# Please explain what the draw to carbon is?



## Guzzoid (Nov 12, 2015)

When I ask what's the difference is I usually get:
It has a superior ride quality?

When I ask what that is I get: Less vibration.

I really don't know it it is worth the extra money.

Some of the higher end aluminum bikes weigh almost as light as the carbon, seem more durable, and are cheaper.

Is the carbon anti vibration really worth that extra money?
Is it more worth it on a hard tail?
how would a fs aluminum stack up to a carbon ht when it comes to ride quality?

Sorry for all the questions, I just figured I would get it all out.

PS I live in an area where test rides on the higher than entry level bikes are not available for a few months if at all. That's the reason for the questions.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

Never heard of anti vibration for carbon mountain bikes. For equal weight carbon is stiffer. For equal stiffness carbon is lighter.

Carbon hard tails are in the 2 to 3 lb range

Stiffness is good when you are riding tech as it makes things more predictable


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

For the same weight, carbon is significantly stronger. Its so much stronger that you can go quite a bit lighter and still be stronger than aluminum. 

Some of these carbon bikes have low pressure 2.4 tires, with 140+mm of travel. Those things are sucking up the vibration, not so much the frame. Just look at it from a weight and strength angle, those light carbon frames can be very strong. A ~5lb carbon frame can be stiff and strong like my 7lb aluminum frame.

Alu frames are great these days too. Id take a aluminum frame and toss the money into premium suspension. If I had thousands to just throw around, all carbon and top end suspension would be cool, but thats not the case. Im happy to save the money going aluminum. Going carbon and accepting lower end suspension is a very poor trade off.


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

One Pivot said:


> Id take a aluminum frame and toss the money into premium suspension. If I had thousands to just throw around, all carbon and top end suspension would be cool, but thats not the case. Im happy to save the money going aluminum. Going carbon and accepting lower end suspension is a very poor trade off.


Completely agree, another concern (at least for me) will be the life of the frame. Both materials fail but have seen more failures in carbon due to impact than AL so for someone that owns bikes for a while is a valid concern and that's the reason why I still ride an AL frame.


----------



## Guzzoid (Nov 12, 2015)

Awesome! Now could you explain stiffness to me? Is that like not strapping up rollerblades tight? If you do it's "stiffer", right? Or am I interpreting that wrong.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

One of the unsung benefits of carbon is that it is repairable unlike aluminum. Cracks/breaks in a carbon frame can usually be repaired for a couple hundred bucks professionally or depending on severity you can do it yourself at home for really cheap.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

One Pivot said:


> For the same weight, carbon is significantly stronger. Its so much stronger that you can go quite a bit lighter and still be stronger than aluminum.
> 
> Some of these carbon bikes have low pressure 2.4 tires, with 140+mm of travel. Those things are sucking up the vibration, not so much the frame. Just look at it from a weight and strength angle, those light carbon frames can be very strong. A ~5lb carbon frame can be stiff and strong like my 7lb aluminum frame.
> 
> Alu frames are great these days too. Id take a aluminum frame and toss the money into premium suspension. If I had thousands to just throw around, all carbon and top end suspension would be cool, but thats not the case. Im happy to save the money going aluminum. Going carbon and accepting lower end suspension is a very poor trade off.


Well said.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

*Santa Cruz tests Carbon against Aluminum Frames Sets*


----------



## cptjack (Jan 14, 2004)

Guzzoid said:


> Awesome! Now could you explain stiffness to me? Is that like not strapping up rollerblades tight? If you do it's "stiffer", right? Or am I interpreting that wrong.


Don't think stiffness, think less tortional flexibility


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

the stiffness/vibration absorption issue is an interesting one.

A stiff aluminum frame or component (like handlebars, for example) can PROPAGATE vibrations (the ringing you might hear when said part impacts something solid). Carbon is a little different. It can be stiff but ALSO deaden high frequency vibrations.

Carbon is also unique in that its construction allows for different parts of the frame to have different properties. For example, the downtube from the headtube to the BB area can be really super stiff, but the seatstays can be relatively flexy and the direction of that flex can be engineered into the frame far better than it can be with metals. Go into a bike shop and take a look at some carbon frames. On some road bikes, you can flex the seatstays just by grabbing and squeezing. They're SUPPOSED to do that.

Taken as a whole, "ride quality" is a "thing" for a carbon frame. A well-designed and built one can be stiff where it needs to be and flexible where it is beneficial to ride quality. Whether that's worth it to you is the question you have to answer for yourself. And the only way you can do that is to compare your options by riding them.

I will say this...I will never purchase an aluminum hardtail frame again. I think aluminum works great for a full suspension frame. But I'd rather buy a steel hardtail frame than an aluminum one. My first mtb was a pretty cheap steel frame. But it still had better ride quality than the "upgraded" aluminum hardtail I replaced it with.


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

Steel is real, bro. 
/thread


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cleared2land said:


> ...]


All great when the forces match exactly what the design is built to handle best.
The carbon breaks I've seen are when the forces come from an unexpected angle, like in a crash. I've seen some high end frames break in minor falls. Personally, I'll take a little weight penalty and stick with steel for HTs for the ride quality and AL for FS where the material doesn't really make much difference. I'm far more likely to crash at low speed in a bunch of jagged rocks than I am to case a huge gap.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

I agree with^^ and would almost never buy a hardtail aluminum frame. You ride a lot and do it over rocks and roots--you get beat up from the vibration you get hit with from an aluminum frame. Then you can't ride as much as you want to. 
A carbon hardtail can have enough compliance designed in so you can ride rough terrain a lot longer. And it's lighter.
Or you go with full suspension for comfort not because you need it for your terrain. Because of the rear suspension to isolate you from vibration you can use aluminum for the frame. 
So when could you buy an aluminum hardtail?
The new Plus bikes could be OK.
With 27.5+ and 29+(and fat bikes) aluminum frames the higher volume of the tires act enough like a rear suspension to isolate you from the aluminum drawbacks. 
You still have to watch out for weight.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2015)

With four electrons available to form covalent chemical bonds, carbon naturally draws in surrounding elements.


----------



## 2m2hs (Mar 20, 2011)

Harold said:


> I will say this...I will never purchase an aluminum hardtail frame again. I think aluminum works great for a full suspension frame. But I'd rather buy a steel hardtail frame than an aluminum one. My first mtb was a pretty cheap steel frame. But it still had better ride quality than the "upgraded" aluminum hardtail I replaced it with.


This. I have a steel HT and an aluminum FS. On both I have pretty high end components. I'd rather have the high end components, suspension, wheels etc. than have that money in a carbon frame, but an aluminum HT is a pretty harsh ride and really just unnecessary considering carbon HT's are pretty cheap and a good steel frame just rides so [email protected] nice. Aluminum FS is great because you have all that suspension making the ride comfortable.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Some valid points here...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Count me in the steel hardtail, aluminum fs camp.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Count me in the all carbon camp. No comparison. I ride 2000 plus miles a year and the durability of my carbon bikes is without question. For every "carbon frames can break" story there are 100 cracked welds that aluminum bikes suffer from. For every "OMG! That carbon rim cracked!" story there are 100 aluminum rims that taco'd. Side benefit is carbon rims also stay in true better as well.

