/time-trial-aerodynamics.html





no the guy that wrote that blog post disagrees[/QUOTE]

No, he doesn't. Re-read it.

The question of whether aero matters has been answered years ago. Even an aero frame matters.

Consider: Chris Boardman's non-aero hour record was 49.441 km. His aero hour record is 56.375 km (14% further). Assuming constant speeds for each record, then when riding the aero bike he reached the 49.441 km mark 7 minutes and 23 seconds earlier than when riding the non-aero bike. The aero bike has lots of aero tricks (like aero frame, aero wheels, aero bars, aero helmet, etc.), but even if the aero frame was only worth 7% of the aero gain, that's still more than 30 seconds over 40 km.\

At my local 15 km time trial, the winning margin is sometimes less than 10 seconds (which is the same percentage as 27 sec. over 40 km). An aero frame vs. a round tube frame could make the difference here.

[Tickdoc]

no the guy that wrote that blog post disagrees

No, he doesn't. Re-read it.

The question of whether aero matters has been answered years ago. Even an aero frame matters.

Consider: Chris Boardman's non-aero hour record was 49.441 km. His aero hour record is 56.375 km (14% further). Assuming constant speeds for each record, then when riding the aero bike he reached the 49.441 km mark 7 minutes and 23 seconds earlier than when riding the non-aero bike. The aero bike has lots of aero tricks (like aero frame, aero wheels, aero bars, aero helmet, etc.), but even if the aero frame was only worth 7% of the aero gain, that's still more than 30 seconds over 40 km.\

At my local 15 km time trial, the winning margin is sometimes less than 10 seconds (which is the same percentage as 27 sec. over 40 km). An aero frame vs. a round tube frame could make the difference here.[/QUOTE]

For me, my lighter all carbon aero, albeit older aero technology bike is faster, but my old round tube italian steel is still more fun to ride, and both make me smile, so all is good.

[malcolm]

position is more relaxed slightly on the cervelo ie less aero, but the wheels and tires are vastly different.


cervelo = sram red, enve 3.4 clincer on conti 4000s 23
ciocc = campy mech mix, mavic reflex on vittoria corsa cx 23

I'd have to cross check weather between these two rides for temp, wind, etc.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/Handgod/7B83A830-4442-4AF9-B2CE-F59BA5D5F1E3_zps1m9zkpqx.jpg

Dude that ciocc is clearly the faster, stronger and better bike, just look at it. Case closed.

[Arklatex]

no the guy that wrote that blog post disagrees

No, he doesn't. Re-read it.

.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that you may need to re-read it:

"From results others have shared with me, my time in the wind tunnel observing athletes, and the various data reports that I have read, I will offer the following list of priorities for a time trial bicycle and the rider. This evaluation is fully debatable and represents only my opinion"

I'm not begging to differ with a wind tunnel. I'm differing with a dude that made a bunch of stuff up & put it in a Excel worksheet.

And much like Advertising hype, some people will treat it as fact.

[54ny77]

Lamar will concur!

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/3016190/lamar-javelin-o.gif


Picture a pole vaulter's pole, that energy is stored and goes back to the pole vaulter's mass as the stress comes off.

[Mark McM]

I'm not begging to differ with a wind tunnel. I'm differing with a dude that made a bunch of stuff up & put it in a Excel worksheet.

And much like Advertising hype, some people will treat it as fact.

Nice re-imagining. No, he didn't "make a bunch of stuff up & put it in a Excel worksheet". You'll notice that he has citations for the source of the data. If you think it is all advertising hype, do you believe that Boardman did not go 7 km further in an hour on an aero bike than he did on a conventional bike? Is he just in on the Big Conspiracy?

The power and time savings of aero equipment, including aero frames, has been independently verified many times. Just because you don't like that data, it doesn't allow you to claim it was just "made up". Just as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts". And your opinion does not jibe with the facts.

[Arklatex]

Maybe I'm not looking at the same link or your definition of the word 'citation' is very loose at best.

[Waldo]

Lamar will concur!

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/3016190/lamar-javelin-o.gif

And that, my friends, is an extreme example of planning, pure and simple.

[mecse]

god this statement makes me irrationally angry.

also, it feels good to be the fast guy a steel bike on team rides when everyone else has a plastic wunderbike.

Titanium was too slow for you, right?

