Aluminium road bike comeback…?

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 103 total)
  • Aluminium road bike comeback…?
  • mrblobby
    Member

    theflatboy, yes, and it had a curious choice of seatpost if I remember correctly 😉

    PP, I can well believe that. With frames like the Aithein, CAAD10, Allez and Bowman about for not much more money than cheap carbon, I know which I’d rather have.

    Premier Icon njee20
    Subscriber

    That is odd. Same wheels?

    Yep! It’s not the flagship one either, there’s a Dura Ace Di2 one which is £5000, and can’t be full Dura Ace because it’s got Shimano Hydro discs, so must still have the R785 STIs. That still has the same (£350 wheels), but does have nicer bar and stem. Bit weird. The frames are available for £895, just doesn’t all add up.

    continuity
    Member

    I swear some of this “Cheap carbon vs expensive alu” shit is just snobbery and elitism.

    Yes, a brand new 2015 caad10 is a little lighter than a 2005 Scott Carbon road frame. But a modern say.. Cube Agree, or Canyon? In what way is it better – lighter? Stiffer? More impact resistant? On what basis is your argument made?

    TiRed
    Member

    That Propel is impressive. And I’ve just ordered an SL2 to replace the Advanced (RIP). But… the alloy TCR SLR never sold well at £1200, the CAAD10 is pretty much the last pro-spec alloy frame standing, and harder still, an ADVANCED level Propel or TCR can now be had (with alloy steerer tube) for the same price as the previous all alloy TCR.

    Giant have effectively removed the “Composite” line and started the “advanced” line at the same price. So whilst the picture is enticing, and those were £1350 wheels when I bought them for my Defy SL, I suspect that the propel will be targeting CAAD8 buyers and the like in the £500-£1000 price range. It probably won’t come with those wheels either. But what a first-time race bike 😯 . Or spare…

    mtbtomo
    Member

    I always feel a bit hard done to if they hide away an alloy steerer inside the frame. You can always upgrade components but its harder to upgrade a fork in the same design to get a carbon steerer at a later date.

    Carbon is definitely a bit smoother over the bumps but I race aluminium cos it feels a bit sharper. And the thought of scrapping a carbon frame in the crashes I see at virtually every race keeps me away from buying one for now….

    mtbtomo
    Member

    When is that alloy Propel due out?

    TiRed
    Member

    I always feel a bit hard done to if they hide away an alloy steerer inside the frame

    I agree. I upgraded my alloy TCR with alloy steerer to a fully carbon Ritchey fork and the improvement was impressive.

    Buy you can’t argue with the value Giant are delivering by splitting the range and adding an alloy option (note the standard not aero brakes to save money). Would make a fine winter race bike. I’m blown away. Says up for 2016, but it might not cone to the uk, of course.

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Subscriber

    Yes, a brand new 2015 caad10 is a little lighter than a 2005 Scott Carbon road frame. But a modern say.. Cube Agree, or Canyon? In what way is it better – lighter? Stiffer? More impact resistant? On what basis is your argument made?

    I’ve a Caad4 from 2004/5, having demo’d a few of the carbon bikes that make up the top places of most grouptests you’re kidding yourself if you think things are really moving on so far/fast. The best were better [mostly a bit stiffer, noticeably under hard braking] but if you rode them blindfold you’d struggle to say the CAAD4 was worse, especialy if you considder it was an £800 bike with tiagra when i bought it, not some £5k+ superbike.

    mrblobby
    Member

    Looking forward to seeing what they do with the new Trinity now, I could well be tempted.

    Yes, a brand new 2015 caad10 is a little lighter than a 2005 Scott Carbon road frame. But a modern say.. Cube Agree, or Canyon? In what way is it better – lighter? Stiffer? More impact resistant? On what basis is your argument made?

    I would definitely not put Canyon or Cube in the “cheap carbon” bracket!

    Loving this thread so far.

    Agree that the horizontal top tube on the CAAD makes all the difference aesthetically.

    What was max tyre clearance on the Bowman? Was it 25?

    Liking the look of their Pilgrim as well.

    mrblobby
    Member

    Re Bowman, not so much the Pilgrim but definitely looking at the Crays Foot for a CX race bike.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    I have one eye on the new Mason alu bike. If it rides like they review, looks better value than similar Ti frames.