Carbon frames are stiffer where they need to be stiff, compliant where they need to be compliant. You can change the flex characteristics of different parts of a carbon frame with how they layup is done. You can't do this (well) with aluminum framed bikes. It isn't just about weight. It is about precise handling, better climbing, and more power to the wheels. You have to try a carbon framed bike side by side with an aluminum framed bike.

Here is one of my babies:

Pivot M6 w/ 155mm rear travel, 160mm front travel
Light Bicycle carbon rims
RaceFace Next carbon bars
RaceFace Next carbon crank


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Looks painful.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

I tried a full carbon 2015 trance. Carbon controls, frame, wheels. Theres definitely a comparison to aluminum, as it felt basically the same. Really solidified my decision to pickup another aluminum frame! 

Under certain conditions, the full carbon bike felt a little better. Powering up and over a big'ish rock mid-climb felt a little easier, as I was dragging around ~4lb less bike than usual. Not "wow!" easier or anything, but it had a little more ease. That bike was about 7 grand.

If dropping 7 grand is in the cards for you, awesome! Do it. If its not, dont sweat it as you're not missing out on much. I picked up a 6 pound giant reign frame, in aluminum. It built up to a 28.5lb 6 inch full suspension bike, with a coil fork. The price gap was enormous.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Disposable income...the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after income taxes have been accounted for. Disposable income is often monitored as one of the many key economic indicators used to gauge the overall state of the economy.

From disposable income we get discretionary income. It's definition is somewhat intuitive... this is our 'play money'. This is the stuff that funds carbon and titanium hardware habits. These habits can be a costly mistress to tame.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Carbon's main benefit is light/strong/stiff. The vibration dampening or forgiveness you read about is a generalization and is depending mainly not the frame's design. Aluminum bikes can be quite forgiving; my mtb is aluminum and rides wonderfully. I use a high-flex post (made of carbon) that helps give me some give on the rear. My road bike is carbon and rides great. My cross/gravel bike is aluminum and rides great (high-flex post again on this one). I would argue that what people perceive as give/flex/vibe dampening has more to do with tire size/air pressure than anything else. Again, carbon gives you lightweight and stiffness in a strong package and that, IMHO, is it's main benefit. Pros aren't riding carbon fiber b/c it flexes...they want ultra-stiff to put the power down.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Cool vidi from PB - I have seen a carbon frame fail. Top tube broke from a slow-speed endo and the bike hit a rock when it fell. It was a cheapie frame. I think canon is like a lot of things....you get what you pay for and if you think the $500 Ebay Chinese carbon frame is as nice a those Santa Cruz ones, you are crazy.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

The other thing to realize is there are limitless ways to create a carbon frame and various levels of quality in the raw materials. So a carbon frame for a high end bike is not the same "carbon" that a lower end bike has. Sure they both have "carbon" frames but the choice of raw materials and the layup (the way the carbon fiber sheets are laid out, angles, resin, etc.) are much better on a higher end carbon frame bike like Pivot, Santa Cruz, etc.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^ Yepper, there can be multiple carbon grades and qualities within a single manufacturer. Santa Cruz is an example that offers two grades of carbon.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2015)

Cleared2land said:


> Disposable income...the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after income taxes have been accounted for. Disposable income is often monitored as one of the many key economic indicators used to gauge the overall state of the economy.
> 
> From disposable income we get discretionary income. It's definition is somewhat intuitive... this is our 'play money'. This is the stuff that funds carbon and titanium hardware habits. These habits can be a costly mistress to tame.


 Unfortunately, your last comment leads to the discussion of spending nondiscretionary income on essentially luxury items. I know a lot of folks with nice toys and no savings. During the Government Shutdown last year a friend who works for the government was panicking about not having any savings to see him through one missed paycheck. I told him that he needed to have a couple months of expenses, especially when you're well paid and in your 50s. Then (between the shutdown and the January budget deadline) he bought his wife a new car. WTF dude? You can't pay for groceries for two weeks if you miss a check but you can afford a new car a week later?


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

The new American Way! 

MUST. HAVE. THINGS. NOW!


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

instant gratification


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

I also want to add: if you ride only occasionally, like maybe one time per month (just for example) a carbon frame is probably not worth the extra cost.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

No matter how much you ride, if you don't want to pay a premium for what in most cases will be a minor/incremental "updgrade" over more common materials, carbon is also not worth it. Millions and millions of miles have been ridden on steel, AL and Ti just fine.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> No matter how much you ride, if you don't want to pay a premium for what in most cases will be a minor/incremental "updgrade" over more common materials, carbon is also not worth it. Millions and millions of miles have been ridden on steel, AL and Ti just fine.


Not sure Ti quite fits in your example - there's a premium on those frames.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Good point - Ti is probably more similar to carbon in that respect. A lotta extra $$ for a little extra...something.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Good point - Ti is probably more similar to carbon in that respect. A lotta extra $$ for a little extra...something.


And Al used to be "the expensive option you don't really need and OMG! Look at those thick tubes you need or else the frame will bend in half!"

Thank god mountain bikers are progressive and embrace new technology


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Like a Porsche - nobody "needs" one. Carbon does an excellent job of muting brain-scrambling trail chatter, to a mere tremor. That trade-off in ride comfort translates to much longer enjoyment out on the trail.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> And Al used to be "the expensive option you don't really need and OMG! Look at those thick tubes you need or else the frame will bend in half!"
> 
> Thank god mountain bikers are progressive and embrace new technology


Or else what?

I'm all about new technology as long as it brings good bang for the buck to the table. Not being a weight weenie I don't see that from carbon, much like I never found Ti to be a good investment. I can get more 'trail muting' from changing tires/air pressure than by coughing up for a carbon HT frame. And of course, with FS frames, there's really no great benefit to it ride-wise.

Not saying there's anything wrong with riding carbon if you like it; just saying I don't see the huge draw or advantage in the case of most riders/bikes.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

I would also add that the relatively recent advances in hydroforming have given aluminum some new life in being able to tune ride characteristics in a given frame over traditional round tubes that were used for decades. 

One thing I find to be a negative in many carbon bikes is that squeaks and squawks seem to be more frequent and louder. I'm sure the (currently) imperfect world of press fit bottom brackets is one of the worst offenders in that respect.

Carbon can be nice as a frame material when everything is working as hoped for. If you can afford to get carbon, and the nicer bits too, You probably have enough disposable income to deal with what may come at you. If you're in that mid-price bracket, and wondering if you should go with carbon as the frame material, I would rather put the extra $500 to $1,000 into the other components (wheels, fork/shock, carbon handlebar/seatpost, etc.) where it usually makes more of a difference IMHO.

I would also suggest that the effect of having a carbon frame vs. aluminum may be more noticeable if you ride for longer durations at a time. The cumulative effect of the road or trail beating on you may be felt more than the acute sensation from each individual hit. The longer you ride at a time, the more you might appreciate the ride qualities of a carbon frame.

