New carbon bikes. A argument to buy one.

[NeilM]

Re:

I don't think anyone is telling you to buy one. If you are happy with what you have and wish to remain with that, then this is no reason to buy one.

I bought carbon because I wanted a relatively cheap, light bike. I could possibly have built myself another lightweight steel or alloy bike, but for less than the cost of the parts I was able to buy exactly what I wanted in carbon, and as an added bonus, the bike I bought has my favourite colour combination.

I think what the author of the article is saying is that production carbon road bikes of the present day, are superior to production steel frames of the past.

 

[daccordimark]

Re: Re:

I am bemused. Apart from struggling to read the uninspiring text I can't see an argument to buy one. That phrase suggests the text tells me why they are better than anything else.
Not saying I shouldn't just that I fail to see conclusive and in arguable persuasion.
some one please point me to the phrase that I missed.

Yes, he just glosses over the point by saying we'll just have to believe him that steel can't be made to work as well as carbon.
It would be nice if he could expand on that a bit rather than just saying we should buy carbon because it's what the bike industry currently invests all it's R&D into.
His "argument" doesn't seem to go beyond that point really. Is he really suggesting that the members of Classic Rendezvous are in danger of bringing the industry down because they prefer to buy second hand old steel rather than new carbon?

Mark.

 

[Wold Ranger]

Re:

I honestly don't believe there is any argument for either being "better". They simply are better in each way for different tasks asked of them. Both Steel and Carbon both have huge advantages over each other, but in different ways.
Carbon can be made lighter, much cheaper now (than quality steel), torsionally stiff in the right plane, while compliant in others and it doesn't rust, BUT, it is prone to breakage due to impact and sudden failure and is still not easily repaired. Steel however, has a wonderful ride, can be repaired and refinished easily, is better for load carrying/expedition/touring and has a longer fatigue life (look at all the decades old bikes on here still being hammered) and is less prone to impact damage and sudden failure.
On the weight aspect, I don't feel this is too relevent, as any weight saving over steel can be compensated by building with lightweight components now and the difference between a good steel frame and a good carbon one isn't actually that much, but the difference between a cheap groupset and wheels and a boutique choice is huge (So is the price I also acknowledge) :facepalm: I have both in my stable and choose according to mood and task ahead!
As a foot note, if you look at the resurgence of modern steel frames, despite cheap/rliable carbon now readily available, I feel this backs up my point. Aluminium is the loser these days, but then some of the Aluminium frames are now as light as carbon and quite compliant, Canyon etc.

 

[mattr]

Carbon is exceedingly easy to repair. Excepting the final finish (expensive) or massive failure (potentially difficult to get alignment right), its probably as easy to repair as steel.
And FWIW, most CF frames (even the moderately light, sub kilo, ones) are remarkably damage and impact tolerant. Weight for weight, they are probably more durable and damage tolerant than steel.

 

[widowmaker]

Carbon is exceedingly easy to repair. Excepting the final finish (expensive) or massive failure (potentially difficult to get alignment right), its probably as easy to repair as steel.
And FWIW, most CF frames (even the moderately light, sub kilo, ones) are remarkably damage and impact tolerant. Weight for weight, they are probably more durable and damage tolerant than steel.

:shock:

 

[mrkawasaki]

As a small builder I learned quite a lot about bike design, and what makes a bike feel good. But one frame a week is not going to change the world of bikes. So I teamed up with a genius marketing guy, Mike Sinyard. I took my steel frame designs to the general market, the frames made in Japan to keep the price to the end user down. Bikes worked very well, but because end users generally don't know a good ride from adam not much in the way of impact in the market. It is hard to market a bike if the marketing department does not have an angle. This angle should always have a real technical advantage, in my opinion anyway. The key point is you have to have a successful company (selling lot's of bikes and making profit) in order to keep making good bikes.

Hi Jim

You raise one of the most interesting topics (to me at least) regarding the key role marketing has played in the early evolution of mountainbiking. I have always felt there is more real world credibility/skill/risk etc. in creating a great design and being able to share that (without too much dilution or compromise) with a wider market.

My interest in retrobiking is centred around these early successes and failures to broadcast a new pastime - from the first batch of Breezers within a small community through the relatively mass production and marketing of the Stumpjumper and then the sports translation to the UK. Specialized can be argued to be a more tangible achievement than say the genius working alone in his workshop, in that they reached and engaged more people without a significant trade-off in experience, endeavouring to keep their customers close to innovation inherent in such an evolutionary sport.

Of course marketeers are often driven to take a perceived drawing board technical advantage and embellish it and sometimes that technical advantage is not so enduring and they are held to account eg. e-stays and early suspension. I am perhaps drawn to collect early Cannondale over Klein because I believe they did a more credible job bringing the fat tubed aluminium frame concept to a wider market without resorting to 'exclusive' marketing techniques that rather obscured the technology within. Having said that, I inexplicably hoard e-stays as a contrary reminder of how far up a cul-de-sac we can all willingly go! (BTW Did Specialized ever consider/prototype an elevated frame??)

Reviewing the black and white adverts in the back of early MBA magazines show the hysterical and madcap approaches of small enterprises making out like they knew what they were doing with their fledgling 'marketing'. The late eighties and early nineties were a great time for such 'open source' communications - the market was new and there were no successful templates available to copy so they found their own ways! This fertile period remains a fascinating time to look back on and some of the products turned out to be pretty good too...

For those that may be unaware - http://mmbhof.org/jim-merz/