Carbon bike

[bob heinatz]

Ok I am thinking about buying my first carbon bike. Currently I have a steel Peg and Spectrum Ti road bikes that I really enjoy but would like to try a nice carbon all road bike. Who here has made the switch to carbon and is happy with their decision? What carbon bike did you buy? If you did purchase a carbon bike and didn't like it please tell me what you didn't like. I am open minded and willing to hear from experienced riders who finally went to a carbon bike.

[dzxc]

I have owned many carbon and non-carbon. Like anything, there's almost no difference as long as the tire pressure and tires are the same, and everything is quiet and put together well. The same way blindfolded (and set up similarly) you couldn't tell a Richard Sachs from a Motobecane, it will be the same among carbon bikes. So it's just more about your aesthetic taste. I like the looks of the Trek Emonda and Scott Addict personally, and love optimizing for weight because it's fun, not because it makes any practical difference.

[R3awak3n]

I still have a steel bike but have 2 carbon bikes now. I bought a parlee z5 and its just so good, probably one of the best bikes I ever been on. That is what made my decision to go carbon for the next gravel bike and now have an OPEN.

[bob heinatz]

R3 I have been hearing some good things about carbon lately from steel and ti lovers so I want to carefully check it out before making the final decision. Your experience is very positive coming from a steel bike.

[Bentley]

I have Carbon, Alloy, and Steel. The Carbon bike is best in fast group rides and days with lots of climbing. I can sense the weight difference on the metal bikes, the alloy less but the steel bike has a great all-day ride quality.

Today, all bikes are good, I think that having all types gives you choices.

If you can afford it, do it.

Ray

[R3awak3n]

R3 I have been hearing some good things about carbon lately from steel and ti lovers so I want to carefully check it out before making the final decision. Your experience is very positive coming from a steel bike.

I thought I was going to hate it but I just really like it. I definitely want to put more miles on the OPEN but the Parlee is just fantastic. Very comfortable and it wants to go. I think that, if that bike fit 28mm tires, it would be my favorite bike I have ever had. It competes for time with my English which is also excellent but trust me, it would be very hard to pick between those 2.

Maybe a friend or someone local can let you try a carbon bike? Maybe a bike shop? Try one of those new treks or specializeds, I have heard really good things about them

[veloduffer]

I’ve bikes of all materials. There are differences in ride feel and stiffness, and your preference will be personal like picking a saddle. Part of it comes from the material, tube shape and diameter, geometry, etc.

My own experience with carbon dates back to the early 90s and my fav carbon bike is Parlee. For me, it has a nice blend of stiffness of out of saddle climbing (I like to power over the rollers) and compliance for shock absorption.

I currently own two Parlees (a Z1 and Z5) - I don’t think I will get another carbon bike other than a Parlee (ok, may be a Crumpton). I had a Z4 (to get the next size down) and sold it to a friend who had a Giant carbon. He loves the Z4 and has it outfitted with eTap and Enve wheels.

I still own a titanium road bike (Eriksen) and two gravelers (Seven titanium and carbon Trek Boone). I like the change in feel of their rides.

Until recently I had a Sachs steel but sold it to get something a bit smaller in size and stiffer (new steel to be determined but thinking about a DeSalvo).




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rePhil]

Carbon, specifically Look 585's convinced me to sell my custom steel (Strong) and Ti (Moots) and not look back
The 585 fits me as good as anything I have owned, and the ride is excellent.

I wasn't looking for another bike when a like new Fuji Altamira landed on my doorstep. It built into a nice bike, the lightest and stiffest bike I have ridden. If I were forced to only have one I would be happy with either. But if I could choose I would pick the 585 every time.

In my opinion the price of new bikes is crazy. I bought all of mine used after doing my research, asking plenty of questions, and looking at a lot of photos.
There are some good deals to be had if you are patient or do a WTB.

Good luck, have fun.

[bob heinatz]

Thanks keep them coming.

[donevwil]

This is a tough thread to follow for those of us who don't fit anything stock and, thus, will likely never have the opportunity to try a CF bike or be able to afford a custom.:mad:

[StanleySteamer]

Sarto. Research the company and you will be impressed. For example, pez cycling has several reviews. You can get good deals on ebay.

[zennmotion]

The nice thing about carbon bikes is that every shop has a few, so obviously go test ride. I have a custom steel Spectrum which in most ways is my benchmark as it was made and fitted for me with Tom's fit and design expertise. So in the most important ways, nothing will be "better". However, I also have an "older" 2011ish stock carbon Cyfac that I've more or less replicated the Spectrum position points so it fits well and I love to ride it as well, not better or worse, just a different experience. The handling is more aggressive than Tom's signature neutral feel, and obviously the 5lb weight difference can be perceived, especially out of the saddle or on a steep climb- some of this weight is in the components where I didn't worry too much- more or less 5800/6800 on the Spectrum mix vs 6800/9000 on the Cyfac, with lighter Dura Ace C24 wheels vs 28/32h Pacenti/White Ind handbuilts. So it's kind of apples to oranges comparison, but for me a carbon bike like my Cyfac invites a little weight weenyism as it's what I choose for aggressive group and go-fast rides which I could certainly do on the Spectrum, but they're more fun with a lighter, more racy-feeling bike. Most of the time I prefer nice cold brewed loose leaf Assam ice tea with a lemon wedge. And sometimes it's good to just chug a Red Bull. Know what I'm sayin'? If I were looking at a new carbon bike where budget wasn't first concern, I'd try a bunch of superbikes and their somewhat downmarket siblings in the high end shops, then maybe give a call to Crumpton, Hampsten and Gaulzetti and see what they suggest for custom. If cost weren't a concern, I'd put a custom Cyfac high on the list as well and plan a trip to the Loire valley for a fitting. My living will has only one separate bike line item for the Spectrum though ( a modest income cycling buddy who fits a 56cm, he doesn't know it ;) ) It's my only definite forever keeper bike.

[MattTuck]

If I were looking at carbon, I'd think very hard about what my expectations were. For one, I get the feeling that carbon depreciates like a rock -- especially the big brand companies. I'm not sure that I'd want to spend top dollar on it.

[AngryScientist]

it's all about finding a bike that allows you go achieve the fit numbers you want and be reasonably well dialed with those fit numbers. meaning correct fit with a 90 - 130mm stem, a few spacers and reasonable amount of seatpost showing with correct setback.

i rent bikes all the time these days since i travel so much. modern carbon is so good right now it's hard to go wrong if the fit is good for you.

this tarmac i rented recently was so good that i'd be happy to have it as my only bike.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F5oegEXGrQQ/WplVGPiVRjI/AAAAAAAAC-0/UPaGAa-Id6scLTPZVcE4PFH3mpBK8O0UgCLcBGAs/s1200/IMG_2128.JPG

[zennmotion]

If I were looking at carbon, I'd think very hard about what my expectations were. For one, I get the feeling that carbon depreciates like a rock -- especially the big brand companies. I'm not sure that I'd want to spend top dollar on it.

Heh. True. I got the Cyfac frameset in here for a fraction of the original cost as it was already somewhat "dated" at 5 yrs old. I think buying the newest latest greatest is like buying an expensive laptop.

[zennmotion]

This is a tough thread to follow for those of us who don't fit anything stock and, thus, will likely never have the opportunity to try a CF bike or be able to afford a custom.:mad:

Hampsten's prices for custom carbon models are on a par with comparable factory bikes. One would have the same challenge of finding something to try out no matter the material anyway, right? Steve would make sure it fit right!

[bob heinatz]

Used prices for any frame material drops like crazy. Just follow some of the ads here.

[rnhood]

I have Carbon, Alloy, and Steel. The Carbon bike is best in fast group rides and days with lots of climbing. I can sense the weight difference on the metal bikes, the alloy less but the steel bike has a great all-day ride quality.

Today, all bikes are good, I think that having all types gives you choices.

If you can afford it, do it.

Ray

This is a good short & sweet summary. And yes, all bike depreciate as a rule. But you don't lose near as much as you lose when you sell or trade in your car, as a rule.

[Volksbike]

Used prices for any frame material drops like crazy. Just follow some of the ads here.


Used Carbon Look 595 Ultra is how I plan to get into my first carbon bike...would be nice reduce some weight to a noticeable difference!

Prices are more reasonable for used. I have enjoyed steel and aluminum frames for many years and as a tall rider carbon is not always an option on some frames. Glad to see others have gone this route with success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paredown]

Carbon, specifically Look 585's convinced me to sell my custom steel (Strong) and Ti (Moots) and not look back
The 585 fits me as good as anything I have owned, and the ride is excellent.

I wasn't looking for another bike when a like new Fuji Altamira landed on my doorstep. It built into a nice bike, the lightest and stiffest bike I have ridden. If I were forced to only have one I would be happy with either. But if I could choose I would pick the 585 every time.

In my opinion the price of new bikes is crazy. I bought all of mine used after doing my research, asking plenty of questions, and looking at a lot of photos.
There are some good deals to be had if you are patient or do a WTB.

Good luck, have fun.

I'm a late comer to the carbon world as well, but got a heck of a deal on a project 585 on the forum.