Since I ride both MTB and road (and lots in between), if I could only have one bike be carbon, it would be the road frame where there are less options available to smooth out the ride. JMHO.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

jeffj said:


> ...
> 
> Since I ride both MTB and road (and lots in between), if I could only have one bike be carbon, it would be the road frame where there are less options available to smooth out the ride. JMHO.


I have definitely noticed different vibration absorption levels from AL and carbon on road frames. That constant buzz from road tires on tarmac is easy to notice.

I also ride a carbon frame in the bush, but I'm not convinced I can tell the difference. I haven't ridden an AL frame in a while, but - for me at least - I'm not certain vibration absorption is on the same level. Not because of any difference in the carbon, but because of larger tires, and constantly varying terrain.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

My current bike is a (mostly) aluminum frame. It's FS, with carbon seatstays. I don't know the specific reasons why even the less expensive one has carbon seatstays. I figure that early prototype versions probably were all alu and that for one reason or another, carbon was used there for a reason.


DSCF2399 by Nate, on Flickr

I love this bike. There's a carbon version of it now, and I had an opportunity to change my order. It would have cost me a LOT more for comparatively small gains. VERY comparatively small gains. And I would have had to wait another 5-6mo. No thanks.

I did intentionally put carbon in two places on this bike, though. I installed carbon bars. This, mostly because the shape I wanted was only available in carbon. I'm glad I bought them, because they're the most comfortable bars I've ever used. Not because of the material, as far as I can tell. It's entirely a fit issue. I'd buy them again, but if there was an aluminum version for less money, I'd look hard at those.

The other place I put carbon on this bike was in the rims. I wasn't really thinking about the stiffness benefits of carbon at the time. My primary reason for purchasing these rims was because they were tubeless ready fatbike rims when there weren't many options. At the time, there were zero tubeless ready aluminum fatbike rims. There are now, however. These don't weight THAT much less than a lightweight alu fatbike rim, either. Bit the stiffness. Wow, now I get what people say about the stiffness of carbon rims. I'm definitely sold on them in the future. And because of that stiffness, when it came to build a new wheelset for my wife's bike, I went with carbon rims for her, too. The wheelset is probably a little heavier than her older one, actually. But the reason we built a new wheelset for her bike (which already is a full carbon FS with carbon bars) was for durability and ease of service, since her old wheelset was proprietary and such a pain in the @ss to work on, we had to send the wheels out for a simple wheel true.

My road bike, though, is steel. I love it. It's a touring/gravel bike, so it's not a quick or terribly lightweight bike. But it's comfortable and dead reliable. And it can handle a little bit of fairly easy singletrack, too. It has a couple of carbon spacers on the steerer tube, and that's the only carbon it has. And only because I had a bin full of cheap ebay carbon spacers from other bikes. I pulled from the same bin for my FS in the pic.


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

My only objection to carbon fiber as a frame material is that it usually doesn't like impact with sharp objects(like rocks). Also, sometimes, damage may not be visible on the surface (like a delamination) but may cause frame failure later while "just riding along".

At the end, it's just a matter of $$$. If you can afford to replace a broken cf frame then good for you. I can barely afford to replace my alu hardtail frame if it breaks. It's already lasted 8 yrs of abuse though, so I guess I'll be fine.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

justwan naride said:


> My only objection to carbon fiber as a frame material is that it usually doesn't like impact with sharp objects(like rocks). Also, sometimes, damage may not be visible on the surface (like a delamination) but may cause frame failure later while "just riding along".
> 
> At the end, it's just a matter of $$$. If you can afford to replace a broken cf frame then good for you. I can barely afford to replace my alu hardtail frame if it breaks. It's already lasted 8 yrs of abuse though, so I guess I'll be fine.


It was mentioned earlier in this thread, that a LOT of carbon failures are actually repairable. I have seen some professional repairs from a couple different shops (stuff that tends to cost in the $300-ish range) and the work is quite good. The pro's will go so far as to try to also match the finish of the bike. Now not every carbon failure is repairable. A crack in the middle of a tube? Sure, that's pretty straightforward. Some other failures are not so straightforward and some pro's can't/won't work on them. But not every damaged carbon frame is destined to become trash or wall art.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I think the other draw (at least for bike designers) of carbon is how one can pretty much mold carbon into any shape you want. Looking at some of the funky frame designs today...especially road frames...I'd imagine that it would be very difficult with steel and aluminum.


----------



## owensjs (May 21, 2009)

Harold said:


> The pro's will go so far as to try to also match the finish of the bike..


Definitely. I've seen a couple of before/after carbon frame repair jobs and the finish was so well matched that I couldn't even tell that it wasn't a brand new factory finished frame.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

owensjs said:


> Definitely. I've seen a couple of before/after carbon frame repair jobs and the finish was so well matched that I couldn't even tell that it wasn't a brand new factory finished frame.


Only thing I've been able to tell, and only on a few bikes (depending on the location of the repair, mostly), has been a slightly thickened area where the repair was done. The finish on all the ones I've seen has been pretty much flawless.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

I would say the comments around "the rider will be smoother" or "less vibration" or "improved ride quality" when it comes to talking about carbon vs aluminum vs steel really only apply to road bikes. In a bike where you have zero suspension, hard as rock tires, and very little surface area to displace bumps; having every little bit of vibration dampening is huge. (I noticed a monumental difference in aluminum frame to carbon frame on roadies.)

Hell, even the deflection in your mountain bike tires is going to remove any benefit of the carbon frame "vibration control." 

I honestly think carbon mountain bikes are either for racers who are all similar in skill and will find any possible way to buy some extra speed, or for people who just have a lot of disposable income and can buy whatever they want.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

they don't ONLY apply to road bikes, but you're right that it's a lot more noticeable there. I do still notice it some on a hardtail mtb, too.


----------



## Daniel de la Garza (Sep 5, 2015)

For the simple answer: yeah carbon is lighter than AL and that comes with a thousand dollar tag more than the one that lasts forever.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Daniel de la Garza said:


> For the simple answer: yeah carbon is lighter than AL and that comes with a thousand dollar tag more than the one that lasts forever.


Wrong. Just wrong. Again:

1. There are many types of carbon frames. You know how there are various grades of aluminum? Same for carbon, but even more variety.

2. Aluminum frames don't last forever. A simple google search will reveal that all bikes have a usable lifespan. Carbon lifespan is actually longer than aluminum.

3. Aluminum frames can and do also break, crack, bend, etc.

4. And FINALLY, it isn't just about the WEIGHT. It is about for the SAME weight, a carbon frame is generally stiffer. It is also about the incredible amount of options a bike builder has in how they engineer the way the frame performs because of how you can vary the carbon layup on different parts of the frame, all contributing to how the bike feels.

Yes, you can reduce weight also, and this is generally a by product. Those with carbon frames rarely, as far as I have seen, discuss the weight reduction. They discuss handling, acceleration, vibration reduction, etc.

Can this please be the year that we stop being ignorant on this topic?


