• This topic has 32 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by dobo.
Viewing 33 posts - 1 through 33 (of 33 total)
  • To carbon or not to carbon
  • maddyutah
    Full Member

    Plotting my next bike thinking about a trek fuel ex.being drawn to the carbon frame but have never owned a carbon frame or even had any carbon components.in the back of my head there is a fear of the durability of a carbon frame.
    What’s the thoughts on carbon frames or should I go for the aluminium frame
    Maddy

    uwe-r
    Free Member

    Urrr…its 2013, get a carbon frame there no worse than anything else. The only thing I’d avoid is Ti. Steel is your best bet for longevity but it is heavy, if you want light then Carbon all the way.

    jekkyl
    Full Member

    I’ve known 2 people who’ve had carbon mtbikes and had big offs where part of the frame has got broken. Both people ended up getting new aluminium frames. I do think that they didn’t explore the repair options thoroughly enough but it’s put them (& me) off the thought of having carbon again. Aluminium & steel are more durable and easier and cheaper to repair.

    b45her
    Free Member

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs

    yep super weak that plastic malarky 🙄

    carbon frames stopped being fragile when strength was made the priority rather than light weight.

    maddyutah
    Full Member

    Funnily enough I have had a ti framed hardtail scince 2006 No issues,but now after a full Susser

    njee20
    Free Member

    Aluminium is not more durable, and is virtually impossible to repair.

    Steel perhaps, but carbon is far better than alu in that respect. Only difference is that in the case of total destruction alu is cheaper.

    crush83
    Free Member

    in my own case i have opted for ali over carbon simply because i can loose more weight through a diet than a carbon bike.

    Conan257
    Free Member

    I’ve been anti-carbon for years. However got a good deal on a carbon FS frame last year and like the way it rides.

    Certainly different feeling from an Al bike, but I’m not sure I would ever go back to metal!

    reidy
    Free Member

    They are fantastic… until you break it and then your staring down at a £450 hit (minimum) because you dropped it on a high speed corner…

    If your prone to pushing a bit to far for your own good, get an alu IMO

    jekkyl
    Full Member

    njee20 – Member
    Aluminium is not more durable, and is virtually impossible to repair.

    but not harder to repair than carbon though?

    2 bike frames, 1 alu 1 carbon, if you take a rock & smash it down as hard as you can on the downtube would you be confident that you wouldn’t make a hole on the carbon one. I would with the alu though.

    I may be wrong but my anecodotal evidence above was from a 2011 cannondale carbon flash so it wasn’t many years ago.

    pjm84
    Free Member

    Wouldn’t touch carbon. Have broken too many and have no faith in the stuff.

    ndthornton
    Free Member

    i have opted for ali over carbon simply because i can loose more weight through a diet than a carbon bike

    Here’s a thought….
    why not diet AND buy a carbon bike.
    The two concepts are not mutually exclusive and it wont cost any more money.

    stumpy01
    Full Member

    What BB does it have?

    I would definitely think twice before buying another bike with a press-fit BB. Although the fact that Specialized have gone for an ‘almost a standard, but not quite a standard’ size is probably part of the issue for me….

    That’s more of an overall design decision though, than anything to do with the fact it’s carbon…..

    jairaj
    Full Member

    if you take a rock & smash it down as hard as you can on the downtube would you be confident that you wouldn’t make a hole on the carbon one

    No I wouldn’t be confident but then I wouldn’t be confident doing that to any frame.

    So because you had a carbon frame that was broken by a rock strike you think all carbon frames are weak?

    You realise s**t happens? sometimes you get an unlucky rock strike that puts way more force than any other rock strike. chances are the same strike would have broken a Alu frame too. I’ve also read many stories of people damaging frames made from Steel and Alu from rock strikes does this mean all common frame materials are rubbish?

    Back to the OP’s question though:

    I had a look at Trek frames last year and the dealer told me there wasn’t much weight difference between the carbon and the alu frame versions something like 200g. The carbon versions where designed to be stiffer and slightly over engineered so weight saving weren’t massive.

    Saying that I was very impressed with the stiffness of the alu frames when I demoed the bikes and didn’t notice any flex, so not sure if the carbon versions would have made a difference to me.

    The money saved by going to a alu frame with higher end components pretty much counteracted the weight difference between the frames anyway.

    If you’ve got the budget to get carbon and high end components then great go for that. Otherwise on a limited budget I’d go for the alu frame with higher end components.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    Get the frame you want- material’s just one consideration, daft IMO to start out from there and let it dictate your selection.

    But also- if you’ll worry about it, don’t get it. I trust carbon, I treated my carbon frame like I would a metal one and my carbon bars have proved stronger than my alu ones. But if you’ll worry about it you won’t enjoy it regardless of whether the worry”s justified.

    jekkyl – Member

    2 bike frames, 1 alu 1 carbon, if you take a rock & smash it down as hard as you can on the downtube would you be confident that you wouldn’t make a hole on the carbon one. I would with the alu though.