It has not made me dump my steel bikes, but I can see why people thought this was the bees knees when the 585s were new. To me it is like refined steel with more dampening. The rest--stiffness or whatever--disappears in the noise, but I do appreciate the dampening on the torn up roads around here.

Sometimes I miss the exquisite connection with the road you would get on a perfect Italian steel bike (the old joke--run over a quarter and tell if it was heads or tails facing up) but Imma getting old, and I like the comfort now.

[zap]

If I were looking at carbon, I'd think very hard about what my expectations were. For one, I get the feeling that carbon depreciates like a rock -- especially the big brand companies. I'm not sure that I'd want to spend top dollar on it.

My observation, the Treks and Specs of the world are very very well liked, well known commodities and values hold up.

[prototoast]

If I were looking at carbon, I'd think very hard about what my expectations were. For one, I get the feeling that carbon depreciates like a rock -- especially the big brand companies. I'm not sure that I'd want to spend top dollar on it.

I actually think carbon frames tend to hold their value pretty well, with the bigger names holding more value than lesser names (at least until you get into boutique, so a Trek / Specialized will hold value better than a Felt, but not as well as a Crumpton).

In my experience, when people complain about bikes losing their value, they're often comparing the used price to MSRP, but not to the street price. Shops regularly have end-of-season sales, and give meaningful discounts to racers, club riders, and loyal customers. As a hypothetical example, suppose a shop is offering a 33% discount on new bikes as part of an end of year clearance sale. A bike that has a $5,000 MSRP would sell for $3,350. Someone who bought a bike at MRSP at the beginning of the year, and rode it for 1000 miles and tries to sell it might only get $2,500 for it. The person selling it may think "oh no, my bike used for 1 seasons is selling for a 50% discount because it is used", but in actuality the used bike is only selling at 25% discount to the same bike new.

[nmrt]

I own carbon and titanium and alloy bikes. and I would disagree that they feel the same. In my case, they certainly do not even when they have the same groupset, saddle, handlebars and wheels. Why? Because: 1) the geometries are very slightly different, and 2) i think it is because of the difference in the material.

Now, how can I tell? Many ways actually. But the most telling is that I cannot ride my carbon bike for more than 60 miles and not feel fatigued. After about 60 miles, even bone in my body shudders when I hit any small imperfection on the road. In essence, the carbon bike is great for up to rides of 60 miles. It reacts, at least it seems like it, immediately to any force on the cranks. The bike feels stiff but not stiff to tire me out (at least for under 60 miles). And it feels fast, really fast. I actually love it. What is the bike? 2017 Cannondale Supersix HiMod Evo.

I also have a Look 695 which actually feels different than the cannondale but I do not have too many miles on it to come to any substantitive conclusion.

Now, I have a 2012 Ti Desalvo (with a 44 mm HT, larger diameter Ti tubes) and a 2004 Seven Ti/carbon bike (old school skinny Ti tubes). Suffice to say that with the same wheels and groupset as my carbon bikes, not only do these two Ti bikes ride differently from the carbon bikes but also different from each other. I like all my bikes. But where I plan to ride and for how long dictates which bike I pick.

Now given that I have never ridden what people call the creame de la creame, of carbon bikes i.e., Crumpton, I would not ever pick a carbon bike as my only bike. Mind you, I have ridden a Parlee Z5 and found that it did not ride as well as my Cannondale Supersix Evo HiMod.

So, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to choose among all my bikes, I would pick my Ti DeSalvo.

My advice to you: Spend a few hundred dollars and ride a few carbon bikes for long distances. Then decide. A spin around the block for even 20-30 miles will tell you little.

Good luck! And enjoy the hunt! :)

I have owned many carbon and non-carbon. Like anything, there's almost no difference as long as the tire pressure and tires are the same, and everything is quiet and put together well. The same way blindfolded (and set up similarly) you couldn't tell a Richard Sachs from a Motobecane, it will be the same among carbon bikes. So it's just more about your aesthetic taste. I like the looks of the Trek Emonda and Scott Addict personally, and love optimizing for weight because it's fun, not because it makes any practical difference.

[bob heinatz]

It is possible to rent or buy a used carbon to check it out.

[R3awak3n]

I own carbon and titanium and alloy bikes. and I would disagree that they feel the same. In my case, they certainly do not even when they have the same groupset, saddle, handlebars and wheels. Why? Because: 1) the geometries are very slightly different, and 2) i think it is because of the difference in the material.

Now, how can I tell? Many ways actually. But the most telling is that I cannot ride my carbon bike for more than 60 miles and not feel fatigued. After about 60 miles, even bone in my body shudders when I hit any small imperfection on the road. In essence, the carbon bike is great for up to rides of 60 miles. It reacts, at least it seems like it, immediately to any force on the cranks. The bike feels stiff but not stiff to tire me out (at least for under 60 miles). And it feels fast, really fast. I actually love it. What is the bike? 2017 Cannondale Supersix HiMod Evo.

I also have a Look 695 which actually feels different than the cannondale but I do not have too many miles on it to come to any substantitive conclusion.

Now, I have a 2012 Ti Desalvo (with a 44 mm HT, larger diameter Ti tubes) and a 2004 Seven Ti/carbon bike (old school skinny Ti tubes). Suffice to say that with the same wheels and groupset as my carbon bikes, not only do these two Ti bikes ride differently from the carbon bikes but also different from each other. I like all my bikes. But where I plan to ride and for how long dictates which bike I pick.

Now given that I have never ridden what people call the creame de la creame, of carbon bikes i.e., Crumpton, I would not ever pick a carbon bike as my only bike. Mind you, I have ridden a Parlee Z5 and found that it did not ride as well as my Cannondale Supersix Evo HiMod.

So, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to choose among all my bikes, I would pick my Ti DeSalvo.

My advice to you: Spend a few hundred dollars and ride a few carbon bikes for long distances. Then decide. A spin around the block for even 20-30 miles will tell you little.

Good luck! And enjoy the hunt! :)



I agree. You could set up both my steel bike and carbon the exact same and I could tell you which one is which. All materials ride differently. My aluminum frame also had a specific ride.

However I disagree about carbon being less comfortable. I think its as comfortable BUT there is a ride to steel that I really love and sometimes I rather ride steel than carbon.

Same with aluminum. When I sold my alum bike I said, I never want to ride alum and I have really missed aluminum, I really enjoy the ride of that as well.

[uber]

I too am a fan of a steel Pegoretti and am very happy with a Colnago C60. Were I looking at a new carbon bike today I would take a hard look at Sarto and the new Bianchi Specialissimo. I feel the Colnago is very stable descending as my Peg is. I think a comparison from steel to carbon is difficult for me to articulate. I like them both and they are different for sure. I am more likely to leave the steel bike home in the rain. Hah.

[kramnnim]

I still have a steel bike but have 2 carbon bikes now. I bought a parlee z5 and its just so good, probably one of the best bikes I ever been on. That is what made my decision to go carbon for the next gravel bike and now have an OPEN.

For comparison, I rode a Z5 for ~20k miles. I like my Ridley Helium SL and BH Ultralight a lot more. Evo Himod was maybe a little better than the Z5.

[Bob Ross]

this tarmac i rented recently was so good that i'd be happy to have it as my only bike.

My wife -- who is notoriously hard to please in the bike fitting/comfort department (as a former professional dancer and a licensed massage therapist with an extensive anatomy and personal training background, she has ridiculously sensetive proprioception...and fitter Paul Levine has referred to her numerous times as "The Princess & The Pea") -- rented a stock Trek Domane last summer and was ready to buy it then & there. She liked it as much if not moreso than her custom Strong, which had previously been the only bike she is (was?) ever comfortable on.

[R3awak3n]

For comparison, I rode a Z5 for ~20k miles. I like my Ridley Helium SL and BH Ultralight a lot more. Evo Himod was maybe a little better than the Z5.

Would love to try some more carbon road bikes, in due time.

[mtechnica]

I call BS that there is no difference between other materials and carbon. Carbon rides better than any steel or aluminum bike, is stiffer than any steel bike, and is lighter than any metal bike. (all else being equal). Owned carbon: Calfee, Look, Bianchi. There is a reason all of the pros ride carbon bikes.

I've probably said all this before but the carbon Vs. debate is starting to look like the climate change "debate" which is basically ridiculous. Carbon is lighter and stiffer and rides better. Believe it, or delude yourself. I'm sorry. it's true that some steel frames come close, but overall, no.

[R3awak3n]

I call BS that there is no difference between other materials and carbon. Carbon rides better than any steel or aluminum bike, is stiffer than any steel bike, and is lighter than any metal bike. (all else being equal). Owned carbon: Calfee, Look, Bianchi. There is a reason all of the pros ride carbon bikes.

I've probably said all this before but the carbon Vs. debate is starting to look like the climate change "debate" which is basically ridiculous. Carbon is lighter and stiffer and rides better. Believe it, or delude yourself. I'm sorry. it's true that some steel frames come close, but overall, no.

unlike the climate debate, this is up to opinion. Carbon is lighter no doubt but some people don't care about that and prefer the ride of steel or aluminum.

The reason pros ride carbon bikes is because they are paid to do so, if somehow steel made a revival because it was cheaper to manufacture, they would be ridding steel

[bob heinatz]

One strong vote for carbon by mtechnica!

