# Will your next bike be carbon or aluminum?



## megablue (Jul 20, 2020)

Without getting into the whole carbon vs aluminum debate (we all know they both have their merits), will your next frame be carbon or aluminum? Will the Rona supply issues change your opinion on which material to get?


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

megablue said:


> Will the Rona supply issues change your opinion on which material to get?


Nope.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Steel.


----------



## megablue (Jul 20, 2020)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Steel.


If chromag would hurry and launch their steel FS I would hop on it in a heart beat


----------



## Arm&Hammer (Dec 19, 2020)

Steel here as well.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

megablue said:


> If chromag would hurry and launch their steel FS I would hop on it in a heart beat


There's quite a few options out there now. Steel Full Suspension Bikes

But to answer your question, if I can't have steel, aluminum.


----------



## megablue (Jul 20, 2020)

*OneSpeed* said:


> There's quite a few options out there now. Steel Full Suspension Bikes
> 
> But to answer your question, if I can't have steel, aluminum.


Yeah unfortunately shipping across the pond just isn’t worth the extra cost to me


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Probably carbon. But I have no plans for a new bike anytime soon. When I say any time soon, probably years.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

I'll ride any material. I like the peace of mind with aluminum/steel though. I've owned and ridden all 3 materials and they have all been great. Give me a threaded BB though!


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

I wanted an alu bike but got a carbon one (well, half carbon) because of the supply issues. It's perfectly fine but I still freak out every time when a rock hits the downtube hard. But hopefully I won't have any issues in the future.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

I'm fine with either Alu or Carbon. I'd love carbon because of weight, but AZ has loose sharp rocks the size of dinner plates that can straight up wreck carbon. I care WAYYYY more about geo numbers, specs (like threaded BB) and serviceability of pivots (corollary: good customer support).
the COVID bike-pocalypse has nothing to do with frame material choice for me.

I've had this conversation with riding buddies very recently as one just bought a carbon S-works SJ evo, vs the alloy comp, whereas I opted for a Ripmo AF vs the V2.


----------



## Ktse (Jul 12, 2008)

megablue said:


> Without getting into the whole carbon vs aluminum debate (we all know they both have their merits), will your next frame be carbon or aluminum? Will the Rona supply issues change your opinion on which material to get?


I got my first carbon bike last year and own aluminum and steel bikes. Ridden all sorts of bikes in different materials too. I didn't get any sort of epiphany riding carbon over other frame materials, but it is a little bit more refined. If there was an aluminum version of the same bike, I would be happy to save the cost at the expense of weight.

Design and spec are more important to me than material alone.

So to answer the first question, it depends where I am riding and which bike makes most sense. Likewise supply issues wouldn't really be that big of a factor. Same bike, same component spec, different materials, if one was on wait list for over a year and one was in stock, and the price was reasonable, I'll take the one in stock.


----------



## looks easy from here (Apr 16, 2019)

megablue said:


> Yeah unfortunately shipping across the pond just isn’t worth the extra cost to me


Based off the price of Chromag's hardtails I don't expect you'll save too much on their FS over some European steel brands, even with shipping.

And something to keep in mind is that listed prices for British bikes include 20% VAT, which American customers don't have to pay. Ask me how I know...


----------



## xjbaylor (Sep 22, 2006)

I don't care about the material on it's own, it is the overall package and how it suits my needs. 

My favorite bikes are steel single speeds. The material, and how I use the bike, are a natural fit. I want simple, durable and comfortable. My dreamy bike is carbon. I wanted it to be relatively lightweight because of how I use it, and how often I ride it. Budget wasn't a huge concern. 

My soon-to-be-newest bike isn't going to be ridden as much, and weight wasn't much of a concern. Since I won't ride it as much as I would prefer, and I will be allowing friends and family to use it price was a concern. That bike is aluminum. 

Each material works great for its intended purpose and budget, and I wouldn't hesitate to swap one for the other. Except the the steel bikes...those are staying steel....or Ti....


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

Pros and cons for both. Al fatigue cracks where C does not, C is repairable where Al is not. The thought an Al bike is reliable doesn't match my experiences at all. I've broken every single Al frame I've owned except for an Intense Uzzi. 

My new bike will be C as there is a 3.5 lb difference between Al and C versions.


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

Both of my current bikes are carbon. Last bikes were carbon. The next bike I have my eye on, is carbon. 😅


----------



## George2112 (Jan 6, 2022)

Steel.

Eyeing one of the Marin Pine Mountains or something from Surly


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

used to be Ti, Carbon, Steel, Alu as far as preference goes. Have moved carbon in front of Ti, and Alu into 5th out of 4 places


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

Next will be carbon, but the one after that a steel HT, and the one after that maybe replace my short travel Alu bike with a short travel steel bike just because? We'll see...


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Impetus said:


> I'd love carbon because of weight, but AZ has loose sharp rocks the size of dinner plates that can straight up wreck carbon.


I can relate to this. Over the span of just a few months, I had two rock strikes - more like smashes - that would have undoubtedly compromised carbon. One on the seat stay and one on the down tube. I'm not even sure how that size of rock gets airborne by riding over it, but they do somehow. Left a sizeable gouge in a steel down tube, and deep scoring on Ti. A third hit the spindle end of a carbon crank arm and took out a chunk about half the size of a dime. I don't know about the rest of AZ, but carbon definitely isn't a good choice for where and how I ride. I'd rather crack an aluminum frame and be smug thinking I was a big strong horse (I'm not) than have an impossibly strong carbon frame brought to its knees by a 6-inch rock strike or crash.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

BadgerOne said:


> I can relate to this. Over the span of just a few months, I had two rock strikes - more like smashes - that would have undoubtedly compromised carbon. One on the seat stay and one on the down tube. I'm not even sure how that size of rock gets airborne by riding over it, but they do somehow. Left a sizeable gouge in a steel down tube, and deep scoring on Ti. A third hit the spindle end of a carbon crank arm and took out a chunk about half the size of a dime. I don't know about the rest of AZ, but carbon definitely isn't a good choice for where and how I ride. I'd rather crack an aluminum frame and be smug thinking I was a big strong horse (I'm not) than have an impossibly strong carbon frame brought to its knees by a 6-inch rock strike or crash.


Yes, but the reality is, that from a numbers stand point, this just doesn't ever happen with any frequency. I just did 250 miles in Sedona on a carbon rimmed and framed, 23 pound XC race bike and the rims and frame took tons of rock strikes. There are plenty of scratches in the wheels and frame, some hits were really loud. Zero issues. Sure, failures happen, but not enough to choose Alu over carbon, at least not for me.


----------



## smoothmoose (Jun 8, 2008)

I have a carbon Orbea Rallon on order to replace my carbon Ibis. I both care and don't care about weight. Let me explain. I feel there are tipping points on weight, that will vary by person. Personally, my riding weight is 150lbs. I feel around 35lbs is tipping point on weight for me to pedal around, handle, and maintain a playful manner where I can effectively use my bodyweight as leverage. So makes ALU a tough sell in general unless I go for higher end parts build.

Same goes for ebikes. I notice a HUGE difference between say a Levo SL vs. a Levo. I can handle 40# ebike pretty well...it's heavier than 35#, but the motor boost helps compensate some of the playfulness and of course pedaling. A 50# ebike - is a non-starter for me. 

Instead of absolute weight, it might be better to compare bike to rider weight ratio.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

numbnuts said:


> Yes, but the reality is, that from a numbers stand point, this just doesn't ever happen with any frequency. I just did 250 miles in Sedona on a carbon rimmed and framed, 23 pound XC race bike and the rims and frame took tons of rock strikes. There are plenty of scratches in the wheels and frame, some hits were really loud. Zero issues. Sure, failures happen, but not enough to choose Alu over carbon, at least not for me.


250 miles is not a valid test.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

davec113 said:


> Pros and cons for both. Al fatigue cracks where C does not, C is repairable where Al is not. The thought an Al bike is reliable doesn't match my experiences at all. I've broken every single Al frame I've owned except for an Intense Uzzi.
> 
> My new bike will be C as there is a 3.5 lb difference between Al and C versions.