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Harold said:


> they don't ONLY apply to road bikes, but you're right that it's a lot more noticeable there. I do still notice it some on a hardtail mtb, too.


I wonder if people who make comments like "only good for road bikes" or who otherwise disparage carbon have actually ridden a carbon frame bike back to back. Friends who are on aluminum frame bikes who I have try my bike immediately notice the difference. First comment is usually along the lines of "wow this is really stiff" then "wow I can really accelerate with his much better" to "wow I beat my PR up that *****y climb by 30 percent." Etc.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> ...
> 
> 4. And FINALLY, it isn't just about the WEIGHT. It is about for the SAME weight, a carbon frame is generally stiffer. It is also about the incredible amount of options a bike builder has in how they engineer the way the frame performs because of how you can vary the carbon layup on different parts of the frame, all contributing to how the bike feels.


To your point, here's an example of something I don't believe is possible with AL:


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

SDMTB'er said:


> I wonder if people who make comments like "only good for road bikes" or who otherwise disparage carbon have actually ridden a carbon frame bike back to back. Friends who are on aluminum frame bikes who I have try my bike immediately notice the difference. First comment is usually along the lines of "wow this is really stiff" then "wow I can really accelerate with his much better" to "wow I beat my PR up that *****y climb by 30 percent." Etc.


I don't think anyone made this claim .. yet. 

I did however say that I can easily notice the vibration dampening benefits on a road bike, but not really on trails.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

TSpice said:


> I would say the comments around "the rider will be smoother" or "less vibration" or "improved ride quality" when it comes to talking about carbon vs aluminum vs steel really only apply to road bikes. In a bike where you have zero suspension, hard as rock tires, and very little surface area to displace bumps; having every little bit of vibration dampening is huge. (I noticed a monumental difference in aluminum frame to carbon frame on roadies.)
> 
> Hell, even the deflection in your mountain bike tires is going to remove any benefit of the carbon frame "vibration control."
> 
> I honestly think carbon mountain bikes are either for racers who are all similar in skill and will find any possible way to buy some extra speed, or for people who just have a lot of disposable income and can buy whatever they want.


I have to agree with the others here. You don't know much about the carbon hardtail performance spectrum. Because of the material bikes can be super stiff and more punishing than an aluminum bike. But another carbon frame can have vertical compliance that you feel when the right tire at the correct pressure is used. Yes you can overwhelm that noticeable flex by adding larger volume tires at lower pressures. That's part of tuning for your terrain. The frame is one component in ride quality, just like the rims, spokes and fork.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I posted this on another similar thread...

Jeezzz...

All types of opinions and persuasions. Everyone's opinion seems to be the gospel.

Perhaps this is really far simpler than many make it to be. 

If you have the money, you can afford a nice ride (whatever that is), then buy it.

Bonus if you have the skills and abilities to discern the attributes and qualities of your new ride.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cleared2land said:


> I posted this on another similar thread...
> 
> Jeezzz...
> 
> ...


I take your point, but in fairness you aren't helping the OP know if carbon is worth it, regardless of whether or not he they can afford it.

That said, we are following the MTBR formula - it's what we do best:

1. Newbie, OP question.
2. Opinion given.
3. Opposite opinion given.
4. 100 posts continue, supporting either #2, or #3. Sometimes saying an opinion is "wrong" (which is technically impossible, but whatever).

You can include an optional #5, where anger and insults begin, and a #6 where we never hear from the OP again.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

phlegm said:


> I take your point, but in fairness you aren't helping the OP know if carbon is worth it, regardless of whether or not he they can afford it.


Defining "worth it" is highly subjective and one needs to further define "worth" in order to specifically address the OP's question. So, since we've chosen to help the OP, I guess we need to define what he is looking for:

1. Market value.

2. Personal value to himself.

3. Personal value to others.

Any given object has a market value or worth, but how much worth can we assign to the OP? It all an guesstimate. A person or thing's worth is, by definition, the value they have when measured by their qualities or the esteem in which they are held. So how do you measure a thing's worth? This is an entirely subjective exercise of one's own personal value system.


----------



## Daniel de la Garza (Sep 5, 2015)

SDMTB'er said:


> Wrong. Just wrong. Again:
> 
> 1. There are many types of carbon frames. You know how there are various grades of aluminum? Same for carbon, but even more variety.
> 
> ...


Well here's someone that got the bait from the bike industry and bought the idea of carbon frames being better to the point of defending them this much. Ignorant? No sir I'm no ignorant at all about this topic. I know everything you said but you are forgetting the point of mtb is to enjoy the ride not diving in AL this weight and infinity amount of options for mtb bikers.

I would love to see more people giving simple answers and letting them discover the differences between them and not trying to copy be a Wikipedia about all there is to know about mtb for starters. Let them enjoy the rides and that way they will learn better about the differences from carbon, AL, chromoly and steel. Because don't be ignorant. There's always wood frames right? Don't marry the industry latest trend and enjoy your style for once.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cleared2land said:


> Defining "worth it" is highly subjective and one needs to further define "worth" in order to specifically address the OP's question. So, since we've chosen to help the OP, I guess we need to define what he is looking for:
> 
> 1. Market value.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## nsnate02 (Nov 11, 2015)

Like most things there is a point where the cost to benefit ratio becomes very small (among comparable tiers). IMO, if the trade off of cost to performance is justifiable to you, spend the money on carbon. 
Maybe when carbon becomes cheaper, I'll go that direction for all the reasons mentioned. Right now, I can't justify the cost of carbon over aluminum. The advantages are real but not worth the cost to me. To others it is. That is a question only the op can answer for himself.


----------



## Muirenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Guzzoid said:


> When I ask what's the difference is I usually get:
> It has a superior ride quality?
> 
> When I ask what that is I get: Less vibration.
> ...


Not sure if anyone has mentioned, but not all carbon is identical. The carbon cloth the composite is constructed from has different weaves, like fine sheets. More threads per inch is higher quality and costs more. Also tends to weigh less and be stiffer, assuming geometry and overall design maximize stiffness. Longer chain stays and bottom bracket construction in particular translate into a a bike with more flex, which is sometimes desired, depending.

It is hard to describe the ride quality difference of high and low quality aluminum, versus, carbon in general, versus high and lower quality carbon. Try test riding some mid to higher range Pinarellos, then try some entry-level carbon bikes set up with Tiagra or lower.. Next, ride the Cannondale CAADS, then compare to the entry level aluminum bikes equipped with sora or lower. The ride quality of different carbon weaves and aluminum alloy mixes should be evident. But some differences will be due to frame design.

