Carbon Carbon Carbon

Yup, just ask Torbjorn Sindballe  

i will never own a full carbon bike.  Carbon seat stays are pushing it.  When I finally put together the money to buy a serious Tri bike, it's going to be high end aluminum.

Yea carbon gives a smoother ride.  Yea it's an engineered material, which means that you can engineer it to be super stiff in some directions but flexible in others...and you can engineer how much flex.  It's also pretty bling right now.  Carbon is the new titanium (which was the new aluminum which was the new Chromoly steel....ect)

The problem I have with it is that you are only one wreck away from needing a new frame.  Carbon doesn't stress fracture; it doesn't wrinkle around weak points; it doesn't just bend out of shape.  When it gets damaged, it doesn't tell you and it will ride fine until it decides to go.  When it goes... it goes.  Catastrophic failure.  It can start off as simple as dropping the chain on a hill and cutting into the fiber weave.

I'm not saying I crash a lot, but I would much rather have a frame that can take some abuse and that you won't have to replace in 2 or 3 years because the frame is past it's duty cycle.  Maybe if I were a pro and could just swap entire bikes in the middle of a race....

and really.... you don't drop THAT much weight going to carbon from aluminum. 

That is EXACTLY my point.... why is Carbon SO freakin big? I mean, do people not realize that wheels seemingly make more of a difference in your time than a few grams of the weight of the bike? I understand that some people have to have a lot of comfort when they are riding, but quite frankly, in the test rides I have had so far, I have come to the conclusion that my butt just isn't that picky. A bike is a bike, and I haven't been able to tell one from the other so far.

So speed is really my factor right now. And I just can't seem to justify a $800 dollar upgrade to Carbon when I can get an $800 dollar upgrade to blade spokes on an aluminum frame.

The average person (me included) can cut several pounds of a$$ off of the engine before they have to worry about the weight of the frame and components. But weight is only one dimesion.

I saw a guy at a race this year who had my same bike (2004 QR Caliente), but instead of the stock Mavic Ksyrium wheelset he had Zipp 404's. I asked him what difference he noticed with the $1800 wheel upgrade = 1 mph faster. Guy's done mulitple IMs and has been doing tri's for 15 years. Granted the Ksyriums are good wheels... but they are not carbon. When I do get a carbon frame it will be for the comfort on long rides primarily, and it won't happen until I ride my current bike into aluminum shavings...

Bottom line: you want speed build an engine. If you get fast enough for top-shelf components to make a significant difference (the time savings is really only a big factor for long course racing anyway), somebody will be providing them to you as part of the sponsorship contract.

Amen Brother, Amen!

I second that. I don't want to (or have the money) to buy another bike after one unlucky fall or accident. Thats why I went with Titanium. [enter the rest of Vortmax's post here...]

I had an aluminum road bike and it was just ok. The bike didn't fit so I upgraded, not wanting to buy entry level again I decided to get titanium and it is a world of difference. The ride is so smooth...I love it.

If I were you I'd go with aluminum and race wheels. Or titanium.

Nob hit the nail on the head. I've owned two Kestrels (a CSX MTB and a 200SCi tri bike), and several Al bikes (a Cannondale CAAD 3 and a Felt B2, as well as Specialized M2 road and MTBs). I like Al bikes in that they are very stiff and responsive, and my B@ is doubtless the fastest bike I've ever ridden. But it wears me out. Even with a carbon seat post and all carbon fork, it's chattery and transmits *every* bump in the road to my hands, forearms and shoulders. If I was concentrating on short course events (sprint to Olympic), that'd be just fine. BUt since I'm not, I'm currently shopping carbon frames. 

Anyone wanna buy a 56cm '04 Felt B2 frame w/ new Easton EC-90 Aero fork?

I'm looking at Ti, too...

The best $$ I spent on a bike. I haven't regretted one cent. Start a Ti thread...see the responses you get. Bear, TechGeezer, etc.

All3Sports had some '05 on sale, they still might be, but sizes might be limited.

also think about it this way.  Metals come in different alloys.  It's really tough to compare 6000 series aluminum to carbon fiber.  They are not on par.  It's like riding a Huffy and then bashing all steel frame bikes for being heavy.

An entry level aluminum frame,  made of 6000 series or even 7005 series aluminum is going to ride a lot different then carbon.  Make the jump up to higher grades, and the difference lessens.  ZR 9000 isn't nearly as bad and an aluminum frame made with Easton Scandium aluminum can be just as comfortable as titanium (and cost more).  Without going into too much description of the differences, aluminum is brittle and doesn't tolerate repeat flexing.  To keep the frames from failing, they can't flex a lot....thus then make big tubes that don't flex.  Stiffness is a designed characterisitc of the tubeset mandated by the prperties of the material.  Higher end alloys are stronger and less brittle, thus bikes can be designed with more flex...yielding better ride quality.

They only have 51s in the LS Saber, but there's one on ebay that I'm watching.