    I swear some of this “Cheap carbon vs expensive alu” shit is just snobbery and elitism.

    You could have just read the thread, 2 or 3 posts up there’s a post explaining exactly why.

    Yes, a brand new 2015 caad10 is a little lighter than a 2005 Scott Carbon road frame. But a modern say.. Cube Agree, or Canyon? In what way is it better – lighter? Stiffer? More impact resistant? On what basis is your argument made?

    Why you comparing it to a Scott 😕 Hardly bottom end are they? Again, if only you’d have just read the thread instead of getting a bit ranty.

    Is there a price on the alu Propel yet? It makes a lot more sense as a frame only (if the price is right) IMO, aim it at the weekend crit racers who already have expensive wheels and other bits of groupset already.

    theflatboy
    Member

    Swedish – Bowman Palace has clearance for 28, I’ve got 25s in mine and there’s definitely space for larger (though still with the annoying problem I mentioned in the other thread of the wheel not fitting past the chainstay bridge with the tyre inflated 😡 😆 )

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    Yup.
    Because they’re probably better.

    could well be, but I was pointing out the difference in price – so an unfair comparison – and was asking how the more expensive PX offerings compared to the ali bikes from the big companies. What was the PX frame you tested? They do a range and smartweld seems to be a pricey frame. dunno about boardman.

    Like I said I have no vested interest, just seems disingenuous to compare 2 differently priced items* and then say the more expensive one is better.

    I swear some of this “Cheap carbon vs expensive alu” shit is just snobbery and elitism.

    well….I’m not likely to be in the market for carbon frame popped out of a mould with a mass market makers name decal placed on it. on the surface, sounds like it’s in that ball park.

    *if that’s what is happening, it’s not clear so far.

    Thanks, not quite sure of the logic why it doesn’t fit when inflated but interesting to know that I could fit 27mm Vittoria Pavé’s.

    continuity
    Member

    I would definitely not put Canyon or Cube in the “cheap carbon” bracket!

    Why you comparing it to a Scott Hardly bottom end are they? Again, if only you’d have just read the thread instead of getting a bit ranty

    A Cannondale SuperSix EVO 105 is the same price as a Cannondale CAAD10 105. Which is about the same price as a Cube Agree GTC SL.

    A few weeks ago there were Scott CR1 Framesets going for sub 500. Ribble’s R872 is just over 400 quid.

    Yes, Planet X’s cheapest road frame isn’t as stiff as a CAAD10. Whoop-de-do. Big news. But you didn’t turn down a PX for a CAAD10, you turned down a SuperSix.

    Sorry, I still think a good chunk of it is elitism.

    You can throw the “But I don’t want to crash carbon” argument out also – it’s an argument that’s been time-and-again proven to be codswallop. Carbon is strong.

    . But you didn’t turn down a PX for a CAAD10, you turned down a SuperSix.

    Having ridden both I’d take a CAAD10 over a SuperSix any day, nothing to do with reverse snobbery, but all to do with performance.

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Subscriber

    A Cannondale SuperSix EVO 105 is the same price as a Cannondale CAAD10 105. Which is about the same price as a Cube Agree GTC SL.

    You do spanner your own argument there, how is aluminium elitist when it’s cheaper than all but the cheapest carbon, and as most people who’ve ridden both are saying, the aluminium frames are their favourite of the choices.

    If anything it’s pleb-ist, everyones saying the cheap options better.

    And in a lot of cases it’s people ” turning down” much more expensive carbon bikes, nothing to do with strength in a crash, everything to do with wanting the best frame they can get their mitts on and still afford a replacement if/when needed.

    Premier Icon Del
    Subscriber

    ‘laterally stiff yet vertically compliant’. does the wheelbase effectively grow?
    so what happens when you’re out of the saddle, pushing pedals and pulling on bars?
    i’ve never really seen how this was advantageous? surely it just means that you’re pi55ing away effort?

    To my understanding:

    laterally stiff = the frame not moving left to right under pedaling, therefore no wasted power as everything is going via the drivetrain to propel you forward

    vertically compliant = the fame giving to absorb road vibrations, (think Trek Domane Isopeed as the extreme example)

    Premier Icon Del
    Subscriber

    what stops the bits that flex to make the frame comfy from flexing when you’re trying to propel the thing along?

    In plastic frames its the layup/weave direction of the actual carbon, as well as the amount used.