[nmrt]

I call BS that there is no difference between other materials and carbon. Carbon rides better than any steel or aluminum bike, is stiffer than any steel bike, and is lighter than any metal bike. (all else being equal). Owned carbon: Calfee, Look, Bianchi. There is a reason all of the pros ride carbon bikes.

I've probably said all this before but the carbon Vs. debate is starting to look like the climate change "debate" which is basically ridiculous. Carbon is lighter and stiffer and rides better. Believe it, or delude yourself. I'm sorry. it's true that some steel frames come close, but overall, no.

hah
you might as well have said, cookies n cream is the best ice cream ever!
period.
;)

[Hilltopperny]

I have had quite a few bikes over the years. I still do and most of them are metal, but after trying out a new carbon hardtail 29er I figured it was time to give a modern carbon cx/gravel/allroad bike a try. I picked the Stigmata cc and really like it so far.

The bike is very responsive to input and geometry feels very comfortable as well. The bike just wants to go fast. It is very well thought out and the integration and routing of the frame makes for a sexy looking bike.

There are so many options out there right now. Try and demo a few and see what works best for you. I think that we have never had more options than now for versatile quality carbon bikes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[roguedog]

You all, please stop talking. I've enough problems with lusting after metal bikes and now you all are tempting me with carbon!

Bad Paceline peeps.

[sjbraun]

Hampsten's prices for custom carbon models are on a par with comparable factory bikes. One would have the same challenge of finding something to try out no matter the material anyway, right? Steve would make sure it fit right!

I ride a carbon Hampsten. Its a fantastic bike. Pricewise, like Zenmotion said, less than many top shelf production frames.

[zennmotion]

I ride a carbon Hampsten. Its a fantastic bike. Pricewise, like Zenmotion said, less than many top shelf production frames.

This post is useless without pictures...

[weisan]

bob pal, by your choice of a Peg and a Spectrum, it's obvious that you are a man of good taste, and you can tell a good riding bike from a not so-good riding bike, regardless of the material.

My advice to anyone who wanted to try something or anything bike-related has always been...."What the heck are you waiting for, you only get to live ONCE!"

So, yeah, instead of trying to argue or explain the difference between a carbon bike and a non-carbon bike (as you can see is a highly emotional topic), my best advice is to get one and try it for yourself. Go the route of getting a used bike at a bargain price is the way to go. You should be able to find one in your ballpark fit numbers and budget to satisfy your itch as well as good enough to get a feel for it. From there on, if you so choose, you can go on to the next level of purchasing a custom or a more expensive or a different one after being informed of your first experience. Or it may further solidify your love for the Peg and Spectrum.

Don't worry too much about the name on the downtube, they don't mean much these days because they are all copying each other and coming up with superficial product differentiators and truth be told using more or less the same suppliers/manufacturers in Taiwan or China. And if you spent $8k on a bike, you have to justify it somehow or else you will be like the emperor walking down the street naked and consider dumb if you dare to say otherwise. Just go out and get one that you like aesthetically and fits your budget.

I understand you like to do your research and consult others before you jump in but truly speaking, whatever we say here pales in comparison to your actual experience of getting on a carbon bike and ride it for yourself.

I am not gonna list out my resume in order to add any level of credibility to what I am saying...you just have to trust me on this one. Or not.

Just remember one thing : what's true in life is also true in biking, the grass looks greener on the other side.

[saab2000]

The reason pros ride carbon bikes is because they are paid to do so, if somehow steel made a revival because it was cheaper to manufacture, they would be ridding steel

I very much doubt this. Carbon bikes are no longer 'experimental' or prototypes. They are ubiquitous and not only because they are cheap to manufacture.

To the OP: Go to a local Cannondale or Specialized or Trek dealership and ask for a test ride on a 105-equipped (or thereabouts) carbon bike and report back. Have the salesperson spend the time to get a close position to your own and bring your own pedals if the bike in question doesn't use your kind. Go for a 10-mile ride, not some parking lot 'test'.

I'm quite sure you'll be pleasantly surprised.

As to other comments - bikes are terrible investments. Upon this most can agree. Some hold value better than others but mostly we need to buy them because we enjoy them. Any idea of selling, even after just one year, and recouping our money is folly. They plummet in value and the higher the MSRP, the harder they fall. High end ones are more valuable often for their components than the frames. They are nothing more than a commodity and the market is flooded with used carbon bikes.

[mcteague]

After 10 years on a Seven Axiom I too lusted after carbon. Lots of research led me to the Parlee Z5. Geometry and size were nearly the same as my Seven. I was sure I was going to get one after reading all the reviews. Trouble is, I did not like the ride. It was not bad, just kind of dead. There was no feedback from the road. I did like the way the stiffness helped when climbing though.

I ended up back with Seven and got the mixed Ti/carbon 622 SLX. I seems to have the best of both worlds, stiff & light but also transmits a nice amount of road feel. Plus, the filament wound carbon tubes are a bit more resistant to cracking upon impact as compared to those molded in forms IMO. Still, I really do like the look of the new styles with hidden cables, so clean. But, as I do my own wrenching, I'll stick to external cables for the time being.

Tim

[Clean39T]

Alright, here's my hot take...

If you are a discerning rider, pay attention to details, and already have top-end titanium and steel, there's no reason to muck about with anything other than hand-built carbon. Lower end carbon is just badly clumped together glue and rides like crap. It's the equivalent of getting a Surly to try out steel. In order to get good ride quality out of carbon, it has to be top-shelf stuff. But then the conundrum - which top shelf? What's the real good stuff, vs. the marketed crap dressed up to look nice?

Some people do fine with made-in-asia carbon bikes, including peeps winning the TdF, but others will never be satisfied by them, including yours truly, because they simply do not have the same quality control, consistency, or testing that you'll get if purchasing from an actual in-house builder. I've done too much reading and research to ever trust my teeth/brain to one of them. And really, to ever trust a superlight used carbon frameset full stop. My OCD is too intense. It is what it is. I've gotten to the same place with carbon forks - unless I know how/where they were built, I have no interest in riding them, especially if used.

For me, the only carbon I'd trust in the second-hand market is older LOOK and any TIME because of their manufacturing standards, in-house building, and their robustness (absent a few dark years and odd design choices to avoid). Plus some models from DeRosa, Colnago, et. Al. from when they were 100% Made in Italy.

If buying new, my list would drop Look and any of the others who have outsourced, and expand to include Holland, Argonaut, Crumpton, and MUSA Parlee (incl. Hampsten variants) - with Holland being at the very top by a country-mile.

So, that's my take on carbon. If I wanted it badly enough, and had space, I'd be buying one of the Time Izons or Scylons that are on super-sale at Merlin right now in my size. Both are exceptionally nice bikes, Made in France, and designed with both safety and performance in mind.

But I've also come to the conclusion that there's simply no reason for me to ride carbon when nice steel exists and will on balance out-perform carbon according to my overall quality-of-riding rating system. And I'm talking 100% steel - frame and fork. There are benefits for racers chasing fractional gains, and there are benefits for manufacturers pumping out new models with glorious planned obsolescence, but for this committed and hard-riding enthusiast, there's nothing for me to gain from riding carbon anything.

So, who wants to talk disc brakes?

[ptourkin]

Alright, here's my hot take...

If you are a discerning rider, pay attention to details, and already have top-end titanium and steel, there's no reason to muck about with anything other than hand-built carbon. Lower end carbon is just badly clumped together glue and rides like crap. It's the equivalent of getting a Surly to try out steel. In order to get good ride quality out of carbon, it has to be top-shelf stuff. But then the conundrum - which top shelf? What's the real good stuff, vs. the marketed crap dressed up to look nice?

Some people do fine with made-in-asia carbon bikes, including peeps winning the TdF, but others will never be satisfied by them, including yours truly, because they simply do not have the same quality control, consistency, or testing that you'll get if purchasing from an actual in-house builder. I've done too much reading and research to ever trust my teeth/brain to one of them. And really, to ever trust a superlight used carbon frameset full stop. My OCD is too intense. It is what it is. I've gotten to the same place with carbon forks - unless I know how/where they were built, I have no interest in riding them, especially if used.

For me, the only carbon I'd trust in the second-hand market is older LOOK and any TIME because of their manufacturing standards, in-house building, and their robustness (absent a few dark years and odd design choices to avoid). Plus some models from DeRosa, Colnago, et. Al. from when they were 100% Made in Italy.

If buying new, my list would drop Look and any of the others who have outsourced, and expand to include Holland, Argonaut, Crumpton, and MUSA Parlee (incl. Hampsten variants) - with Holland being at the very top by a country-mile.

So, that's my take on carbon. If I wanted it badly enough, and had space, I'd be buying one of the Time Izons or Scylons that are on super-sale at Merlin right now in my size. Both are exceptionally nice bikes, Made in France, and designed with both safety and performance in mind.

But I've also come to the conclusion that there's simply no reason for me to ride carbon when nice steel exists and will on balance out-perform carbon according to my overall quality-of-riding rating system. And I'm talking 100% steel - frame and fork. There are benefits for racers chasing fractional gains, and there are benefits for manufacturers pumping out new models with glorious planned obsolescence, but for this committed and hard-riding enthusiast, there's nothing for me to gain from riding carbon anything.