I just bought an Argon 18 Mercury which has an interesting combination of aluminum and carbon (all the rear triangle is carbon same as the fork).  Anyway I got it cuz I got a great deal I couldn't let pass, but if I could afford my dream bike it would probably all carbon. Anyway, I’ve been riding a carbon Giant and I guess I’ll be finding out how much difference it makes one material vs. the other. I’ll report back in a few weeks

I'd be interested to know. That's one of the bikes I was looking at when I got the B2 (mine doesn't have the carbon rear triangle the '05 and '06 models so, and I'm wondering it it would make a big difference or not.

I should be riding it over the weekend. I'll do a long ride and let you know if I notice any big differences (I hope the main difference I get to notice is the fact that I can ride a lot faster, HA! )

Carbon fiber does have some unique characteristics - for example it can be molded into shapes not achievable with conventional metal tubing.  That can be a distinct advantage when incorporating aero shapes into frames and other components.  One the other side of the coin when it does fail, it can be pretty catastrophic.  Of course welded joints can fail on conventional metal frames too, causing just as big a wreck.  

Longevity is certainly a concern.  The resin binder can deteriorate and become more brittle over time, seriously reducing the strength and duty life of the material.  That's been observed in older formula one and Indy race cars with carbon monocoque tubs.  I certainly wouldn't expect a carbon-framed bike using current technology to last as long as my 35-year-old steel-framed Schwinn Continental hanging out in my garage.

At the same time carbon fiber technology is also advancing rapidly.  I expect it's going to be around for a long time and will continue to improve.  No, it's not the perfect material, but there isn't any.  There's always going to be tradeoffs and compromises. 

Mark     

That's funny that you mention a Giant, I will likely be test riding an all Carbon Giant TCR3 sometime later this week...

My ideal bike as well would be totally Carbon. But I don't have that lucrative sponsoship, or 6 grand to drop right now. As of right now, I want a bike that will last until that does happen.

So let me get this right. Carbon is more lightweight, and is a lot stiffer, allowing the bike to soak up more vibrations on the road, than an aluminum (or other) frame. However, the down fall is the cost and the amount it would take to fix the bike if it fails.

Aluminum is more sturdy (when made with the big tubing and the right alloy combination), however it's downfall is that it's slightly? less aero, weighs more, and will wear you out over 112 miles (which is where I will be going in 2 years.)

What's the deal with Titanium and Boron Carbon... and where does softride play into the picture...

 One more question... Obviously ever manufacturer is going to make there bikes a little different than the next. Giants Carbon is likley different than Cervelo or even Trek. How can you find out which one is more durable/ more comfortable/ better. Reviews? LOL Ask on BT?

carbon is stiffer then al and more flexible then steel.  That's the point of an engineered material.  Depending on how you orient the "Grain" of the fabric when you lay it, you can make it stiff or noodly, or anywhere in between.  You can make certain tubes flexy to give ride comfort and others super stiff for max power transfer.  You can do the same with metal frames by altering shapes, wall thickness and having different alloys for different parts; it's just much harder, much more expensive and not as effective.  There is thought that a carbon BB will actually me more durable then an Al one.

Carbon soaks up vibration because typically carbon frames are designed to flex more.  Think of the frame like a shock absorber.  More flex means more cush.

Aluminum is brittle and suffers from fatigue failure rather easily.  Take a paper clip and bend it back and forth a lot.  Notice how it eventually snaps?  That's fatigue failure.  To make sure Aluminum frames don't do this, they build the tubes to be very large and stiff.  Aluminum frames aren't stiff because that is the nature of aluminum.   They are stiff because an Al frame that can flex as much as carbon would fail rather quickly.  The higher end Al alloys have a much lower fatigue failure rate, thus allowing more flex to be designed in and a much softer ride.

Titanium came on the scene to answer the aluminum problem.  People wanted a ride like steel, but the weight of aluminum.  Ti is strong enough to allow for the bike to be built with the flex (and small tubing) of steel, but it is much lighter then steel.  It still is heavier then some aluminums, but the softer ride makes it a good balance of features.

really haven't looked at boron carbon, so can't really tell you anything.

in terms of quality of carbon.  It's an engineered material, so the quality of the frame highly depends on who is engineering it and who is building it.  Since stiffness depends on how you orient the fiber when it is initially laid, two identical looking frames could behave radiacally different.  Usually the designers have a particular goal in mind when they design this, so you just have to ride the bike and see which one you like better.   In reality it doesn't matter, as most carbon frames are outsourced to Taiwan, so the same plant may be building frames for Trek, Giant, cervelo, ect....

At the end the most important thing is bike fit, comfort and the engine. Before investing in aero wheels or a tri bike, I 1^st got a power meter to work on the engine. I’ve been riding for a couple of years now although; I’ve been seriously riding for the last 7 months (2000 total miles on 2005 vs.  2500 total miles so far in 2006) My point: by Riding Lots I have no problem passing riders with high end bikes/expensive wheels at races cuz it is really about the engine and not your frame material or rim depth of your wheels…