# Anyone like Aluminum better than Carbon Fiber?



## Joe Schmoe (Sep 22, 2010)

Just wondering if there are people who actually like aluminum bikes more than Carbon Fiber bikes, and if so why?


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

Yes , they are generally less susceptible to rock damage , cheaper , and there are many more choices for frame styles .


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2010)

Mt Bikes for the above reason...road bike, carbon


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

If we're talking hardtails, then I'm a fan of steel.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

No....


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

I prefer aluminum over carbon. When you get into carbon, you've gotten way further along the curve of diminishing returns than I like to go. And too, I don't like to have to obsesses over every little scratch, or worry that some random pebble thrown up by my tires will destroy the frame. 

I had the opportunity to test ride a Superfly 100 on a trail this summer. The bike honestly felt kinda "dead" to me. The aluminum bikes that i tested that same day all had a much better "feel" to them. Your mileage may vary.

Bottom line though, I think it's cost to me. I just have not seen enough value in carbon to convince me to spend on it.


----------



## Givet (Jul 17, 2008)

Hi,

Have you seen carbon, aluminium, steel or titanium break?

The carbon rod snap whitout warning. The alloys bend before they break. That gives me a safer feeling. I've got one aluminium and one titanium hardtail that i prefer any day over a carbon frame. Price isn't a real issue because the titanium bike i more expensive than most carbon bikes.


----------



## Squash (Jul 20, 2003)

*I'll go...*

steel or aluminum over carbon fiber. And for most of the above reasons. The biggest for me is cost and/or diminishing returns. Considering that you pay nearly double for a CF bike as you would for an Alu or steel bike with the same spec, the performance advantage and ride qualities of the carbon bike just aren't worth it IMHO. Maybe if I was a world class XC racer I'd feel differently. But then it wouldn't matter as my sponsors would be footing the bill for the bike.

Good Dirt


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

Givet said:


> Have you seen carbon, aluminium, steel or titanium break?
> 
> The carbon rod snap whitout warning. The alloys bend before they break. That gives me a safer feeling.


Two broken bikes come to mind right now:

1) Carbon Schwinn Homegrown: kid tried to jump over a log, hung the back wheel and broke the frame in half. It broke quite slowly, sort of looked like it was melting and sounded like a dozen boxes of spaghetti being broken.

2) Cannondale Moto: Saw him walking out of the woods with two halves of the bike in his hands, he was shaken up but ok. The bike snapped clean and fast center of both the downtube and top tubes. No bending, just catastrophic failure. Of course he had a dual crown fork on it and said the word "case" a few too many times for me to think he knew what he was doing, but it broke either way.

Anyway, the whole point of this was to say that the mode of failure is not uniquely material dependent. It depends heavily on the reason for the failure; impact can cause a slow weakening of carbon as much as fatigue can cause a sudden catastrophic failure in metal. Just remember that you are buying a mountain bike and as such it has been designed for a long life of not being babied. Doesn't matter what the frame material is.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

aluminum sucks.
steel feels good.
carbon is better than all the above.....

I ride all 3.....


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

Aluminum for full suspension, steel for everything else!


----------



## 00sable (Oct 28, 2009)

+1 on the carbon feeling dead. Demoed a carbon 26er and 29er last year, both felt dead or maybe no feed back from the trail. Could just be used to the vibration of aluminum and steel. Dunno. Definitely feel more at home on Al or steel. Want to test Titanium one day. I could see a Titus or Lynsky hardtail in my future!!!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

A lot of the criticisms about carbon are really not significant, or based on experiences from the early days of carbon. 
- Carbon is stronger than aluminum, and won't necessarily break more catastrophically or suddenly.
- The price of carbon has come way down.
- Scratches and rock dings are undesireable on a carbon or painted metal frame. The only really cosmetically worry free frame is bare metal. Even anodized frames scratch and chip. 

With all that said, a cool paint job on an aluminum frame is more my style.


----------



## Carraig042 (Nov 12, 2009)

I like carbon as a material, but on a MTB I am iffy about it and it vulnerabilities. More susceptible to rock chips that can lead to damaging the frame's integrity. I think I will stay with aluminum or Ti over carbon for the time being.

-Brett


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

There's a lot to be said for the "disposable aluminum race frame." There are some very nice NOS frames kicking around for as little as $200.

I really like the carbon fork on my road bike. I'll certainly test-ride some carbon mountain bikes if they're in my price point next time I want to buy a complete bike, or even if I'm just thinking about a new frame. It's not a fair comparison, but I feel a lot less of the road through my carbon fork than I do through the aluminum fork on my commuter, with a larger (but cheaper, and inflated to the same pressure) front tire. Trail feel is one thing, but I don't think I need to feel every single pebble.

