Carbon...worth the price?

The feel of carbon vs aluminum may be preference. I know a bunch of folks who LOVE their aluminum Cervelos, but I also admit that I've yet to hear of anyone who didn't appreciate their light and smoother carbon ride.

You'll definitely pay a big-time premium for the carbon frame. Then again, you'll also be paying a big-time premium for Dura-Ace vs ultegra as well. I haven't ridden aluminum road bikes enough to compare to my new P2C, but as a mtn-biker with lots of aluminum and steel experience, the carbon on the road feels a lot more like steel to me versus the definitely more rigid aluminum feel. Weirdly though, I do recall feeling "really fast" on that aluminum mtn bike on roads - my Cervelo, despite its alleged stiffness, feels surprisingly like soft steel, to the point I wonder if I'm still going as fast as I would on an aluminum bike! 

You breath on aluminum and if it bends then you have to replace the frame.

I've never seen a carbon frame "shatter" in my 18 years of road riding.

You are paying for the mold and fabrication process with a carbon frame.  Each one costs about $50k to make (the mold that is) and with one mold needed per frame size the development costs are huge compared to other materials.

I posted those pix kinda tongue-in-cheek.  Yes, my carbon framer shattered.....but I was t-bone by a Cadilac.  Maybe the frame shattering like this absorbed some of the impact....kinda like my helmet that cracked aborbing most of the energy.

I like the carbon frame and replace it with the exact bike.

~Mike

That's not a shatter Mike, that's just some bad cracks/splits!

Now, I have seen the original Spynergy wheels truly shatter in a road race and there were literally thousands of flying carbon shards.  It was scary as hell since we were about 400 yards out from the finish sprint.

Yup... I'm in your boat Ace.  I've got an aluminum Trek and while I'd love to upgrade to a Cervelo or Felt carbon, I can't see spending the money on it until my engine is "up to par".  I actually have a set MPH goal in my head that if/when I reach that MPH average on my Trek, I will start looking for a new bike.

I can't believe no one has asked yet.

What distance racing do you plan on using this bike for?  If it's sprint/Olympic...not going to matter big picture-wise.  Ironman...Go Carbon hands down.

Yes, there are other factors to consider, but the first of which should be what distance races will you be using it for.

Because really Dan, it doesn't matter.  The material does not make the bike, the designer and fabricator make it.  You can have a stiff or a whippy aluminum, you can have a stiff or whippy carbon.  It is all in how the manufacturer makes the frame.

The real advantage for carbon is that you can do just about anything you want with it for design.  So getting a really aero, lightweight and stiff frame with some compliance in the vertical dimension is entirely possible while with aluminum you may have to sacrifice one of those things to get the other.

My observations with my new carbon bike:

I haven't seen much, if any, speed increase from my aluminum frame compaired to my new carbon bike.  HOWEVER, I have noticed that the carbon dampens a lot of the road noise/vibration that I used to feel with my old bike.

I may not finish a long ride any faster, but I sure feel less "beat up" on the carbon bike...

Just my 0.02.

Yes, there is a huge difference.  Is there a difference between a $4,500 bike from one manufacturer and a $5,000 from another??  Generally, no, but when you are comparing the two it is all about fit and feel.  The quality, materials and components are all going to be similar (carbon, Dura Ace or Red, high end wheels).

While that's all fine and dandy, it is really not relevant as to the difference in materials.  Your "entry level" bike is still the same frame that Specialized used to use on their more expensive models (other than the S-Works model) that has specific design components to absorb road shock (Zerts).  And I know people who ride less than you but put a heck of a lot more "abuse" on their bike.  It is not the mileage, it is the way those miles are put on.

I doubt anyone would argue with that!

Of course, riding "smart" has as much to do with racing fast as riding lots.  I don't think anyone would say I've put up stellar mileage since getting back on the bike and I'm not exactly slow.

The overall resounding theme is that carbon is worth it if you are willing to spend the cash.  It gives you more flexibility in frame design.  And you can get it crazy light if you want and still have a solid frame.

IMO if you are questioning an extra $1k then money is an issue.....   as expensive as triathlon is spend that money on traveling to a couple other races or use for entry fees.....  $525 a pop on IM series.....

There are a ton of cool races out there but they are not cheap especially if traveling.  Your money will be better spent on more race experiences than having a cool carbon bike.

Just my two cents, FWIW I ride aluminum, have done from sprints to IM and I survived.....