I've had two cracked frames welded and repaired then I took them to the outfit I use for heat treating. Ventana repairs frames too and has in house heat treating. Having said that, When Guerrilla Gravity went to carbon I scoured the planet for an Al Smash, and found one.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

Al is not the same today as it used to be. It's now the cheaper option... build quality is much worse and weight is much higher than it used to be when C was less ubiquitous in most cases. Yet cost of Al frames is similar. Be careful what you invest in!


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

noapathy said:


> 250 miles is not a valid test.


One of many. Moab 3 weeks prior, etc etc


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

numbnuts said:


> Yes, but the reality is, that from a numbers stand point, this just doesn't ever happen with any frequency. I just did 250 miles in Sedona on a carbon rimmed and framed, 23 pound XC race bike and the rims and frame took tons of rock strikes. There are plenty of scratches in the wheels and frame, some hits were really loud. Zero issues. Sure, failures happen, but not enough to choose Alu over carbon, at least not for me.


Indeed, I do wonder why the 'luck' always comes my way with a head of steam. It's possible I might not have another truly nasty strike for a year or two now. I just don't want to have to worry about it. It probably wouldn't happen again until I bought a carbon bike...and then it would, 'cause that's what happens when I roll.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

milehi said:


> I've had two cracked frames welded and repaired then I took them to the outfit I use for heat treating. Ventana repairs frames too and has in heat treating. Having said that, When Guerrilla Gravity went to carbon I scoured the planet for an Al Smash, and found one.


Yes, it's possible but rarely done.


----------



## Oogie (Jun 9, 2021)

Aluminum because I want a banshee badly. I'd only end up on carbon if I got a screaming deal and those don't happen anymore.


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

megablue said:


> Without getting into the whole carbon vs aluminum debate (we all know they both have their merits), will your next frame be carbon or aluminum? Will the Rona supply issues change your opinion on which material to get?


DH: alloy
Trail: carbon
SS hardtail: steel


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

numbnuts said:


> One of many. Moab 3 weeks prior, etc etc


Never been. I hear it's nice. Still bro science and not a valid long term test.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

noapathy said:


> Never been. I hear it's nice. Still bro science and not a valid long term test.


How about 25 different carbon bikes over 15 years and 10 states and no failures? Also, reread the quoted post please. Extrapolation of a dent in alu to a certain carbon failure is not science. .


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

There is a member of this forum, can't remember who, that is still riding an absolutely ancient Trek OCLV that looks like it has passed through the bowels of hell and is still going strong. It's impressive and that is even 'old' carbon. No idea how or where he rides it though.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Hard to say. I just bought an aluminum FS a few weeks ago. Probably not buying another FS soon.


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

numbnuts said:


> How about 25 different carbon bikes over 15 years and 10 states and no failures? Also, reread the quoted post please. Extrapolation of a dent in alu to a certain carbon failure is not science. .


Great username! What is your major malfunction?


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

noapathy said:


> 250 miles is not a valid test.


How's that not valid, especially if it's rough terrain. That's about 2 months worth of riding for a lot of people, myself included. Not the end all be all, that I agree with you on, but I wouldn't say it's invalid.


----------



## baker (Jan 6, 2004)

Oogie said:


> Aluminum because I want a banshee badly. I'd only end up on carbon if I got a screaming deal and those don't happen anymore.


I love my Banshee Prime (which is aluminum if people don't know). Recently I broke the carbon swingarm on my Titus Rockstar 29er, after years of abuse and crashes.

My next bike would be a titanium hardtail, if I had my druthers...


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

numbnuts said:


> How about 25 different carbon bikes over 15 years and 10 states and no failures? Also, reread the quoted post please. Extrapolation of a dent in alu to a certain carbon failure is not science. .





2021Mach6 said:


> How's that not valid, especially if it's rough terrain. That's about 2 months worth of riding for a lot of people, myself included. Not the end all be all, that I agree with you on, but I wouldn't say it's invalid.


Short term test with zero way of dertermining actual impacts or how much force each imparted to the frame, at what angle, shape of object, etc. each may have been? Yeah, not real science. There's a reason they have test labs for this sort of stuff. None of the things that are important in your anecdotal evidence are measurable or repeatable in any kind of meaningful way.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

noapathy said:


> Short term test with zero way of dertermining actual impacts or how much force each imparted to the frame, at what angle, shape of object, etc. each may have been? Yeah, not real science. There's a reason they have test labs for this sort of stuff. None of the things that are important in your anecdotal evidence are measurable or repeatable in any kind of meaningful way.


Yes there are lab test for this. Those same tests are the ones nearly every MFG sees prior to making the business decision to build carbon frames. Thank you for bolstering my point


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

2021Mach6 said:


> How's that not valid, especially if it's rough terrain. That's about 2 months worth of riding for a lot of people, myself included. Not the end all be all, that I agree with you on, but I wouldn't say it's invalid.


Your guess is as good as mine? I think he thinks perhaps this bike was only ridden once, and only for 250 miles and then hung on the wall for the last year....Its only one of many valid data points. Since I don't poll my fellow riders all I can offer is my thousands and thousand of miles on carbon frames for 15 years with no failures. Others results may vary, but ironically, with all the biking I do, and riding with other bikers, I have yet to see a carbon frame destroyed by terrain it wasn't crashed into by the rider. Even then, I have only seen 1 frame damaged in a crash.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

Modern Al frames used to get dented all the time from rock strikes, which will certainly lead to fatigue cracking over time. I remember buying a custom carbon fiber dt protector for my '09 Session 88 to mitigate the issue.

IMO though, the largest issue w/ Al frames is the chainstays, because of the way they are manufactured they are basically wear items, the lifetime is determined by weld quality. 

If we were getting Al frames comparable in build quality to a mid 2010 top-end Al frame from the big 3 I doubt there'd be much price difference C vs Al today. 

Carbon has it's cons too, some of which are just as bad as Al, but in my case there's a 3.5 lb difference in weight and the Al frame is pretty average to lower-end in overall quality where the C frame is better than average for $1100 difference. It's a lot of cash but 3.5 lbs and avoiding a frame w/questionable fatigue life is worth the cash imo.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I went Al on the most recent refreshes, but also... Banshee and Canfield, so...


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

davec113 said:


> Modern Al frames used to get dented all the time from rock strikes, which will certainly lead to fatigue cracking over time. I remember buying a custom carbon fiber dt protector for my '09 Session 88 to mitigate the issue.
> 
> IMO though, the largest issue w/ Al frames is the chainstays, because of the way they are manufactured they are basically wear items, the lifetime is determined by weld quality.
> 
> ...


Agreed, good points. I think, money aside "most" everyone can agree that Aluminum is the worst mainstream (TI, Carbon, Steel, Alu) option of the 4 materials used in frame building. From its ride quality, to it its cycle fatigue, its just not as good. Now, when you blend economics into the equation things change.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

numbnuts said:


> Agreed, good points. I think, money aside "most" everyone can agree that Aluminum is the worst mainstream (TI, Carbon, Steel, Alu) option of the 4 materials used in frame building. From its ride quality, to it its cycle fatigue, its just not as good. Now, when you blend economics into the equation things change.


Well, and design. You can have a crappy bike made with the best material, and vise versa.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> Well, and design. You can have a crappy bike made with the best material, and vise versa.


We are talking materials only. Good design and bad can be applied to any of the 4 materials.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

numbnuts said:


> We are talking materials only. Good design and bad can be applied to any of the 4 materials.


Totally agreed. But, I'm generally not shopping based solely on materials. Although, I might consider a Revel Ranger next.. because I do like the CBF. I'm otherwise material agnostic.


