Carbon Bike

yessam

I have been a member of a cycling club for the last six months.
We are a cycling club - as in NOT a racing club.

I see a lot of cyclists in my club are changing to carbon bikes.

The main advantage I am hearing is that they a lighter than the aluminum bikes.

Is there other advantages to these bikes.

I often wonder if the cyclist was to loose the equivalent weight difference of the two bikes would the cyclist have the same advantage.

denbatt

Made to carbon jump myself 5 months ago. Can definitely say the ol carbon is more comfortable on the road for sure. Seems to absorb the bumbs a bit better imo. Can't say as an amateur if I notice huge difference when climbing or anything. But the handling seems so much more snappy and I gotta say I enjoy riding it more.

gman2k

Having a heavier bike will make you a better cyclist, as you'll have to work harder to get up the hills.
It will also have the benefit of making you a wolf in sheeps clothing, as others will presume you are rubbish based on bike image.
Finally there is the inverted snobbery element of being able to look down on those with the "plastic bikes"
Enjoy!

Chips Lovell

Generally speaking, carbon makes for a nicer ride than aluminium. I stress the word generally, because you can make a stiff as bejaysus, teeth-rattling carbon bike if you want to.

If I had to chose one bike for all round leisure riding/training, I'd pick a mid range carbon frame.

conkennedy

Full carbon here, I concur with denbatt & Vladimir.

Carbon feels more 'springy' if you know what I mean?!

rollingscone

Have an Alu bike but have worked on a couple of CF bikes now and as much as I could test ride bikes that were too small for me they definitely handled nicely and not super aggressively and having benefited from a Carbon Stem on my Alu roadbikes I can testify at least in part for the road buzz absorption qualities.

As Vlad said, there is no one "Carbon bike" there are ultra light agressive Race oriented bikes and then there are more relaxed Sportive and Audax oriented bikes, just like with Alu or Steel it comes down to the design and intent of the bike, the frame material is just one factor, and there are some CF bikes that weigh more than some Alu framed bikes because they're built for comfort above all.

It's more important to look for a bike that suits the kind of riding you want to do and that you love (and therefore are more likely to get out on), do you need a CF bike? No. Would you maybe fall in love with one and end up being a better (Not saying competitive, just better)Cyclist because of it, almost certainly yes.

I'm pretty sure I'll never race (Waaaaay too cowardly) but I aim to get a CF bike with a midrange (105 or Centaur) groupset and a relatively Audax friendly geomettry as soon as I can afford to.

shaka

Been on alu for along time and have resisted going to carbon . had planned to build to build my own but ended up ordering a complete new bike before Xmas

ive ridden a few different carbons belong to friends and clubmates and some can be less comfy than alu particularly some of the aero frames which I found bone shakers but some were noticeably smoother on the rough roads around me.

yessam

Is it fair to say the Carbon bikes are more for comfort rather than less weight.

shaka

Think it depends on the carbon and set up , for example Giant TCRs are stiffer than Defys so would be a little harsher but better for laying down power onto the road. Defys are actually lighter but with more upright seating position for long days in the saddle and are good at climbing.

Trek , felt, BMC etc all do carbons with a more relaxed seating position where the head tube would be less aggressive.

shaka

Think it depends on the carbon and set up , for example Giant TCRs are stiffer than Defys so would be a little harsher but better for laying down power onto the road. Defys are actually lighter but with more upright seating position for long days in the saddle and are good at climbing.

Trek , felt, BMC etc all do carbons with a more relaxed seating position where the head tube would be less aggressive.

gman2k

yessam wrote: »

Is it fair to say the Carbon bikes are more for comfort rather than less weight.

No.
Carbon frames were introduced initially for weight saving purposes.
They were then claimed to be stiffer.
They were then claimed to be more resistant to road buzz.
They were then claimed to be more comfortable.
They were then claimed to be more aerodynamic.
Every year the manufacturers introduce a new model that is lighter, stiffer, more comfortable and more aero than last years model.
You can now get an alloy frame lighter than many carbon models.
You can get a steel frame lighter than many alum models.
You can get a relatively heavy carbon frame (1500g) and you can get a very light carbon frame (sub 800g).
Don't believe all the hype/ reviews in the comics, whose business model is to sell the advertising of the products they are reviewing.