So, who wants to talk disc brakes?
I am surrounded by Holland HCs. They are so good. The disc version clears 30s. What are you waiting for?

[zennmotion]

Alright, here's my hot take...

If you are a discerning rider, pay attention to details, and already have top-end titanium and steel, there's no reason to muck about with anything other than hand-built carbon. Lower end carbon is just badly clumped together glue and rides like crap. It's the equivalent of getting a Surly to try out steel. In order to get good ride quality out of carbon, it has to be top-shelf stuff. But then the conundrum - which top shelf? What's the real good stuff, vs. the marketed crap dressed up to look nice?

Some people do fine with made-in-asia carbon bikes, including peeps winning the TdF, but others will never be satisfied by them, including yours truly, because they simply do not have the same quality control, consistency, or testing that you'll get if purchasing from an actual in-house builder. I've done too much reading and research to ever trust my teeth/brain to one of them. And really, to ever trust a superlight used carbon frameset full stop. My OCD is too intense. It is what it is. I've gotten to the same place with carbon forks - unless I know how/where they were built, I have no interest in riding them, especially if used.

For me, the only carbon I'd trust in the second-hand market is older LOOK and any TIME because of their manufacturing standards, in-house building, and their robustness (absent a few dark years and odd design choices to avoid). Plus some models from DeRosa, Colnago, et. Al. from when they were 100% Made in Italy.

If buying new, my list would drop Look and any of the others who have outsourced, and expand to include Holland, Argonaut, Crumpton, and MUSA Parlee (incl. Hampsten variants) - with Holland being at the very top by a country-mile.

So, that's my take on carbon. If I wanted it badly enough, and had space, I'd be buying one of the Time Izons or Scylons that are on super-sale at Merlin right now in my size. Both are exceptionally nice bikes, Made in France, and designed with both safety and performance in mind.

But I've also come to the conclusion that there's simply no reason for me to ride carbon when nice steel exists and will on balance out-perform carbon according to my overall quality-of-riding rating system. And I'm talking 100% steel - frame and fork. There are benefits for racers chasing fractional gains, and there are benefits for manufacturers pumping out new models with glorious planned obsolescence, but for this committed and hard-riding enthusiast, there's nothing for me to gain from riding carbon anything.

So, who wants to talk disc brakes?

So, everybody has opinions, but these seem like some strong generalized assertions from someone who has limited experience with carbon bikes beyond google research. Among other things, the notion that "made in Asia" carbon= shoddy is old. But I guess the purpose of forums is confirmation and reassurance that we like what we like.

[R3awak3n]

So, everybody has opinions, but these seem like some strong generalized assertions from someone who has limited experience with carbon bikes beyond google research. Among other things, the notion that "made in Asia" carbon= shoddy is old. But I guess the purpose of forums is confirmation and reassurance that we like what we like.

and interesting since I remember hearing CLEAN say he loved his carbon trek.

also agree on the genralizations, if made in US, ITALY or ... insert western country here... good, china or taiwan bad. Its not as simple as that. THere is plenty of quality control in taiwan and they are making some of the best carbon stuff in the world. I know its cool to hate on china/taiwan but there is nice stuff there, the nice stuff is not cheap (sure compared to the Portland builder it might be).


I also disagree that carbon is for racers only.

[cinco]

The same way blindfolded (and set up similarly) you couldn't tell a Richard Sachs from a Motobecane,

Ooof!

[veloduffer]

After 10 years on a Seven Axiom I too lusted after carbon. Lots of research led me to the Parlee Z5. Geometry and size were nearly the same as my Seven. I was sure I was going to get one after reading all the reviews. Trouble is, I did not like the ride. It was not bad, just kind of dead. There was no feedback from the road. I did like the way the stiffness helped when climbing though.



I ended up back with Seven and got the mixed Ti/carbon 622 SLX. I seems to have the best of both worlds, stiff & light but also transmits a nice amount of road feel. Plus, the filament wound carbon tubes are a bit more resistant to cracking upon impact as compared to those molded in forms IMO. Still, I really do like the look of the new styles with hidden cables, so clean. But, as I do my own wrenching, I'll stick to external cables for the time being.




Carbon feels *dead* compared to other materials due to its dampening qualities. And there are degrees of *dead*...I felt my Madone felt more dead than the Parlee.

Carbon will feel a bit different but it will be hard to discern that on a quick test ride. You need to ride it over rough roads, rolling hills and big climbs. Then the qualities that you want will start to be more evident.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[weisan]

See what I mean, bob pal....you gotta try it and decide for yourself.

[R3awak3n]

Carbon feels *dead* compared to other materials due to its dampening qualities. And there are degrees of *dead*...I felt my Madone felt more dead than the Parlee.

Carbon will feel a bit different but it will be hard to discern that on a quick test ride. You need to ride it over rough roads, rolling hills and big climbs. Then the qualities that you want will start to be more evident.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Everyone talks about carbon feeling dead as if that is a bad thing. Its the term that has a negative connotation, it is not dead you just feel less of the road but that is not always necessarily a bad thing... and very much agree, that got to depend on the bike. My parlee does not feel dead and neither does the OPEN, on the contrary

[zennmotion]

Carbon feels *dead* compared to other materials due to its dampening qualities. And there are degrees of *dead*...I felt my Madone felt more dead than the Parlee.

Carbon will feel a bit different but it will be hard to discern that on a quick test ride. You need to ride it over rough roads, rolling hills and big climbs. Then the qualities that you want will start to be more evident.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm intrigued by this. So maybe the gradations should include Indisposed, Ill, Critical, Dying, Terminal, Dead, and what... Zombie maybe? Clearly a custom builder can design to dial in and hit one of these points, where a high end factory bike will only allow for a choice between 2 or 3 at best. Sorry, banana snark. :banana: But seriously, when we don't even have the language to adequately describe the perceived differences between materials and models, especially when it takes a long ride or three to really "know", then I think it's really about preferences. I like my steel ride. But my 20 year younger self would definitely have lusted after something like a Domane or Dogma or something else flashy, carbon and starts with a D.

PS- I forgot "suffering"- the mid-level privateer pricepoint model, designed for the collegiate racer who's just about tapped out Dad's visa card... Stiff and not too compliant.

[bob heinatz]

First I would like to thank everyone who has responded. I think there is no right answer concerning using a carbon frame because everyone has their own personal experience with carbon. My plan now is to find a nice used quality carbon bike in my size and ride it for a few months to see if I really like it or not. I will be selective on the brands I will be looking for so no Giant's ect. As I mentioned I have two great bikes now steel & ti so I can be patient on my hunt.

[R3awak3n]

First I would like to thank everyone who has responded. I think there is no right answer concerning using a carbon frame because everyone has their own personal experience with carbon. My plan now is to find a nice used quality carbon bike in my size and ride it for a few months to see if I really like it or not. I will be selective on the brands I will be looking for so no Giant's ect. As I mentioned I have two great bikes now steel & ti so I can be patient on my hunt.

like people have mentioned here, look out for a look, they go for great prices.

also parlees are getting really cheap (downfall is tire clearance on some of the older models)

[zennmotion]

First I would like to thank everyone who has responded. I think there is no right answer concerning using a carbon frame because everyone has their own personal experience with carbon. My plan now is to find a nice used quality carbon bike in my size and ride it for a few months to see if I really like it or not. I will be selective on the brands I will be looking for so no Giant's ect. As I mentioned I have two great bikes now steel & ti so I can be patient on my hunt.

I would definitely test ride a Giant, and a Cdale, a Trek or two and a Spesh working with some good shops (visit at a slow time). I think you'd be surprised. I'm not a factory bike fanboy either. I'll stick my neck out and say that there's few if any "bad bikes" among the big makers, just maybe the wrong bike... for you. Or the right one. An open mind and patience for the process could make for a fun and enlightening experience. Then take the attributes and models you liked and go find a similar, older or just not "new" version of what you liked in the used market and save some $$$. And there is the possibility that you don't like anything at all. Then you save yourself some time and money, go for a joyride on one of your metal bikes and feel superior in your confirmed knowledge that steel is indeed real! Or Ti. With a carbon fork of course. Or not.

[mcteague]

Carbon feels *dead* compared to other materials due to its dampening qualities. And there are degrees of *dead*...I felt my Madone felt more dead than the Parlee.

Carbon will feel a bit different but it will be hard to discern that on a quick test ride. You need to ride it over rough roads, rolling hills and big climbs. Then the qualities that you want will start to be more evident.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just for the record, I did ride the Parlee Z5 for a fairly long test ride. About an hour over hills and some broken pavement. I agree some traits take longer to ascertain, but I think my test was long enough to tell me the bike was not what I was looking for.

Tim

[zennmotion]

like people have mentioned here, look out for a look, they go for great prices.

also parlees are getting really cheap (downfall is tire clearance on some of the older models)

They don't appear often, but there's a 56cm Cyfac in the classifieds right now (no relation to seller). If it fit, it's a very sweet bike. Small production, pedigree history, smart design, French snob appeal :cool: I love mine, and this one is nicer than mine.
https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=225939&highlight=cyfac

[bob heinatz]

R3 your newly aquired Open looks like a great all in one bike. Please update when you have more time on that bike. I have a friend who purchased a Open this Febuary and ended up selling his Peg because he grabbed the carbon for each ride.