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

s0ckeyeus said:


> Hard to say. I just bought an aluminum FS a few weeks ago. Probably not buying another FS soon.
> View attachment 1968569


Looks sick! Not sure there's an alloy bike I'd choose over Ibis right now. How's it climbing? And that's not Brandywine by any chance is it?


numbnuts said:


> Your guess is as good as mine? I think he thinks perhaps this bike was only ridden once, and only for 250 miles and then hung on the wall for the last year....Its only one of many valid data points. Since I don't poll my fellow riders all I can offer is my thousands and thousand of miles on carbon frames for 15 years with no failures. Others results may vary, but ironically, with all the biking I do, and riding with other bikers, I have yet to see a carbon frame destroyed by terrain it wasn't crashed into by the rider. Even then, I have only seen 1 frame damaged in a crash.


I've been to the bike park at least 25 times since I got my bike in July 2021 ... Not sure how many hours or miles, but each visit I was riding from 10:00-5:00 and I had 3 bad crashes, one REALLY bad, and a bunch of other minor spills. That's in addition to the roughly 500 miles I've ridden since. Not suggesting carbon doesn't break, we've all seen countless YouTube videos and clips of carbon breaking, but I've grown more confident with it, after having reservations initially. 

Does none of that count since it wasn't done in a lab? I'd think that real-world experience would be a better indication over a simulated test, but I'm not an engineer so maybe I'm wrong. At the very least it's gotta count for something, and I don't get the reasoning behind dude's opinion (which I respect, but disagree with).


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> Totally agreed. But, I'm generally not shopping based solely on materials. Although, I might consider a Revel Ranger next.. because I do like the CBF. I'm otherwise material agnostic.


I think, in general you can find many well designed bikes in each material, so if your criteria is good design, what do you move to next as a deciding factor? Purple anodization?


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

My current two bikes are carbon. My next frame will be carbon. 
I've been riding bikes since 1990. Had some dents in alloy, never broke an alloy frame. I've been riding carbon frames since 2011.

Have had many rock strikes on 8 carbon frames, including the current bikes, with no issues; however, I actually had a rock strike hard enough to compromise the carbon on a Trek Fuel EX lower downtube/bottom bracket area (through the rubber/armor).

Had it repaired for $250. Rode it another year, sold it in '19. The new owner still riding it.

I'm not opposed to alloy or steel. The new alloy Evo SJ is pretty sweet. Always a fan of the Honzo. I also like the looks of the Ripmo AF, but when given the choice...


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

2021Mach6 said:


> Does none of that count since it wasn't done in a lab? I'd think that real-world experience would be a better indication over a simulated test, but I'm not an engineer so maybe I'm wrong. At the very least it's gotta count for something, and I don't get the reasoning behind dude's opinion (which I respect, but disagree with).


Actually, a lot failures that really hurt companies in warranty loses (not just bikes) are ones NOT discovered in a lab, but revealed through real world "testing"


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

numbnuts said:


> I think, in general you can find many well designed bikes in each material, so if your criteria is good design, what do you move to next as a deciding factor? Purple anodization?


It's like you know me!  

At the moment, it's suspension kinematics.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> It's like you know me!
> 
> At the moment, it's suspension kinematics.


Ah just get live valve or flight attendant and forget about silly stuff like suspension.......


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

dysfunction said:


> Totally agreed. But, I'm generally not shopping based solely on materials. Although, I might consider a Revel Ranger next.. because I do like the CBF. I'm otherwise material agnostic.


That's my next build. I've been on Fanatik's bike building tool at least 20 times mapping it out. Hoping to demo one at Worldwide Cyclery which is about an hour away from me. Such a sick bike though. The list isn't long, but Revel is on it for sure!!


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

2021Mach6 said:


> That's my next build. I've been on Fanatik's bike building tool at least 20 times mapping it out. Hoping to demo one at Worldwide Cyclery which is about an hour away from me. Such a sick bike though. The list isn't long, but Revel is on it for sure!!
> View attachment 1968575
> 
> 
> View attachment 1968574


Great choice! Adam has been killing it for years.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

numbnuts said:


> Actually, a lot failures that really hurt companies in warranty loses (not just bikes) are ones NOT discovered in a lab, but revealed through real world "testing"


This true but misleading. If the problem were found in the lab then it would have been fixed and never been a warranty issue. Because it is a warranty issue some form of lab or inhouse riding testing did not uncover the issue. Or the issue was down manufacturing quality that was lacking.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

My next bike will be Ti for a singlespeed or Carbon for FS. I have over 10k miles on carbon framed bikes used in Arizona and have had no issues. I have had many rock strikes and other impacts. No failures, but some don't look to pretty. I do know guys with rock dings in Ti frames where the ding caused a crack. In my use of steel, aluminum and Ti frames however that has not happened. The only frame I have cracked was steel and I still have it following a repair. This crack was not from impact or a crash.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I just watched a video a few minutes ago about an engine failure on a 737 that created a situation that was not found in lab testing. And specific testing was done to prevent that failure.

I know the airline industry has had some issues lately with doing some half ass work, but I am pretty sure we can all agree that the testing protocols they follow are WAY more comprehensive than for a bicycle, and even they miss stuff.

So I am not going to get worked up because a carbon frame broke outside of the lab. I was hit by a car while riding my carbon bike, I don't think that was lab tested. I continued racing that bike for a couple years, until it was stolen.


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

2021Mach6 said:


> DH: alloy
> Trail: carbon
> SS hardtail: steel


This is a great concept, add to the alloy section; park bikes, "super enduro", and enduro, and some all mountain, and dirt jumpers and commuters and bikepackers too for the most part.

I mean not that carbon is necessarily bad for those, but I sure feel better about crashing and or beating up aluminum and steel rather then carbon!  I guess if your sponsored, or rich then it's less of an issue to replace frames...



2021Mach6 said:


> That's my next build. I've been on Fanatik's bike building tool at least 20 times mapping it out. Hoping to demo one at Worldwide Cyclery which is about an hour away from me. Such a sick bike though. The list isn't long, but Revel is on it for sure!!
> View attachment 1968575
> 
> 
> View attachment 1968574


I wish they had more progressive geo... I also built SEVERAL of those in Fanatic!!  But when did they get black frames back in stock...? (or just not in XL?) And was gonna add a 150mm fork and a slacker-er (whatever it's called/angleset for that kind of headset) course that's why it sucks that there geo is so conservative, cause I want to overfork it which makes their conservative geo even worse... 

I'd say more then half of the bikes in my life have been used. And for sure used carbon is not something I really want to mess with ever again. Anyway, with today's scarcity it sure made looking for a new carbon frame a PITA!!


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

JoePAz said:


> This true but misleading. If the problem were found in the lab then it would have been fixed and never been a warranty issue. Because it is a warranty issue some form of lab or inhouse riding testing did not uncover the issue. Or the issue was down manufacturing quality that was lacking.


How is this missleading? Its proven out in reality time and time again, the examples are countless from the automotive industry alone.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

2021Mach6 said:


> Looks sick! Not sure there's an alloy bike I'd choose over Ibis right now. How's it climbing? And that's not Brandywine by any chance is it?


It's been fine climbing so far, even with the stock Assegais. It feels really good for a 34 pound bike. I'm really digging it and can't wait until it's warmer to really push things a bit more.

The trail is in Cherokee Park in Louisville, KY.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

stiingya said:


> I wish they had more progressive geo... I also built SEVERAL of those in Fanatic!!  But when did they get black frames back in stock...? (or just not in XL?) And was gonna add a 150mm fork and a slacker-er (whatever it's called/angleset for that kind of headset) course that's why it sucks that there geo is so conservative, cause I want to overfork it which makes their conservative geo even worse...


If you're gonna over-fork it, and slacken it, you might wanna just run a bigger bike in the end anyway. A Tilt would give you similar kinematics (also CBF, but without a bottle in the frame, which changes shock positioning), with 125mm rear and 140-150 front with a 65ºHTA and a 77ºeSTA .. but in aluminum.


----------



## Stewiewin (Dec 17, 2020)

megablue said:


> Without getting into the whole carbon vs aluminum debate (we all know they both have their merits), will your next frame be carbon or aluminum? Will the Rona supply issues change your opinion on which material to get?


