Carbon bike

[weisan]

[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. 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]

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 !!!!!

[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]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

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]

Originally Posted by paredown

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]

Originally Posted by zap

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]

Originally Posted by zap

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by mtechnica

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.

Originally Posted by rallizes

A Colnago C40 is great and not expensive

Try one!

Agreed!

Originally Posted by zap

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]

Originally Posted by texbike

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.