    In steel/ali frames I assume it to be the wall thickness.

    Premier Icon Del
    Subscriber

    LOL at bigdug

    you push down on the pedals when you want it to go. how does the frame know that it’s not supposed to absorb the effort?

    Rockplough
    Member

    Having ridden both I’d take a CAAD10 over a SuperSix any day, nothing to do with reverse snobbery, but all to do with performance preference.

    Having ridden both I took a SuperSix. If I was a racer I’d have taken the CAAD10 for crashes.

    continuity
    Member

    Having ridden both I’d take a CAAD10 over a SuperSix any day, nothing to do with reverse snobbery, but all to do with performance.

    I’ve also ridden both – and I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Let’s not split hairs – the CAAD10 was great. But the SuperSix was marginally lighter more responsive AND more comfortable. And it was the same price (cheaper when I was looking). A quick google read shows the argument mostly comes down to preference, with most people who say they have had them choosing the supersix in the end.

    You do spanner your own argument there, how is aluminium elitist when it’s cheaper than all but the cheapest carbon, and as most people who’ve ridden both are saying, the aluminium frames are their favourite of the choices.

    If anything it’s pleb-ist, everyones saying the cheap options better.

    And in a lot of cases it’s people ” turning down” much more expensive carbon bikes, nothing to do with strength in a crash, everything to do with wanting the best frame they can get their mitts on and still afford a replacement if/when needed.

    You seem to be confused. If a CAAD10 is the same price as a SuperSix and an Agree GTC SL, how is it cheaper than all but the cheapest carbon?

    SuperSix’s have been proven to be just about the stiffest carbon frames around. They are quality carbon, not cheap carbon.

    People aren’t saying the cheap option’s better. They’re saying “Look at me, I’m special because I don’t have another run of the mill good quality carbon frame, instead I paid exactly the same for a heavier, weaker, harsher riding frame”.

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Subscriber

    Re: vertical compliance and latteral stiffness:

    When you mash on the pedals you apply tension to the chain which is about 3x the pedaling force, so ignore the effect of your weight on the pedals. The chain is offset 50mm or so to the right so tends to twist the rear triangle that way, so its made stiff to resist this. Its also about 75mm above the BB so puts strain on the chainstays upwards, but then theyre braced by the seatstays which are about 50cm up so have a much greater leverage over chainstays vertical movement than the chain. But an impact from the road is acting directly onto the seatstays so does have enough force to noticeably deflect them.

    In addition to this the front triangle is flexing. A large downtube holds the BB and headtube in alignment by resisting twist but can do little to avoid bending, so a skinny top tube takes that impact from the seatstaya and bends as well, further adding to the feeling of vertical compliance some frames have. Ultimately what you want is a really stiff headtube, downtube and chainstays, and skinny seatstays and toptube. The seatube adds to comfort (but not vertical flex) by deflecting due to the leverage of the seatpost.

    [Quote]People aren’t saying the cheap option’s better. They’re saying “Look at me, I’m special because I don’t have another run of the mill good quality carbon frame, instead I paid exactly the same for a heavier, weaker, harsher riding frame”.[/quote] except theyre not the same price, the supersix is £300 more than the caad withe the ultegra spec.

    Its cheaper and people are arguing they still prefer it. And the supersix evo this year isnt the same as laat years, its not the hi-mod balis-tec £2000+ sub 900g frame, its still the bog standard carbon supersix.

    Premier Icon jameso
    Subscriber

    you push down on the pedals when you want it to go. how does the frame know that it’s not supposed to absorb the effort?

    It doesn’t really absorb it. It deflects and it’ll spring back, so you don’t loose energy. Really flexy-springy frames aren’t necessarily unefficient, they just deliver the power in a less direct way. Roadies like instant responses because it feels faster, you get into a feedback loop of feeling fast and going fast and it’s the opposite of an equally efficient but much more sedate feeing springy touring frame. Not much difference in actual power efficiency though.

    Merckx and Hinault did ok on skinny steel tubes. Ever see that old video of Hinault launching up the lower ramps of Alpe d’Huez in the big ring? I’d probably call those frames whippy but I couldn’t blame them for ‘loss of power’ : )

    I think we need a bit of give and flex over the bumps to be able to put out power effectively. Frames don’t give vertically at the back unless they’re un-triangulated. Front ‘triangles’ aren’t always triangles and a vertical load or front end force can create some vertical flex, only a few mm. Watch a frame on a CEN / ISO test and you’ll see a lot more though.
    Front triangle twist is probably most of the flex we feel when riding, imo.