Sticking to what i got alum


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

stiingya said:


> This is a great concept, add to the alloy section; park bikes, "super enduro", and enduro, and some all mountain, and dirt jumpers and commuters and bikepackers too for the most part.
> 
> I mean not that carbon is necessarily bad for those, but I sure feel better about crashing and or beating up aluminum and steel rather then carbon!  I guess if your sponsored, or rich then it's less of an issue to replace frames...
> 
> ...


Still not in stock, pretty much every component on that bike is backordered. I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum, 5'7 so I'll probably go medium, but I want to demo first since I'm in between. 

Revel said they'll be available in April, but I'm not to sure about XL ... If you buy a complete bike with their carbon rims (which are sick but crazy expensive) they say you'll get it sooner, but of course everything has a asterisk given the climate. 

And for me DH is bike park, and a trail bike would be used riding local trails which are beginner to intermediate, so it's somewhere between trail and XC and I'd prefer the lighter option (even though I don't really obsess over weight). 

Did you consider the Rascal instead of the Ranger? I prefer the more conservative geo on trail bikes, but I'm far from an expert. Wouldn't the Rascal be a better option if you're looking to go 150mm?


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

dysfunction said:


> If you're gonna over-fork it, and slacken it, you might wanna just run a bigger bike in the end anyway. A Tilt would give you similar kinematics (also CBF, but without a bottle in the frame, which changes shock positioning), with 125mm rear and 140-150 front with a 65ºHTA and a 77ºeSTA .. but in aluminum.





2021Mach6 said:


> Still not in stock, pretty much every component on that bike is backordered. I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum, 5'7 so I'll probably go medium, but I want to demo first since I'm in between.
> 
> Revel said they'll be available in April, but I'm not to sure about XL ... If you buy a complete bike with their carbon rims (which are sick but crazy expensive) they say you'll get it sooner, but of course everything has a asterisk given the climate.
> 
> ...


My bad, I thought you were showing the Rascal... sorry!!  That's why I was so shocked it was a black frame you were building on Fanatic!! Sorry for the confusion! that's why the 150 fork, I was mostly looking for a 130/150 bike. 135/140 in back would have worked too. But was trying not to go all the way up to Ripmo!

I was still VERY close to buying a Rascal, a lot of good reviews/recommended, etc. but the XL build I wanted/found was only in the purple frame. And I'm just not into bright bike colors anymore. Not into that style anymore and I don't like all the attention they get when on the back of your vehicle at gas stations, etc. Stealth is the way to go, when you gotta go and can't have eyes on your bike! 

I did look at the Canfeild Tilt, but for this bike I wanted to start with a lighter frame, (and dang the colors on the tilt are horrible in my opinion... I mean the same comment about "steal me" bright bikes, but white with black logo = fine. but then add a blue link? That green might make sense for tractors? But then green, white logo and a silver link...? me thinks the Bro's are color blind... ) and I'm not going superboost until I absolutely have to if ever. I have wheels that swap around and act as backup for others and don't want to mess that up!

The Lithium sure looks sweet! (MUCH better colors too) Back to the big bikes in alloy concept.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

stiingya said:


> My bad, I thought you were showing the Rascal... sorry!!  That's why I was so shocked it was a black frame you were building on Fanatic!! Sorry for the confusion! that's why the 150 fork, I was mostly looking for a 130/150 bike. 135/140 in back would have worked too. But was trying not to go all the way up to Ripmo!
> 
> I was still VERY close to buying a Rascal, a lot of good reviews/recommended, etc. but the XL build I wanted/found was only in the purple frame. And I'm just not into bright bike colors anymore. Not into that style anymore and I don't like all the attention they get when on the back of your vehicle at gas stations, etc. Stealth is the way to go, when you gotta go and can't have eyes on your bike!
> 
> ...


Three people I ride with have Rascals, they really like them. Even though it's 130 travel it's a more of a medium duty trail bike, it's very capable. You can always get frame protection alter the looks.

I got a Spur last year, more like the Revel Ranger then a Rascal, but I love it and would certainly recommend checking out the Sentinel too, it can be setup 140/150.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

davec113 said:


> Al is not the same today as it used to be. It's now the cheaper option... build quality is much worse and weight is much higher than it used to be when C was less ubiquitous in most cases. Yet cost of Al frames is similar. Be careful what you invest in!


In many cases yea, but there are still manufacturers that build optimized AL frames that are strong and reasonably light, Banshee, Knolly and Giant come to mind. I think some of it to comes down to pricing justifications, it is a lot easier to sell a carbon frame that is 2+ pounds lighter and 1.5x as expensive as its aluminum counterpart than when it is only 1 pound lighter.


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 2, 2004)

Just bough AL a few months ago. Came down to cost. I already had a lighter carbon bike. For the enduro bike, once you go over 30#s, my thinking is does 31#s versus 33#s really matter. Obviously 2#s is 2#s, but it's not a light bike regardless. I'm on the light side myself so any flex/stiffness differences aren't a big factor.


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

megablue said:


> Without getting into the whole carbon vs aluminum debate (we all know they both have their merits), will your next frame be carbon or aluminum? Will the Rona supply issues change your opinion on which material to get?


Ti only from now on….,


----------



## megablue (Jul 20, 2020)

Pedalon2018 said:


> Ti only from now on….,


I personally will be seeking out bamboo frames from now on


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Bamboo is sustainable. Just watch out for Panda bears.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

numbnuts said:


> Agreed, good points. I think, money aside "most" everyone can agree that Aluminum is the worst mainstream (TI, Carbon, Steel, Alu) option of the 4 materials used in frame building. From its ride quality, to it its cycle fatigue, its just not as good. Now, when you blend economics into the equation things change.


I remember years ago when the arguments went on about how aluminum frames would fail from fatigue and steel last forever. A magazine took several steel frames and one aluminum frame and put them on a fatigue test jig. The only one that didn’t fail was the aluminum, a Cannondale, when we used to call them cracknfails.

It is all about execution, the material has little to do with service life, if that was not the case, we would be seeing 40 year old jets in passenger service made with aluminum frames.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Cary said:


> I remember years ago when the arguments went on about how aluminum frames would fail from fatigue and steel last forever. A magazine took several steel frames and one aluminum frame and put them on a fatigue test jig. The only one that didn’t fail was the aluminum, a Cannondale, when we used to call them cracknfails.
> 
> It is all about execution, the material has little to do with service life, if that was not the case, we would be seeing 40 year old jets in passenger service made with aluminum frames.


Alu can and does work for bikes, just not as good as the other materials. Welding engineering and have a 17,000 ft2 metal fab shop. But what do I know . It’s the internet, everyone’s right !


----------



## FrankS29 (Oct 23, 2019)

numbnuts said:


> Alu can and does work for bikes, just not as good as the other materials. Welding engineering and have a 17,000 ft2 metal fab shop. But what do I know . It’s the internet, everyone’s right !


They can all work, or suck. It really depends on execution.

There is crappy Aluminum, steel, titanium and carbon frames out there.

There are great examples of each that have broken for some crazy reason. Doesn’t make them bad, just broken.

There are also crappy versions that have somehow survived. Doesn’t make them great, just still around.

Right back to the good old; “pick a material, be a dick about it”…


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

FrankS29 said:


> They can all work, or suck. It really depends on execution.
> 
> There is crappy Aluminum, steel, titanium and carbon frames out there.
> 
> ...


The material is the baseline. Engineering, execution etc can be applied equally to all materials.


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

megablue said:


> will your next frame be carbon or aluminum?


Nope.


----------



## megablue (Jul 20, 2020)

wgscott said:


> Nope.


Yes


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

I only have one remaining aluminum bike. Never again. I've never owned a carbon one (apart from the carbon mixed into the iron).


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

megablue said:


> Yes


Dang... dude the proper response was "Yep."... You can't bring that proper grammer and spelling in here...


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

stiingya said:


> Dang... dude the proper response was "Yep."... You can't bring that proper grammer and spelling in here...