    Depends on the frame but yes I’m comfortable that my C456 would survive anything a steel one would. Hitting it with a big rock might well damage it… But why are you fixating on holes? A steel or alu frame will probably dent or fold instead, that’s not better.

    MikeWW
    Free Member

    Got both in the household.
    The carbon framed bikes look and ride great.
    However they can be more fragile (or at least need repair) more than aluminium bikes IMO
    I have been through a top tube on a carbon road bike-that would have been a dent had it been aluminium. Done a similar but less severe thing on the MTB. In both cases they were repairable at around £200 and £50 respectively. For the cross bikes have stuck with aluminium. For racing MTB XC I’d go carbon all the way-trail riding not so sure

    wobbliscott
    Free Member

    For one, carbon frames are only marginally lighter than Al Alloy when comparing like for like frames (transition covert carbon frame is exactly the same weight as the Covert Alloy one for example), so its not as if you’re making a significant shift in terms of weight reduction especially considering the extra cost. So don’t buy a carbon frame purely for weight saving purposes.

    The Youtube video actually exposes some of the downsides of carbon. OK the ultimate strengh is significatnly higher – but how many times have you had an Alloy frame snap on you, so all that extra strength is actually redundant. The concerns the Youtube video exposes to me is the way in which carbon frames fail – they take alot of internal damage (the cracking you can hear) which does’nt show from the surface so is invisible to you, and when they fail they fail catastrauphically. Alloy frames tend to give you alot of notice before they fail, give you some signs before they fail and when they fail with tend to bend rather than explode.

    Also Carbon Fibre is not this mythical high tech material everyone thinks it is. It hasn’t actually changed that much since the 70’s, only the applications it is used on. The latest crop of Al Alloys and Steel alloys are far more technologically advanced in terms of a broader range of properties. If you’re a pro cyclist and can change your frame at will, then carbon is the only choice. Similarly if your bike is a garage or shed queen and rarely sees the light of day. If you are investing in a bike that you’re keeping for a long time and are going to ride the crap out of in all weathers (or at least intend to at the point of purchase) – i’m not sure carbon is the best material. I struggle to see the point in investing in a carbon frame only to festoon it with unsighly frame protection, sort of defeats the object.

    professorfaceplant
    Free Member

    carbon is way stronger and much lighter than alu, there is a vid in that there internet that will show the differences

    For me though i’d always pick alu:

    because i fall off a lot.
    alu dents rather than cracks
    also i like the feel of a heavy bike, it just feel s more study and solid, i know its all in my head, but confidence is 60% of the battle with riding

    would get carbon for road and XC though

    Northwind
    Full Member

    wobbliscott – Member

    For one, carbon frames are only marginally lighter than Al Alloy when comparing like for like frames (transition covert carbon frame is exactly the same weight as the Covert Alloy one for example)

    According to Transition, the carbon is nearly a pound lighter. Are you comparing the alu 26er with the carbon 29er?

    mtbtomo
    Free Member

    I dropped my carbon Fuel Ex on a boulder during a low speed fall at Winlatter and it did this…

    Not great from a cosmetic viewpoint but I carried on riding it for a while with no concerns about its structure. I wouldn’t have any doubts with carbon and especially as its Trek, who were one of the earlier companies to start making carbon frames. Do they still offer a lifetime warranty on their carbon frames? They used to at least and that tells me they’re pretty confident in them.

    From what I remember, the Fuel Ex alloy frame is pretty light compared to the carbon one (and the lower alloy models still take a threaded BB), but my carbon Zesty saves over a pound on the alloy version.

    jekkyl
    Full Member

    is that a hole tomo or just a scratch?

    from what I can see on this thread there is a few people saying in theory carbon is strong and durable and there is also a few people giving anecdotal (real experience) that it’s not so.

    Thrustyjust
    Free Member

    I have accidental damage cover on my household , so carbon, titanium, and alloy frames in my house have a £50 excess for a new one. Saves all the hassle. By the way I ride all three materials and all are great for the jobs I bought them for.

    maddyutah
    Full Member

    The treks have lifetime warranty on frames.i think I will give the carbon a go
    Thanks for the answers
    Maddy

    Northwind
    Full Member

    jekkyl – Member

    from what I can see on this thread there is a few people saying in theory carbon is strong and durable and there is also a few people giving anecdotal (real experience) that it’s not so.

    Nah, you’re mistaking experience for theory- lots of us are using carbon and testing it daily and demonstrating it’s strong and durable.

    butterbean
    Free Member

    Aluminium & steel are more durable and easier and cheaper to repair.

    Not true. Apart from maybe the repair of steel. Repairing heat treated aluminium is not easy at all to do properly.

    from what I can see on this thread there is a few people saying in theory carbon is strong and durable and there is also a few people giving anecdotal (real experience) that it’s not so.

    There is an awful lot of people who ride bikes of all materials, with no issues & crash a lot. To assume carbon is weaker based on a scenario that could have broken any bike is silly.

    For one, carbon frames are only marginally lighter than Al Alloy when comparing like for like frames

    The SC Nomad Carbon is nearly 1.5lbs lighter than it’s alloy version, as is the Yeti SB66. That’s quite a lot.

    nedrapier
    Full Member

    from what I can see on this thread there is a few people saying in theory carbon is strong and durable and there is also a few people giving anecdotal (real experience) that it’s not so.