I have both a carbon Pinarello Quattro (high quality carbon) and an aluminum CAADX, high quality aluminum. Both have a 'feeling' and 'responsiveness' that lower quality carbon and aluminum bikes I've owned don't have. But the ride quality of the Pinarello does blow the ride quality of the CAADX out of the water. And that is with thicker tires on the CAADX. OTOH, I don't really like the CAADX less. I love that bike and enjoy riding it on and off-road. But it's different. I have to recommend going aluminum for the bigger guys because the road vibration that a lot of people worry about is most prominent with smaller women on aluminum bikes. Aluminum is inherently stiff, construction permitting, and smaller sizes are more stiff due to shorter tubes having less give. I'd say flexible steel and the bikes designed to give flex (like women's long chain stay models with thinner tubes) might be preferable for women in the petite height range (under 5'4") who weight under a certain amount (maybe < 120-110 lbs). Whereas stiff aluminum and stiff built-up carbon with shorter, thick stays may be best for larger riders who weigh more (unless you consider that off road aluminum hard tails are kind of..hard). OTOH, I'm 5'7" 150 lbs, pretty strong, and really don't like flexible frame sets. So I'm talking generalities.

The ride quality depends on the overall body-type and strength of the rider in relation to frame materials, geometry, and frame construction.

Addendum: Carbon stems on any bike with a carbon fork gets rid of the biggest source of road vibration I've encountered, the handlebars. I have carbon stems on 3 road bikes. My Surly Krampus, which has a steel fork and huge tires, has an aluminum stem, and I don't intend to change it. So...OTOH, I have a lot of experience with road and CX bikes, pretty new at mountain bikes. Though I do love my Surly. I did replace the aluminum seat post with a carbon model. Was surprised at how much more comfortable it was. How much I'm actually in the saddle depends where I ride, and sometimes I'm in it a lot more than usual for an off-road bike cause I set it up for multi-uses.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Daniel de la Garza said:


> Well here's someone that got the bait from the bike industry and bought the idea of carbon frames being better to the point of defending them this much. Ignorant? No sir I'm no ignorant at all about this topic. I know everything you said but you are forgetting the point of mtb is to enjoy the ride not diving in AL this weight and infinity amount of options for mtb bikers.
> 
> I would love to see more people giving simple answers and letting them discover the differences between them and not trying to copy be a Wikipedia about all there is to know about mtb for starters. Let them enjoy the rides and that way they will learn better about the differences from carbon, AL, chromoly and steel. Because don't be ignorant. There's always wood frames right? Don't marry the industry latest trend and enjoy your style for once.


I think the OP was asking about the reasons for buying carbon bikes. Those who are chiming in about why non- carbon bikes are this or that or why carbon bikes are not worth it are off topic.


----------



## Daniel de la Garza (Sep 5, 2015)

SDMTB'er said:


> I think the OP was asking about the reasons for buying carbon bikes. Those who are chiming in about why non- carbon bikes are this or that or why carbon bikes are not worth it are off topic.


I did answer that question. It's worth it if you want to save weight. I never said carbon was not worth it at all. I just pointed out that people always try to defend bike trends instead of encouraging people to just ride their own styles, test new components and frames with whatever they can buy. Don't be too focused on your gear. This what I'm trying to make people understand. We could go as deep as it can get and technical and really it wouldn't even matter unless we had tried everything ourselves and even like that we would have different opinions. Don't make other bikers adapt someone else's rise style. That's the best advice nobody ever tells in these forums.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

I like focusing on my gear...sometimes I don't even think about it. But that comes after.
Carbon with compliance can be a bargain in a hardtail.
Why?
Say you got your first bike...a 29 aluminum hardtail, maybe 32 lbs.
You ride it all season and maybe the next, getting better as you go. Better trails with better rocks and roots and faster circuits.
You're riding more and having more fun on tougher trails.
Your bike setup gets upgraded down to 25-26 lbs. with a better lighter fork and wheels/tires. Carbon bars and seatpost.
But you notice as you want to ride more you are getting beat up by the end of your rides. 
Sound like a common scenario? 
This is where you save the big bucks.
Lots of riders think they have to go to a full suspension at this point just for the comfort...to keep riding.
And something fs at 25lbs is going to be a lot of dollars.
And if you don't need the extra squish for long fast downhill runs in mountain areas a carbon hardtail with good compliance along with all the other tricks will cost you $3k less and weigh 22lbs with way less maintenance.
But you do have to focus a little on your bike setup. At least at first.


----------



## Daniel de la Garza (Sep 5, 2015)

eb1888 said:


> I like focusing on my gear...sometimes I don't even think about it. But that comes after.
> Carbon with compliance can be a bargain in a hardtail.
> Why?
> Say you got your first bike...a 29 aluminum hardtail, maybe 32 lbs.
> ...


I feel you bro, seriously gear is important but as you well said it. It comes after a season of trying your 32lb bike.

I mean I have AL and of course I will get carbon at some point, but that's gonna be the last expensive deal I'm gonna get. I would try the best fork, wheelset, drive train before considering the frame. It's like a canvas. Once you painted all then you get to try another one.

Cheers


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

phlegm said:


> I take your point, but in fairness you aren't helping the OP know if carbon is worth it, regardless of whether or not he they can afford it.
> 
> That said, we are following the MTBR formula - it's what we do best:
> 
> ...


You forgot the seventh step.

7. Smartass complains about a discussion about OP's question on a public forum.


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

SDMTB'er said:


> I wonder if people who make comments like "only good for road bikes" or who otherwise disparage carbon have actually ridden a carbon frame bike back to back. Friends who are on aluminum frame bikes who I have try my bike immediately notice the difference. First comment is usually along the lines of "wow this is really stiff" then "wow I can really accelerate with his much better" to "wow I beat my PR up that *****y climb by 30 percent." Etc.


So by switching to a carbon frame with no other changes you think it will make you 30% quicker uphill? Lol. All of a sudden comments like it's only good for road bikes don't sound so crazy anymore.

When talking vibration damping it IS much more useful on road bikes. It's going to damp out the higher frequency vibrations better. On a mountain bike the tires take care of the higher frequencies and the suspension takes out the much lower frequencies. The only difference I can feel on a mountain bike between the two is a very slight difference in stiffness and that's on a hard tail. On a FS it's a very hard difference to feel, I know I couldn't feel a difference. I'm sure the carbon frame probably has a lower resonant frequency vs aluminum and that might or might not come into play but it's just not noticeable. I would like to see a poll of how many people have had noisy brakes on aluminum vs carbon frames. I'll give that to carbon, I bet they deal with less brake noise issues over aluminum frame bikes.

I was about to buy another car like the one I already have so I had $32k in cash when the seller backed out. I decided to get a mountain bike. Obviously money was not a factor in my decision to go aluminum. The main deciding factor was that I will crash and it will be more than once and when I do, I don't want the frame to be junk. Carbon at the same weight is stronger when used as intended. Hit it the wrong way, even letting the bike fall over and catch the frame just right on a rock and it's toast. Sure, aluminum can break too but it's far less likely to break in a crash or from falling over and carbon doesn't break every time you breathe on it wrong but it's more likely to break/crack for the reasons described.

The other factor was what do I get from carbon? The answer is nothing. I was going to get a FS already. It was going to have big tires at low pressure. The frame is very nice and stiff as is. There was almost no difference in the aluminum vs carbon weights. Aluminum was the logical answer.

And not to take it off topic but on a full suspension setup I don't want engineered in frame flex. Once it has suspension I want the suspension to do all of the work. Does anyone know for sure if a 5-6" travel carbon frame full suspension carbon mountain bike frame actually has much if any engineered in flex or is this just assumed because road bikes have it?