Briando

yessam wrote: »

I often wonder if the cyclist was to loose the equivalent weight difference of the two bikes would the cyclist have the same advantage.

Yes you would. If you lost the equivalent weight and also got a lighter carbon bike then you'd really be flying.

I've both carbon and aluminum bikes, the carbon bike feels a lot more responsive even though I ride use the same pair of (training) wheels on both.

jackstaff

I'm a novice and went from a alu specialized frame to a giant tcr composite and what I've noticed is the vibration on rough road is less leading to an all round smoother ride no nitrous button , flexing, bending, just nicer to ride

elnino23

Has Anyone any experience of Canyon? I'm moving up to a carbon bike after a year on a alu bike which has me hooked. Nothing around seems to have as good a spec as the Canyon for the same money. tricky when you can't see one in the flesh tho. any opinions?

Raam

Loads of folk have em. Good bikes. I don't have one though.

Seweryn

yessam wrote: »

Is it fair to say the Carbon bikes are more for comfort rather than less weight.

No.
You can get more comfortable alloy frame bike, depends what tyres you put on at what pressure. This alone has more impact on comfort than the frame material, if you compare like for like.

Max_Charger

elnino23 wrote: »

Nothing around seems to have as good a spec as the Canyon for the same money.

Have a look at the Planet X website, particularly the RT57 and RT58.

denbatt

elnino23 wrote: »

Has Anyone any experience of Canyon? I'm moving up to a carbon bike after a year on a alu bike which has me hooked. Nothing around seems to have as good a spec as the Canyon for the same money. tricky when you can't see one in the flesh tho. any opinions?

Have you looked at Rose? I opted for one over a canyon last year.

furiousox

elnino23 wrote: »

Has Anyone any experience of Canyon? I'm moving up to a carbon bike after a year on a alu bike which has me hooked. Nothing around seems to have as good a spec as the Canyon for the same money. tricky when you can't see one in the flesh tho. any opinions?

I had a carbon Canyon until last year.
Very responsive and fast, but as stiff as a very stiff thing.
I sold it because I felt it was a tiring and harsh ride.
Probably an ideal bike for racing but I don't race so I sold it and bought a more 'relaxed' bike (Felt Z5) which is not as quick but I don't feel shook to pieces after a spin.

Murph100

I got a Cannondale CAAD 10 ( for a bargain ) as a winter bike in 2012, expecting it to be crap compared to my expensive German carbon job ... NOPE every bit as good, 1/4 the price, almost as stiff, and actually more comfy & stable. So much so I didn't even bother to use the expensive German plastic one last year !

Currently rolling along on 25s for the winter, happy as a pig in sh1te ( couldn't even fit 25s on the German ! )

Bottom line, there are some really good Alu bikes out there that would put a LOT of carbon frames to shame.

Ride it before you buy it ... oh man, should be the motto for life in general !! :roll eyes:

Seweryn

Murph100 wrote: »

I got a Cannondale CAAD 10 ( for a bargain ) as a winter bike in 2012, expecting it to be crap compared to my expensive German carbon job ... NOPE every bit as good, 1/4 the price, almost as stiff, and actually more comfy & stable. So much so I didn't even bother to use the expensive German plastic one last year !

Currently rolling along on 25s for the winter, happy as a pig in sh1te ( couldn't even fit 25s on the German ! )

Bottom line, there are some really good Alu bikes out there that would put a LOT of carbon frames to shame.

Ride it before you buy it ... oh man, should be the motto for life in general !! :roll eyes:

Same here...

Bought a SuperSix as my first road bike and when the winter came, got a CAAD 10. That was October 2011. Since then, the CF frame was never on the road again, as the alu bike is as good in every way plus it looks better.

But people here usually compare quite different CF bikes to different alu bikes, so it is apples with oranges comparison.

elnino23

Max_Charger wrote: »

Have a look at the Planet X website, particularly the RT57 and RT58.

