Battle of the frame materials. The debate rages on

[TheDude]

Horses for courses I think

My daily utility bike is an AL cyclo-X CAAD 9. Great bike, not what I want to ride 100 miles on. Most comfortable bikes I have are 30+ year-old steel. That is what I want to ride 100 miles on, but not race up a mountain. I don't personally own Carbon, and have not really put enough test miles on one to form a personal opinion, but I'm sure there are cases when it is the best, but I don't want to stick the 40 lbs of my son and his bike seat on the back of one.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

does carbon fatigue like some alloys?

Definitely. It is the fatal flaw of the material. Carbon fiber frames are way more likely to suffer from a catastrophic failure than any metal frame (steel, aluminum, or titanium).

I know I wouldn't want to be riding around on a ten year old carbon frame. I wouldn't have any of those fears with a metal frame.

 

[BroDeal]

I think this whole thread is filled with hooey. The design of the frame is more important than what it is made of.

AL frames skittering over road imperfections because they don't flex? That does not pass the simplest reasoning. Frames are double diamond designs. The vertical flex is imperceptible. Grab the rear dropout of an AL frame, brace the saddle against your chest, and pull up as hard as you can. See if you can detect any flex. Now compare that flex what you can induce in the rear tire by bobbing your weight on the bike. Any vertical flex will be swamped out by two or three orders of magnitude by the flex in the tire, the flex in a spoked wheel, the flex in the saddle rails, the flex in the plastic saddle shell, the flex in the fork, and the flex in the tissue in your ass.

AL bikes like Kleins and Cannondales got a bad rep because race bikes back in the day had crit geometry. Stuff like parallel 74 degree angles were not uncommon.

Personally I think one of the biggest causes in the supposed comfort differences between metal frames is the difference in acoustics. Aluminim frames, especially frames with large diameter tubes, sound harsh when they hit bumps in the road. On bad roads they can sound absolutely terrible. People's minds translate this harsh sound into a harsh ride, but an AL frame is not flexing vertically any less than a steel or a titanium one.

You want a more comfortable ride? Put 5 PSI less in your tires.

 

[BroDeal]

Definitely. It is the fatal flaw of the material. Carbon fiber frames are way more likely to suffer from a catastrophic failure than any metal frame (steel, aluminum, or titanium).

I know I wouldn't want to be riding around on a ten year old carbon frame. I wouldn't have any of those fears with a metal frame.

Impact resistance is different than fatigue. A properly designed carbon frame should outlast metals like aluminum as far as fatigue life, and a properly designed aluminum frame should not encounter metal fatigue during its intended lifespan. If the frames are designed properly it is a moot point.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

Impact resistance is different than fatigue. A properly designed carbon frame should outlast metals like aluminum as far as fatigue life, and a properly designed aluminum frame should not encounter metal fatigue during its intended lifespan. If the frames are designed properly it is a moot point.

I'm not talking about impact resistance. I am talking about fatigue. It is a well known fact that the epoxy in carbon fiber has a tendency to develop microscopic cracks over time. As more time and more usage occurs, more and more of these cracks form. That leads to larger cracks in the epoxy. Eventually this can lead to catastrophic frame failure. That has nothing to do with the design of the frame.

So I definitely would not want to be riding around on a well used ten year old carbon fiber frame. However, I wouldn't have those fears with a frameset built from any metal. Carbon fiber is one of the best materials for a bike frame, except don't expect to ride it forever.

 

[bc_hills]

Does anyone have any stats regarding frame failure in carbon vs. steel (for example)? "Well known facts" are often bull****, IMHO.

More on topic, if money were no object, I'd go with the lightest most skookum hand built steel frame I could find, with small round tubes because that's what fast road bikes look like!

Cheers!

 

[Black Dog]

I'm not talking about impact resistance. I am talking about fatigue. It is a well known fact that the epoxy in carbon fiber has a tendency to develop microscopic cracks over time. As more time and more usage occurs, more and more of these cracks form. That leads to larger cracks in the epoxy. Eventually this can lead to catastrophic frame failure. That has nothing to do with the design of the frame.

So I definitely would not want to be riding around on a well used ten year old carbon fiber frame. However, I wouldn't have those fears with a frameset built from any metal. Carbon fiber is one of the best materials for a bike frame, except don't expect to ride it forever.

If this were true in a way that mattered then why would Airbus and Boeing make wings out of Carbon Fibre? The time or cycles before failure must be huge. Now with poor quality resin this may matter....we need the data.

 

[mercycle]

Steel, by Dario Pegoretti. Titaninum would be a close second.

Cannondale aluminum frames: I had an early 90s "crit" frame (for crit racing of course). In a 53, it was wicked stiff. The diameter of the downtube was huge, the head tube was short, the downtube was actually mitered into the top tube. I swear I could have cut the top tube out and not lost any stiffness.

The engineering side "gets" carbon fiber and aluminum frames, but the other side says "they have no soul". Still can't wrap my head around sloping top tubes, threadless headsets, more than 5 gears in the back, deep V rims, "ergo" bend handlbars.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

If this were true in a way that mattered then why would Airbus and Boeing make wings out of Carbon Fibre? The time or cycles before failure must me huge. Now with poor quality resin this may matter....we need the data.

