Carbon bike

[54ny77]

https://goo.gl/images/kv39bW

Originally Posted by 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.

[Burnette]

Originally Posted by bob heinatz

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by sloanfiske

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by StanleySteamer

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]

Originally Posted by Web1111a

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mcteague

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.