Just had a look, Wow impressive price! Have you bought one though? first look for reviews indicates a few very unhappy people. I know from my own job reviews are usually extremes

Max_Charger

elnino23 wrote: »

Just had a look, Wow impressive price! Have you bought one though? first look for reviews indicates a few very unhappy people. I know from my own job reviews are usually extremes

I've my finger over the buy button for the RT58, like you I was looking at canyon but then saw the spec for the price on the planet x and don't think it can be beaten tbh. The only bad thing said about it that I can find is that the paint chips easily, but that was someones own opinion, who knows what he hit. Can only see positive reviews, can't see any bad ones?

elnino23

Just had a conversation with a friend about them, two guys he knows both have them and they are happy enough as they don't do many miles but they said the build quality is poor on the frame. You would probably expect that with the spec of groups set and the price so low. Full carbon Frame effectively costing 900 ish. if i was going the planet x id get the N2a but I think the reputation Canyon has is worth paying slightly more. Theres a reason two pro teams ride them! Sticking with the Canyon I think. haven't heard a single bad word and the after sales service is apparently world class apparently the planet x after sales is patchy.

BadCharlie

elnino23 wrote: »

Has Anyone any experience of Canyon? I'm moving up to a carbon bike after a year on a alu bike which has me hooked. Nothing around seems to have as good a spec as the Canyon for the same money. tricky when you can't see one in the flesh tho. any opinions?

Have a alu canyon with di2. Find it very good. If your based around waterford city you can take a look.

elnino23

Thanks for the offer down in Cork and have a busy few weeks. Think Im set on the aeroad cf 7.0.

yessam

My first bike was an alu Trek. I am very happy with it.

Is the Carbon Trek as good a bike as the other brands.

I think Trek is a bit more expensive but are they worth it

Lumen

yessam wrote: »

I think Trek is a bit more expensive but are they worth it

Some people like them, others don't. They're certainly not bad bikes, but for the same money you can buy less prestigious brands which arguably offer more bang for buck.

Like anything else really.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Lumen wrote: »

Some people like them, others don't. They're certainly not bad bikes, but for the same money you can buy less prestigious brands which arguably offer more bang for buck.

Like anything else really.

I wouldnt consider Trek a prestigious brand, I'd actually consider it the yellow pack of the cycling world. I know they're good bikes but their bland and subdued colour/paint schemes, and a font which looks like it was devised on MS Word really let's them down. I wouldn't even consider one no matter how good it was supposed to be.

shaka

CJC999 wrote: »

I wouldnt consider Trek a prestigious brand, I'd actually consider it the yellow pack of the cycling world. I know they're good bikes but their bland and subdued colour/paint schemes, and a font which looks like it was devised on MS Word really let's them down. I wouldn't even consider one no matter how good it was supposed to be.

Yellow pack infers inferior quality which I don't agree with . i think your right about some of the color schemes in the past but I think they have copped on abit and are offering custom paint jobs at the lower to middle range carbon bikes but I still think they are overpriced.

I'm easily pleased aesthetically , the current fashion in black stealthy bikes suits me well. Saying that when ordering my latest bike comfort was one of the biggest considerations I had due to a serious back injury I have been carrying. The fact that it came in black was a bonus:)

yessam

shaka wrote: »

Yellow pack infers inferior quality which I don't agree with . i think your right about some of the color schemes in the past but I think they have copped on abit and are offering custom paint jobs at the lower to middle range carbon bikes but I still think they are overpriced.

I'm easily pleased aesthetically , the current fashion in black stealthy bikes suits me well. Saying that when ordering my latest bike comfort was one of the biggest considerations I had due to a serious back injury I have been carrying. The fact that it came in black was a bonus:)

Which bike from the Trek range did you buy

shaka

yessam wrote: »

Which bike from the Trek range did you buy

I have two treks , a road and MTB both alu.

I tried a number of brands , trek,felt,Scott,willier,Dolan and Giant and settled on the defy advanced. I nearly bought a felt Z 3or4 around Xmas that was on offer from wiggle but didn't pull the trigger in the end.

For me with my back problems an endurance position coupled with good road damping was the most important thing