| Buy the carbon version if you have the expendable cash. If there were no price difference between carbon and aluminum frames, aluminum mountain bikes would be extinct, except for those built by bike makers, or for customers who adhere to religious beliefs about the cosmic virtues that steel and aluminum bestow upon otherwise ordinary fabricated structures. There is also a real need for designers to quickly cob up test mules to try new geometry or suspension configurations, and metal makes that an easier task.
Inflammatory statement, perhaps, but carbon's immense strength-to-weight ratio over steel or aluminum alloys provides frame designers more options to build in durability, strength, stiffness and yes, impact resistance, than are available when using metals at similar weight targets. Top designers who work in both mediums will tell you that they can make an aluminum chassis that will approach the performance of a carbon version, but the cost to construct that metal wonder would also match its carbon sibling. (Liteville furnishes an excellent example.)
Carbon requires more up-front engineering and testing, but once it is in production the frames come out of a mold perfectly aligned and close to completion. That accurate alignment is paramount for suspension components. If a weakness appears, extra carbon can be layered in that area, or the mold can be altered to provide strength. And, if a lighter version is desired, less material can be used. Carbon composite is wonderfully resistant to chemicals and weather, and when stored, it sits in rolls in a freezer.
By contrast, aluminum frames are assembled from a number of forged, bent, butted and manipulated pieces which must be pre-manufactured for each frame size, which adds to delivery times. And, the parts are melted together, barbecued in a furnace, and then bent into alignment, which creates production variables. Aluminum frame makers err towards heavier weights because, if a problem arises or a change is required, new tubes or forgings must be manufactured, and lead times for a fix often exceed the effective model year of the product.
There are places on a mountain bike where aluminum or steel are better applications, but apples to apples - comparing two high-end frames from a reputable bike maker (like your YT Jeffsy) - the only reason to buy an aluminum framed version is to spend significantly less money, knowing that you will be riding the same geometry and enjoying nearly the same performance as the carbon version delivers. Aluminum is the better value. Carbon is the better performer. — RC |
This is the reality for most people out there who can't afford to replace their carbon bike every time they crash it, every alloy bike I own (5 in total) has at least one dent in it, and is fine.
I'll keep my antiquated technology, thanks.
www.pinkbike.com/video/243228
Yup
I had to destroy a carbon Nomad 3 frame (for warranty's sake - they gave me the choice of mailing it to them or cutting out the BB area and sending them a photo). Before I cut the BB out with a hacksaw, I smashed it multiple times into a curb the same as in the video - on the downtube. I did carbon damage with just a few hard whacks. I don't know why this video doesn't show the same thing. Not to say carbon is or isn't stronger, just that when I smashed my carbon Nomad against a concrete corner, I was able to really damage it.
Also, since we are posting videos... www.pinkbike.com/video/463858
Click to 5 minutes to see a real life "solid whack with a hammer" test. Or watch the whole video, its cool! Then say again you prefer alloy...
I want a steel HT frame with carbon protection plates.
I want an alloy FS frame with carbon protection plates.
Ok the videos show the carbon (basically fiberglass) takes more load in a straight plain, fine as long as it doesn't take a hit that fractures fibres which you can't see, carbon needs to be reinforced overbuilt so impacts will not cause structural failure, so it ends up not being much lighter than aluminium, and at a huge premium.
There are lots of places carbon is great, but for bashing around rocks I don't think so, maybe if you sell it to someone else after 2yrs.
.
And I think the big push for carbon Is because the cost per frame will be much less to produce in the future, than aluminium. my 2cents
Carbon is way more expensive right now, and he Mfgs are still trying to figure quality control since they have 100th of the budget of people who know carbon fibre.
I won't say never but at this point, not for me.
Why start with a material that has limited impact strength for the intended use and then have to armour it to protect it.
I'm not bashing carbon I have lots of carbon sports gear
That one never gets old Thustleweiner!
Moohahahahahaha!
You nailed it drugsy!
Like those crappy trail bikes that Aggie and Fearon poke around the mountain on!
I've had to bail my bike a few time's when i have approached a jump way to fast, the bike has flown into trees, rocks, and i have a few dents in it. I've also did one slapshot with my brand-new hockeystick made out of carbon, it went POFF, and there went my 220 bucks up in smoke.. Now, i know you don't ride a stick down trails och slapshop with a chainstay, but still..
