Canyon AL vs Canyon CF : Comfort!

velo.2010

I would like to know if anyone has ridden both/owns both an Aluminium AL model Canyon and a Carbon CF model. Is there a difference comfort wise as both are known to be stiff. For the record, I've been riding an AL for 3 years. Its light and stiff regarding power transfer both it does transmit EVERY bump in the road.

Any feedback (and a loan to maybe buy a carbon bike;)) would be appreciated!

furiousox

Innaresting....
Never sat on the AL but I had a 2009 Canyon UCF which I always felt to be quick, but stiff and uncomfortable.
I sold it and bought a Felt Z5 which I thought might give me a better balance of speed and comfort.
I quickly realised that the Felt was a bit too relaxed, tall and upright for my needs.
In my continuing quest for speed and comfort I sold the Felt and bought a Scott CR1.
The Scott turned out to be a very decent blend of speed mixed with all day comfort but was still missing that little bit of zip and excitement sometimes.
I was in the market for another bike recently and a 2013 Canyon UCF came up on the Canyon factory outlet with a hefty discount....SOLD!
I still have the CR1 but the Canyon is just as I remember it...
Instant power transfer, very agile, feels alive, stiff, but not as uncomfortable as I thought.
On my first shakedown spin (and I haven't fitted my preferred Ksyrium SLs with 25mm Veloflex tyres and latex tubes yet) I hit some 'personal best' times on Strava.
I considered other purchases (almost went for a Cannondale Supersix) but I felt I'd always be wondering how they might compare to the Canyon.
I've owned a good few bikes and the Canyon UCF is definitely the fastest (going by power transfer) I've ever owned.
Won't be changing anytime soon and you're welcome to try my UCF if you want to compare to the AL.

Statler

Have both, a Canyon AL 2011, and a Canyon CF SLX 2011. Bearing in mind that the groupset and wheels on the CF are better, I'd say the CF feels stiffer and more responsive and rides better. Having said that if I stuck the groupset and wheels from the CF onto the AL I'm sure it would make a huge difference.
Long story short the CF is definitely the better frame.

velo.2010

Thanks for the replies!
@Statler, I take it that 'rides better' means you find the CF more comfortable to ride than the AL?

Statler

Both frames have identical geometry and I've them set up exactly the same so not sure if I'd say one is more 'comfortable' than the other. The CF feels more responsive, and handles better, in that regard I'd probably say yes, it is more comfortable, but bear in mind the groupset and wheels are higher end than the AL frame. I'll be buying a new 'good' bike next spring so will probably be taking the groupset from the CF and putting it on the AL this winter, I'm curious to see how this affects the handling/ feel of the AL.
There's an interesting discussion over on the Tri forum about blind testing here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057282351

It's an interesting article in the link but I reckon just go for the best kit you can afford, very few of us 'need' the best kit but that's no excuse for not having it.

velo.2010

Thanks, I get what your saying. I think I have a little bit of carbon-envy after seeing guys riding the newer Canyon CF models on the roads recently. They jumped ship from different brands to buy Canyons and like you they couldn't really point to any comfort difference - the bike just felt better.

I had a carbon frame not so long ago - a Trek Madone - the 2007-2009 model. It was the proverbial 'magic carpet ride', very comfortable over long spins and on any surface. Thinking back, it was probably on the softer side on the front while still being stiff at the bottom bracket.

Its this 'Vertical Compliance' stuff which is meant to describe what's going on with stiffness at the bottom bracket but also having comfort through the seatstays and downtube/seatpost junction. Much of it is probably marketing guff and the real answer to comfort is in the tyre pressures and how soft your saddle is!

Still, I wouldn't mind ridng a carbon bike!;)

Statler

velo.2010 wrote: »

Thanks, I get what your saying. I think I have a little bit of carbon-envy after seeing guys riding the newer Canyon CF models on the roads recently. They jumped ship from different brands to buy Canyons and like you they couldn't really point to any comfort difference - the bike just felt better.

I had a carbon frame not so long ago - a Trek Madone - the 2007-2009 model. It was the proverbial 'magic carpet ride', very comfortable over long spins and on any surface. Thinking back, it was probably on the softer side on the front while still being stiff at the bottom bracket.

Its this 'Vertical Compliance' stuff which is meant to describe what's going on with stiffness at the bottom bracket but also having comfort through the seatstays and downtube/seatpost junction. Much of it is probably marketing guff and the real answer to comfort is in the tyre pressures and how soft your saddle is!

Still, I wouldn't mind ridng a carbon bike!;)

Then get a carbon bike!

Unknown Soldier

Is there a huge jump in "shock absorbency" between carbon versus X? Or is it 10/20/30% etc better?


Just wondering.

Also do any of you Canyon owners have an M/54/56?

While I am here, were there ever any CF that had the compact gearing? 50/34. They all seem to be 52/36 now?

Statler

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Is there a huge jump in "shock absorbency" between carbon versus X? Or is it 10/20/30% etc better?


Just wondering.

Also do any of you Canyon owners have an M/54/56?

While I am here, were there ever any CF that had the compact gearing? 50/34. They all seem to be 52/36 now?

All the 2015 Canyon models seem to be 52/36, bit annoying that they don't give a choice. Honestly I can't say if the CF frame is more 'shock absorbent' than the AL or vice versa, the CF is a better frame, but I can't put a percentage on it.