[mcteague]

First I would like to thank everyone who has responded. I think there is no right answer concerning using a carbon frame because everyone has their own personal experience with carbon. My plan now is to find a nice used quality carbon bike in my size and ride it for a few months to see if I really like it or not. I will be selective on the brands I will be looking for so no Giant's ect. As I mentioned I have two great bikes now steel & ti so I can be patient on my hunt.

:eek: That is one thing about carbon that puts me off. They can have damage that you cannot see. You need someone skilled at using an ultrasound device to check it for unseen damage and voids. With a used bike, you have no idea how many times it was dropped. Just letting it fall against a pole, or curb can delaminate the carbon under the paint and you have no idea until it fails.

Check out Raoul Luescher's (http://luescherteknik.com.au/) videos on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY9JUMYI54lLOHpb_zbIedQ

Tim

[Clean39T]

and interesting since I remember hearing CLEAN say he loved his carbon trek.

also agree on the genralizations, if made in US, ITALY or ... insert western country here... good, china or taiwan bad. Its not as simple as that. THere is plenty of quality control in taiwan and they are making some of the best carbon stuff in the world. I know its cool to hate on china/taiwan but there is nice stuff there, the nice stuff is not cheap (sure compared to the Portland builder it might be).

I also disagree that carbon is for racers only.

I've ridden a lot of carbon. Not as much as others, but enough to have formulated opinions of my own..

The Emonda SLR I had did ride nicely, but I've since ridden steel bikes that I vastly prefer - and even preferred the ride of the Look 585 Ultra to it. Plus, the Emonda SLR felt like a consumable, finite-life product - the BB won't last and it's always one small miscalculation away from being worthless or needing repair. I guess I've just lost interest in that.

And it's not that I don't think China or Taiwan could produce on par with TIME or some high-end US builders, I just don't think they are in general trying to do so (there may be some boutique production I'm not aware of...and I think the Parlee Z4/5 are probably another exception, especially the early model years). TIME is weaving their own carbon and engineering for longevity, not the lightest/stiffest/cheapest frame possible. Holland is laying everything up meticulously and committing to significant testing. I personally do not think that the top-end bikes being cranked out of the big factories are "worth" what they are charging - but that's me and my calculus, and is subjective, so ignore it if it isn't the same yardstick for you...

OP asked for opinions, and that's all any of us have.

[Clean39T]

They don't appear often, but there's a 56cm Cyfac in the classifieds right now (no relation to seller). If it fit, it's a very sweet bike. Small production, pedigree history, smart design, French snob appeal :cool: I love mine, and this one is nicer than mine.
https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=225939&highlight=cyfac

I should add them to my list of ones to consider...saw a really nice one in Portland yesterday actually...ridden by a pretty tall dude too...

[veloduffer]

Just for the record, I did ride the Parlee Z5 for a fairly long test ride. About an hour over hills and some broken pavement. I agree some traits take longer to ascertain, but I think my test was long enough to tell me the bike was not what I was looking for.

Tim


I had an Axiom for a while - nice bike but I preferred my old Merlin Road (Cambridge built). I didn’t really connect with my Spectrum and Serotta ti bikes, but they were purchased second-hand and not built for me. My current ti is an Eriksen, which I adore as much as my Parlee and ride similarly (the Eriksen has some oversize tubing for stiffness).

I did enjoy my Serotta Ottrott (carbon-ti combo with ti seat stays instead of the bowed carbon). It was really comfortable but just a tad long in the top tube.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[veloduffer]

:eek: That is one thing about carbon that puts me off. They can have damage that you cannot see. You need someone skilled at using an ultrasound device to check it for unseen damage and voids. With a used bike, you have no idea how many times it was dropped. Just letting it fall against a pole, or curb can delaminate the carbon under the paint and you have no idea until it fails.




I think Parlee used to allow someone who bought a used Parlee to send it in (for a fee) for inspection and receive a warranty. Parlee’s customer service is top notch.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bob heinatz]

Mcteague,
You are right about used carbon. That would be a strong consideration looking at used. Parlee certified used would eliminate that problem.

[Clean39T]

Ruckus Composites in Portland offers an inspection service..

http://www.ruckuscomp.com/inspection

The fact that that exists makes me not interested in something that would need it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[weisan]

bob pal, I gotta ask, are you cadence90 reincarnated?

[Hilltopperny]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w5eMMf11uhM
This was a good example of why I chose a new Santa Cruz. They seem to know what they are doing.

I also have no issue with my taking my carbon hardtail through the woods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rst72]

I think Parlee used to allow someone who bought a used Parlee to send it in (for a fee) for inspection and receive a warranty. Parlee’s customer service is top notch.

yes, but from what i remember it was around $400 if not more.

that's about half of what a used Z5 cost these days.

[bob heinatz]

Cadence 90? Not sure who that is but Mcteague brought up and interesting subject that I had read about used Carbon months ago and had completely forgotten about. Maybe Cadence 45!

[donevwil]

Hampsten's prices for custom carbon models are on a par with comparable factory bikes. One would have the same challenge of finding something to try out no matter the material anyway, right? Steve would make sure it fit right!

I've eyed the Hampsten for a while, certainly a deal for what you get but still not financially justifiable at this stage of my life. As far as challenges finding a used bike in my size to try, steel was never a problem because a quality custom is, what, 1/4 - 1/3 the price of CF?

I'm now on the lookout for a used XXXL Parlee.

[weisan]

Cadence 90? Not sure who that is but Mcteague brought up and interesting subject that I had read about used Carbon months ago and had completely forgotten about. Maybe Cadence 45!

bob pal, I like U a lot...if ever you come to the great state of Texas, specifically Austin, let me know. I will roll out the red carpet and open up the barn to your complete disposal, you can choose to ride any of my bikes.

[bob heinatz]

Weisan thanks it would be fun.

[mtechnica]

The reason pros ride carbon bikes is because they are paid to do so, if somehow steel made a revival because it was cheaper to manufacture, they would be ridding steel

If any other material had an advantage over carbon fiber, the sponsors would be giving those frames to pros to ride then selling and marketing the crap out of them. There is a reason 99.9% of racing bikes both amateur and professional are carbon and it's not because they are cheapest to manufacture. If you suggested to a professional cyclist that they should ride a steel frame in an important race they would laugh you out the door. I'm not trying to be rude it's just the way I see it and I'm pretty much certain I'm right. The only people I know that don't have carbon racing bikes, have aluminum ones because decent carbon ones are too expensive, so that kind of shoots a hole in your cost argument as well. Obviously a caad costs less to manufacture than an evo, otherwise they wouldn't even make the caad at all. That's not to say every carbon frame is better than any metal frame, but in my experience / observation really good carbon frames are better than the best metal frames.

[SPOKE]

I like bike that have what I call a “Bright” feeling to them. It simply means that the bike gives me a “little something back” during moderate to hard efforts. This feeling in no way means me or the bike is fast but the “brightness” makes me feel that the bike is encouraging me to push a bit harder.
If you think that you want a bike with this character order up an Onesto from Dave Kirk or give Richard Sachs a call.

Now here’s the brutal truth....the best all around riding frame set that has been produced that you can no longer buy new is the Serotta Ottrott ST.....

[VTR1000SP2]

My experience with cycling while still fairly young at 5 years has included early aluminum frames, modern hydroformed aluminum, 90's lugged Columbus SL steel, aero carbon (Cervélo), lightweight carbon (SuperSix Hi-Mod) and some entry level carbon bikes. I've also had an opportunity to test out the Canyon Aeroad, Trek Madone 9.

I'm not a fan of aluminium, they're harsh and I am not a fan of hydroforming an alloy tube to look like carbon. Not all carbon bikes work for me either, some are too "dead" and I like a little feedback like my Cervelo S3. The best riding bike I've ever been on though is my Basso Gap but that was mostly due to the 28h box section wheelset which I figured out after switching to Zonda's.

Earlier this year I built a gravel bike starting with a 2018 Giant TCX frameset to be a road or gravel setup with wheelsets dedicated to each discipline. What I found with the road setup (Stan's Avion Pro Wheelset + 25mm Schwalbe Pro One's inflated to 58psi) was that it was almost as capable during a tempo training session as my Cervelo S3 allowing me to average a pace almost as fast and I set PRs on a few different climbs despite this TCX being 1kg heavier than my S3. The experience reminds me of a cyclingtips podcast from last year where they discussed frame stiffness with Jan Heine, I would suggest looking it up.

Long story short, many factors contribute to feel, comfort, and performance but there isn't one bike that's better than another just the right bike for the right rider. Of all that I've read of the Parlee Z5, this or the Altum is on my shortlist of bikes to try next.

Good luck with your journey.

[rallizes]

A Colnago C40 is great and not expensive

Try one!

