General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Carbon Carbon Carbon Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2006-07-11 9:08 AM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Expert
919
500100100100100
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
My road bike is a trek 2300 - aluminum zr9000 material. It is a very stiff bike even with carbon fork and seatpost. After about 1hr you can definately feel fatigued and a little beat up. When wife gave ok to buy a new bike (tri) my first thought was to buy a carbon bike. After many test rides on different brands and materials I went with a Guru Trilite (06 model) which has aluminum (suppose to higher end of material), carbon fork (easton aero) and carbon seat stay and carbon seat post. This is by far the most comfortable bike I have ever ridden. I have only had the bike about 1 month but I have done 3 rides approaching the 3 hour mark. When I get off the bike I feel refreshed and still strong. The bike feels comfortable on both wheels (mavic sl's and hed alps). I am trying to focus on long distance races now (him and im in future) so I went with comfort first. This bike just felt great to me.


2006-07-11 9:13 AM
in reply to: #478663

User image

Elite
3498
20001000100100100100252525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-11 7:37 AM

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?

My initial disclaimer is I ride Ti and decided on this material after MUCH thought (similar to what you're doing now).

I chose Ti over Carbon for 3 reasons:

(1) the feel of Carbon is a dead wood feel...stiff but not springy...if that makes sense

(2) Ti is bomb proof as you can get with a bike; doesn't rust and for all intents and purposes...indestructable

(3) carbon doesn't stretch hardly at all so when it gives...that's it.  I tend to bang my bike around, place bikes on top of it in a car, it falls over sometimes when leaning on a wall, etc. and the last thing I wanted it to spend that kind of dough on a bike I have to walk on eggshells with (not really...but you get my point)

Ti on the otherhand is amazing compared to the carbon bikes I test rode.  As a frame of reference.  I was coming from an aluminum Cannondale R300 and an all-aluminum QR Tequilo.  While you sacrifice a bit of weight going Ti vs Carbon...I don't have a sponsor that can give me a new frame if I crash on mine.  I wanted as best of a "lifetime guarantee" bike that I could with frame material and not worry about how I handled it and if I cracked it in a wreck, etc.

After about 5,000 miles of riding on my Ti frame (QR Tiphoon) I simply love it.  It's not "soft" when mashing the peddles in a sprint like people suggested it might be.  It's as responsive as my old Tequilo was but significantly dampens the road vibrations without the dead wood feel.

Oh....be sure to find out where they make their frames.  If the company doesn't answer you or avoids the question, they are made by one of the 3 carbon frame manufacturers in Asia that make probabaly 90% of the carbon bike frames in the US market.  Kestrel is one of the companies that gets them there.  Aegis is one that doesn't.

Why does this matter....well that's for another thread.

While Ti is SIGNIFICANTLY more expense material than carbon...I opted for it due to the fact that there is only a SLIGHT weight differential but you gain bombproofness (is that a word?  ) that, for me, offset this weight differential.

Trust me, once you load down your bike with water bottles, aero bottles, air cartridges, air chucks, spare tubes, etc. the 450g to 700g weight difference isn't much.

 

2006-07-11 9:22 AM
in reply to: #478728

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
Steve- - 2006-07-11 9:13 AM

I chose Ti over Carbon for 3 reasons:

(1) the feel of Carbon is a dead wood feel...stiff but not springy...if that makes sense

(2) Ti is bomb proof as you can get with a bike; doesn't rust and for all intents and purposes...indestructable

(3) carbon doesn't stretch hardly at all so when it gives...that's it.  I tend to bang my bike around, place bikes on top of it in a car, it falls over sometimes when leaning on a wall, etc. and the last thing I wanted it to spend that kind of dough on a bike I have to walk on eggshells with (not really...but you get my point)

X2

2006-07-11 9:24 AM
in reply to: #478728

User image

Extreme Veteran
402
100100100100
Ogden, Utah
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
Steve- - 2006-07-11 9:13 AM

Why does this matter....well that's for another thread.

Well we are on the subject of Carbon... and I am going to be doing a lot of research on this over the course of the next few months... So spill it now! LOL

2006-07-11 9:25 AM
in reply to: #478742

User image

Extreme Veteran
402
100100100100
Ogden, Utah
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
the bear - 2006-07-11 9:22 AM
Steve- - 2006-07-11 9:13 AM

I chose Ti over Carbon for 3 reasons:

(1) the feel of Carbon is a dead wood feel...stiff but not springy...if that makes sense

(2) Ti is bomb proof as you can get with a bike; doesn't rust and for all intents and purposes...indestructable

(3) carbon doesn't stretch hardly at all so when it gives...that's it.  I tend to bang my bike around, place bikes on top of it in a car, it falls over sometimes when leaning on a wall, etc. and the last thing I wanted it to spend that kind of dough on a bike I have to walk on eggshells with (not really...but you get my point)

X2

 

I was wondering when you were going to pop in on this thread Bear..