We will also take "yeppers" or "yesh"


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

wgscott said:


> Nope.


Steel or ti?


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Pedalon2018 said:


> Ti only from now on….,


I went the Ti only route for a season, had a garage full of them. Ti is great. It's the jack of all trades material. It does everything well, but nothing great. Its certainly #2 on my list of materials, but if and when economics come into play, it losses out to steel....imho.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

FrankS29 said:


> They can all work, or suck. It really depends on execution.
> 
> There is crappy Aluminum, steel, titanium and carbon frames out there.
> 
> ...


yikes, who's being dick? i didn't intend to if thats the insinuation, sorry man.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

numbnuts said:


> You’re missing the point. The material is the baseline. Engineering, execution etc can be applied equally to all materials.


So please explain to us the factors you used to arrive at your rankings of the different materials for frames. What about subgrades of materials, i.e. 6000 v 7000 aluminum, 4130 v 853 steel, T700 v T800 carbon. It is clear you have a strong background in materials science, so please educate us.


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

Revently put a deposit on an alu frame. I've only owned alu bikes so far, but have ridden steel and carbon too. I have to admit a well made steel ht has some sweet riding qualities. I've never managed to break an alu frame and my oldest one was 14yrs old. Just sold it to guy for his son. It's an entry level Giant and my guess is he will outgrow it before it fails. Compared to my next alu ht the Giant was very harsh though. That next frame is almost 6yrs old and has been ridden hard for 14.000km, mostly trying to catch up with mates on enduro bikes. 

I'm very familiar with carbon from other sports. I've even done some repairs myself. Yes, most carbon failures are repairable. However it is clear to me that the material doesn't like impact with sharp objects (like rocks). I'm also familiar with alu fatique from other sports, but so far my own bikes have been holding up fine.

Then there's the cost. Carbon frames cost 700-1000€ more than alu on average. The benefits the material brings are not worth the price for me. Add the fact that bikes have gotten stupidly expensive lately... the value is just not there and my budget is limited. Whatever luxury I can afford goes to suspension, wheels and frequent servicing.

The worst value builds right now are carbon bikes with NX and Rockshox Select level suspension.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Cary said:


> So please explain to us the factors you used to arrive at your rankings of the different materials for frames. What about subgrades of materials, i.e. 6000 v 7000 aluminum, 4130 v 853 steel, T700 v T800 carbon. It is clear you have a strong background in materials science, so please educate us.


Dude just spouts whatever he feels like and then "backs it up" with "facts". This is all about feelings and "real world" stories. Forget actual science, research or anything too complicated. As long as it sounds right on the surface, it's true.


----------



## FrankS29 (Oct 23, 2019)

numbnuts said:


> yikes, who's being dick? i didn't intend to if thats the insinuation, sorry man.


You clearly need to learn more about being a mountain biker:






“Being a dick about it” is supposed to be in our DNA.


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

FrankS29 said:


> You clearly need to learn more about being a mountain biker:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't believe they missed this part in the soical video edit; you need to come into every corner too wide so that the only way to make the turn is to RIIIIPPPP the rear wheel around the outside causing a HUGE wave of dirt to fly in the air as you SHRED that BERM... (and then your edit needs to show this in slow motion from at least three angles) And hey it's not trail errosion because you didn't lock up your brakes and skid...


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Cary said:


> So please explain to us the factors you used to arrive at your rankings of the different materials for frames. What about subgrades of materials, i.e. 6000 v 7000 aluminum, 4130 v 853 steel, T700 v T800 carbon. It is clear you have a strong background in materials science, so please educate us.


My rankings are mine, getting into sub grades of steel, alu, titanium (many there too) would merit getting into infinitely different carbon layups, all of which would not change my ranking (which I think "most" would agree with, again, money aside). Can you have a great alu frame out perform a poor carbon laid up frame as far as ride characteristic and durability? 100%! However, again, the material is a baseline, and given any alloy, my ranking remains given equal design and engineering is applied to said materials. It ok to love steel, ti and aluminum, but at the end of the day if it had to be one, carbon is the clear winner, at least for me (and many others).


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

noapathy said:


> Dude just spouts whatever he feels like and then "backs it up" with "facts". This is all about feelings and "real world" stories. Forget actual science, research or anything too complicated. As long as it sounds right on the surface, it's true.


You seem emotional about my opinion on materials vs. yours. This entire thread is based on opinions. you have yours, I have mine. I think mine is right, and it is ok if you think yours is right too. You do realize this isn't getting solved here, right?


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

FrankS29 said:


> You clearly need to learn more about being a mountain biker:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess I missed that! Ill make sure to do better!


----------



## Oogie (Jun 9, 2021)

baker said:


> I love my Banshee Prime (which is aluminum if people don't know). Recently I broke the carbon swingarm on my Titus Rockstar 29er, after years of abuse and crashes.
> 
> My next bike would be a titanium hardtail, if I had my druthers...


I ride a steel fs (marino) currently. It is fun, but there are limits to the single pivot suspension. Prime is on the list, but I think i will end up with the Phantom. I really like some of the steel linkage frames coming out I may stick with steel too. I just finished a hardtail build. I am a while out.


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

numbnuts said:


> Alu can and does work for bikes, just not as good as the other materials. Welding engineering and have a 17,000 ft2 metal fab shop. But what do I know . It’s the internet, everyone’s right !


Instantly jealous of your shop! Should've went to welding school instead of college. Would've be a lot more helpful in actual life than my business degree!


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

2021Mach6 said:


> Instantly jealous of your shop! Should've went to welding school instead of college. Would've be a lot more helpful in actual life than my business degree!


I only have the shop because of my mechanical engineering (switched from welding to mech 3 years in) and my business degree. Business degrees can be and are still valuable in many applications. Nice work, college isn't easy, or cheap.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Oogie said:


> I ride a steel fs (marino) currently. It is fun, but there are limits to the single pivot suspension. Prime is on the list, but I think i will end up with the Phantom. I really like some of the steel linkage frames coming out I may stick with steel too. I just finished a hardtail build. I am a while out.


I'm loving the recent cropping up of several small builders doing steel FS. Sure the kinematics are limited, just like with Ti FS, but what an age we live in! So many great options! They even make good alu bikes these days.........


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

davec113 said:


> Three people I ride with have Rascals, they really like them. Even though it's 130 travel it's a more of a medium duty trail bike, it's very capable. You can always get frame protection alter the looks.
> 
> 
> I got a Spur last year, more like the Revel Ranger then a Rascal, but I love it and would certainly recommend checking out the Sentinel too, it can be setup 140/150.


I had a V1 Sentinel, great bike! Especially with the cascade link. And I did look at the idea of building one 140/150 for this build. But I always thought that bike rode a bit more like a "bigger bike" even if the travel wasn't huge; not that it stopped me riding it everywhere. Never rode a V2, and I was on the fence how that would play out for what I wanted this time. I did look though, but I could only get a gold? color in XL without waiting a long time. (I had thought about buying a V2 way back when but they were all gone by the time I decided) I'm sure a lot of people will think my issue with frame color is stupid!  But it is what it is...

I ended up ordering a Trance X Advanced 29 frame. Good geo, 135/150 and I got a -1 Wolf tooth because that Sentinel SBG Geo spoiled me! and it's a "scratched up black" color for frame only MY22 and it comes with my new favorite shock so it's pretty stealth and also when I drop it and scratch the frame it will blend right in! (and I recognize that I'm not a great rider, so if I wanna keep up with better dudes on Spur's I probably need that extra travel!!) It actually came in yesterday, but we got a bunch of snow right as evening rush hour hit, lanes blocked all over and it's on the other side of town so I thought I'd let it sit at the shop.

Went sledding instead!! 



goldsbar said:


> Just bough AL a few months ago. Came down to cost. I already had a lighter carbon bike. For the enduro bike, once you go over 30#s, my thinking is does 31#s versus 33#s really matter. Obviously 2#s is 2#s, but it's not a light bike regardless. I'm on the light side myself so any flex/stiffness differences aren't a big factor.



