Alloy v carbon difference

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No, I think you've been mislead by fancy words. Geometry.
It means nothing.
All bikes for a given purpose - road, utility, MTB, Downhill, etc, have frames with angles within a degree, perhaps two, of each other. Further, the only angle that does matter to the steering (note, not to comfort) is the head tube angle. However, even that has to be coupled with the fork offset before you can make a judgement.
Now, if you were to decide on a (fictitious) optimum angle with the corresponding "right" fork offset, I wish you good luck in finding your dream bike.

Further, "comfort" is simply compliance, which in turn is a fancy word for springiness. Frames, thanks to their diamond truss design, are essentially springless. They have to vertical "give" of note. By that, I mean that their flex is less than the rubber in the tyre, nevermind the air in the tyre. The only place where there is some vertical "spring" in a bike is in the steerer tube (fork). Again, that is minimal and we know this because of the longevity of headset bearings. If there was more spring in the fork, the bearing will be pulled out of alignment and fail very quickly.

Therefore, there is effectively no "comfort" in either carbon, titanium, steel or aluminium bikes. None. Ziltch, Nada.

Comfort can of course be found in ride position and that's a matter of getting the approximate right size bike and correct stem and seat height. I say approximate frame size only because the new BS "science" of bike fitting has pulled the arse out of the chicken with this one. There is no need for millimeter precision in a fit - Small, Medium and Large is good enough for average body shapes and configurations. The fine tuning comes with saddle and handlebar position.

In summary:
Forget about the material. One won't five you more comfort than another.
Don't overthink this.
Choose a nice colour.
Fall in love with the bike and ride it.

Well that’s decades of experience, and many millions of pounds of research put to rights then.
 
I have a 1998 Cannondale CAD3 bike and a 2014 full carbon Madone.

I actually got the Madone as an upgrade from Trek after a lesser frame failed. The failed frame was a Lemond Chambery, partial carbon (spine design) and part aluminum.

I'm really happy I didn't pay for the full carbon bike because I think it would have been a waste of money as far as ride quality. The Geo of the Lemond was a really sweet ride for my body. Fit like a glove, rode like butter.

The full carbon is Meh OK but the steeper angles make it less comfy.

I'd do solo centuries (100 miles) at 5:45. The Lemond was a much better ride due to the geometry. Sadly I snapped the frame on a climb at one of the alum joints. But I miss that bike!
 

rugby bloke

Veteran
Location
Northamptonshire
I changed from an alloy Carerra to a carbon Giant last autumn. At first I noticed a massive difference, the carbon bike felt quicker and more responsive although not necessarily more comfortable - this of course could be down to the appalling state of Northants roads. Over time however, the riding experience feels pretty much the same. Yes, the Giant is quicker but not dramatically so and I suspect this is as much to do with the better groupset as the construction material. I'm looking forward to completing some proper long rides in the summer to be really able to compare the 2.
 

cyberknight

As long as I breathe, I attack.
I changed from an alloy Carerra to a carbon Giant last autumn. At first I noticed a massive difference, the carbon bike felt quicker and more responsive although not necessarily more comfortable - this of course could be down to the appalling state of Northants roads. Over time however, the riding experience feels pretty much the same. Yes, the Giant is quicker but not dramatically so and I suspect this is as much to do with the better groupset as the construction material. I'm looking forward to completing some proper long rides in the summer to be really able to compare the 2.
Propel?
They are supposed to be a bit harsh
 

johnblack

Über Member
I love my 'dale CAAD 8, usually ride it Nov to Apr, bit twitchy, great fun and I can take it mostly anywhere. The difference when I get back on the carbon is noticeable for acceleration and climbing, as it is lighter, but that's also to do with the different set-up, better components and wheels. If I put that kit on the 'dale it might be a close run thing.
 

Shearwater Missile

Über Member
It is all about compromise around a certain price point and that goes with most things in life. You`d need to have exactly the same wheels, tyres, bars and bar tape, saddle, groupset on both carbon and alloy bikes to feel the difference, if any other than weight. We are all different and what one feels comfortable on, on smooth roads, another would find a hard ride perhaps because that rider cycles over poorer road surfaces. If that makes sense. If it is damp or wet out on the roads I will take the alloy bike as that has mudguards. If it is dry I will take the carbon only because that cost me more and want it to last. Having said that, the alloy bike is 8 1/2 years old so that is lasting OK.
 
Last edited:

bladderhead

Well-Known Member
My Grasshopper is aluminium with Meks carbon forks. My Cruzbike Silvio is aluminium and carbon, with a bit of Ti included. I am confused. What about bamboo?
 

cyberknight

As long as I breathe, I attack.
Defy 3 - I would not describe it as an armchair ride. To be honest I have not noticed a great deal of difference over the old bike. I'm looking forward to riding on decent roads in Spain to see if I notice any difference.
i remember reading a review on the carrera basically the tube shape and profile made it a soft ride and tbh i find my tdf fine .
 
Top Bottom