Hit resistance of carbon comes from how well it is made, from what sort of material and how thick it is. Are there any air pockets in the resin making it act like two thin layers instead of one fat layer? This is why carbon rims for MTB are fkng stupid, because while they are plenty strong and will take a car crash to get out of true, they are fragile for hits. In order to make them hit resistant you need to add much more material than it is necessary to take forces acting on the wheel, in result making them almost as heavy as MUCH cheaper quality aluminium rims. A truly solid carbon rim for Trail/Enduro or Downhill is barely40g lighter than it's aluminium counter part that can also take looots of abuse.
"Which one is ultimately better Carbon or Alu?" argument is flawed. Like any other one of that kind, which wheel size, HT of FS, plus or regular and os on and so on. It depends is a very uncomfortable way to look at the world, it would be nice to just check out a box: "carbon is better but more expensive" and forget about it, just move on with life. But it isn't so.
Shuttling laps with my semipro crew
Santa Cruz uses carbon rear end because the entire rear triangle is one piece. Specialized rear triangle is 3 pieces and the cost-benefit numbers just aren't there for most of their frames to have carbon rear ends.
But as production cost increases, it's just passed on to the consumer, so no big deal to the brand as long as they can sell 'em right? Also, is that $1,000 extra that the consumer pays the same as the extra cost to the brand? If it were me I'd build in a higher margin on the carbon frame vs aluminum, plus it'll likely be a higher spec model that I can make more on too. Of course then we're reaching $5k msrp which is what we're all (at least me) bitching about, though we know why they're charging that much..... because people will pay it.
Carbon for life!
1. Carbon fibre is expensive - we agree on this one.
2. Carbon fibre manufacturing is more inconsistent than metals - this affects both the strength and toughness of carbon components and even the accuracy of frame alignment. Manufacturing of metals is much better understood and more consistent. There is nothing wrong with heat treatment ("baked in a furnace"), and we are very good at welding ("melted together") and understand the mechanisms of both extremely well.
3. Carbon fibre has poor impact resistance - an impact is not a dynamic load (what the Enve video shows) an impact is when it gets hit. It is especially vulnerable to point loading - like hitting rocks. The damage is not always visible (see 4.)
4. When carbon fibre is damaged, it's hard to tell - its structural integrity is difficult to assess. Visual inspection is insufficient, you can't see an internal delamination, ultrasound or similar techniques are required to be sure. You can get your bike checked after every big crash or season, but at $300 a pop. How many poor mountain bikers are going to do that?
5. Carbon fibre cannot currently be recycled - everyone has to make a personal decision about this one. I have a fairly horrible carbon footprint but that doesn't mean I have to make it worse by choosing products which will definitely end in landfill.
I'm not saying that carbon fibre is a terrible product, and if people really want it then who am I to stop them. I just ask that Pinkbike helps people make informed decisions based on facts rather than personal opinions or what some carbon manufacturer has told you.
Composites are like kindergarten papier mache. Rags and glue pressed into a mold, with some time (and heat) the mixture hardens into the shape of the mold. Tooling is the mold, carbon fiber fabric is the rag, epoxy is the glue.
Pretty low tech sounding to me.
If there is a crack on an aluminum frame, it is unridable. Period. But if there is even a chip of paint on a carbon one... Good luck figuring out what the reason is and good luck with the company's customer support, like in these random forum topics here in Germany
www.mtb-news.de/forum/t/capra-cf-rahmen-riss.838621
www.mtb-news.de/forum/t/hilfe-gesucht-carbonschaden-durch-bowdenzug-canyon-strive-cf.839452
"The same rules apply to steel as they do to any other mtb frame material be it aluminium or carbon, and that is that the material alone does not make a great bike. And equally, don’t always equate material with performance."
Surely something like this is a better summing up and may have been a more considered answer for pinkbike to give?
Full article: dirtmountainbike.com/uncategorized/starling-cycles-murmur.html#O1w3GT2Ytyix60I5.99
I guess composite airliners, cars and lots of other things are all low tech too? You can internet search numerous tales of cracked and failed aluminium frames. Over here, Scott developed a very bad rep because their first Genius frames cracked all the time. I was on a ride when a friend cracked his. Based on this I should have never bought another aluminium frame, but I did. The same applies to certain carbon products no doubt.