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

BuickGN said:


> So by switching to a carbon frame with no other changes you think it will make you 30% quicker uphill? Lol. All of a sudden comments like it's only good for road bikes don't sound so crazy anymore.
> 
> When talking vibration damping it IS much more useful on road bikes. It's going to damp out the higher frequency vibrations better. On a mountain bike the tires take care of the higher frequencies and the suspension takes out the much lower frequencies. The only difference I can feel on a mountain bike between the two is a very slight difference in stiffness and that's on a hard tail. On a FS it's a very hard difference to feel, I know I couldn't feel a difference. I'm sure the carbon frame probably has a lower resonant frequency vs aluminum and that might or might not come into play but it's just not noticeable. I would like to see a poll of how many people have had noisy brakes on aluminum vs carbon frames. I'll give that to carbon, I bet they deal with less brake noise issues over aluminum frame bikes.
> 
> ...


You just made my argument. Aluminum frame more flexy than carbon, weight for weight (same for wheels). Since you want all of the compliance to be achieved via the suspension, carbon is better by your own argument.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Here is another draw to carbon: frames just look better without all of the welds between the tubes.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

phlegm said:


> I take your point, but in fairness you aren't helping the OP know if carbon is worth it, regardless of whether or not he they can afford it.
> 
> That said, we are following the MTBR formula - it's what we do best:
> 
> ...





mountainbiker24 said:


> You forgot the seventh step.
> 
> 7. Smartass complains about a discussion about OP's question on a public forum.


You just proved point #5.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Not to really throw this off course but.... Frame flex can be very important on a FS bike. Even though suspension is great; the valving, oil, air pressure and some stiction still makes suspension very unresponsive for most bumps you encounter on a trail. This is where the right tire setup and frame flex become important because they absorb impacts instantly without the wonky crap involved with suspension. Being able to engineer a specific type and amount of flex into a carbon frame can maximize your FS bike's potential.

Just to prove a point, go ahead and max out the PSI in your tires. Drop the pressure in your FS bike suspension to make it suppppppper soft and comfy. Then go ride a rooted trail and tell me how it feels.

Frame flex wont absorb impacts as well as tires but believe it or not, its still more effecient than suspension. However, suspension certainly has its place!!! Modern suspension is fantastic but it will always have some weaknesses that can be minimized by letting other areas of the bike absorb what the suspension can't do effectively.

FWIW, my HT and FS bikes are aluminum. I just can't afford to buy a carbon frame but otherwise I'd probably have one. My current bikes do still ride excellent so I'm not hard pressed to spend an extra $1,000 or so until I can justify spending that much money.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

My take on carbon vs aluminium is this (and please bear in mind that when it comes to CFRP I am an enthusiastic amateur - I'm not a CFRP specialist and this is based on personal observations / anecdotal evidence from others / the net / stuff I read) ;

1. For the same weight, carbon is much stiffer
a. This makes for better power transfer. 
b. This makes for better more predictable handling. 

2. Carbon is also superior to aluminium with regards to vibration dampening 
a. This means that the ride on a carbon framed bike "should" be smoother, less fatiguing over a long ride. Think less numb hands, stiff elbows / sore shoulders.
b. Note that steel has similar characteristics to carbon in this respect.

3. For a given volume of material, carbon is far lighter (already said here).

4. The methods used to build a carbon frame also make it possible to design in different characteristics (as has been said before - some parts stiff, some parts flexy, some parts stiff in one direction, flexy in another) to the different parts of the frame, depending on how the carbon sheets are placed in the lay up (orientation, number of sheets, number and type of fibres etc) and how much resin is used / what type of resin is used. 
a. An example would be that it is possible to manufacture super stiff and light rims, front triangles and chain stays and compliant seat posts note I say post - not tube) and seat stays. The first aids to the performance of the bike, the second to the rider comfort.

5. Carbon does not tolerate impact damage the same way as aluminium.
a. Rocks hitting your (unprotected) carbon down tube are more likely to cause damage than if the tube was steel or aluminium (if the tube is titanium, the rocks explode!) 
b. Carbon is "softer" than aluminium - in so far that sharp impacts will deform the CFRP - the same hits on aluminium or steel would most likely have no effect... Titanium has some sort of naturally generated force field that repels everything - except hot women. They are naturally attracted to titanium. This effect is magnified exponentially if the bike is SS and / or the rider has a beard. YMMV.
c. This can be negated by protecting the most exposed parts of the frame with tape or purpose manufactured guards (yes, this adds weight...)

6. Carbon suffers failure in a different way to aluminium
a. Carbon experiences only very slight plastic deformation before it breaks. Aluminium and steel both experience significantly more plastic deformation before they break. Titanium laughs at plastic deformation. I.e. Carbon does not noticeably bend before breaking - it just breaks. Aluminium and steel both bend before failing. Titanium rocks.

7. It can be more difficult to see damage in a carbon frame than an alloy one.
a. As said before - aluminium and steel bend / dent / deform when damaged. You can see this damage and can take steps to investigate and repair / replace as required so that you don't risk riding a broken bike and having a mighty crash.
b. Carbon doesn't tend to dent, bend or deform. If damaged enough, it (usually) cracks. These cracks are sometimes visible, sometimes not. Sometimes the cracks are only in the paint / clear coat but because of the uncertainty factor folks don't want to chance riding what might be a damaged frame / component.
c. Carbon can be repaired! This is still viewed with some uncertainty by some folks - but it is a viable option nowadays! Really! 
d. Titanium increases sexual performance and prowess by 1000%. Minimum. Regardless of your gender or sexual orientation.

8. Bike companies know the allure of carbon and play on it. I.e. they offer carbon framed bikes with mid - low range components at a premium over the comparable aluminium frame with high end components. 
a. The bastards!



Yeah - it was as slow Friday morning at work today...


----------



## Hooch (Jun 30, 2006)

I have two bikes, brand new al 29r stumpjumper evo 29r 2015 model. great bike for all mountain.
my other bike is a second hand merida team carbon 96r 26 inch 2011, upgraded components and 120mm suspension instead of the usual 100mm (previous owner was part of a sponsered team and sold it to me for no profit) I love both bikes but the carbon one has one advantage. When I have to fly it won't cost me a fortune in excess baggage fees as it weights half of my specialized.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Hooch said:


> When I have to fly it won't cost me a fortune in excess baggage fees as it weights half of my specialized.


I'm not sure this logic will work for you. While airlines all seem to have different rules, fees and charges for transporting your on-board bike, they generally charge (fundamentally) by dimension and excess weight over 50 lbs. All of my bikes inside a Hard Case bike luggage with a few extras, fall under the 50 lbs. excess weight fee. You are usually charged by dimension and those fees can be all over the chart depending on airline and class of ticket (first, business or coach or economy).