    And this is clearly why manufacturers provide us consumers with so much choice.

    To me the Super Six was tepid to ride providing no response apart from excessive vibrations. The front fork suffered from massive chatter too, but I’m pretty certain that was set up and not the bikes design at fault. Whilst the CAAD was pretty much the opposite, involving and full of positive feedback.

    You pays your money you takes your choice.

    theflatboy
    Member

    continuity – Member

    People aren’t saying the cheap option’s better. They’re saying “Look at me, I’m special because I don’t have another run of the mill good quality carbon frame, instead I paid exactly the same for a heavier, weaker, harsher riding frame”.

    Aren’t people just expressing a personal choice? You seem to be getting more worked up about it than anyone else here… 😕

    I’m building up a Caad 10 tomorrow and a cheap carbon frame.

    Should be interesting to compare.

    mtbtomo
    Member

    Carbon on road bikes is strong to ride but not in a crash – having seen it go snap I a shunt in a poxy 25 minute local crit. Lightweight alu is probably no stronger though.

    Carbon does mute the bumps though. Alu feels sharper but a bit note rattley over the bumps.

    mtbtomo
    Member

    Carbon on road bikes is strong to ride but not in a crash – having seen it go snap in a shunt in a poxy 25 minute local crit. Lightweight alu is probably no stronger though.

    Carbon does mute the bumps though. Alu feels sharper but a bit note rattley over the bumps.

    I recently switched components from an alu Defy to a Caad10 frame. Really pleased with the results.

    I thought about cheap carbon, but knowing a bit about composite construction I know cheap carbon is a lot of glue (plastic) with some carbon holding it together, unlike expensive carbon which is about lot’s of carbon with the minimum amount of glue holding it together.

    Based on this I bought a built for purpose race frame and it works great. Very snappy response when you need to jump onto an attack. Stiff and reliable through super fast turns, and a high BB that allows you to peddle through tight corners.
    Everyone is so obsessed with comfort and weight, they forget things like peddling through corners. A top end race alu frame has evolved for the purpose, a cheap carbon frame has been made to appeal to the masses and made fast, without a history behind it.

    That’s my opinion anyway.

    continuity
    Member

    History is it then? That’s why I only shop at Harvey nicks darling, to avoid these bloody nouveaux riche types!

    Jest aside.

    Yes this years ultegra supersix is 10-15% more expensive than the caad. No that is not the only good quality carbon frame that can be had for less money than a bowman palace or a caad10.

    If it’s money that’s the issue, I mean which rides better, a palace with aksiums or a r872 with rs81 c24’s?

    I mean, yes, I am enjoying playing devils advocate in a silly argument, and yes I agree that some top end aluminium frames can ride better, be stiffer and lighter than some shit cheap carbon frames, but in a like for like comparison I think you guys have to admit that you’re not choosing the Alu frame for rational reasons.

    mtbtomo
    Member

    A lot of bikes are chosen for non rational reasons. Why choose steel????

    There is a difference in ride between alloy and carbon (cheap or not), and why do people have to prefer the ride feel of carbon??

    They don’t.

    continuity
    Member

    mtbtomo – Member
    A lot of bikes are chosen for non rational reasons. Why choose steel????
    There is a difference in ride between alloy and carbon (cheap or not), and why do people have to prefer the ride feel of carbon??
    They don’t.
    POSTED 7 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

    That’s totally fine – I agree – i wasn’t arguing that you shouldn’t ride aluminium, just that it’s wrong to tell people ‘it’s lighter faster and stronger in a equal price comparison’.

    I mean, plenty of people out there enjoy paying to be chained up and abused by a lady in black leather – but it isn’t for me.

    That said – I have a steel adventures touring bike because steel is easy to weld if something breaks in the arse end of nowhere.

    Premier Icon chakaping
    Subscriber

    So are we all agreed then? Expensive aluminium is different to cheap carbon and some may prefer it? Especially if they expect to crash.

    We should certainly be able to agree that it’s very fashionable anyway.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 103 total)

The topic ‘Aluminium road bike comeback…?’ is closed to new replies.