Yeah I am not saying it happens overnight, but it does happen.

 

[Road Hazard]

This is one of the more civil discussions on this topic that I've seen, so I'll wade in (my inaugural post on this forum no less).

My favorite frame of all time was an aluminum Univega hybrid. It was a forest green beauty that "felt" fast, was light and stiff, and had an awesome hum to it when up at cruising speed.

About a year ago I got my first serious road bike proper. An aluminum Fisher Arc Pro, but it had a carbon fork and carbon seat and chain stays. A great value for the price. Comfort was never an issue, but maybe it was the carbon stays, or maybe I just expected to be uncomfortable after 60 miles. I never felt flex in the bottom bracket, although the wheels would rub the brakes when driving hard uphill or sprinting, which was just a likely the wheels as anything.

Now, I've got my OCLV carbon Madone. I love it. To me it has soul. Just like with music, soul is probably more subjective perception than an inherent quality. It took a while to get used to the fact that something so light could withstand all out pedal mashing. The 4-5 lbs difference (also a function of the components, not just the frames) between the Madone and my old aluminum Fisher seems to make a marked difference in speed and fatigue over the course of a ride, but then again a year ago I was heavier and my legs were weaker.

Could I find an aluminum or steel bike of comparable weight and feel, I don't know. Sadly most of us will never have the chance to really get to know many difference frames and build outs. Test rides can help, but the experience is limited. We have a budget and have to make a choice. Maybe bikes are like wives, happiness is loving the one you're with. Or maybe wives are like bikes, we have a budget and have to make a choice, lol.

 

[BroDeal]

Riddle me this: A large number of mountain bike frames are made from aluminum. If there is any bike application that calls out for not using a "harsh" metal it is mountain biking. What gives with that?

 

[SlantParallelogram]

Riddle me this: A large number of mountain bike frames are made from aluminum. If there is any bike application that calls out for not using a "harsh" metal it is mountain biking. What gives with that?

Once you start adding suspension it doesn't really matter all that much anymore. The suspension soaks up all of the really big impacts and isolates you from the harshness.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Riddle me this: A large number of mountain bike frames are made from aluminum. If there is any bike application that calls out for not using a "harsh" metal it is mountain biking. What gives with that?

Size and air volume of the tires more than make up for the harshness, or whatever you want to call it from aluminum, not even including any suspension. I'm still smitten with steel hardtails though. Would not mind at all having a Soulcraft, Vicious, Inglis/Retrotec, whatever. There's so many cool steel MTB's out there. Hell, even a Rocky Blizzard. I need a new MTB for sure, give me your Moots Bro!!

 

[BroDeal]

Once you start adding suspension it doesn't really matter all that much anymore. The suspension soaks up all of the really big impacts and isolates you from the harshness.

Do you think this is any different than a road bike? Road bikes have all sorts of things that flex much much more than the frame. An MTB is just an extreme example of what I am talking about. The flexible non-frame parts of the bike overwhelm any vertical flex in the frame.

I need a new MTB for sure, give me your Moots Bro!!

My MTB is an Ellsworth. It's aluminum.

For a hardtail I would not mind a Moots Rigormootis or an Eriksen--even a Yeti ARC would be cool. Unpainted ti seems like a perfect MTB frame material.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Do you think this is any different than a road bike? Road bikes have all sorts of things that flex much much more than the frame. An MTB is just an extreme example of what I am talking about. The flexible non-frame parts of the bike overwhelm any vertical flex in the frame.

Sure, not even counting any of the other parts, it's all about the shoes. Even going from a 23mm wide tire on the road to a 28mm makes a huge difference in ride quality regardless of frame material.

My MTB is an Ellsworth. It's aluminum.

Almost as nice as a Moots, I'll take it. What do you think about their Magnesium road bike? Weird.. I thought you were the guy with the all Moots stable for some reason.

 

[BroDeal]

Almost as nice as a Moots, I'll take it. What do you think about their Magnesium road bike? Weird.. I thought you were the guy with the all Moots stable for some reason.

I just have a Moots road bike.

All the magnesium road stuff I can think of had serious corrosion problems. There was that Kirk Precision frame that was cast from magnesium. They had a reputation for breaking. Mag stems have had pitting problems, and that is one application where I would not want to have a corroding component.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

I just have a Moots road bike.

All the magnesium road stuff I can think of had serious corrosion problems. There was that Kirk Precision frame that was cast from magnesium. They had a reputation for breaking. Mag stems have had pitting problems, and that is one application where I would not want to have a corroding component.

Back when I was still working at the shops, we had a couple Russian fellows come in with a raw Magnesium road frame and wanted us to test ride it for the season, but he warned us that under the right circumstances of temp and air mix it might burst into flames... Wasn't sure if they were being serious, I was probably stoned at the time.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

For a hardtail I would not mind a Moots Rigormootis or an Eriksen--even a Yeti ARC would be cool. Unpainted ti seems like a perfect MTB frame material.