I can't help wondering if this new Graphene stuff is going to change the way carbon structures are built. Seems like it should be even stronger, and allow lighter bikes. Note that current carbon models are not necessarily lighter than their aluminum counterparts. I think that either aluminum or a scandium alloy is probably still the material for the lightest platforms to build weight weenie bikes on, and scandium is supposed to have a somewhat more forgiving feel.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> ...scandium is supposed to have a somewhat more forgiving feel.


it does....my wife's race rig was a niner Air 9 1X9....a ridiculously quick bike that was both compliant and 'snappy'.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

AndrwSwitch said:


> . Note that current carbon models are not necessarily lighter than their aluminum counterparts.


Huh? I think in general, you can say that yes, they are lighter than their aluminum counterparts.

Blur LT Al frame plus shock - 6.6 lb
Blur LT carbon - 6.0

Nomad Al- 7 lb
Nomad carbon - 6.1 lb

Scott scale carbon hardail frame 900 g (2 pounds!!)


----------



## S_Trek (May 3, 2010)

smilinsteve said:


> A lot of the criticisms about carbon are really not significant, or based on experiences from the early days of carbon.
> - Carbon is stronger than aluminum, and won't necessarily break more catastrophically or suddenly.
> - The price of carbon has come way down.
> - Scratches and rock dings are undesireable on a carbon or painted metal frame. The only really cosmetically worry free frame is bare metal. Even anodized frames scratch and chip.
> ...


Carbon is stronger? I had heard/read this before but I cannot keep a Carbon handle bar or seatpost to stay in one piece like aluminum. Carbon needs to much care for me. I dont want to add a "Inch pound torque wrench" to my carry tools.

Sorry for getting off track. I like aluminum over carbon but carbon is sure purty, The only cabon parts I have on my bikes are the steering stem spacers and top cover.


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

I'd rather ride AL than CF. If I were picking for myself though, it would be steel.


----------



## space (May 25, 2004)

Squash said:


> steel or aluminum over carbon fiber. And for most of the above reasons. The biggest for me is cost and/or diminishing returns. Considering that you pay nearly double for a CF bike as you would for an Alu or steel bike with the same spec, the performance advantage and ride qualities of the carbon bike just aren't worth it IMHO. Maybe if I was a world class XC racer I'd feel differently. But then it wouldn't matter as my sponsors would be footing the bill for the bike.
> 
> Good Dirt


You pay double for a CF bike over a comparable Aluminum bike?!?! I must be looking at the wrong Aluminum bikes....Ibis Mojo HD frame $2400 (carbon), Pivot Mach 5.7 frame $2000 (Aluminum), that is a 20% difference in price


----------



## texasflood (Aug 6, 2007)

...I think it's called "marketing". Try and make carbon the rage, so we will all sell our steel and alu frames and jump on the bandwagon. After a while, we will all wonder how we were even able to ride our soon-to-be-prehistoric aluminum frames.


----------



## gabe23 (Aug 28, 2010)

Forget CF and aluminum. It's all about bamboo these days...


----------



## nate. (Oct 10, 2010)

wtf is that??? looks kinda cool.


----------



## Joe Schmoe (Sep 22, 2010)

wow...bamboo! is that for real?


----------



## nate. (Oct 10, 2010)

yes. google.....

http://www.calfeedesign.com/bamboo.htm


----------



## kan3 (Nov 11, 2009)

$2700 for the mtb frame


----------



## TheMajor (Sep 13, 2010)

Alu for me. I like steel but I think it's had it's day now. I just can't get passed the failure rate and price of carbon.


----------



## Crosstown Stew (Aug 16, 2008)

Good Alum for HT or FS, steel for rigid, carbon belongs on the road


----------



## TrailNut (Apr 6, 2004)

steel or titanium (if you have extra cash) rocks


----------



## Brieridesbikes (Oct 9, 2010)

carbon. lighter. faster. better.

If you are a weekend warrior with no intention of racing go for aluminum.


----------



## Crosstown Stew (Aug 16, 2008)

Brieridesbikes said:


> carbon. lighter. faster. better.
> 
> If you are a weekend warrior with no intention of racing go for aluminum.


Haha, nice controversial post to pop your cherry! I bet your really fast because of your bike right?


----------



## TrailNut (Apr 6, 2004)

*bamboo*



gabe23 said:


> Forget CF and aluminum. It's all about bamboo these days...


bamboo's a fine weed for skate board decks...


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

TheMajor said:


> Alu for me. I like steel but I think it's had it's day now. I just can't get passed the failure rate and price of carbon.


What data can you provide on carbon failure rate?


----------



## frdfandc (Sep 5, 2007)

Brieridesbikes said:


> carbon. lighter. faster. better.
> 
> If you are a weekend warrior with no intention of racing go for aluminum.