    From what I can see there’s unrepeatable anecdotal evidence of carbon breaking in crashes, leaving the reader no wiser in terms of how different materials might have fared in the same crash.

    Compared to repeatable, scientific, quantified tests involving aluminium and carbon side by side from a company with a vested interest in continued sales of both the models tested. Which show carbon more than cabable of standing up to the kind of stresses I’d want it to stand up to.

    No carbon frames here, but 2 carbon handlebars.

    mtbtomo
    Free Member

    Its just taken off the top layer of lacquer and cosmetic finish – not that bad as damage goes, but an example how they can look quite tatty very easily. Getting it resprayed or powder coated like you would if you wanted to revamp an alu frame is either not possible or very expensive.

    I helitaped the downtube on my Lapierre and 456C, plus all the other usual areas. Helitape might just have shrugged off the scrape. Can’t believe they can’t get a more durable finish straight from the factory. Or helitape them as standard.

    Anyhow I digress….

    eshershore
    Free Member

    coming at this from a different angle, I deal daily with warranty and crash replacement for a big brand in London, who sell both aluminium alloy and carbon fibre road bikes and mountain bikes.

    their frames have a limited lifetime warranty and lifetime crash replacement scheme (frame at cost) for original owners.

    I undertake warranty for customers who have not purchased their bike(s) from our centre, so see a lot of quantity coming through.. from many riders who have bought from many different dealers in the London area, or further afield (at times, from riders who purchased elsewhere using mail order, or have moved to London since purchasing)

    what I tend to see is more aluminium alloy frames that are often 3-5 years old, with cracks across welded junctions, often from fatigue rather than crash damage. we get the occasional aluminium frame with a large dent or crack caused by a catastrophic collision.

    at previous employers (selling many different brands) I have personally dealt with many aluminium alloy frames, both brand new and used, with poor frame alignment that causes gear/brake and handling issues.

    A good number of these have been post-crash, where the frame has bent. We have measurement tools and BS6102 stipulates specific tolerance ranges for these measurements, I have no problems rejecting poorly aligned frames using this information

    what I tend to see more with the carbon fibre frames of road and mountain varieties, are crash damaged items

    where the cyclist has hit a car (or been hit by a car), ridden into a lamp post or kerb edge, on the mountain bike frame impacted a rock or large tree. causing a impact fracture to the CF frame.

    I have generally found the alignment on the “big brand” C.F. frames to typically be less than 1mm, and anything outside of this is either a QC issue or a large impact that has compromised the frame’s structural strength which may not be visible to the surface.

    Some of the smaller brands C.F. QC alignment have been horrendous, and I’ve dealt with too many fake Chinese Ebay cloned frames that you simply cannot hope to build into a working bike!

    occasionally we see a crack caused by a manufacturing issue, usually around the BB area or a brake mount

    something I would say is that it seems that less experienced riders with lots of money are buying numbers of C.F. road bikes, and having frame failures caused by catastrophic impacts due to inexperienced road craft.

    one recent customer was found unconscious in Regent’s Park, and his road bike was in several pieces, with him having no recollection of the incident.

    I understand the engineering, manufacturing and QC issues behind aluminium alloy and carbon fibre / composite frames, and have no qualms in riding either material for both road and mountain use

    both my current bikes (road and mountain) are carbon fibre 😉

    pjm84
    Free Member

    You don’t work for Giant do you?

    pjm84
    Free Member

    Carbon frame failures to date:

    2x Isaac Force – Rear stay / rear chain stay
    1x Isaac Sonic – Seat tube above the front mech.
    1x Trek Madone – Bottom bracket shell
    1x Colnago Extreme Power(?)- Rear seat stay / drop out (drive side)
    1x Giant Advanced – Seat tube flex causing paint cracking

    Alloy

    1x Trek Top Fuel – Seat tube / top tube
    1x Kinesis Evo Cross – Chain stay

    So 6 to 2

    njee20
    Free Member

    but not harder to repair than carbon though?

    Yes, significantly, hence my point! Multiple companies repairing carbon these days, and most do a very good job!

    aracer
    Free Member

    2 bike frames, 1 alu 1 carbon, if you take a rock & smash it down as hard as you can on the downtube would you be confident that you wouldn’t make a hole on the carbon one. I would with the alu though.

    I’m quite confident that if you made a hole in the carbon one, you’d damage the alu one badly enough to write it off. Who cares if the alu one has no holes in if there’s a huge dent/fold in the tube?

    dobo
    Free Member

    I almost crashed into a tracker the other day, which XC frame is best for doing that with? or should i stick with my 6 year old scandium frame?
    im sure there were rumors of replacing a scandium frame every couple of years or something, its been great but ive replaced so many HT2 BB now that the thread has gone! dont matter though, you dont really need it..

Viewing 33 posts - 1 through 33 (of 33 total)

The topic ‘To carbon or not to carbon’ is closed to new replies.