carbon vs aluminium

[Rob3rt]

1. Depends. It is for the average Joe. None of us here (as far as I can tell) are special cyclists.

2. Conditional on what? Generally it's true.

1) Not really but that is besides the point. I seem to see a lot of people referring to the comfort factor. I am an average Joe and the reason I own a carbon bike certainly is not about weight (my carbon bike weighs more than my alu bike in fact).

2) If you are talking about climbing a hill, of 2 riders, the one with the best power to weight ratio will generally get to the top 1st. If you consider a flat time trial, then the rider with the greatest raw sustainable power will win, even if they are a fair bit heavier, drag between heavier and lighter riders is generally not that different. Most cases considered.

 

[Andrew_P]

I do not care I just like the bling. If it rides better and faster thats a bonus..

I think Rob3rt is closer, the oversizing of the key areas without compromising overal strength is the key. BB and Headtubes are huge compared to when you look at older bikes pre carbon.

 

[400bhp]

1) Not really but that is besides the point. I seem to see a lot of people referring to the comfort factor. I am an average Joe and the reason I own a carbon bike certainly is not about weight (my carbon bike weighs more than my alu bike in fact).

2) If you are talking about climbing a hill, of 2 riders, the one with the best power to weight ratio will generally get to the top 1st. If you consider a flat time trial, then the rider with the greatest raw sustainable power will win, even if they are a fair bit heavier, drag between heavier and lighter riders is generally not that different. Most cases considered.

Come on Rob, don't patronise me

Let's go back to the thread opening post. Given the posting it is clear the rider is (at best) an average rider generalising about the difference a carbon bike will make to his speed.

The answer is, quite bluntly, no.

Yes, there are multitude of caveats in there, but let's not go all "Cycling Plus"

 

[Rob3rt]

Come on Rob, don't patronise me

Let's go back to the thread opening post. Given the posting it is clear the rider is (at best) an average rider generalising about the difference a carbon bike will make to his speed.

The answer is, quite bluntly, no.

Yes, there are multitude of caveats in there, but let's not go all "Cycling Plus"

Patronising you? How so?

I don't disagree with the conclusion that a carbon bike won't by default make the OP faster. I am pretty sure it won't in most circumstances. But the conversation had moved on and the "its just a few grams" comments were starting to emerge. Hence I posted stating that generally, the benefits of carbon are not just weight savings, to which Crankarm made an, incorrect, statement to the contrary.

 

[400bhp]

power to weight fella and the explanation

 

[Rob3rt]

You asked, I replied. It was not intended to be patronising.

 

[Cycling Dan]

The new molding and bending techniques used on aluminum has made it so a it can give a carbon a run for its money. So no is the answer. Carbon is more expensive because its a more expensive fiber because it is man made rather than melted down and reformed metal, not because its faster(less in weight) which a lot mistake. In the end of it all it comes mostly down to weight and then your gears on the bike then you. You see a lot of people who ride 2K+ bikes and then get beaten by a fitter guy on a roadie worth less than £400.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

The new molding and bending techniques used on aluminum has made it so a it can give a carbon a run for its money.

Sorry but your very much mistaken imho the nature of carbon fibre permits you to control accurately the characteristics of the final product.
The resin used during the carbon fibre layup process, the type of weave of the carbon used can unidirectional, 3k or 12k or a twill weave. Not to mention the prepreg process can permit an engineer to design into the product the characteristics and torsional rigidity desired
You do not have this level of control with Aluminium as such its not used in enviroments where specific characteristics including high strength and low weight is desired, these include F1, Aircraft Design, and Wind Turbines.

It's worth noting that every material has its good and bad points, and ultimately the material is only as good as it is implimented. Aluminium however can not give carbon a run for its money, it's a great material and has great characteristics which are not comparable to carbon.

 

[outlash]

So, in conclusion:

To the average rider frame material isn't hugely important, there probably more significant gains to be made in rider weight and fitness.

Crankarm is a troll.

Nothing new then .


Tony.

 

[ianrauk]

So, in conclusion:

To the average rider frame material isn't hugely important, there probably more significant gains to be made in rider weight and fitness.

Crankarm is a troll.

Nothing new then .


Tony.

In a nutshell..........

 

[buggi]

i did notice one thing... i'm slightly better on hills on my carbon. probably coz it weighs less

 

[buggi]

if i had been on my carbon today i would have got blown off... coz it weighs less

 

[buggi]

but it's not all about the weight

 

[Nearly there]

(slightly off topic-ish) Why does weight seem an issue when it comes to wheels?Or is it another weight weenie obsession?Surely its mostly down to rider weight and fitness?

 

[mattobrien]

(slightly off topic-ish) Why does weight seem an issue when it comes to wheels?Or is it another weight weenie obsession?Surely its mostly down to rider weight and fitness?

It's all about rotating mass. Every time you want to change speed a heavier wheel will take more effort to do so, both accelerating and slowing down. So if you wanted to go on a weight weenie quest that was going to have the biggest impact on your performance, cutting weight from areas that rotate would be the place to start.