 Who makes TI Frames? I know QR does...who else?

2006-07-11 9:38 AM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Queen BTich
12411
500050002000100100100100
,
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
LITESPEED


2006-07-11 9:42 AM
in reply to: #478745

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-11 9:25 AM

I was wondering when you were going to pop in on this thread Bear..

 Who makes TI Frames? I know QR does...who else?

Litespeed, Merlin, Moots, Airborne (now Flyte in the US) to name a few biggies, off-brands like Douglas (sold by Colorado Cyclist), and custom-manufacturers like Seven and Serotta.

2006-07-11 9:47 AM
in reply to: #478429


56
2525
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
Can I plug Kestrel here? I love my Kestrel Talon carbon road bike and you can get them for about $2300 at a LBS or cheaper mail order.
2006-07-11 9:48 AM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon

Steve makes a great point about weight. I get to see at many races, athletes with VERY expensive light bikes, aero wheels and even aero helmets with 2 water bottles on the frame and/or bottle cages on the seat post plus and aero bottle on the bars, plus SEVERAL gels taped to the frame and/or a big bento box full with lots of stuff and a big saddle bag with more than a couple of tubes/CO2 plus other stuff! (the worst is when they have the portable air pump taped to their $$$ TT bike)

IOW, all the weight saving or aerodynamics from their $$$ bikes/equipments is lost by poor simple choices…

2006-07-11 9:51 AM
in reply to: #478774

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
MSS - 2006-07-11 9:47 AM Can I plug Kestrel here? I love my Kestrel Talon carbon road bike and you can get them for about $2300 at a LBS or cheaper mail order.
 did you mean only the frame right?
2006-07-11 9:58 AM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon

Nope, Last years Kestrel's are "cheap" by comparison. 

http://www.bloomington.in.us/~bikedoc/specials.htm  $2500 or so.  Granted, that's not cheap, but you know.

I love my Kestrel!



2006-07-11 10:57 AM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Veteran
332
10010010025
Calgary
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
Cervelo has a short video showing a carbon fibre frame failing in testing.

mms://84.233.150.200/url1/cycling/1929/FunnyTesting_512k.wmv

Snap!

2006-07-11 11:04 AM
in reply to: #478874

Elite
3650
200010005001002525
Laurium, MI
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
anyone else starting to get sick of those commercials?
2006-07-11 11:17 AM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Extreme Veteran
402
100100100100
Ogden, Utah
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
Was that trick photography?
2006-07-11 11:22 AM
in reply to: #478728

User image

Extreme Veteran
405
100100100100
East Aurora, NY
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon

(2) Ti is bomb proof as you can get with a bike; doesn't rust and for all intents and purposes...indestructable

(3) carbon doesn't stretch hardly at all so when it gives...that's it.  I tend to bang my bike around, place bikes on top of it in a car, it falls over sometimes when leaning on a wall, etc. and the last thing I wanted it to spend that kind of dough on a bike I have to walk on eggshells with (not really...but you get my point)

This is what I need.  What a great thread.  I got more out of this thread relating to frame materials.  I am in the initial research stage on my search for the perfect bike for me.  I am going to have to consider Ti just because I am rough with my gear.  My local LBS carries Lightspeed so I am giong to drift on down there for a test ride.

2006-07-11 11:34 AM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Extreme Veteran
707
500100100
pnw
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
I didn't see the 2 Rivers asking about the differences of carbon/alum/ti on tri bikes. I had thought the original question was more specific to road biikes.

Having a S Works aluminum road bike I can say I'll never ride aluminum on the road again, simply too harsh of a ride. Carbon fork and seat post don't make it soft enough. Ti is a good replacement as is carbon fiber. Both can be good buys. There were some recent tests on bike frames. The better Ti bikes have a soft frame in comparison to any of the better carbon frames. Soft as in good Ti is about half as stiff as good carbon in the bottom bracket. All the while carbon offers a better ride. Alumnimum is stiff but harsher than either Ti or Carbon on the road.