[nobuseri]

Not sure I agree with all of this. The sponsors are all about business. Maximizing profit. Carbon bikes seem the way to go in this day and age. They are making a lot of technological advancements, but they are still, relatively, a lot cheaper to produce for the masses. You’d be surprised what these pros ride/buy with their own choices/cash.

All these races are about marketing products. They were all riding alloy before carbon took off, and now that it’s a fraction of the cost to mass produce, it only makes sense to ride that wave.

Just my $0.02

If any other material had an advantage over carbon fiber, the sponsors would be giving those frames to pros to ride then selling and marketing the crap out of them. There is a reason 99.9% of racing bikes both amateur and professional are carbon and it's not because they are cheapest to manufacture. If you suggested to a professional cyclist that they should ride a steel frame in an important race they would laugh you out the door. I'm not trying to be rude it's just the way I see it and I'm pretty much certain I'm right. The only people I know that don't have carbon racing bikes, have aluminum ones because decent carbon ones are too expensive, so that kind of shoots a hole in your cost argument as well. Obviously a caad costs less to manufacture than an evo, otherwise they wouldn't even make the caad at all. That's not to say every carbon frame is better than any metal frame, but in my experience / observation really good carbon frames are better than the best metal frames.

[weisan]

You’d be surprised what these pros ride/buy with their own choices/cash.



https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/styles/marquee_large_2x/public/2018/04/21/lance_armstrong.jpg

[weisan]

https://cdnmos-bikeradar.global.ssl.fastly.net/images/blogs/lemondredwood-630-80.jpg

[mtechnica]

Man……………. this is the last post I will make attempting to convince you delusional people. If any material besides carbon fiber made a FASTER BIKE, then RACERS WOULD RIDE ON THEM. But they don't. It has nothing to do with profit margin per frame, and note, aluminum road bikes cost less than carbon fiber road bikes. I feel like everyone I know in real life, the fastest racers I know, people that actually win ****, would ALL agree with not a single debate. You guys are crazy. :confused::confused::confused: I don't know why you guys use examples of RETIRED racers as examples, these guys literally do not count, they can ride anything, who knows what or why they are thinking when their FTP is in the stratosphere and they are not competing. Look around you at a race, if you actually even RACE AT ALL, every damned bike is carbon fiber unless the person can't afford it.

[mtechnica]

I'm sorry , at this point this is like a religious argument where facts and science don't matter. I won't convince anyone that doesn't already understand what is going on. Honesty if you believe a team can win the TDF on a steel frame by all means please mail me some of whatever you're smoking because it's better than what I'm smoking.

[weisan]

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2011/02/14/2/11_600.jpg

[mhespenheide]

@mtechnica,

You're arguing that carbon-fiber bikes are the fastest.

Other people are are countering your argument with a different one: "fastest" is not necessarily the best.

Earlier in the thread, you posited -- essentially -- that stiffest + lightest = best.

Other people might not agree with you on that equation.

Clearly, racers have decided that the best race bikes are made out of carbon fiber. For other people (notably non-racers, or people for whom race results are not the prime motivation for riding), the ride experience means more to them than placing in a race.

I don't think anyone here is truly arguing that you can win the TdF on a steel bike today. But, hey... I'm not going to win the TdF no matter what bike I ride. And some days, I like taking out my steel bike even though I've also got a high-zoot CF bike in the garage.

If you love racing and carbon-fiber racing bikes, great! More power to you. Other people, including some former racers and other people who have ridden a lot of different bikes made of different materials, enjoy titanium or steel bikes. That's cool too.

[Clean39T]

@mtechnica,

You're arguing that carbon-fiber bikes are the fastest.

Other people are are countering your argument with a different one: "fastest" is not necessarily the best.

Earlier in the thread, you posited -- essentially -- that stiffest + lightest = best.

Other people might not agree with you on that equation.

Clearly, racers have decided that the best race bikes are made out of carbon fiber. For other people (notably non-racers, or people for whom race results are not the prime motivation for riding), the ride experience means more to them than placing in a race.

I don't think anyone here is truly arguing that you can win the TdF on a steel bike today. But, hey... I'm not going to win the TdF no matter what bike I ride. And some days, I like taking out my steel bike even though I've also got a high-zoot CF bike in the garage.

If you love racing and carbon-fiber racing bikes, great! More power to you. Other people, including some former racers and other people who have ridden a lot of different bikes made of different materials, enjoy titanium or steel bikes. That's cool too.

https://media.giphy.com/media/HWC6JoPq183Qc/giphy.gif

You nailed it. I tried to explain it above, but you did a much better job.

Best thing? Everybody wins - nobody is wrong - we ride the bikes we enjoy riding for the reasons we enjoy riding them - and we all go home happy :hello: :banana: :beer: !!!!!

https://media.giphy.com/media/xULW8pIgtg50yJd7WM/giphy.gif

[paredown]

One argument against carbon as the "best" is already in this thread.

When you are thinking about buying a used steel or titanium bike, no one is talking about having to get them x-rayed/certified so that you can be sure of safety.

Take that a step farther--is anyone going to avidly looking for a Look KG381 in 2031, bolting it together with new bits and riding the crap out of it? Personally I doubt it. While I agree that some of the myths about carbon are just that, the perception is still there that they do not age as well as steel frames. So a number of carbon frames are going to be disposable products--something that personally I find objectionable.

And then there's fashion component--zoot frames from 5 years ago already look dated (and are worth nothing on the used market).

Peak quality steel or titanium frames from 10 years ago are actively sought out.

A few great things that resulted from restricted tubing and joining choices were simplicity, timelessness and purity. On that scale, a lot of carbon frames start to look dated the year after they come out of the mold.

Best--it always comes with qualifiers--for whom, for what purpose, in whose eyes ('Beauty is in the eye of the beholder')...

[Bob Ross]

Honesty if you believe a team can win the TDF on a steel frame by all means please mail me some of whatever you're smoking because it's better than what I'm smoking.

Take a look at the most recent TdF standings...look at the time spread, and then recall what exactly it was on any given day that resulted in that time spread.

There wasn't a single day when race results were attributable to one guy having a lighter/stiffer frame than another guy.

Do you honestly think Thomas wouldn't have been on the podium if he'd been on a steel frame that was ~1.5lbs heavier than the Dogma he rode?

That Texan guy was right about one thing: It's Not About The Bike. Tactics, Conditioning, and Luck. Period.

Frame Material, not so much.

[zap]

When you are thinking about buying a used steel or titanium bike, no one is talking about having to get them x-rayed/certified so that you can be sure of safety.

Peak quality steel or titanium frames from 10 years ago are actively sought out.

I would not ride a 10 year old Moots or Seven or IF if someone gave me one for free. I have never seen anything become so dangerous so quickly as titanium.

I have ridden and raced a carbon composite frame since '89. Prior race bikes were aluminium.

I have yet to ride a steel road single bicycle that I liked. Reminds me of a person who never shuts up.

[bob heinatz]

Isn't it great we have choices in frame material. Everyone can ride their favorite material and be happy.

[saab2000]

Find a Graftek, build it up with a 105 groupset and some handbuilt wheels and test out this new carbon fad.

[mcteague]

I would not ride a 10 year old Moots or Seven or IF if someone gave me one for free. I have never seen anything become so dangerous so quickly as titanium.

I have ridden and raced a carbon composite frame since '89. Prior race bikes were aluminium.

I have yet to ride a steel road single bicycle that I liked. Reminds me of a person who never shuts up.

What are you talking about? Care to provide proof that 10 year old titanium bikes are dangerous? Never heard that claim before, especially with the three brands you mentioned. I call BS!

Tim

[nobuseri]

I would not ride a 10 year old Moots or Seven or IF if someone gave me one for free. I have never seen anything become so dangerous so quickly as titanium.


That’s unfortunate; or maybe not, depending on how you look at it. :)
More of a selection for me, I guess. Took me a long time to find a couple old geo Moots in my size. Eventually, I checked that box. One, I sent back to Moots for refinishing. Had no issues at all. The second didn’t need a refinish at all.

I have had a few Ti frames that were of that age and none of them gave me any issues.

[texbike]

Ok I am thinking about buying my first carbon bike. Currently I have a steel Peg and Spectrum Ti road bikes that I really enjoy but would like to try a nice carbon all road bike. Who here has made the switch to carbon and is happy with their decision? What carbon bike did you buy? If you did purchase a carbon bike and didn't like it please tell me what you didn't like. I am open minded and willing to hear from experienced riders who finally went to a carbon bike.

I've heard it stated in the past and agree with it myself - the material is immaterial. Design trumps material. A well-designed bike is going to work well regardless of the material that it's constructed from (referring to the usual bike materials of course).

At this point, I've had well over 70 bikes make their way through the garage over the years. Probably 20% of which have been carbon. I've had great and terrible bikes made of each material commonly used. I do like carbon, but am not convinced that it's superior to the other materials outside of the ability to manipulate it to a greater degree to achieve specific design goals (whether performance or appearance). I'm personally a fan of the carbon-lugged Colnagos, 585/595s, and the VXR-era Times. I've had a chance to own a couple (or more) of each and they're each fantastic if the geometries work for you.

