# Carbon or Aluminium?



## shmells (Jan 1, 2016)

Just wondering your thoughts on going carbon or alloy for all mountain terrain and enduro riding? I have a hardtail carbon that I use for cross country that I love, and it certainly helps with the climbs. I am a little more worried about buying a carbon enduro bike since the terrain will be rockier and I have more chance for falling. Any thoughts?


----------



## coldrolling (Sep 8, 2015)

I know some people are still wary of carbon for an all mountain/enduro set up, but I think for a lot of people it can make sense. The bigger, longer travel enduro bikes are also heavier and harder to maneuver. Having a carbon frame can save a pound or two right from the start, making the bike (in my opinion) way more fun to ride, easier to move quickly, etc...especially for smaller riders. Carbon is SO strong...and after working for a carbon manufacturer for some time, frames *usually* aren't just going to fail because of a simple crash. If that is happening, it's more likely a design flaw than anything else. I've had a Santa Cruz Tallboy CC for 1.5yrs, crashed at least 30 times on it, some of them really big crashes on very technical trails...not a single crack in sight. I've actually cracked two aluminum frames, but never a carbon one. 
I'm currently planning an all mountain build, and plan to build up a carbon frame for sure, probably with wide carbon rims as well. Will be stoked to have a big bike that isn't a pig to climb


----------



## watts888 (Oct 2, 2012)

For AM use, I would OK with aluminum, but not sure I'd trust carbon, both from the crash perspective and cost alternative. If you can swing the cost, I think I'd look at a titanium hardtail over carbon. It would be a forever frame though, so make sure you get the size and geometry that you want now and 10 years from now. 

However, carbon technology has come a long way, and as mentioned, crashes shouldn't be as catastrophic as they once were. If you plan on crashing a lot as part of a learning curve, I'd start with aluminum and transfer to carbon at a later date. If you're confident in your abilities, no reason to not start with carbon.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

I've broken a half dozen steel and aluminum frames and have full trust in my carbon enduro bike frame. This isn't the early 2000s where carbon frames cracked if you looked at them wrong, pretty much any crash that's bad enough to write off a carbon frame will also destroy its aluminum counterpart. My Norco Range carbon has been crashed more times than I care to count with one of those crashes being bad enough to put me in the hospital, other than a few minor paint scuffs it's good as new.

Another reason I prefer carbon frames is that there are no welds, though it doesn't happen as much these days aluminum frames can suffer from fatigue failures and crack apart right next to a weld. A carbon frame with no welds gets rid of that particular failure mode. For full suspension I'm fully behind carbon bikes, for hardtails it's titanium or steel since I'm a retro-grouch at heart.


----------



## supersedona (Dec 17, 2012)

A while back there was a video on here about santa cruz bikes engineers testing the failure point of carbon vs aluminum of their models. The aluminum one bent/failed at far less force. Granted when a carbon fails it is a crack not a bend, but it is unlikely that you will reach that level on a modern design other than hard core crashing/freeriding.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

the two materials Carbonfiber or Aluminium both make excellent bike frames...

The relative strength of the frames is dependant (at least more so) on how much material is used in the frame.....

In a well designed and constructed (of the same strength) bike the CF frame will be lighter than the aluminium frame by a small amount....


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

aerius said:


> I've broken a half dozen steel and aluminum frames and have full trust in my carbon enduro bike frame. This isn't the early 2000s where carbon frames cracked if you looked at them wrong, pretty much any crash that's bad enough to write off a carbon frame will also destroy its aluminum counterpart. My Norco Range carbon has been crashed more times than I care to count with one of those crashes being bad enough to put me in the hospital, other than a few minor paint scuffs it's good as new.
> 
> Another reason I prefer carbon frames is that there are no welds, though it doesn't happen as much these days aluminum frames can suffer from fatigue failures and crack apart right next to a weld. A carbon frame with no welds gets rid of that particular failure mode. For full suspension I'm fully behind carbon bikes, for hardtails it's titanium or steel since I'm a retro-grouch at heart.


Most CF frames are made from flat sheets of Prepreg CF....each of these sheets is laid up and the entire mass force tightly togeather to bond under heat...

CF frames can have delamination in this process....similar to a poor weld.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

watts888 said:


> For AM use, I would OK with aluminum, but not sure I'd trust carbon, both from the crash perspective and cost alternative. If you can swing the cost, I think I'd look at a titanium hardtail over carbon. It would be a forever frame though, so make sure you get the size and geometry that you want now and 10 years from now.
> 
> However, carbon technology has come a long way, and as mentioned, crashes shouldn't be as catastrophic as they once were. If you plan on crashing a lot as part of a learning curve, I'd start with aluminum and transfer to carbon at a later date. If you're confident in your abilities, no reason to not start with carbon.


Ti tends nor to be a forever frame....although the material seems to be well suited....

