Gone and bought a carbon bike!

[Deleted member 24574]

Tosh! Carbon is a well regarded as a consumable, throw away frame and rim material and everybody acknowledges that. Everyone apart from you....

I would love for you to be quoted in all carbon bike adverts from now on.. along with a picture of where it gets thrown...

Indeed; I would expect there to be a steel bias on this site but some of the comments about carbon frames being disposable are a bit OTT.

Carbon is not as durable as steel as it is more prone to damage from crashes and bangs but if it is well looked after there is no reason why a modern carbon bike can't give many years service.

 

[pigman]

a couple of things from me

Regarding greasemonkey's money grabbing marketeers rant, then I have to agree. I ride with a racing club and it is de Rigeur to have a £4k + bike if you want to deem yourself "serious" and be part of the gang. But, I don't stop at carbon frames, I feel the same with the latest in 20 spoke wheels, 10/11 speed groupsets, top-whack techno clothing and so on.

As to GM's snapped frames, it would be interesting to know more. You have said the bonding has failed. Most modern Carbon frames are now monococqued as one-piece and not tubes bonded together. I would say buy monocoque and don't buy on weight alone - these 850g frames are always going to be a compromise. there are several 1200g good quality carbon frames built for the heavier rider.

Save your carbon frame for the best of days. Too many modern riders have only one bike, to be used for commuting, winter etc. Buy a used steel commuter, get a non-carbon winterbike with guards to prevent salt corrosion - in other words riders need a bit of common sense.

Several in our club are using 8yr old plus carbon frames which are used as best bikes and haven't as yet failed. I accept my carbon bike probably won't last as long as steel, but I tend to swap best bikes after a few years anyway. As Neil said earlier the biggest difference is not the weight but the power transformation - you press on, it moves.

 

[GP1962]

very interesting debate. As a born again, I love the design and craftsmanship built into my steel bike, and i love how all the chrome and ally bits polish up. Have always been curious about carbon fibre bikes to ride, and do covet those low gears. I always take a gander around bike shops at modern carbon frames imagining the ease with which they might propel me up hills.

For me, it's about the joy of ownership and the effort put into the ride that fuel my passion for retro cycling, otherwise i'd have bought another ally frame or even considered carbon fibre.

My steel framed racer weighs in at 10kilos approx, noticeably lighter than my charge mixer, a modern steel framed bike, and I do feel the difference. Just means that I get more exercise on my town bike pushing those pedals harder. I'm old'ish now and am not in a hurry to get there.

 

[grogee]

Everyone has much lighter steel framed bikes than I have ever had - but then my xyz is always heavier than any other identical xyz. Perhaps MY air in the tyres is particularly heavy?

I've no idea how long carbon lasts, but it rides a whole lot better than any steel I've ever tried - only 1980s Columbus SLX comes close. 531C is OK but heavy (altho' I realise that most folk can build it into 12lb bicycles). 853 rides like a brick.

And yes I've recently bought my first carbon framed cycle for some years - a Planet X SL - oh the bliss. Can't imagine why I drifted off into rose coloured nostalgia for so long! With cheapish spec still just 20lbs I reckon. Not as nice as my TCR some years back which came in at 16lbs dead - but cost me a whole lot more!

+1 for Planet X SL... it is simply light years ahead of my MB 753 steel bike in every respect. No sign of failure yet after 3 years, and although I'm a fairly occasional rider, I'm also the wrong side of 15st - so if it was going to fail it would have by now.

One thing I did notice was the short life of the chainrings on the supplied chainset - Truvativ GXP carbon I think? Very light but nowhere near as long lasting as I'd hoped. I've now changed to good old Biopace steel on a more suitable 170mm crankset.

For what it's worth - wish I'd specced Shimano and not SRAM Rival double-tap!

 

[kingfishr]

I started with a Vitus 979 which was a joy to ride, but it did flex a bit. A couple of years ago I bought a Ridley Noah CF frame. It was light and stiff, and it felt fast. Unfortunately I broke the top tube when I went down in a race, so the frame lasted one season. The interesting thing is when I measure my performance statistics the Noah was only marginally faster than my 1980 Colnago Super, so I think for a pro maybe those seconds count, but I just look like a mamil with more money than sense. And I get more complements on the steel Colnago than I ever got on the Ridley...