The flex of steel is what i'm told. Besides, could you be faster still on carbon wunder? I'm doubtful.

Ultimately i'm enjoying my comfy ride. Maybe i'd be 1-2 seconds faster up a hill with something else.

[c-record]

I have nothing I care to add to the thread but that Ciocc is sweet! I don't even notice the other bike in the photo.

[Black Dog]

it's been done!
And the reason it is not published? Because the findings showed no difference.
That data is not public for commercial reasons, a shame but it would ruin their marketing so it is all forgotten about.

I would like to see independent studies done properly.

If brand X could prove their product dissipates less energy than the brand Y
they would all over it in moment
but it is not done
so some one show me the data

I agree. The amount of flex is minimal and since the energy is returned to the system there should be no significant difference. I would love to see this tested properly. It is easy to measure frame flex and quantify it but I have not seen any data to suggest that it actually has an effect on the efficiency of the bike. Until there is solid data on this all the pontificating about stiffness is marketing and conjecture.

[mecse]

when some one tells you
"that my power may be dissipating into flexing"
ask them where the energy went to ?

A hot frame?
Heating up the air around the frame?

How did they measure this besides their own perception.
Ask them about Hookes law of Springs.

Remember that funny video of the sprinter who could toast a slice of bread. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4O5voOCqAQ). Barely!

The heat point is the big one against this though. I'll use your line. My bike is as cold as the air around it, just about all the time. So either I'm not really losing power there, or the air is cooling it down just as fast.

I frankly don't care. The thing that stops me going faster is me. No biggie.

[oldpotatoe]

position is more relaxed slightly on the cervelo ie less aero, but the wheels and tires are vastly different.


cervelo = sram red, enve 3.4 clincer on conti 4000s 23
ciocc = campy mech mix, mavic reflex on vittoria corsa cx 23

I'd have to cross check weather between these two rides for temp, wind, etc.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/Handgod/7B83A830-4442-4AF9-B2CE-F59BA5D5F1E3_zps1m9zkpqx.jpg

There's your problem....:D

[martl]

The mistake is the spring/frame is still connected to the whole system
if one keeps the chain tension positive through out the 360 crank rotation it goes back.

Picture a pole vaulter's pole, that energy is stored and goes back to the pole vaulter's mass as the stress comes off.

An oar in the water, during the pull the stress is applied and the strain is the oar flexing, as the stress reduces the strain comes off/the oar straightens, that returns the energy to the blade. (a oar has other complications as the blade angel to the water changes through the stroke)

If stiff frames were faster, we would make frames as stiff as granite.

The same for pulling a bow, the energy from the muscles is conveyed to the arrow. How much heat loss in the bow's material is small, it is there.
A frame flexing will have some heat created in the material.
How much? Show me the data!
last question: The ammount of energy doing the heating can be very precisely calculated - see "elastic displacement"; Engineers use it all the time.

As can be seen in the "oar" example, the "spring" needs to be fixed at 2 points to deliver its force. If the sculler keeps the oar in the water after finishing his pull, he acts as one of the "fixed points" and gets "the power back", if he pulls the oar out of the water while the oar is still bent - under tension, i.e. energy preserved in it-, the oar will just wave some air (heating it :D).
In a bike, all the "points" but the contact spot tire-road are only "half fixed". If it hits you at the wrong crank position, it will just stop or slow down your pedalling for a microsecond.

But my remarks were a bit tongue-in-cheek.

After riding classic lugged steel (Mike Appel et. al.), modern oversized steel (Pegoretti), a Moots and a few oversized aluminum boxes from Principia, my personal view is:

Each of these frames had a distinct way of "responding" to the pedal stroke. This, imo, is due to the fact that each frame has its own tubing, frame geometry and material E-module. So that "swinging back" of the "leaf spring" that is a bike frame will come at a different time. Some react very fast, for example the oversized Alloy ones. that makes for a very "stiff" and direct ride experience. The Titan frame, on the other hand, comes back rather "slow" which, for me at least, gave it a bit of a "dead feeling". (People seem to confuse this sometimes with a frame being comfortable)

In my portfolio, the Pegoretti gives the response just at the time i like it. how that right time is exactly determined i'm at loss to describe. Possibly got something to to with the crank position at that time. Or with preferred cadence. ?!