The welds and inherent flexibility of Ti tend to cause ongoing issues....especially in the rear suspension or triangle area.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

shmells said:


> Just wondering your thoughts on going carbon or alloy for all mountain terrain and enduro riding? I have a hardtail carbon that I use for cross country that I love, and it certainly helps with the climbs. I am a little more worried about buying a carbon enduro bike since the terrain will be rockier and I have more chance for falling. Any thoughts?


I would simple test ride some well known aluminium bikes and some well known carbon bikes.....and pick the one the fit well and rode well and caught my eye the best.


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

watts888 said:


> For AM use, I would OK with aluminum, but not sure I'd trust carbon, both from the crash perspective and cost alternative. If you can swing the cost, I think I'd look at a titanium hardtail over carbon. It would be a forever frame though, so make sure you get the size and geometry that you want now and 10 years from now.
> 
> However, carbon technology has come a long way, and as mentioned, crashes shouldn't be as catastrophic as they once were. If you plan on crashing a lot as part of a learning curve, I'd start with aluminum and transfer to carbon at a later date. If you're confident in your abilities, no reason to not start with carbon.


It is time to let titanium go. You can't hydroform it (well, not at an affordable commercial level at least), it's almost impossible to get a ti bike built to contemporary component standards, is very difficult to weld in alignment, and despite the reputation for durability, it has to be said: titanium breaks, typically at the welds, due to poor handling in the manufacturing process.

There is no appreciable difference between carbon and aluminum durability in crashes for most quality bikes. The wrong hit in the wrong place will damage both products equally. Carbon can be built to be lighter and stronger than aluminum, but at a higher cost. Aluminum built with contemporary forming techniques can be almost as light as carbon but at what is typically about a $1000 lower frame cost to the rider. You also may not get all the bells and whistles in terms of features. Just get the nicest bike you can afford, that you feel is appropriate to your interest level in the sport. World Cup racers land 30ft gaps into nose wheelies just for giggles on their carbon enduro frames - you aren't going to outmatch that product if they can't.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

I have seen carbon fail where aluminum wouldn't. That is why manufactures have lifetime on alu and 5 years on carbon. Usually they fail from a sharp impact or something stupid like rubbing through while on a rack.
I own 2 carbon bikes, for a high end bike that is what you have to get. When I go freeriding I grab my aluminum. I am not afraid to lay it down on the rocks.
Professionals ride carbon but how many frames do they go through in a year. One of our local dh kids went through 3 last year. Granted he can outride all of us.
If you are carefull with your stuff then buy the bike that rides the best, but don't discount a aluminum bike.


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

rlee said:


> That is why manufactures have lifetime on alu and 5 years on carbon.


No, this is incorrect. Most variations in warranty are due 100% to the the cost of replacement to the company. Carbon is pricier, so if you keep the warranty shorter, you would save money as a company. That said, there really aren't many reputable companies out there whose carbon warranty is shorter than their alloy. As an example, some manufacturers actually go the other way, with a longer warranty on carbon than on alloy. Lifetime warranties have nothing to do with the quality of a product - it's just a wager - essentially, they are betting that you will lose interest in the bike or sell it before you need to replace it. Lifetime warranties also tend to have more exceptions. Good companies take care of their customers no matter what.

As far as having "seen failures" goes...Anecdotal evidence is not super useful - failures happen in both materials and in almost every case it is a manufacturing or design error, not a material flaw. Both carbon and alloy have been rendered in great and not so great designs. For carbon, things like a fold in the fabric, a void in the frame are typically the cause. For aluminum, temperature problems while welding are often the cause. A manufacturing error can permeate an entire production run - if you have a worker who isn't up to speed, they can repeat the mistake in dozens of frames. A well designed, carefully manufactured bike in any material will hold up. Just don't buy a bike that seems "really inexpensive". These frames do not undergo the same kind manufacturing scrutiny or QC checks as do higher end products.


----------



## namdoogttam (Jul 1, 2014)

If you can afford to sell & replace your bike every one or two years, I would go with carbon.

However, I tend to hold onto bikes longer (I expect a solid 5 years out of them before selling-off whatever's left). For this reason, I'm switching from carbon back to aluminum. Carbon frames are undoubtedly strong, but it's the _accumulation_ of dings, scrapes, scratches and gouges that exact a certain psychological 'tax' on me, which I don't experience with aluminum. The science, testing, and anecdotal YouTube "evidence" may suggest that I have nothing to worry about, but...it's still there.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

In lab testing I think properly made carbon is a better choice. In the real world I disagree. In the failures I have seen they are not from a manufacturing flaw but from a environmental problem. Everyone has seen the rub through on a rack or a shuttle truck. Or the sharp impact from a stick or rock that punctures a hole. Or when you lay it down in the rocks and it comes out with a deep scratch. I have seen all of these end up with a no-warranty frame failure. In my opinion you don't tend to see these with aluminum.
I have had many bikes and have destroyed a few of both materials.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

Carbon all the way. As mentioned above, Santa Cruz posted a video showing just how much stronger carbon is that aluminum. Santa Cruz also now has lifetime warranties on their frames as well. All I've owned since 2011 is carbon bikes and I've never had a single issue/failure/crack or anything else and I'm a 200 lb guy who's crashed hard enough to break my femur one year and then my neck in 2014...but my carbon frames survived. 