Totally agree with the 2 lbs is no biggie. It's just as far as off the shelf builds it usually seems like it's not just 2 lbs for the metal versions? (though usually the metal versions are cheaper?) A large stumpy evo alloy expert is over 3 lbs heavier then a stumpy evo carbon comp. Now that's not a 1 to 1 comparison because the suspension and brakes are better on the alloy and it also costs more. But that weight difference isn't just in the frame, so they must also be using heavier/cheaper parts in other area's on the alloy bike? (don't think factory fox is heavier then rhythm?? though I'm sure the codes are heavier!) But it makes you wonder if they intentionally make the alloy bike heavier then it needs to be so they can make their carbon bikes look better on the scales and also probably have a higher margin on the alloy?? IDK If you were building frame up and say the carbon frame was an extra thousand dollars, you can just put that extra money into lighter parts. But trying to save 2-3 lbs eats through a thousand dollars pretty fast!


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

stiingya said:


> But trying to save 2-3 lbs eats through a thousand dollars pretty fast!


Agreed. Weight is important, but we all happily trade it for good geo and suspension, of which we have really good options for these days. I think we are in for a long season of the mid priced bikes having great geo and suspension but weighing 35 pounds. An unless you're racing, I think most people would agree....who cares?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

numbnuts said:


> Agreed. Weight is important, but we all happily trade it for good geo and suspension, of which we have really good options for these days. I think we are in for a long season of the mid priced bikes having great geo and suspension but weighing 35 pounds. An unless you're racing, I think most people would agree....who cares?


I have no problems riding my 'heavy' (I have no idea, haven't weighed it, and refuse to) Lithium. Is it as easy to climb as my lighter hardtail? No. But, I really don't care when I'm riding it.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> I have no problems riding my 'heavy' (I have no idea, haven't weighed it, and refuse to) Lithium. Is it as easy to climb as my lighter hardtail? No. But, I really don't care when I'm riding it.


And, it just makes it easier to justify going N+1!


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

numbnuts said:


> You seem emotional about my opinion on materials vs. yours. This entire thread is based on opinions. you have yours, I have mine. I think mine is right, and it is ok if you think yours is right too. You do realize this isn't getting solved here, right?


How dare you insert logic into this conversation ... You monster!


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

2021Mach6 said:


> How dare you insert logic into this conversation ... You monster!


I understand his comments though, I don't claim to be the best writer, and often I do miss the cues on how to have a back and forth without some perceived "jerkiness" on my part. Ill try to do better


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

dysfunction said:


> I have no problems riding my 'heavy' (I have no idea, haven't weighed it, and refuse to) Lithium. Is it as easy to climb as my lighter hardtail? No. But, I really don't care when I'm riding it.


I have no clue what my current or former bike weighs. I wasn't as wrapped up into MTB when I was shopping, so it never even occurred to me. When someone asks, I say somewhere between 30 and 35lbs. If it was XC or I was trying to shave seconds off my time, maybe I'd feel different, but for a bike used mostly at bike parks, it really has no affect on my riding. It's light enough where I can throw it around and doesn't hinder performance. That's good enough for me. If it's 31 lbs hooray for me. If not, oh well, I really don't care!!


----------



## 2021Mach6 (Jan 19, 2021)

numbnuts said:


> I understand his comments though, I don't claim to be the best writer, and often I do miss the cues on how to have a back and forth without some perceived "jerkiness" on my part. Ill try to do better


Please do ... You're hurting people's feelings, and it hurts my feelings knowing that other people's feelings are hurt. Do better next time!!


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

numbnuts said:


> My rankings are mine, getting into sub grades of steel, alu, titanium (many there too) would merit getting into infinitely different carbon layups, all of which would not change my ranking (which I think "most" would agree with, again, money aside). Can you have a great alu frame out perform a poor carbon laid up frame as far as ride characteristic and durability? 100%! However, again, the material is a baseline, and given any alloy, my ranking remains given equal design and engineering is applied to said materials. It ok to love steel, ti and aluminum, but at the end of the day if it had to be one, carbon is the clear winner, at least for me (and many others).


So in other words, you have no basis for your statements that one material is fundamentally better than another, it is just your preference. That is fine, but there is a world of difference between liking something better and claiming it is fundamentally superior with no factual basis.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Cary said:


> So in other words, you have no basis for your statements that one material is fundamentally better than another, it is just your preference. That is fine, but there is a world of difference between liking something better and claiming it is fundamentally superior with no factual basis.


Again "better" always it tied to costs and I said over and over again, money not being and issue. I think that if you polled (maybe we should do a poll?) the entire body and asked to rank Carbon, Ti, Steel and Alu for bike frames if money was no option that my opinion would be echoed, often. However, how can you say aluminum is better than say carbon? There are so many facts that point to that not being fully true, but there are some cases where you could argue alu is better. And so the debate lives on.

I have lots of basis for *my* preference. Tons of miles on all 4, lots of metal working experience, etc but at the end I don't have to scientifically prove it, and nor do you, as this is an opinion piece.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

My opinion is.. I don't engineer solutions around materials


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> My opinion is.. I don't engineer solutions around materials


Sure, you can solve a lot of problems a lot of different ways. MacGyver did it with bubble gum and paperclips, but if he had carbon fiber.....imagine!


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

The main reason an average consumer would answer "carbon" to a question like this is because it's the obvious easy choice and is perceived to be superior all the time for everything. It's not.



numbnuts said:


> I think that if you polled (maybe we should do a poll?) the entire body and asked to rank Carbon, Ti, Steel and Alu for bike frames if money was no option that my opinion would be echoed, often.


The average consumer is not well informed enough to make data from a public poll like that useful in any way. The results would be irrelevant. Just uninformed opinions. 



> Again "better" always it tied to costs and I said over and over again, money not being and issue.


This statement has no significance until you define 'better'. Better for who? Better for what? The manufacturer? The engineer drawing it? The end consumer? Ride compliance? Strength? Cost? Weight? 

Better is also subjective. What you perceive as an added benefit may be a liability in my mind.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

*OneSpeed* said:


> The main reason an average consumer would answer "carbon" to a question like this is because it's the obvious easy choice and is perceived to be superior all the time for everything. It's not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 good points!

I don't disagree with this. Better is certainly subjective. Better overall, as in better for racing (which it appears it is), better for design flexibility (which I think most agree it is), better for weight (if you care about weight), etc.


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

numbnuts said:


> good points!
> 
> I don't disagree with this. Better is certainly subjective. Better overall, as in better for racing (which it appears it is), better for design flexibility (which I think most agree it is), better for weight (if you care about weight), etc.


Please go back and watch the video again... your doing this wrong. Pick one and be a d!ck about it. 

That's just the way it's done...


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

stiingya said:


> Please go back and watch the video again... your doing this wrong. Pick one and be a d!ck about it.
> 
> That's just the way it's done...


Ok fine! Bamboo!!!!


----------



## FrankS29 (Oct 23, 2019)

numbnuts said:


> Ok fine! Bamboo!!!!


Still not getting it…

should sound a lot more like: “bamboo is the best frame material, period. If you don’t think it is, you’re a disgusting sub-human”


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

FrankS29 said:


> Still not getting it…
> 
> should sound a lot more like: “bamboo is the best frame material, period. If you don’t think it is, you’re a disgusting sub-human”


Nailed it! Even sub human is too generous though. Go with filthy animal instead.


----------



## FrankS29 (Oct 23, 2019)

numbnuts said:


> Nailed it! Even sub human is too generous though.* Go with filthy animal instead.*


I only call people filthy animals if I’m not giving them exact change…


----------



## 1813254617.th (Dec 6, 2021)

I'm leaning way towards steel because I really like the simplistic aesthetic of steel. I also (perhaps irrationally) trust steel more than aluminium and carbon.

At the end of the day, frame design trumps material. Only thing that matters about the material choice is corrosion resistance and behaviour once corrosion occurs.

