Do all professional cyclists race using carbon bikes ?

MungoMan

I cant find information about this on the internet.
I know Lance won at least 6 Tours on a Carbon bike (maybe the first victory wasnt carbon ?)
And I know Mark Cavandish rides a Carbon

Are there any professionals who ride Aluminium, Titanium or Steel ?

Chips Lovell

They all ride carbon with one or two exceptions. Philippe Gilbert was riding aluminium Canyons last year, but seems to be on carbon so far this year. Danilo Di Luca insisted on riding aluminium frames for a long time as well, but is on carbon know. Ballan rode Paris - Roubaix a few years back on a steel frame.

penexpers

Didn't Boonen win Paris-Roubaix on an Alu Specialized a couple of years back?

Chips Lovell

penexpers wrote: »

Didn't Boonen win Paris-Roubaix on an Alu Specialized a couple of years back?

2009? No, he was on a custom carbon. He was riding an old aluminium frame earlier that year because all the off the peg Specializeds gave him back problems. They had to make new frames for him.

thebouldwhacker

I did a quick search but coun't find an experiment where pro's were given a steel racer, rode a course and then repeated on a modern carbon and the times were (unsurprisingly close.
Not sure who posted it but I read it on a thread here, perhaps last year?
Would be a good addition to this thread....

Chips Lovell

here you go.

MungoMan

el tonto wrote: »

here you go.

yeah from the article, clearly a modern high spec carbon bike performs a lot better than a 1983 steel bike in every way. It's lighter, a little faster, stiffer, and easier to control.

A 2011 highly optimised steel bike would obviously perform a lot better than a 1983 steel bike....but they obviously dont match the carbon, or else some pros would use them I guess.

blorg

AFAIK there have not been massive changes in steel tech since 1983.

Everyone is on carbon for a reason.

Lumen

MungoMan wrote: »

A 2011 highly optimised steel bike would obviously perform a lot better than a 1983 steel bike

Particularly if you put a carbon fork on it.

Morrisseeee

FYP :

I know Lance won at least 7 Tours on 'da sauce'

:D

Ciaran500

blorg wrote: »

AFAIK there have not been massive changes in steel tech since 1983.

There would of been massive changes in the design and manufacturing tech which would help shave weight and add stiffness to designs.

blorg

Ciaran500 wrote: »

There would of been massive changes in the design and manufacturing tech which would help shave weight and add stiffness to designs.

I don't doubt there were changes, steel was still used through the 80s. Not anywhere near carbon though. A modern top-end steel bike would be closer to a top-end steel bike from 1983 than it would be to a modern top-end carbon bike. IMO.

Lumen

Ciaran500 wrote: »

There would of been massive changes in the design and manufacturing tech which would help shave weight and add stiffness to designs.

Well, possbly.

However, since a completely ordinary (from a pro perspective) carbon frameset weighs around 1250g (including fork, BB, and sundry hardware) and is both super-stiff and comfortable you'd have to question why anyone would bother with steel from a functional perspective. You're not going to get close to that without using so much fancy materials technology that the costs far exceeds that of the cheap carbon equivalents, and therefore there would no market for it.

Even if it was possible to make an aeroplane out of cheese, why would anyone bother?

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Even if it was possible to make an aeroplane out of cheese, why would anyone bother?

What kind of cheese?

feck sake lads

i still have my raleigh 753 pro frame must be 28 years old now and still as good as any top carbon bike.;)
anyway dosent the mavic car with spare bikes for all teams use ti all painted yellow.

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

Even if it was possible to make an aeroplane out of cheese, why would anyone bother?

Fair point, but imagine a bike made of cake...

ednwireland

feck sake lads wrote: »

i still have my raleigh 753 pro frame must be 28 years old now and still as good as any top carbon bike.;)
anyway dosent the mavic car with spare bikes for all teams use ti all painted yellow.