Bike is only as good as the rider making it go. Doesn't matter what the material is.


----------



## Brieridesbikes (Oct 9, 2010)

*"conversational post"*



Crosstown Stew said:


> Haha, nice controversial post to pop your cherry! I bet your really fast because of your bike right?


Well,well I did not know that we needed to talk about the weather or other "conversational" pieces in order to answer a specific question.

and yes, I was a lot faster riding a bike that was about 10 lbs lighter than my previous bike. I think I am in good company in saying that, being that every pro rides a carbon bike. It is faster.

There are some people who like to do things the hard way (crosstown stew) and then there is me. I prefer hauling a 23 lb bike up 2,700 ft during a race over hauling a 30 lb bike. I bet if I were to ask crosstown stew to hold about 7, 1 lb water bottles up the last 1000 feet he would say heck no.

If it matters, and you have the money, dump the 7 lbs.

Now that I am not racing any more I have purchased an aluminum bike and I love it as well. It is not the fast race car bike that I was used to riding, but it is more like my jeep. Perfect for off-roading and more technical descents but not something I want under me at a start line.

How about that for conversation?


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> What data can you provide on carbon failure rate?


Seriously. This thread is getting out of hand with the uninformed opinions.

If you put your bike frame into a situation where the carbon will become damaged enough to fail, a metal bike will have also failed. Example: if you crash and smack your carbon bike tube on a rock, it will suffer damage; if you crashed a metal bike it will dent. Both are death nails for a bike.

Actually, it's not the same, sometimes you can patch carbon bikes to regain strength. Even if you pull a dent on a metal bike, the material is fatigued and will fail.

Why not just buy Ti?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Brieridesbikes said:


> and yes, I was a lot faster riding a bike that was about 10 lbs lighter than my previous bike. I think I am in good company in saying that, being that every pro rides a carbon bike. It is faster.


What tank did you have that you shaved off 10 lbs going to carbon? Are you giving credit for lighter components to the material that the frame happened to be on the lighter bike?


----------



## frdfandc (Sep 5, 2007)

Brieridesbikes said:


> and yes, I was a lot faster riding a bike that was about 10 lbs lighter than my previous bike. [\QUOTE]
> 
> I think most people would pick up speed on their bikes if they dropped 10lbs off the bike. But the speed would be in the climbs, not on the flats or descents.
> 
> ...


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

i like crashing aluminum into rocks better.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

Combative much? 

Relax.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

One Pivot said:


> i like crashing aluminum into rocks better.


If you like crashing as much as I do, then may I convey you to wood , then my answer is Bamboo.

All joking aside, 2 bike of same value say 3k, you'd feel worst scratching/ crashing the carbon one, than the AL. TI is more expensive but yet I don't feel as bad scratching it.


----------



## Whacked (Sep 29, 2008)

still rockin my '93 Trek 8300 carbon composite bike.
I'm more worried about the aluminum stays than the carbon tubes


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

mimi1885 said:


> If you like crashing as much as I do, then may I convey you to wood , then my answer is Bamboo.
> 
> All joking aside, 2 bike of same value say 3k, you'd feel worst scratching/ crashing the carbon one, than the AL. TI is more expensive but yet I don't feel as bad scratching it.


exactly  doesnt hurt too much wrecking most aluminum parts. trashing a $2500 carbon frame hurts. a $500 alu frame, eh.. ill live :thumbsup:

comforts a non issue on modern full suspension bikes.


----------



## hillwilly (Nov 20, 2008)

Rock damage, and maybe sun damage. I'm going to wait and see how my friends CF bike holds up to a few years of desert trail riding, before I would even consider a CF bike. He has 2400 miles on his GT, his frame is holding up good so far.


----------



## jpeters (Nov 19, 2010)

Brieridesbikes said:


> Well,well I did not know that we needed to talk about the weather or other "conversational" pieces in order to answer a specific question.
> 
> and yes, I was a lot faster riding a bike that was about 10 lbs lighter than my previous bike. I think I am in good company in saying that, being that every pro rides a carbon bike. It is faster.
> 
> ...


 For sure I have been into fitness all of my life and its true I would go for a run and and half of the time I would put 10 lb weights on my arms and this would make it alot harder to run. The same with biking if you ever try to bike with 10 extra pounds on you it changes alot for sure. So yes if you can afford it go light. but be smart about it a few hundred grams wont change alot but it can add up and if you take a back pack with food and extra water it makes a big difference. Normally what I do is try to get rid of the really heavy parts on my bike I find around 12kg is not to bad for me for a fs and 11.5 for a hardtail also wheels and tires make a huge difference on how a bike feels like my mud tires are much harder to use on the road. I find so many things can change the way the bike feels but the main thing is the wheels


----------