Thats what i prefer currently the Pego on most of the days. Riding competitively uphill, i still prefer the oversized alloy fast kind of response. Could be connected with riding standing, where more flex is more noticeable.

Now, add to that the wheelsets lateral stiffness which also has an impact ... ;)

[Davist]

Did anyone see the Peloton article about TT times? ("marginal gains" number 45, September) where in the UK, they have basically a century's worth of data, and the real, measured times haven't changed much in the last 50+ years (!). That's hard to refute.

Here's Eileen Sheridan, an amateur; in 1954 she covered 250.5 miles in 12 hours:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/93/7e/f2/937ef275ee690595ca387d050b9fbb42.jpg

A record by Beryl Burton, another amateur, albeit a national champion, in 1967, at 277.25 miles in 12 hours, stands to this day.

[benb]

Each of these frames had a distinct way of "responding" to the pedal stroke. This, imo, is due to the fact that each frame has its own tubing, frame geometry and material E-module. So that "swinging back" of the "leaf spring" that is a bike frame will come at a different time. Some react very fast, for example the oversized Alloy ones. that makes for a very "stiff" and direct ride experience. The Titan frame, on the other hand, comes back rather "slow" which, for me at least, gave it a bit of a "dead feeling". (People seem to confuse this sometimes with a frame being comfortable)

In my portfolio, the Pegoretti gives the response just at the time i like it. how that right time is exactly determined i'm at loss to describe. Possibly got something to to with the crank position at that time. Or with preferred cadence. ?!



You describe this well.. my feeling is there is some very complex biomechanical thing going on that would be really hard to experimentally verify.. when the frame flexes just right and springs back just right we prefer it because it is somehow doing what your body wants it to do and it just feels right. It's like when it flexes exactly right it interferes with your pedal stroke less or something.

[Joachim]

l
Each of these frames had a distinct way of "responding" to the pedal stroke. This, imo, is due to the fact that each frame has its own tubing, frame geometry and material E-module. So that "swinging back" of the "leaf spring" that is a bike frame will come at a different time. Some react very fast, for example the oversized Alloy ones. that makes for a very "stiff" and direct ride experience. The Titan frame, on the other hand, comes back rather "slow" which, for me at least, gave it a bit of a "dead feeling". (People seem to confuse this sometimes with a frame being comfortable)

In my portfolio, the Pegoretti gives the response just at the time i like it. how that right time is exactly determined i'm at loss to describe. Possibly got something to to with the crank position at that time. Or with preferred cadence. ?!

Thats what i prefer currently the Pego on most of the days. Riding competitively uphill, i still prefer the oversized alloy fast kind of response. Could be connected with riding standing, where more flex is more noticeable.

Now, add to that the wheelsets lateral stiffness which also has an impact ... ;)

Dave Kirk has written on this when asked about frame flex.

[FlashUNC]

Some food for thought from Fast Eddy: http://www.flandriacafe.com/2011/12/will-real-one-percent-please-stand-up.html

[benb]

I was just going to add I feel I've rode Aluminum, Ti, and Carbon frames that all respond/flex/spring back in a satisfying way for me... I can't really say I've experienced that on Steel but that's just that I haven't been on the right steel frame IMO.

[ultraman6970]

If we are talking about lower end rider and racers maybe up to cat 2, the bike shouldn't make a big difference but maybe the tires picked, but with the big guys the equipment can make the difference sometimes.

All of the old cracks from the forums that raced know this, back in the day 20 to 25 pounds bike, 5, 6 or 7 speed downtube shifters was enough to go anywhere and pull 45 km/h w/o any problem, 80 km/h downhill? not a problem either. IMO the issue is that the way races have changed is that makes a difference between 35 years ago and today.

[ANAO]

IMO the issue is that the way races have changed is that makes a difference between 35 years ago and today.

Please elaborate on this.

[thegunner]

Please elaborate on this.

well the average weight of a person has gone up, so we need to balance that with the average weight of a bike. obviously.

[ANAO]

Stop I'm genuinely interested in how it's changed.

[54ny77]

Hey, I resemble that remark.

I could dance up hills in a 42x25 (and later a 39, once those became de riguer) that I now agonize on while in a 34x28.

:crap:

well the average weight of a person has gone up, so we need to balance that with the average weight of a bike. obviously.