If any other material had an advantage over carbon fiber, the sponsors would be giving those frames to pros to ride then selling and marketing the crap out of them. There is a reason 99.9% of racing bikes both amateur and professional are carbon and it's not because they are cheapest to manufacture. If you suggested to a professional cyclist that they should ride a steel frame in an important race they would laugh you out the door.

I get what you're saying, but the reason that carbon is so prevalent now is that a couple of key manufacturers of carbon bikes pushed them hard in the 1990s and sponsored teams that rode them to various wins. People pay attention to that and want what the pros ride ("Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" is the old adage). Over time (1999-2005ish perhaps for certain reasons...), carbon became the dominant material in amateur races for that very reason. The belief that carbon was "superior" became so pervasive that now most people do believe that carbon is the best material and that you MUST have it to win. If a person is serious about winning races, are they going to be a contrarian and take a chance against group think?

IMO, that's why we've seen a dominance of carbon in the racing circles.

A Colnago C40 is great and not expensive

Try one!

Agreed!

I would not ride a 10 year old Moots or Seven or IF if someone gave me one for free. I have never seen anything become so dangerous so quickly as titanium.


What???? Guess I should get rid of my 10 + year old Moots that has more than 20K miles on it and looks like new...

I've had a number of Ti bikes over the years. Some of them 20 years old. Not a single issue with any of them except for an ass-pounding Serotta Legend (and several years later, I realize that it may have actually been due to a CARBON seat post that I was using...).

I'd love to hear more about this dangerous Ti-specific thing that you're referring to.

Texbike

[Burnette]

I've heard it stated in the past and agree with it myself - the material is immaterial. Design trumps material. A well-designed bike is going to work well regardless of the material that it's constructed from (referring to the usual bike materials of course).

At this point, I've had well over 70 bikes make their way through the garage over the years. Probably 20% of which have been carbon. I've had great and terrible bikes made of each material commonly used. I do like carbon, but am not convinced that it's superior to the other materials outside of the ability to manipulate it to a greater degree to achieve specific design goals (whether performance or appearance). I'm personally a fan of the carbon-lugged Colnagos, 585/595s, and the VXR-era Times. I've had a chance to own a couple (or more) of each and they're each fantastic if the geometries work for you.



I get what you're saying, but the reason that carbon is so prevalent now is that a couple of key manufacturers of carbon bikes pushed them hard in the 1990s and sponsored teams that rode them to various wins. People pay attention to that and want what the pros ride ("Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" is the old adage). Over time (1999-2005ish perhaps for certain reasons...), carbon became the dominant material in amateur races for that very reason. The belief that carbon was "superior" became so pervasive that now most people do believe that carbon is the best material and that you MUST have it to win. If a person is serious about winning races, are they going to be a contrarian and take a chance against group think?

IMO, that's why we've seen a dominance of carbon in the racing circles.



Agreed!



What???? Guess I should get rid of my 10 + year old Moots that has more than 20K miles on it and looks like new...

I've had a number of Ti bikes over the years. Some of them 20 years old. Not a single issue with any of them except for an ass-pounding Serotta Legend (and several years later, I realize that it may have actually been due to a CARBON seat post that I was using...).

I'd love to hear more about this dangerous Ti-specific thing that you're referring to.

Texbike

Nope, carbon isn't dominant because of the big mean companies, carbon is dominate for it's inherent attributes.

Would dopers Wiggins, Froome and Thomas win on steel and aluminum? Abesolutely, it isn't the bike. But if you're talking about pure weight reduction and a higher degree of material manipulation, carbon is your material.

Is carbon "best". No. Each material choice has it's applications and they all overlap to some degree. One would be well suited by any material. If you're chasing a finite metric then the separations between materials appear and if we're honest the differences are small, but they are there. It's up to the racer or consumer to surmise whether or not their needs beg the difference.

[54ny77]

https://goo.gl/images/kv39bW

;)


Man……………. this is the last post I will make attempting to convince you delusional people. If any material besides carbon fiber made a FASTER BIKE, then RACERS WOULD RIDE ON THEM. But they don't. It has nothing to do with profit margin per frame, and note, aluminum road bikes cost less than carbon fiber road bikes. I feel like everyone I know in real life, the fastest racers I know, people that actually win ****, would ALL agree with not a single debate. You guys are crazy. :confused::confused::confused: I don't know why you guys use examples of RETIRED racers as examples, these guys literally do not count, they can ride anything, who knows what or why they are thinking when their FTP is in the stratosphere and they are not competing. Look around you at a race, if you actually even RACE AT ALL, every damned bike is carbon fiber unless the person can't afford it.

[Burnette]

Isn't it great we have choices in frame material. Everyone can ride their favorite material and be happy.

As you can see from your thread and every other cycling forum on the planet ever, some cyclist suffer from serious Princess And The Pea Syndrome, you get weird analogies that don't quite line up, anecdotes with a sample size of one that supposedly verify a prejudice, conspiracy theorists run amok and the change adverse leaning expressing fear.

What I want to know is what are your top three or so bikes you're going to try now? And when you get to ride a few, post back with thoughts.

You have so many great choices and at season's end the prices will be great too. Happy shopping to you and keep us posted on the progress.

[sloanfiske]

I've heard it stated in the past and agree with it myself - the material is immaterial. Design trumps material. A well-designed bike is going to work well regardless of the material that it's constructed from (referring to the usual bike materials of course).

At this point, I've had well over 70 bikes make their way through the garage over the years. Probably 20% of which have been carbon. I've had great and terrible bikes made of each material commonly used. I do like carbon, but am not convinced that it's superior to the other materials outside of the ability to manipulate it to a greater degree to achieve specific design goals (whether performance or appearance). I'm personally a fan of the carbon-lugged Colnagos, 585/595s, and the VXR-era Times. I've had a chance to own a couple (or more) of each and they're each fantastic if the geometries work for you.



I get what you're saying, but the reason that carbon is so prevalent now is that a couple of key manufacturers of carbon bikes pushed them hard in the 1990s and sponsored teams that rode them to various wins. People pay attention to that and want what the pros ride ("Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" is the old adage). Over time (1999-2005ish perhaps for certain reasons...), carbon became the dominant material in amateur races for that very reason. The belief that carbon was "superior" became so pervasive that now most people do believe that carbon is the best material and that you MUST have it to win. If a person is serious about winning races, are they going to be a contrarian and take a chance against group think?

IMO, that's why we've seen a dominance of carbon in the racing circles.



Agreed!



What???? Guess I should get rid of my 10 + year old Moots that has more than 20K miles on it and looks like new...

I've had a number of Ti bikes over the years. Some of them 20 years old. Not a single issue with any of them except for an ass-pounding Serotta Legend (and several years later, I realize that it may have actually been due to a CARBON seat post that I was using...).

I'd love to hear more about this dangerous Ti-specific thing that you're referring to.

Texbike



I’m with you. I have 2 TI bikes. One road Bianchi from 03 and a 2014 Moots CX. Would love to know what kind of failures you’ve seen and with what grade of TI.

[Gummee]

I’m with you. I have 2 TI bikes. One road Bianchi from 03 and a 2014 Moots CX. Would love to know what kind of failures you’ve seen and with what grade of TI.

About the only problems I've heard of were early Litespeeds. Liked to crack.

Maybe a few few Merlins too...

...but overall? Nope. I don't buy it. Ti isn't a ticking time bomb any more than a well-made carbon bike isn't a ticking time bomb.

I wouldn't hesitate to ride my 'carbon rear ended' Quattro Assi Team 2000 and its almost 2 decades old now. It's been hanging for a while, not being ridden.

M

[bob heinatz]

Burnette I plan on hitting some local bike shops and asking for a test ride to see how they ride and feel. I know a short test ride is not the best way to evaluate a bike but it will give me a idea. Later in September I have two friends my size that will allow me to ride their carbon bikes all I want. One is a BMC and the other is some European brand. I should know from that experience if carbon is something I want to pursue or not.

[Burnette]

Burnette I plan on hitting some local bike shops and asking for a test ride to see how they ride and feel. I know a short test ride is not the best way to evaluate a bike but it will give me a idea. Later in September I have two friends my size that will allow me to ride their carbon bikes all I want. One is a BMC and the other is some European brand. I should know from that experience if carbon is something I want to pursue or not.

Great! Remember though that you're testing the total package. Fair Wheel Bikes does component comparisons of stems, handlebars, cranks of various brands and the amount of flex and difference in weight varies wildly.

The frame is the foundation but the parts you hang on it have a profound effect on perceived riding feel. You're testing the wheels, tires, cranks, handlebar/stem, seat post and saddle just as much if not more than the frame itself.

That's why some in this thread some have surmised that any material will suit general riding, and they are right. It's when you get to either extreme demands or unique properties that the materials diverge and their attributes fall into categories specific to their strengths.

Take into account the variables in frame construction of the bikes you're testing, the difference in all of the components between them, the road conditions with which you ride each and how they differ and your personal preferences. And you see how it's easy to come to a definitive conclusion for yourself but may or may not be useful to another. You see that people can give you their feelings but only through due diligence can you discern what is right for you.

It may be carbon for you, it may not be, but all of the other variables play just as an important part in that decision too.