i have a 25 year old columbus sl frame and no way would i build it up and ride it i'd rather not see my forks flex every time i brake and watch the bottom bracket move on every out of the saddle effort

i'll stick with carbon (and my other steel bike oh and my aluminium mtb)

feck sake lads

ednwireland wrote: »

i have a 25 year old columbus sl frame and no way would i build it up and ride it i'd rather not see my forks flex every time i brake and watch the bottom bracket move on every out of the saddle effort

i'll stick with carbon (and my other steel bike oh and my aluminium mtb)

i have three bikes one touring one full carbon, sold my bianchi last year aluminum .my Raleigh would stand up to any of the bike i own at present .
when my son sold his top of the range trek madone couple months back, he started using my raleigh never ridden it before, he could not believe the ride reckoned it was every bit as good as his trek.
the raleigh was the ultimate road bike in its day well the reynolds 753 tubing was only made by the finest bike builders sure knew how to make a bike .
if i knew how to post a photo of it i would .:D:D

ba

ages ago now i saw cyclingnews or bikeradar present Dan Cravens (rapha condor) bike, which was steel. apparently he favors steel over carbon. found an image, but yet to find the article...which might explain his reasons for bucking the carbon trend.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_59gUEMCykpA/TItTPaCi7EI/AAAAAAAAB_M/GSzqc0WXtsY/s1600/Side-Shot.jpg

kumate_champ07

I would love to see a well designed Reynolds '953OS Pro' frame. Mercian would charge £1100 maybe

I have a reynolds 531SL track frame and its feather light, its 60cm and lighter than a 57cm Columbus SLX road frame.

Carbon has the edge because its easier to shape for aero&stiffness but I dont see myself owning a carbon frame in the near future.

gman2k

ednwireland wrote: »

i have a 25 year old columbus sl frame and no way would i build it up and ride it i'd rather not see my forks flex every time i brake and watch the bottom bracket move on every out of the saddle effort

i'll stick with carbon (and my other steel bike oh and my aluminium mtb)

Ok, I'll take it!;)

petethedrummer

Magnus Backstedt won Paris-Roubaix on a titanium Bianchi and only used one frame for that entire season.

Gasco

I'm sure I read somewhere that LA used a rebadged Litespeed in his early Tour victories.

blorg

Gasco wrote: »

I'm sure I read somewhere that LA used a rebadged Litespeed in his early Tour victories.

He did, but just for the time trials.

MungoMan

feck sake lads wrote: »

when my son sold his top of the range trek madone couple months back, he started using my raleigh never ridden it before, he could not believe the ride reckoned it was every bit as good as his trek.

In what way did your son think the steel Raleigh bike was as good as the Madone ?
The steel bike would be a few kilos heavier, it wouldnt be as stiff or as easy to control, and you might have to work it a small bit harder to get the same output.

Is it on a comfort level that the steel Raleigh matches (or exceeds) the Madone ?.......I certainly believe its probably more comfortable. There is also the nostalgia factor, I love riding an old steel frame Reynolds tubing bike which I use the odd time, I like the thought that something old still works as good as it did 25 years ago.

feck sake lads

MungoMan wrote: »

In what way did your son think the steel Raleigh bike was as good as the Madone ?
The steel bike would be a few kilos heavier, it wouldnt be as stiff or as easy to control, and you might have to work it a small bit harder to get the same output.

Is it on a comfort level that the steel Raleigh matches (or exceeds) the Madone ?.......I certainly believe its probably more comfortable. There is also the nostalgia factor, I love riding an old steel frame Reynolds tubing bike which I use the odd time, I like the thought that something old still works as good as it did 25 years ago.

mungo MAn i'm no way technical but i can tell you theres not that much difference in weight and it's still a very lively bike providing the right pilot is on her:D. i heard sean kelly say one time on tv that a good steel was every bit as good as the modern bikes .but if you need a proper answer maybe mr google would be the way to go ,don't mean to be smart on that.;)

kumate_champ07

MungoMan wrote: »

In what way did your son think the steel Raleigh bike was as good as the Madone ?
The steel bike would be a few kilos heavier, it wouldnt be as stiff or as easy to control, and you might have to work it a small bit harder to get the same output.

Is it on a comfort level that the steel Raleigh matches (or exceeds) the Madone ?.......I certainly believe its probably more comfortable. There is also the nostalgia factor, I love riding an old steel frame Reynolds tubing bike which I use the odd time, I like the thought that something old still works as good as it did 25 years ago.

not necessarily

531

In answer to the original question, the pros will ride what they are paid to ride. Carbon bikes are most expensive and, I assume, make the manufacturers the most profit, so..........

el tel

Scandium didn't seem to reach the heights it was supposed to.

rattur

Just read about wooden bikes Audi is making:)

And would like to see some pros on bambus bikes