 

[nbl78s]

I've always been told "an ounce of rotational weight is equal to a pound of frame weight"... I have ridden big aluminum tubes, Carbon, and a few Titanium bikes in my time but I keep coming back Steel. Vintage Steel with modern lite weight Wheels and running gear just feels right. Even if the frame is a little heavier the bike still feels nimble and lite under your feet with a really nice wheel set.

However, i will say my carbon frames were noticeably stiffer with better power transfer, especially during out of the saddle efforts. They just weren't as much fun to ride

 

[ededwards]

Having recently started riding with a club, I'm certainly tempted by a carbon bike and am quite taken by a Cannondale SuperSixEvo after a few idle, boozy Christmas Day reading. Perhaps I should get one while still young enough/without injury to enjoy it rather than use it to compensate.

Then again, I've kept up ok with the guys on their team edition carbon bikes with special edition SRAM Red and I've been on a steel Roberts with mudguards.

Sometimes I hate being Libran.

 

[jonnyboy666]

there is nothing better than keeping up with cafe racers on carbon when on your (by comparison) old fashioned steel retrobike fuelled by pub lunches and ale as opposed to energy drinks and power bars

i don't think you should be tempted by this modern tupperware stuff Ed, it's the dark side i tell you!

 

[Apollonius]

Interesting thread, as much for the prejudiced ideas displayed as anything. Wow, there is some prejudice here. I'll put mine on the line straight up, so we know where to start.

I am pro-European. I like local. I am Campagnolo for preference, but respect good Shimano. I like classic stuff that lasts (which is why I am on this forum I guess.)
I ride nearly every day, but also drive, motorcycle, sail, ski and my wife rides horses.

I have never sold a bike. I still own every bike I ever bought, except for the original Severn Valley I was bought for passing my O levels. The only reason I am telling you this is so you can judge my level of prejudice.

I recently bought a carbon bike because my wife has one and I was struggling to keep up with her on steel. I don't struggle now.
The carbon bike is better in nearly every way. SPD-SL pedals are more positive, safer and easier to use than clips and straps. This is after 50+ years on clips.
The carbon bike is smoother and has less road buzz, given equivalent tyre pressures. I am a 7 BAR man, by the way.
The Campag gear change on the carbon bike is superbly easy to use and safer, quicker and easier than the equivalent 50 year old stuff on my Severn Valley.

The only thing that is better on the steel bikes is the saddles are more comfortable. I ride Brooks Swallow on all of them. The best one is 64 years old!

I have made a point of thrashing the carbon bike in all weathers since I got it. My feeling is that I can easily replace stuff I wear out whereas the "classics" parts are harder to source. I regard the new bike as my winter bike for this reason. I am fortunate, perhaps in that my pockets are deep, but we are comparing bikes here, yes?

How much difference? Not much at all. If the difference between a supermarket BSO and a decent Decathlon or Boardman bike is 100 then we are talking a difference in single figures. As always, a quality bike is a quality bike, whatever it is made of and I am fortunate to have a range of quality bikes.

Not trying to annoy anyone. Just saying as I see it.

 

[pigman]

My take on it and am trying to be objective and no slur on any particular cycling group
If I go out with the local CTC section, I can go on a steel mtb, single chain ring, fat tyres and without boasting, be the fastest/fittest there

If I go out with my old club, none of whom are racing and they ride on flatter, rolling terrain, the mtb is a bit much, but any half decent road bike, steel or my aluminum winter bike sees me OK

If I go out with my current club, the majority of whom race or do strava or at least ride a couple of chain gangs a week, and most of whom are much younger than me, and the riding is hilly in the peak district, the carbon bike gives me half a chance to stay with the pack on climbs. Any less bike and I'm buggered.

For those who say they can keep up on steel, it depends who and where you are making comparisons with and how good you are in the first place. I really do believe there is a wholesale difference between a modern carbon #bike shod with good wheels and kit and a classic bike, and this sentiment is said without simply trying to justify the expenditure. What I do concede is that my carbon bike won't be here in 20 years, whereas a steel one would.

# when I say carbon bike, I mean a 'decent' one not the sub £1k carbon bikes dispatched by the mail order giants