Some day, maybe at the end of this year... http://www.moots.com/#/product/bicycles/29er_mtb/mooto-x_ybb/

 

[SlantParallelogram]

Do you think this is any different than a road bike? Road bikes have all sorts of things that flex much much more than the frame. An MTB is just an extreme example of what I am talking about. The flexible non-frame parts of the bike overwhelm any vertical flex in the frame.

It is different because the things that flex on a road bike still don't flex all that much. The suspension on a mountain bike will travel several inches in each direction.

 

[flyor64]

Size and air volume of the tires more than make up for the harshness, or whatever you want to call it from aluminum, not even including any suspension. I'm still smitten with steel hardtails though. Would not mind at all having a Soulcraft, Vicious, Inglis/Retrotec, whatever. There's so many cool steel MTB's out there. Hell, even a Rocky Blizzard. I need a new MTB for sure, give me your Moots Bro!!

RDV - check out the vassagos...the price is right for either their steel or titanium frames. I have one of their steel jabberwockys... ride and actually race it more than my carbon "race bike", a Scott Spark...

As for the frame material discussion, on the road I've ridden steel, alum, and now carbon...but man do I want a titanium frame. The problem is finding one here in Norway that is remotely affordable!!!

The Van Nicholas frames in the Netherlands look sweet though...anyone have experience with them?

 

[BroDeal]

It is different because the things that flex on a road bike still don't flex all that much. The suspension on a mountain bike will travel several inches in each direction.

It's only different in degree. The point is still valid. The amount of vertical frame flex in a road bike is negligible compared to the combined flex of the tires, wheels, seatpost, saddle rails, saddle shell, and fork. With just my thumb and forefinger I can probably flex a saddle at least a thousand times more than the rear triangle of a frame ever flexes during use.

 

[Big GMaC]

With just my thumb and forefinger I can probably flex a saddle at least a thousand times more than the rear triangle of a frame ever flexes during use.

With just my thumb and forefinger I can flex the rear triangle of a frame.

Wait what?

That is def what I found when I switched from 23s on my (steel) fixed to 27s (barely fit through the carbon fork, switch to long throw brakes) but worth it

 

[53 x 11]

Magnesium. It has to be. The only bike I've ever got a half chub over was magnesium. The Dogma until it became Carbon it was the last Pinarrello to be 100% handmade in Italy

Thats what a race bike is supposed to be, long top tube short head and seat tube, saddle right back and all the stem in the world.

I've now owned hi-end steel (ciombola) alum (fondriest) scandium (teschner) and carbon (Scott, Bottechia and Felt) and I really cant tell the difference.

 

[Helyett]

I think this whole thread is filled with hooey. The design of the frame is more important than what it is made of.

AL frames skittering over road imperfections because they don't flex? That does not pass the simplest reasoning. Frames are double diamond designs. The vertical flex is imperceptible. Grab the rear dropout of an AL frame, brace the saddle against your chest, and pull up as hard as you can. See if you can detect any flex. Now compare that flex what you can induce in the rear tire by bobbing your weight on the bike. Any vertical flex will be swamped out by two or three orders of magnitude by the flex in the tire, the flex in a spoked wheel, the flex in the saddle rails, the flex in the plastic saddle shell, the flex in the fork, and the flex in the tissue in your ass.

AL bikes like Kleins and Cannondales got a bad rep because race bikes back in the day had crit geometry. Stuff like parallel 74 degree angles were not uncommon.

Personally I think one of the biggest causes in the supposed comfort differences between metal frames is the difference in acoustics. Aluminim frames, especially frames with large diameter tubes, sound harsh when they hit bumps in the road. On bad roads they can sound absolutely terrible. People's minds translate this harsh sound into a harsh ride, but an AL frame is not flexing vertically any less than a steel or a titanium one.

You want a more comfortable ride? Put 5 PSI less in your tires.

Absolutely accurate in every detail. Possibly the best single common-sense statement on the imaginary differences between frame materials that I've read. And I've spent 45 years on a succession of high-end racing bikes. My aluminum bikes are noisy, just as Brodeal says, but otherwise I prefer them to the various steel Columbus SLX and Reynolds 853 and 531 bikes they replaced. I'm sure titanium rides no worse than aluminum, but it can't ride any better, emotional arguments to the contrary. Since they all ride the same, I'll take aluminum, the bang-for-the-buck champion of frame materials.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

RDV - check out the vassagos...the price is right for either their steel or titanium frames. I have one of their steel jabberwockys... ride and actually race it more than my carbon "race bike", a Scott Spark...

Looks good, it's just that I've accumulated enough Asian made frames over the years that everything I eat is starting to taste like rice noodles. I'm sure that Jabberwocky it's a great rig, but all those companies I listed, well, except for the Rocky are all small shop custom USA built. Plus I have some friendship ties to Soulcraft and Inglis, gotta support the fam. The extreme end of the spectrum would be a Moots, all the stars would have to align and many wheels have to leave here, so I'll see what I can afford at the end of the season. It's going to be made in the USA and custom spec'd to me for sure whatever it is.