Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Carbon or Aluminium?
  • freeman
    Free Member

    Please will someone extoll on me the virtues of a carbon frame over good old fashioned aluminium. Trying to decide which bike will replace my old faithful Mega (which will be up for sale in the near future) and having a tough time doing so as there are so many great bikes out there.

    I was first attracted to the Norco Range Carbon, but am unsure after reading some scare stories regarding their warranty/after sales service, i.e non existence of it and the fact that dealers are few and far between in the UK! Then the new 2014 GT Force carbon caught my eye, nice looking and great value plus lots of dealers, but complicated frame and not sure of the warranty??

    I have also heard stuff about carbon frames bearings etc coming loose, anyone care to instill me with more confidence over carbon??

    Then I saw this:

    http://www.orangebikes.co.uk/bikes/five_rs/

    Its comparatively light, its simple, its damn fine looking and most of all its made just up the road. Only thing is I demo’d a five a few years back, but couldn’t get that excited about it…. oh and its not carbon obviously!!

    Yes there is the new Mega TR but fancied something different…

    Any other recommendations would be greatly appreciated

    mtbtomo
    Free Member

    I thought Norco were only available at Evans at the moment? So that may be a good or a bad thing….

    If you couldn’t get excited by the ride of the Five, then what is the point in going for one?

    I think if you’d have problems on claiming against warranty on a carbon frame, then you’d have similar issues claiming against the same company for an aluminium frame. Not from the frame perspective, but from a customer service perspective. Poor maintenance by the owner, cable rub, loose bearings, poor tolerance press fit sh1te, etc are all problems regardless of material.

    Not entirely what you asked, I know. Choose a bike from a reputable brand with a good history of customer back up. Then choose the carbon version and treat it how you’d treat any other bike. 🙂

    Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    Seems like Santa Cruz carbon frames are not that reliable though, judging by the Tallboy thread on here.

    Still prefer alu, if anything because they’re cheaper to replace if I wrap them round a tree. Carbon is nice in theory though.

    I’m not sure why you want to go Orange to be different, I see less Nukeproofs on the trails than Oranges. I’d wager the Nukeproof would be stiffer as well, a common complaint with the Five.

    Why do you want to replace the Mega, the geometry is still more progressive than 95 percent of other AM/Enduro bikes on the market.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    The only carbon I have tried are SC. The stiffness in the frame was the main difference for me, so much more of it really helped the bike feel direct.

    Not seen any bearing issues to speak of and my current LBS shifts a lot of carbon Rocky’s. The one issue that is now common across a lot of new bikes is Press Fit BB’s but the seem as crap in all materials (SC stayed with threaded)

    As with anything frame tape up the bits that rub and enjoy it. Mine comes with a 5 year warranty so happy with that (more than most Alu frames)
    Getting my LTc has given me the best bike I have owned to date,

    Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    Thing is, I’ve owned and ridden stiffer bikes (Nomad, Sx Trail, VP Free, Ancilloti) than my Mega but I’ve sometimes felt it had more grip when leant over as a result.

    Stiffness past a certain point has never made much difference to me.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    Seems like Santa Cruz carbon frames are not that reliable though, judging by the Tallboy thread on here

    Thats 1 frame in a range of 7 I think and it’s not like it’s every frame.

    Still prefer alu, if anything because they’re cheaper to replace if I wrap them round a tree. Carbon is nice in theory though.

    If I wrap my carbon bike round a tree it’s either crash replacement price of whatever frame takes my fancy next – price is up to me

    dirk_pumpa
    Free Member

    Get yourself a mojo hd and never look back.

    Garry_Lager
    Full Member

    I’m a convert now after riding a whippet for 2 yr in the peak – expected to have crushed it to bits neath the weight of my aris by now, but it’s in fine fettle. Some minor creaking issues with the press-fit bb, but as said that seems like it’s not restricted to carbon frames.

    I’d need to be feeling prosperous to splash out on a top end carbon trail bike, though. A lot of money over the Al for quite diminishing returns ISTM. The difference in weight, in particular, can be surprisingly small for the bigger bikes.
    I’d be interested in how long a carbon frame lasts, long term. I’ve never had a really long-lived Al frame, hair-line cracked them all given time. You can crack any frame, of course, but is carbon resistant to the same sort of fatigue processes that seem to put a shelf life on Al?

    peacefulparsnip
    Free Member

    To me, aluminium generally feels more planted and stable.
    A greater proportion of the frame weight is around the bottom bracket because of the welding joints, which means a more central and lower center of mass (in theory).
    Carbon is lovely and light and stiff though (I agree that having a bit of flex in the rear end is not always a bad thing though).

    Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    If I wrap my carbon bike round a tree it’s either crash replacement price of whatever frame takes my fancy next – price is up to me

    Good for you, I hope you enjoy the investment in a material that dampens trail feedback.

    I could afford one but the ride benefits plus increased expense means my rational choice is to choose an alu frame and the money I do feel is worth allocating is better off spent on custom suspension tunes and centralising mass by lightening components, or you know…actually riding.

    And yes, compared to an 899 Mega a 2000 grand LTc/Nomad frame (which have inferior geometry I might add, at least for me personally) are more expensive to replace even at crash replacement costs.

    My point being is that the material the bike is made out of doesn’t really at the end of the day matter as much as whether the geometry and suspension profile suit your needs. Going from a Mega, with a nice suspension profile (much better than the Fives) to a Five, to me, is rather ludicrous. As is the idea of going to a Nomad/LTc with their short cockpits, god awful standard suspension profiles (unless you get the push link), 14 inch BB heights….none of which are features I…personally…I might add….like in a bike.

    So OP….before you buy….just don’t get caught up by the hype….have a list of things that you want in a bike and the material it’s made out of should come last.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    As is the idea of going to a Nomad/LTc with their short cockpits, god awful standard suspension profiles (unless you get the push link), 14 inch BB heights….none of which are features I…personally…I might add….like in a bike.

    Blur LTc 13-13.25 measured and 67degree HA. Can’t fault the suspension profile on mine and I’ve ridden a lot of bikes. Works really well for me. Your milage varies.

    So OP….before you buy….just don’t get caught up by the hype….have a list of things that you want in a bike and the material it’s made out of should come last.

    Very true
    I also put very little against raw numbers on a bike every full sus is measured static and every bike sits differently in it’s travel hence the numbers go out the window dismissing a bike because a bit of paper based on a fork that probably doesn’t exist says it has a 67 degree HA is a waste.

    All comes down to go ride some bikes

    Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    True, sorry if I offended mike. I just didn’t like the Nomads standard set up at all and that is the bike I was mostly talking about, but yes it comes down to personal preference. Numbers give you an idea but at the end of the day a bike is a dynamic object and you can only really tell how it rides by swinging a leg over you. A bike that you might not think will suit you, might suit you better than the one your heart was hankering after because of “rad” enduro geometry or bling carbon.

    But, it might also be better to go with your heart and ride round the bikes quirks. I was lucky because I picked the Mega with my heart (I like the New York Taxi yellow coulour, it’s that simple) and geo numbers and ended up with a bike that suited me perfectly.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    No offence taken, just find people are more interested in what a bit of paper says than how a bike rides, they are also very suggestable when it comes to things that are wrong.

    shermer75
    Free Member

    Carbon weighs less but costs more.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

The topic ‘Carbon or Aluminium?’ is closed to new replies.