[Jef58]

I agree about the difference types of carbon construction. I rode lugged KG LOOKs for a number of years before switching back to modern steel. IMO, those older LOOKs rode similar to a steel bike. I have a 586 which is constructed differently and does have a different feel to it. I don't ride the 586 due to preferring the ride of the steel bike. Part of that it is, the steel was custom. The ride still is subjective that another rider may not agree with me on. The biggest difference in any bike I had was proper fit and wheel (and/or) tire choice. Bikes like Crumpton and Sarto can tailor the fit and ride qualities due to their construction, similar to what can be done with a metal bike... So, I like both materials and say if the Sarto or Crumpton duplicated the steel bike's dimensions, I'm not sure they would be that much of a difference to me other than a small weight loss. I would like to have either of these companies as my next carbon bike if/when I'm ready to actually find out.

[Burnette]

I agree about the difference types of carbon construction. I rode lugged KG LOOKs for a number of years before switching back to modern steel. IMO, those older LOOKs rode similar to a steel bike. I have a 586 which is constructed differently and does have a different feel to it. I don't ride the 586 due to preferring the ride of the steel bike. Part of that it is, the steel was custom. The ride still is subjective that another rider may not agree with me on. The biggest difference in any bike I had was proper fit and wheel (and/or) tire choice. Bikes like Crumpton and Sarto can tailor the fit and ride qualities due to their construction, similar to what can be done with a metal bike... So, I like both materials and say if the Sarto or Crumpton duplicated the steel bike's dimensions, I'm not sure they would be that much of a difference to me other than a small weight loss. I would like to have either of these companies as my next carbon bike if/when I'm ready to actually find out.

All in bold spot on.

The shear amount of different brands and how they construct their bikes, what type of carbon, how they lay it up, bond it or lug it, the variables are mind boggling. That's why I think it funny when someone rides one bike of a certain material and proclaims it best or worst based on that one sample.

As far as carbon goes, reduced weight and material strength manipulation are it's merits. If my application necessitated those metrics, carbon would be my first stop too. And for me an off the rack carbon bike, if the fit was right, would fit the bill.

[skiezo]

Sarto. Research the company and you will be impressed. For example, pez cycling has several reviews. You can get good deals on ebay.

This is the way that I went. I had one custom ordered to my specs and I have a Sarto Classica frame that will be built up over the winter.
There are a few CF bike I would own and they would be Sarto and Parlee.
I have ridden quite a few CF bikes and these two brands are worth owning.
I rode a Satro Classica a few years ago over a few months and have always longed for one and bought one here.
I do have a Ti Desalvo that is my longer ride bike as it soaks up alot of the rode buzz. My custom Sarto was also built with a more relaxed geo and I have done a few century rides on. The ride of a good CF bike is heads and shoulder above alot of the stock ones.

[Web1111a]

Weisan

I am zoning out whom is the pro on the Moots

[weisan]

Weisan

I am zoning out whom is the pro on the Moots

I will give you a hint: he's one of the jokers in this group.

[m4rk540]

Hoovers were the Team Sky of their day.

[adrien]

I went through a period of test riding carbon bikes. Felt like I never really got to know them -- an hour or two wasn't enough. Yes, they were light, but it kind of felt like they weren't there.

So I started renting them to get a better sense. Rented high-end Pinarello, Specialized Tarmac and a Look 585. Put 300-500 miles on each.

Of them, the Spec was the most all-around capable, quick, handled great, and felt completely devoid of personality. Yes, it felt dead. Kind of like being on a date with someone who keeps checking her phone. Very, very competent bike. But just felt a bit absent.

Pino was a hot mess under 15mph. Skittish, jumping around, and very unhappy going slowly. Steering felt oddly a little slow. Sublime descending at 40. Of the three, I "Got it" more, and it was light, and fast, and lively in the way a stiff Ti bike can be. Didn't quite have the "bright" quality, but it was nice. But I couldn't get over how it looked, and that's a very expensive bike that will be last year's model, um, next year.

The look was, um, fine. Did everything it was supposed to do, and felt a lot like a steel bike that was a little lighter. My reaction: meh.

I think for some here -- myself included -- and especially across the hall, there's a different filter on a bike purchase in that we want to collaborate on its construction. We'd like to talk to and ideally meet the builder, and describe what we want and have them make it. And this collaboration is more important than a pound of weight. That makes custom metal bikes more important to us -- we're tapping into something that involves a few people, and a certain skillset, rather than engineering budgets and large sponsorships. And the differences are small enough that it doesn't really make a difference in real life, with our riding buddies, on real roads. This is only barely possible with carbon (Argonaut comes to mind) but very possible and even cost-effective with steel and Ti.

[Burnette]

I went through a period of test riding carbon bikes. Felt like I never really got to know them -- an hour or two wasn't enough. Yes, they were light, but it kind of felt like they weren't there.

So I started renting them to get a better sense. Rented high-end Pinarello, Specialized Tarmac and a Look 585. Put 300-500 miles on each.

Of them, the Spec was the most all-around capable, quick, handled great, and felt completely devoid of personality. Yes, it felt dead. Kind of like being on a date with someone who keeps checking her phone. Very, very competent bike. But just felt a bit absent.

Pino was a hot mess under 15mph. Skittish, jumping around, and very unhappy going slowly. Steering felt oddly a little slow. Sublime descending at 40. Of the three, I "Got it" more, and it was light, and fast, and lively in the way a stiff Ti bike can be. Didn't quite have the "bright" quality, but it was nice. But I couldn't get over how it looked, and that's a very expensive bike that will be last year's model, um, next year.

The look was, um, fine. Did everything it was supposed to do, and felt a lot like a steel bike that was a little lighter. My reaction: meh.

I think for some here -- myself included -- and especially across the hall, there's a different filter on a bike purchase in that we want to collaborate on its construction. We'd like to talk to and ideally meet the builder, and describe what we want and have them make it. And this collaboration is more important than a pound of weight. That makes custom metal bikes more important to us -- we're tapping into something that involves a few people, and a certain skillset, rather than engineering budgets and large sponsorships. And the differences are small enough that it doesn't really make a difference in real life, with our riding buddies, on real roads. This is only barely possible with carbon (Argonaut comes to mind) but very possible and even cost-effective with steel and Ti.

Lugs, tig, bonded carbon, brazed, custom geo, pick your paint and all of that is awesome. But it's very niche, can be time consuming and very costly. I'm a huge fan of custom builders myself and I totally get it but that's a very different buyer.

The vast majority of buyers buy off the rack and don't need custom geo and the bikes there are amazing in their own right, where that light weight is almost a byproduct at this point and the prices are relatively low. And all of the superlatives we give high end stuff another may very well use the same words to describe a mid level carbon bike. And they wouldn't be wrong on their summation either. I assure you there are plenty who ride those carbon rack bikes and end their rides with the same satisfaction as the rest of us.

Like most things bike, it isn't science, it's preference above all.

[zap]

What are you talking about? Care to provide proof that 10 year old titanium bikes are dangerous? Never heard that claim before, especially with the three brands you mentioned. I call BS!

Tim

I don't like how quickly a crack propagates in titanium tubes. It can happen suddenly at/near a weld, machined drop out or shaped tube.

Proof, none documented. My experience, what my cycling mates went through and info from some in the industry. Paceline too ;)

The most important issue that I want to stress is just because a frame is made with titanium does not mean it's going to last a lifetime. Inspect regularly-titanium is not as forgiving as steel or even aluminum.

[zap]

Isn't it great we have choices in frame material. Everyone can ride their favorite material and be happy.

Exactly.

[rnhood]

Agree. Good bikes can be made out of any suitable material. I like carbon, your mileage may vary. Ride your favorite and be happy.

[metalheart]

Here is my experience, which is very limited. I have had only steel bike until I acquired a custom Ti/Carbon a few years ago. I like the smooth ride that soaks up most of the rough roads that I usually ride. The Ti/Carbon bike -- an Exogrid -- is very comfortable, easy to keep clean, and I just don't worry about it on fast descents.

Then, I did the thing I thought I would NEVER do and acquired an all carbon bike from the same maker of the exogrid. Both bikes have essentially the same geometry and the parts or mostly the same. I switch the wheels when riding either bike, so I think I have some basis for comparison of the two. How much difference is there? Some, but it would be hard for me to choose one over the other.

The carbon bike is lighter and I perceive that it climbs faster and it tends to "float" over the road while the Exogrid soaks up the bumps and is plenty comfy. One riding buddy commented that he thinks I am much faster on descents with the carbon bike than the Exogrid and that overall I ride faster on the carbon bike. Well, maybe that is just the weight difference or maybe there is some difference in power transfer.

I like the comfy ride of my Ti bike and the low maintenance. Not that the carbon bike takes any more, but I can buff out a scratch on the ti, but that may not be the case with the carbon bike. As it is, I clean it off with soap and water after each ride then finish it off with some lemon pledge. With the exogrid, I wipe it down with a damp cloth then use some ZEP stainless steel cleaner to finish it off.

I don't see one bike as riding better than the other, they are just different and that difference is enjoyable for my riding. The other day I rode one of the new BMC TeamMachines and I thought that was a pretty nice off the shelf bike ....

[weisan]

Bob pal, if this fits you, I would jump on it!

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?p=2415947#post2415947