FWIW, the boxier styled frames made by Pivot have the reputation of being some of the strongest carbon frames out there.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Carbon should last longer than 2 years of regular use. IMO it should last 5 if u take care of it and are careful (as in not dumb with it). 

My alu Spark had a small crack on the chainstay bridge cuz dummy rode around on it with loose pivots! I don't even know how he even got the pivots loose cuz I've put 1500 miles of trail on that thing and they are still tight! 

I think he must of weighed a million pounds cuz the wheels were all out true too... Or he was a terrible rider as there's paint chips all over the frame crashing I guess. 

I dunno, it was amazing how beat up it was when I got it (eBay purchase). Wtf



Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Aluminum because I can get one raw with no paint. Nothing better looking than a raw Knolly IMO.


----------



## namdoogttam (Jul 1, 2014)

zephxiii said:


> Carbon should last longer than 2 years of regular use. IMO it should last 5 if u take care of it and are careful (as in not dumb with it).


I'm not sure whether you're suggesting being 'careful' in how you ride (on the trail), or 'careful' in how you maintain it (in the shop)? I'm _all for_ 'taking care' of my bike...as far as proactive maintenance and up-keep. But the last thing I want to do is _ride_ carefully. I want to ride trails, terrain, and features that are just beyond my skill set...not within them. I expect to take a few falls in the jagged rocks. This is the type of riding that I don't think carbon fiber frames endure for very long.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

namdoogttam said:


> I'm not sure whether you're suggesting being 'careful' in how you ride (on the trail), or 'careful' in how you maintain it (in the shop)? I'm _all for_ 'taking care' of my bike...as far as proactive maintenance and up-keep. But the last thing I want to do is _ride_ carefully. I want to ride trails, terrain, and features that are just beyond my skill set...not within them. I expect to take a few falls in the jagged rocks. This is the type of riding that I don't think carbon fiber frames endure for very long.


Careful as in lack of carelessness that results in excess wear or damage that otherwise could have been prevented.

The the kind of person that ruins things rather quickly due to his carelessness. I've seen many examples of this throughout the years.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

Just to report my own personal experience, no more or no less. 
a) Alu cross bike with carbon fork, no crashes while I have owned it, still 100%.

b) Alu fatbike with carbon fork, went down going through an icy lot (maybe with ridges from someone doing donuts??) mid trail system, trashed the carbon fork within 2 weeks of purchase. I learned that carbon repairers don't do forks, mostly because the expense approaches or exceeds the cost of replacement. The quickest $300 "upgrade" down the drain. Replaced with a steel fork at modest discount.


----------



## supersedona (Dec 17, 2012)

For something like a fork I would lean toward cro-mo if rigid because it has more resiliency and if it does get a super endo it won't shatter as much as bend. Compared to a frame component a fork takes a tremendous amount of leverage stress on a relatively small area.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

rlee said:


> I have seen carbon fail where aluminum wouldn't. That is why manufactures have lifetime on alu and 5 years on carbon. Usually they fail from a sharp impact or something stupid like rubbing through while on a rack.


Santa Cruz has a lifetime guarantee on their Carbon Fiber Frames.

I'm on my second Carbon frame with four moderate to high end aluminum framed rides before the carbon. I wouldn't go back to aluminum for several reasons, but one must understand this is a very personal and subjective type of topic. It's absurd to define what is an acceptable frame purchase, ride or expense for anyone other than yourself for whatever reason.

For me personally, what I sought and experienced upon going carbon was a very noticeable stiffness that my aluminum frames failed to display. On hard climbs, and especially on technical climbs, the carbon shined in how it exhibited a stiffness that translated to efficiency and better power application. The aluminum demonstrated more notable flex and swing arm (triangle) bob. In my particular case, this was not a subtle difference.

While I experienced notable gains in the technical areas, it was obviously apparent in fast sweepers or turns. The reduction in flex and bob again shined. While you will likely note the lighter weight and more playful bike feel, for me, it wasn't really about the weight. The weigh saving was simply the icing on the cake.

If you have the means or desire, or both to spend more on a carbon ride, then do it. But whatever you do, base your decisions for your own personal reasons, not based on the opinions of others. Reflect on your style of riding, terrain, and general preferences.

Bonus if you have fun.


----------