(from Velo News Vol35 #5)

Carbon Cervelo R3 weight is. 2.02#... BB stiffness 109.3 ft/lb frame stiffness..238.9 ft/lb
Ti Litespeed Ghisallo weight...1.71#....BB...............44.1 ft/lb frame................81.4 ft/lb
Aluminum Cannodale............3.03 #... BB...............121.9 ft/lb frame..............180.7 ft/lb

For those commenting on the uselessness of light bikes. All I can think is they haven't ridden a light bike. No matter your weight a light bike is easier to pedal in some circumstances. But turn the road uphill and a really light bike makes a big difference even at 200#. It is enough to easily feel. Couple of lbs off the bike is a lot.


Depending on the event my aluminum tri bike (carbon fiber seat post and fork) gets all kinds of stuff hung on it along with the Zipp 606s. That is part of the game...having enough stuff (food/water/ tires/tubes) on the bike to finish the ride and be able to run. So weight is what it is on a tri bike. The ride quality is however a choice you make by frame material.

I use to ride long on my tri bike in training. Now I use a carbon road bike to ride long. Another choice. I won't be upgrading my alum tri bike any time soon. 10 Tris is a season of those two are 1/2 and one a IM. I can deal with 100 miles of Aluminum at a time
A couple dozen centuries per year pretty much had me begging for something easier to ride...that put power down like aluminum. Ti generally doesn't do that.

That said I bought good wheels before I bought a better frame. But a better frame got me on the bike longer which made a bigger engine. It is the engine not the bike. How you get there is your choice.



Edited by Nob 2006-07-11 11:38 AM


2006-07-11 11:41 AM
in reply to: #478920

User image

Extreme Veteran
707
500100100
pnw
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-11 9:17 AM

Was that trick photography?


No trick and a lifetime guarantee to go with the Cervelo frame.


2006-07-11 11:50 AM
in reply to: #478964

Elite
3650
200010005001002525
Laurium, MI
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
let the cervelo DH begin
2006-07-11 12:06 PM
in reply to: #478607

User image

Pro
4578
20002000500252525
Vancouver, BC
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
vortmax - 2006-07-11 5:55 AM

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.



Amen. For my next bike (not that that will be anytime soon), I'm thinking of Guru's New Steel.

IMO, the frame is the least important part of the bike to try improving (disclaimer: as long as it fits).
2006-07-11 12:09 PM
in reply to: #478978

User image

Extreme Veteran
707
500100100
pnw
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
vortmax - 2006-07-11 9:50 AM

let the cervelo DH begin


Some good frames out there, Cervelo, Specialized, Litespeed, Merx, QR, Trek and a few dozen others come to mind.

A search on line will show you a number of Cervelo R2.5 frames that failed at the joints or BB. (old design which they no longer make) From what I have seen all those bikes, some several years old, were being replaced with new R3s at no charge.

And the fact that they have a tougher test spec than most in the industry on their frames says a lot about a bike company to me. Not sure it justifies the price of a $3000 frame but aren't all the better frames $3000 these days?
2006-07-11 12:13 PM
in reply to: #478745

User image

Pro
4578
20002000500252525
Vancouver, BC
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-11 7:25 AM

 Who makes TI Frames? I know QR does...who else?



Besides the ones that bear mentioned, also Guru.


2006-07-11 12:19 PM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Master
1862
10005001001001002525
San Mateo, CA
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon

After having owned an aluminum road bike, and later purchasing a carbon fiber bike, I'd say the CF is much better on long rides.  I'd never go back to aluminum.

2006-07-11 12:21 PM
in reply to: #478429

User image

Veteran
332
10010010025
Calgary
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
If comfort is really a top priority, why not go with any frame you want and a better seat post?



Throw in a better fork for oodles of comfort :-)



OK, maybe suspension forks never really caught on for road bikes, but the seat post would be more comfortable than anything else you could hope for.

2006-07-11 12:33 PM
in reply to: #479044

User image

Extreme Veteran
707
500100100
pnw
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon
ertman - 2006-07-11 10:21 AM

If comfort is really a top priority, why not


Start riding 3 or 400 miles a month and the comfort/weight thing will become clear to you.
2006-07-11 12:40 PM
in reply to: #479044

User image

Giver
18427
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Carbon Carbon Carbon

ertman - 2006-07-11 1:21 PM  ...but the seat post would be more comfortable than anything else you could hope for.

Not in my experience. I feel the harshness of the Al bike more in my arms and shoulders than I do in my @ss.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Carbon Carbon Carbon Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3