is a carbon bike really better than aluminum? (Page 2)

Agreed. And of course everyone knows the best frames are made of titanium.

rfergus5 - 2008-07-26 10:54 PM This is my 4th year riding a P2SL.......great bike and very comfortable (longest rides are @ 2hrs). As mentioned above, the fit is ultimately going to be most important. Any reputable tri-shop will fit you to see which bike is best for you (it may even be another brand). When I was fitted, the Dual was the optimum geometry for me but the shop didnt have any in stock. I "had" to go with the P2SL (twist my arm) and it has fit very well.....again I am very pleased. Another point......back when I purchased my P2SL, it came with Wolf Carbon TT forks, FSA carbon crank and aero carbon seatpost. All these places are where road vibrations (not all) are transfered to the rider. Not the same as all carbon frame but different than having AL forks, seatpost, etc. as well (I see they changed to AL seatpost on P2SL for '08). Either way you cant go wrong.....have fun in the process and post pics of the one you end up with

that is a very good point! (about the transfer places).  the only real experience I have in terms of carbon vs. non-c is when I borrowed a friend's bike that didn't have a carbon fork.  Wow, that was hard on the arms!  But my bike has been through A LOT and has basically come out intact...pretty amazing. 

Actually, industry insiders are claiming that the next new wave of "best material" that will revolutionaize frame building is supposed to include thermoplastic composites (as opposed to thermoset composites, what we all now refer to generically as "carbon"  ) which is still essentially carbon, but is nowhere near as brittle, can be very easily repaired by heating and re-moulding, and is considered a green/environmentally-friendly product because of the lack of toxic gasses emitted during production and that it can be 100% recycled - even into a brand new frame. I believe only Yeti  bikes are built using this process, a joint venture with Kaiser Aerospace and Penske racing.

But I will agree that nekkid Ti shore is purdy.

EDIT to get rid of those stupid demon smilies that think all parentheses are an open invitation to hijack my hijack

What he said.  There is no noticeable difference in weight, stiffness, compliance, etc. between the two.  It is all in how it is built.

The lightest stuff you see is carbon, but there are alum. that are the same range.  Carbon has a little bit more fudge factor should it be crashed though.  Alum. is pretty much trash after you've crashed it.

The reason more manufacturers are building with carbon?  Because you can design it however the heck you want into whatever shape you want and make it as light as you want.  That is a lot harder to do with steel, ti or alum. and still build something you can re-create for the masses.

I ride a 1kg Scott carbon frame and the complete 58cm bike built up weighs right in at the UCI weight limit of 6.9kg.  And after tomorrow night it will be below that when I pick up my new cranks.  Zipp Vuma ...... yummy!!!  It is stiff, crazy light and rides fantastic.

As far as buying the Ultegra vs. the DA model????  Total waste of money.  The ONLY difference, and I do mean ONLY, between the two is the rear derailleur.  Completely not worth it (although I'm a huge fan of DA over Ultegra) for the money.

x4000. I've got a partly aluminum, party carbon ride, and it's good. I've also got an aluminum roadie, and love the power transfer...much better. So each have their plusses, and minuses.

Don't upgrade just 'cause. No reason to.