All materials are different
All bike designs are different
Saving weight isn't the end goal of all bike design
At the moment I have a steel, Aluminium and Carbon bike. I did have a Ti bike but broke it
Let's talk about ride quality instead of weight
The Aluminium bike is a Orbea Gavia. It's a standard cheap racing bike from 2004, with carbon forks. In terms of ride it can be harsh, especially on roads with large bumps. But the carbon fork is very effective for high frequency noise. The acceleration of the bike was quite remarkable and the lower position meant it felt faster too.
The steel bike is a Cotic Roadrat. It has steel forks and 28mm tyres and I use it for commuting. The ride generally is better than the Orbea, but the difference is quite subtle. On a rough road you'd say the two bikes were both as bad, the 28mm tyres helped though. Not the fastest bike in the world but then it wasn't ever in a hurry. Except when I needed to be at the pub for the first round. Article about the steel bike on the blog here
The broken Ti bike was a custom Setavento. It had 28mm tyres and a carbon fork. The ride quality was clearly superior to the steel or Al bike. Even on a really rough road the bike tried to protect the rider. Because it was so light it climbed well. But the Aluminium Orbea was stiffer and felt more responsive. Several articles about the Ti bike on the blog here
The carbon bike is new, it's a Specialized Roubaix. The ride quality is still under analysis but first impressions are that the amount of "high frequency" noise or buzz coming through from the road is more than the Ti bike but less than the Aluminium or Steel bike. On rough roads it is amazing though. The frame seems to absorb medium sized lumps and holes, no sting at all. The weight is the same as the Ti bike for climbing and the stiffness for accelloration is better than the previous winner, the Aluminium bike. Photos of the carbon bike here
All bike designs are different
Saving weight isn't the end goal of all bike design
At the moment I have a steel, Aluminium and Carbon bike. I did have a Ti bike but broke it
Let's talk about ride quality instead of weight
The Aluminium bike is a Orbea Gavia. It's a standard cheap racing bike from 2004, with carbon forks. In terms of ride it can be harsh, especially on roads with large bumps. But the carbon fork is very effective for high frequency noise. The acceleration of the bike was quite remarkable and the lower position meant it felt faster too.
The steel bike is a Cotic Roadrat. It has steel forks and 28mm tyres and I use it for commuting. The ride generally is better than the Orbea, but the difference is quite subtle. On a rough road you'd say the two bikes were both as bad, the 28mm tyres helped though. Not the fastest bike in the world but then it wasn't ever in a hurry. Except when I needed to be at the pub for the first round. Article about the steel bike on the blog here
The broken Ti bike was a custom Setavento. It had 28mm tyres and a carbon fork. The ride quality was clearly superior to the steel or Al bike. Even on a really rough road the bike tried to protect the rider. Because it was so light it climbed well. But the Aluminium Orbea was stiffer and felt more responsive. Several articles about the Ti bike on the blog here
The carbon bike is new, it's a Specialized Roubaix. The ride quality is still under analysis but first impressions are that the amount of "high frequency" noise or buzz coming through from the road is more than the Ti bike but less than the Aluminium or Steel bike. On rough roads it is amazing though. The frame seems to absorb medium sized lumps and holes, no sting at all. The weight is the same as the Ti bike for climbing and the stiffness for accelloration is better than the previous winner, the Aluminium bike. Photos of the carbon bike here