I am interested in bamboo frames, but am concerned about rot resistance.

I am also interested in a lightweight carbon frame, because my next bike will most definitely be used solely for fun and daily durability is not a concern.

"Will the Rona supply issues change your opinion on which material to get?"

No, because I won't be buying a bike in years.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

numbnuts said:


> You seem emotional about my opinion on materials vs. yours. This entire thread is based on opinions. you have yours, I have mine. I think mine is right, and it is ok if you think yours is right too. You do realize this isn't getting solved here, right?


Actually, I find it quite amusing. You seem really invested in this, responding to almost every post. What I find most humorous that you're now backpedaling (pun intended) your "facts" and now calling them opinions. Thanks for clearing that up. Carry on bro-ing it up.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

1813254617.th said:


> I'm leaning way towards steel because I really like the simplistic aesthetic of steel. I also (perhaps irrationally) trust steel more than aluminium and carbon.
> 
> At the end of the day, frame design trumps material. Only thing that matters about the material choice is corrosion resistance and behaviour once corrosion occurs.
> 
> ...


I have frames in all three materials. For a hardtail at least, I like steel, the balance flex and comfort that comes with a well designed frame, not to mention the asthetics. If I wanted to win races, no brainer carbon.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

noapathy said:


> Actually, I find it quite amusing. You seem really invested in this, responding to almost every post. What I find most humorous that you're now backpedaling (pun intended) your "facts" and now calling them opinions. Thanks for clearing that up. Carry on bro-ing it up.


No Facebook so I need to find snarky feedback somewhere and my 5 year old is getting too smart to argue with, plus, sitting on my trainer for 3 hours now, it’s mind numbing so I got some time, darn winter! All in good fun, seriously, don’t take it any other way, I really mean no harm man.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Cary said:


> I have frames in all three materials. For a hardtail at least, I like steel, the balance flex and comfort that comes with a well designed frame, not to mention the asthetics. If I wanted to win races, no brainer carbon.
> 
> View attachment 1968717


Have you found any good builders doing more xc , 100/120 mm xc Marathon race focused type builds? I love my steel hard tail, but would buy a snappy xc oriented one in heart beat.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

numbnuts said:


> Have you found any good builders doing more xc , 100/120 mm xc Marathon race focused type builds? I love my steel hard tail, but would buy a snappy xc oriented one in heart beat.


Great guy, and a really good rider.









Neuhaus Metalworks


Handmade amazingly capable steel bikes




www.neuhausmetalworks.com





The hummingbird has your name on it.


----------



## Redlands R&C (Dec 14, 2013)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Steel.


Also steel.


----------



## LewisQC (Jul 3, 2013)

I ride a carbon FS (Ibis Ripmo) and a steel hardtail (canfield Nimble 9). Might get a Pivot Trail or RM element as my next bike and pass the Ripmo to my growing son... I have an aluminium fatbike frame on order but with 5.0 tires, I don't think it's relevant...

I never think about carbon failure when riding. Had some solide crashes on my Ripmo without problem. Santa Cruz, with their video about breaking alu vs carbon frame, gave me some peace of mind years ago... Danny Macaskill trying to destroy a reserve wheel is also a good one..


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

LewisQC said:


> I ride a carbon FS (Ibis Ripmo) and a steel hardtail (canfield Nimble 9). Might get a Pivot Trail or RM element as my next bike and pass the Ripmo to my growing son... I have an aluminium fatbike frame on order but with 5.0 tires, I don't think it's relevant...
> 
> I never think about carbon failure when riding. Had some solide crashes on my Ripmo without problem. Santa Cruz, with their video about breaking alu vs carbon frame, gave me some peace of mind years ago... Danny Macaskill trying to destroy a reserve wheel is also a good one..


That video was amazing, but the thing that jumped out to me is they were only testing the forces in one direction and impacts in one place where the frame was obviously really strong. If they would hit it sideways, upside down, on the chainstay, randomly spin the frame around, etc. Obviously if you were coming up short on a double that frame was strong as heck! But how likely are you to ever get a rock strike up where they were slamming it against the cement? You'd kinda have to have your fork fall out of the frame mid air and land on a rock...? 

Their rims are tough as heck though! But not very light... maybe the feel is really good? Some kind of perfect compliance and stiffness that makes the weight not matter. But otherwise I don't understand the draw to their wheels? Lots of bombproof not very light wheels for a lot less less money! Their C frames aren't so lightweight either, which considering their lifetime warranty is probably a logical conclusion... catch 22!

And speaking of warranties, spend some time looking at used carbon bikes on PB and you see a lot of, "new front triangle", "new rear triangle", brand new frame, etc. etc. I think a lot of times they ended up buying a new frame while waiting for the warranty replacement to come in and then sell when they finally get the replacement? IDK? All frames break, but looking at used bikes it sure seems like it happens to carbon more?

Now obviously I just bought a carbon frame, so I ain't saying NOT to buy them as they make total sense in some situations! But warranty and a back up bike sure seems like the way to go!! 

I wonder if any of the places that fix carbon bikes sell insurance for used carbon frames? That would be cool if say your selling your old carbon frame and you could buy a 1-3 year insurance package that goes to the seller.


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

Interesting to watch the survey. Aluminum jumped out with an early lead, then carbon pulled ahead. I'm on the edge of my seat.  I guess it doesn't take much to excite me when I'm stuck indoors due to winter weather.

The survey is too basic to draw any real conclusions except that we can see the potential trend in which material is more popular. There's no science behind it, and certainly doesn't define which is better. I don't, or anyone else should, expect this survey to be anything else, and I don't think the OP does either. Heaven forbid anyone decides what to buy based on what they see in this survey. But... the realty is, many will. Just like, ask the masses why they bought a carbon bike, and I'd wager most all would say something like "they (friend, relative, salesman, stranger, a survey) told me it was better". Only a small percentage would (could honestly) say the decision came from personal hands on experience and depth of knowledge. For a survey to be meaningful, I've always felt you need to qualify the participants, or at the very least, ask 'why' they made the choice they did. But hey, what's the fun in that. There would be little or no interesting follow-up banter in forums...


----------



## megablue (Jul 20, 2020)

stiingya said:


> That video was amazing, but the thing that jumped out to me is they were only testing the forces in one direction and impacts in one place where the frame was obviously really strong. If they would hit it sideways, upside down, on the chainstay, randomly spin the frame around, etc. Obviously if you were coming up short on a double that frame was strong as heck! But how likely are you to ever get a rock strike up where they were slamming it against the cement? You'd kinda have to have your fork fall out of the frame mid air and land on a rock...?
> 
> Their rims are tough as heck though! But not very light... maybe the feel is really good? Some kind of perfect compliance and stiffness that makes the weight not matter. But otherwise I don't understand the draw to their wheels? Lots of bombproof not very light wheels for a lot less less money! Their C frames aren't so lightweight either, which considering their lifetime warranty is probably a logical conclusion... catch 22!
> 
> ...


Now I’d be curious to see the number behind your used carbon example. There would be no way to do it, but I wonder if people break more carbon because more “advanced” riders ride carbon more than any other material. Not because carbon is better but because that’s usually what is being sold as the superior material, and let’s be honest, a lot of riders are suckers for good marketing. It hasn’t been until the last while that alloy has seen a resurgence, at least from my perspective. It’s all pretty interesting, sucks that there’s no real way to tell.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Ahhhh marketing


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

megablue said:


> Now I’d be curious to see the number behind your used carbon example. There would be no way to do it, but I wonder if people break more carbon because more “advanced” riders ride carbon more than any other material. Not because carbon is better but because that’s usually what is being sold as the superior material, and let’s be honest, a lot of riders are suckers for good marketing. It hasn’t been until the last while that alloy has seen a resurgence, at least from my perspective. It’s all pretty interesting, sucks that there’s no real way to tell.