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Ghost_HTX said:


> My take on carbon vs aluminium is this (and please bear in mind that when it comes to CFRP I am an enthusiastic amateur - I'm not a CFRP specialist and this is based on personal observations / anecdotal evidence from others / the net / stuff I read) ;
> 
> 1. For the same weight, carbon is much stiffer
> a. This makes for better power transfer.
> ...


I always thought 5 was true, but watching the video posted earlier in the thread, I'm starting to wonder if it is. That carbon frame certainly took sharp edged hits well.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm pretty sure that by 'sharp edged hit', the reference was to something like a rock actually making contact with the frame. This is how a handful of my riding buddies have broken their carbon frames: low speed falls in bony terrain.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm pretty sure that by 'sharp edged hit', the reference was to something like a rock actually making contact with the frame. This is how a handful of my riding buddies have broken their carbon frames: low speed falls in bony terrain.


Those falls scare the crap out of me on my carbon bike, but so far, so good. The video shows them wacking a carbon frame against a concrete corner repeatedly. No numbers, no comparison to aluminum, no after inspection, so useless, but it did get me to wondering.

I have taken a fair number of rocks to the down tube that have managed to miss the protector. These are fist sized rocks getting kicked up while I'm going 20mph or so. No damage so far. Also have fallen over and leveraged my whole weight on the frame as I drug it over a pointed rock. Couple of scratches was all the frame took (I suffered significantly more damage)

Anecdotally, I hear of cases like your friends. And I hear it enough that I believe carbon is more sensitive to sharp edged hits, just wondering if there are any tests out there documenting how much more vulnerable they are. I'll have to look around.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Ghost_HTX said:


> My take on carbon vs aluminium is this (and please bear in mind that when it comes to CFRP I am an enthusiastic amateur - I'm not a CFRP specialist and this is based on personal observations / anecdotal evidence from others / the net / stuff I read) ;
> 
> 1. For the same weight, carbon is much stiffer
> a. This makes for better power transfer.
> ...


Great post!


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Cleared2land said:


> I posted this on another similar thread...
> 
> Jeezzz...
> 
> ...


Yep....too many Chiefs and not enough "******" If you're still crashing lots - avoid the CF.


----------



## Hooch (Jun 30, 2006)

Cleared2land said:


> I'm not sure this logic will work for you. While airlines all seem to have different rules, fees and charges for transporting your on-board bike, they generally charge (fundamentally) by dimension and excess weight over 50 lbs. All of my bikes inside a Hard Case bike luggage with a few extras, fall under the 50 lbs. excess weight fee. You are usually charged by dimension and those fees can be all over the chart depending on airline and class of ticket (first, business or coach or economy).


here in aus its weight not size 23kg max after that start forking cash out over 32kg and they won't even take it for health and safety reasons. it so less is better to get bike n gear onto a flight.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Hooch said:


> here in aus its weight not size 23kg max after that start forking cash out over 32kg and they won't even take it for health and safety reasons. it so less is better to get bike n gear onto a flight.


What Australian airline?

Qantas bike pack dimensions are pretty standard with the states:

Length: 140cm (55in)
Width: 30cm (12in)
Height: 80cm (32in)

For traveling with bikes, Qantas fails to mention weight, only diminsions.


----------



## Lollygaggin (Nov 4, 2015)

I have an aluminum HT. Would carbon bars help much w/ the dampening of trail chatter?


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

Yes it most likely would. It would also save a wee bit weight too. Carbon seat post would also help with ride comfort.


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

Ghost_HTX said:


> Yes it most likely would. It would also save a wee bit weight too. Carbon seat post would also help with ride comfort.


Not trying to change the topic, but what would be a decent carbon handlebar to use on a hardtail. Mostly for AM/DH use.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

Deartist7 said:


> Not trying to change the topic, but what would be a decent carbon handlebar to use on a hardtail. Mostly for AM/DH use.


Race Face SixC. I've used the 31.8 and now using the 35mm. They're awesome.


----------



## Daniel de la Garza (Sep 5, 2015)

Deartist7 said:


> Not trying to change the topic, but what would be a decent carbon handlebar to use on a hardtail. Mostly for AM/DH use.


I use k force fsa on stem, bars and seat post and it's great.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

Hell, I will REALLY freak out the carbon naysayers. I also use carbon cranks. Oh Noes!


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

SDMTB'er said:


> Hell, I will REALLY freak out the carbon naysayers. I also use carbon cranks. Oh Noes!


Crank boots should take care of them.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

A couple of other things that have occurred to me;

(Some) folks assume that because a part is very expensive and "top of the range" it shall also be more durable than a "lesser" component. A higher retail price does not always guarantee a higher degree of durability. If the performance of a part is gauged by it's weight and stiffness (as it seems most mtb components are these days) then most likely the opposite is true. 

Lighter alloy parts can bend and are flexy. Carbon fibre has its inherent drawbacks. If you acknowledge this when you shell out big money for a "top of the range" part then great - you are a (relatively) intelligent human being with a large disposable income.

If you shell out for titanium you are a very intelligent superhuman with a large **** (or what ever the equivalent is of a large **** to women) and will most definitely get laid tonight. Twice. Minimum.


----------



## Hooch (Jun 30, 2006)

so they say but last chrissie i took a CF roadbike with gear and it came to 33kg, they make me unpack some of the gear then charged me an extra 120 dollars for the excess weight over 23kg. something hidden in the fine print


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Lollygaggin said:


> I have an aluminum HT. Would carbon bars help much w/ the dampening of trail chatter?


It will help.
But the frame with no rear compliance will still beat you up too much as you ride bumpier trail sections for more hours.
Wide 30mm+ ID rims/high volume tires will help more. For even more compliance go with a carbon Trek Superfly with the wide rims or one of the Plus bikes, like a Stache, Norco Torrent, Scott Scale Plus or Spec Fuse.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Hooch said:


> so they say but last chrissie i took a CF roadbike with gear and it came to 33kg, they make me unpack some of the gear then charged me an extra 120 dollars for the excess weight over 23kg. something hidden in the fine print


The problem is trying to find that "fine print". It's frequently buried in the 'terms and conditions'.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Lollygaggin said:


> I have an aluminum HT. Would carbon bars help much w/ the dampening of trail chatter?


Maybe.



Ghost_HTX said:


> Yes it most likely would. It would also save a wee bit weight too. Carbon seat post would also help with ride comfort.


Depends on the bar. Some carbon bars are made to be flexy and absorb vibrations. Hell, there are even some aluminum bars out there with foam cores that are supposed to do the same thing (Spank Vibrocore bars, in particular Handlebars). Some carbon bars are supposed to be incredibly stiff. Depends on what they're made for. Generally, larger clamp diameter bars tend to be stiffer.


----------



## Adodero (Jul 16, 2009)

I've owned the same exact bike in both alloy and carbon, the only difference is (obviously) the frame and rear shock (DBInline vs DBAir). I just swapped my components over when I got the frame. 

The weight difference was noticeable when you pick the bike up, but that's about it. The difference comes out to about a 1 to 1.5lbs on my bike (Santa Cruz Bronson). TBH, the difference is probably closer to 3/4ths a pound, because the DBAir is heavier than the DBInline is. 