"Now I’d be curious to see the number behind your used carbon example" That would be interesting. Not sure what kind of numbers or % from all available carbon? I just know that if I'd have been asked this survey in 2020 I'd have said "Aluminum" cause it seemed to jump out at me when looking at used bikes how often I saw something mentioned about "new frame/triangle" on a used bike. Or just new frame that was prior model year, etc. And looking at used carbon wheels it was the same thing. Lots of new rims, new wheels because they were warranty replacements.


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

I've been keeping an eye out for a carbon hardtail frame. I'd like about 1140-1150mm wheelbase, to suit 27.5 wheels. And 120-130mm travel fork. There's nothing out there that I've found. As yet. Not even in China frames. Don't care about boost. I just like how Carbon rides.


----------



## ToiletSiphon (May 25, 2018)

AL. Too OCD to own anything carbon. 

Envoyé de mon SM-G973W en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I have some steep and chunky trails that point towards enduro bikes. After seeing alloy enduro bike weights (38 lb!), I’m pretty sure my next bike will be carbon because I’m too skinny to climb something that heavy. Keep in mind that I’ve never really broken anything on a bike except a few chains.


----------



## SteveJewels (Nov 9, 2021)

Ti


----------



## electricdownhill805 (May 25, 2020)

I’m a believer In carbon had a aluminum Capra I hated felt every little bump got a carbon specialized enduro love it


----------



## ladljon (Nov 30, 2011)

I only have Ti, since breaking too many aluminum. To be fair, the Al bikes were mid-90's


----------



## croatiansensation (Feb 21, 2005)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Steel.



Likely this. It is shocking how heavy carbon bikes are now, and I am rapidly starting to believe that there is no great benefit to using it as a frame material.


----------



## stiingya (Apr 30, 2004)

croatiansensation said:


> Likely this. It is shocking how heavy carbon bikes are now, and I am rapidly starting to believe that there is no great benefit to using it as a frame material.


No doubt the industry seems to have gone to much more durable/heavier and better warrantied carbon frames. But they aren't all heavy?

And pick a carbon frame that IS heavy like a Norco Range. But then find me a steel enduro frame that's DH bike worthy with a super low center of gravity that has a horst link high pivot with an idler and lets see how "light" that steel frame is?


----------



## TrailNut (Apr 6, 2004)

My al. frame bike so I’ll look for a carbon or steel frame 170mm to 215mm shock range. Steel can be repaired and carbon might last longer than aluminum if I don’t break it.


----------



## Xrunner1987 (Nov 10, 2021)

From an environmental point of view, I won't choose a carbon bike.
Contrary to what many people think that "it doesn't take much to produce a bike", carbon frames and parts are not very environmentally friendly. According to a study (Johnson, Rebecca; Kodama, Alice; & Willensky, Regina, 2014) performed through the LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) method, carbon frames' water consumption and waste produced during the manufacturing process are shockingly high.
*PART *of the reason why we choose to ride a bike, is because we think bike doesn't do much harm to the environment, right? But, considering how much waste and water and energy that it cost just to make one carbon frame, and what would happen if you accidentally knock a notch on a carbon frame? In many cases, it's gone, can't be repaired.
What's worrying me even more, is that when people see a bike, idea came to their mind, in lots of cases, is: "Oh! Bike is green, good to environment", "no carbon emission", "it doesn't burn oil". Yes, and no. It surely won't produce any emission other than your breath and sweat riding the bike, but we sometimes overlook what's "behind the scene". How much carbon emission does it take to ship a Shimano chain from Japan to USA? Or to any place in the world? 
We call ourselves "bike enthusiasts", but doesn't seem to think much about environmental impacts when making purchasing decisions. 
Any thoughts? 

*Reference*
Johnson, Rebecca; Kodama, Alice; & Willensky, Regina (2014). _The Complete Impact of Bicycle Use: Analyzing the Environmental Impact and Initiative of the Bicycle Industry. _Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from The Complete Impact of Bicycle Use: Analyzing the Environmental Impact and Initiative of the Bicycle Industry.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

I bought my next bike last year.
=sParty


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Xrunner1987 said:


> From an environmental point of view, I won't choose a carbon bike.
> Contrary to what many people think that "it doesn't take much to produce a bike", carbon frames and parts are not very environmentally friendly. According to a study (Johnson, Rebecca; Kodama, Alice; & Willensky, Regina, 2014) performed through the LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) method, carbon frames' water consumption and waste produced during the manufacturing process are shockingly high.
> *PART *of the reason why we choose to ride a bike, is because we think bike doesn't do much harm to the environment, right? But, considering how much waste and water and energy that it cost just to make one carbon frame, and what would happen if you accidentally knock a notch on a carbon frame? In many cases, it's gone, can't be repaired.
> What's worrying me even more, is that when people see a bike, idea came to their mind, in lots of cases, is: "Oh! Bike is green, good to environment", "no carbon emission", "it doesn't burn oil". Yes, and no. It surely won't produce any emission other than your breath and sweat riding the bike, but we sometimes overlook what's "behind the scene". How much carbon emission does it take to ship a Shimano chain from Japan to USA? Or to any place in the world?
> ...




I see your point but unless you're using a bike for commuting it really isn't very environmentally friendly. Also damaged carbon frames are very repairable.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

There's a trade-off for everything we buy or use. I guess the carbon footprint for manufacturing automobiles is better than bikes. I'll go with that super grande pick up truck with a turbo diesel 7 liter.


----------



## baker (Jan 6, 2004)

baker said:


> I love my Banshee Prime (which is aluminum if people don't know). Recently I broke the carbon swingarm on my Titus Rockstar 29er, after years of abuse and crashes.
> 
> My next bike would be a titanium hardtail, if I had my druthers...


A little bit of carbon, a little bit of ti...with deep discounts, I couldn't resist both.

The Whippet will be my racey bike, the Vandal will be my, dunno, trail'ish hardtail bike (65 degree head angle)... I expect the geometry to make more of a difference than the material...


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Cleared2land said:


> There's a trade-off for everything we buy or use. I guess the carbon footprint for manufacturing automobiles is better than bikes. I'll go with that super grande pick up truck with a turbo diesel 7 liter.


Even that is a hard one. If you bike you eat more which in turn uses more resources to make that food. You may also live longer, using more resources.

As with cars, the most friendly thing to ride is a bike that already exists, and then keep it for as long as you can.... _waits for 80% of the forum to faint at the thought_.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

My commuter bike is a 20+ year old beater that looks seriously neglected, but is maintained meticulously.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

My next bike will be whatever I happen to find that I like on the used market. I currently have 1 carbon, 2 aluminum, 3 titanium, and 5 steel bikes. Likely I'd find room for another titanium or steel bike, but I'm not actively looking at either carbon or aluminum.



Xrunner1987 said:


> From an environmental point of view, I won't choose a carbon bike...


I'm not an environmentalist, but the last 30+ bikes I've bought were all used bikes and I usually ride from my house so I don't have to drive to the trails. My carbon bike was broken when I bought it used and destined for the landfill before I saved it and bult it back up 4000 miles ago.


----------



## tedmasta (Nov 29, 2011)

Alloy for life. Carbon costs too much and offers too little benefit IMO. Carbon bars are dampening enough for me. Wish there were more HQ alloy bikes out there. HQ alloy is a lot nicer than entry level carbon, and I won't have 5 figures to drop on high end carbon bike. Would rather put my money towards good components.

Well-designed alloy bikes damp very well. The only alloy bike that I have ever felt was 'too harsh' was 90s/early 2000s alloy, with those huge and stiff tubes. All my post 2010 alloy bikes ride great. Hydroforming is awesome tech.


----------



## fishwrinkle (Jul 11, 2012)

if it's a ht then definitely steel and fs don't matter if it ticks the boxes. on the hydroforming, and this applies to carbon too, can we stop with the triangular top tubes? my inner knees are requesting it


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

100% carbon since there is so much climbing here. I could use every lb saved on the frame at least, if nothing else. I currently ride a pretty beefy Ripley carbon. I'm looking at the Ripmo or the Yeti SB130 Lunch ride next, but will keep the Ripley.


----------