My original bike weighed about 32.5 lbs and was a base R AM build with Fox Evo components, Deore everything else. I don't know the exact weight now, but all components have been replaced and I'd estimate it's about 26lbs (Pike, I-9 wheels, XTR cranks, XT drivetrain, Guide RSC brakes). When I got the original bike, I slowly started upgrading components to drop weight, doing things like going to 1x10, getting better cranks, etc. I barely noticed any difference until I swapped out the wheelset (more later), my 32.5lb bike felt almost the same as my 29lb bike. I weight weenied it for a while until I realized that losing a pound off the bike had minimal effect. 

Then I swapped from the WTB i23 wheels to Industry Nine Torch Enduros, which made a dramatic difference. It dropped about a pound off the wheels, but the stiffness was VERY noticeable. On rough sections of trail, the bike just had a more commanding presence and kept it where I put it. It was the first time I had noticed a dramatic change in the bike's performance outside of suspension being more plush. I had heard people talking about stiffness, but this is the first time I actually felt it. The best way I can describe it is that the bike is more in control of where it goes and is more commanding, whereas a flexy bike or wheelset will tend to wander and be a little more squirrely. 

Now, on to the carbon frame, when I went to the new frame, it had a similar impact as the wheelset. The bike was more controllable, commanding, and felt better in every way. On tricky tech sections, the bike felt significantly better. Definitely $1k better. 

The surprise I had on the frame was how much better the bike climbed under heavy power. It wasn't as much weight as it was the lack of flex when I was standing up and really cranking it down up a steep section. My old bike would have wallowed around a little more and been a little more squirrely, but the carbon frame really seemed to keep it together better on those sections.

The other carbon item that I bought that made a surprising difference was a set of bars. I can't really explain it, but it really lightened the front end of the bike and made it more comfortable. I was surprised by that. 

Lastly, on wheelsets, I've ridden a Bronson with Enve wheels for several hours and the effect is similar, however I'm not sure that the difference between my wheelset and the Enves is as dramatic. The difference is definitely there, but it wasn't as dramatic as going from a $450 wheelset to a $1300 wheelset or in upgrading the frame. 

I generally tell newcomers to the sport that carbon isn't worthwhile, unless I know they can easily afford it. I doubt a new rider would notice the difference and I don't want them to turn away due to the price tag. If you have the money, carbon is worth it and you will notice a difference. If you don't, then it is not something to break the bank over. 

The biggest downside I've had so far is tracking down noises. It seems that carbon echos noise better and a small creak can feel like the frame is coming apart. I had a noisy pivot when my frame arrived and it sounded like the bottom tube was going to snap in half from the popping sounds. Turns out, the bearings just needed a little grease and the noise went away. 

I haven't broken a frame yet, but I have friends that have. I'm convinced carbon will last longer given proper and normal cycles, however anything outside of the design range could damage it. It seems rear triangles are particularly prone to breaking in a warranty fashion. I'd assume the amount of force and impact on the chainstays is significant and inconsistently applied, resulting in breaks around that area. To be fair, the same would apply to aluminum. 

As for repairability, I would not ride a repaired carbon frame, unless the area was non-structural or if failure of the repair would result in trivial damage. The bond will never be as strong as the initial layup was. I'm sure others have had really good experiences and no problems, but my personal experience in the area, it would make me uncomfortable. I also have the option of going the crash replacement route with Santa Cruz, so I can just get a new frame if I had to.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^ Adodero, well said. 

I think I have to agree to almost everything said. My biggest benefit was the notable lack of frame flex when compared to my aluminum framed counterparts. The application of power, the enhanced climb without the wallow and the very notable improved handling in unforgiving technical situations. These are qualities that some new to the venue or who have not acquired the technical skill set to appreciate just yet. And, they might never be able to appreciate. 

For those who appreciate good wine...I frequently hear of those who say "Why spend $45 on a bottle of wine when a $8 bottle tastes the same?" The same analogy applies here. Why spend more $$ on carbon if you can't appreciate it?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

I broke my old AL FS frame twice (First a brace on the swingarm broke, then I found a crack so I replaced it) just over 2K miles of usage, my carbon frame from the same manufacturer now has just over 1900 miles of the same kind of abuse. Those were both fatigue related failures, and carbon doesn't have the same problem with fatigue that AL does.

The stiffness advantage of carbon also allows the suspension to work better by preventing binding in the pivots and stiction in the shock. 

If it's worth it depends on the price point. If you're going to buy a typical best of everything within reason XT/X1 build, you're shorting yourself by not going with carbon. Not only is it going to be more durable under normal usage, it's going to work better.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

I agree with adodero too - when I went heavy OEM alloy wheels to carbon I really felt the difference.

It is not easy to explain, but it just feels like each crank rotation goes straight to the back wheel and accelerates you down the road.

I really felt the differencd again when I went back to my slloy wheels for a couple of rides. There was almost a perceivable pause between crank input and acceleration.

The weight drop is only in the region of 4-500g or so - if I had gone super weight weenie it could have been more. But the difference in feel is huge.


----------



## Guzzoid (Nov 12, 2015)

So given the choice of upgrade an aluminum ht, buy a used carbon fs (5 years old), carbon ht, or aluminum fs, which way would you go?


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Guzzoid said:


> So given the choice of upgrade an aluminum ht, buy a used carbon fs (5 years old), carbon ht, or aluminum fs, which way would you go?


In reality, only you can answer that question. You've heard the opinions and arguments already.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

Guzzoid said:


> So given the choice of upgrade an aluminum ht, buy a used carbon fs (5 years old), carbon ht, or aluminum fs, which way would you go?


I would go for a titanium hardtail. 27.5+ with boost.
Future proof, indestructable and oh so sexy.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Carbon can be stronger, longer lasting, is repairable, is cheaper for the manufactures to make and they can charge more for it. What is not to like?


----------



## Adodero (Jul 16, 2009)

Guzzoid said:


> So given the choice of upgrade an aluminum ht, buy a used carbon fs (5 years old), carbon ht, or aluminum fs, which way would you go?


Personally I would not buy used carbon, mainly because of the lack of a warranty or crash replacement coverage. I agree that carbon is stronger than aluminum, but it is prone to damage that aluminum isn't and you don't want the hassle of trying to find a new frame...

It also depends on the manufacturer and bike. Different builds will have varying quality and durability levels, along with potentially known issues.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

I would have no problem buying used carbon - just look carefully at what you are buying and if anything is even slightly suspect, walk away.

I would also like to point out that repairing a carbon frame is totally possible and way more viable than repairing an aluminium frame. Aluminium frames need to be heat treated after welding if the repair section is to be strong / ductile enough to use.


----------



## DudeDowne (Jun 18, 2012)

Plastic Bikes For Plastic people!


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^ The authority has spoken.


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

moefosho said:


> Steel is real, bro.
> /thread


Nobody makes nice full suspension steel bikes though. If one or two manufacturers do, forgive my generalization, but generally speaking the two choices for full suspension are alu or carbon. Even hardtails there aren't many steel options compared to alu or carbon.


----------