Occam's Razor applies - what is simpler (carbon mache) is often better. I'd buy another carbon frame tomorrow. I doubt I'll need to because the current one is holding up to all sorts of abuse rather well...
Now we have that out of the way, let's focus on one part of one sentence in RC's response, "If there were no price difference between carbon and aluminum frames, aluminum mountain bikes would be extinct..." I'm not going to debate extinction because they may or may not be true. BUT what RC nor the industry will share with us is how close the cost of carbon and aluminum really is today. The Norco guys touched upon it in the article about the development of their new DH sled.
The approximate $1000 difference between the same carbon and aluminum frame is artificial. It's a delta to create separation between the materials/models because the bike industry has nowhere to go currently.
As another commenter suggests, "I cannot wait to see what's after carbon". Both you and the industry. I'm not a betting man, but I would put good money on if the industry as a whole saw a 10%-15% drop in sales (say all dentists move onto kiteboarding), we would see the price gap between carbon and alloy close very quickly. All we have to do is look at the decline of golf and see the impact on product pricing.
FWIW, I've owned a number of alloy and carbon bikes and am currently on carbon. I'm a fan of both materials but what I don't support is the propaganda the industry and the media (and now Pinkbike) spew upon us in this regard.
Composites have a place in airliners for a reason: they allow humid air inside the cabin and save significant amounts of fuel in all scenarios. For 99% of bike riders composites provide no significant advantages over aluminum.
As far as the advantages to me as an average rider - well the same frame I ride in aluminium felt like a boat anchor, so I bought the lighter carbon version.
As far as the WCDH is concerned - how do you know they do get strengthened frames or aren't used multiple times?
I think that what you forget is bike companies want a good name to keep selling bikes - if carbon was rubbish and broke all the time they'd have warranty claims and little customer faith in their products. The opposite appears to be true looking at the amount of carbon on the road and trail these days.
It's funny because every bike manual I've seen so far has explicitely stated that frame failures can be life-threatening. If 800g turns a bike into a boat anchor for you and you are not concerned about safety when riding it... then my understanding of "beating the hell of" might be different.
>> how do you know they do get strengthened frames or aren't used multiple times?
I don't, that's why I'm asking you. I have not seen any used frames being prepped for a race when I roamed the pits once. They looked factory-new at least.
>> if carbon was rubbish and broke all the time they'd have warranty claims and little customer faith in their products
A vast majority of riders barely pushes any of the bike's limits. And warranty period is usually quite short. And I see a lot of random posts on forums where people complain about their carbon frames, but probably they are willing to sacrifice reliability for not riding an anchor or whatever.
I specifically recall a post or article in which the Giant DH teams bikes were discussed and the writer was amazed at how beaten up they were, the chainstays in particular. I agree however that the bikes all look beautiful and new in the pit pics I have seen.
My version of "beating the hell out of" is weighing 87kg, riding dh tracks and black AM trails including lots of rock gardens and casing jumps ( I'm not a very good rider sadly) and drops to flat and doing that 2-3 times a week for 2 years ( on the current frame). So far so good.
That said, perhaps my old bike being ridden thousands of KM is a better indication of carbon durability than the WC DH circuit?
For the record, I am not a carbon nerd - my frame was bought old stock for a song ( the price was a major consideration for me) and I'd happily buy another alloy bike. My experience with the carbon frame has been very good and I base my opinions on that experience. I have been on 2 rides with friends who cracked their alloy frames en route and had to can the ride. So far I haven;t seen this happen to a carbon bike :-) It hasn't put me off alloy however...
>> That said, perhaps my old bike being ridden thousands of KM is a better indication of carbon durability than the WC DH circuit?
Usually that is not the case :-)
So the main argument to go carbon is weight, right? And you weight 87kg. So the difference between alu and composite frame is less then 1/100th of your weight. I would say this is negligible and certainly does not turn a bike into an anchor. I am also basing my opinion on personal experience. I have never seen any frame fail - be it carbon or alu. But the fact is that for an average consumer it is way easier to safety-check an alu frame and you do not pollute the planet with non-recyclable trash.
2) What is the industry's idea of recycling carbon fiber?
Not really.
Do the pros ride a new frame every race?
Can a company risk the damage to their brand image and riders with a cracked carbon frame during a race run?
Carbon Al or Steel comes down to personal preference and willingness to pay for performance. I guarantee everyone here can see some benefit from better equipment, but the vast majority of riders would get more out of a $1000 on lessons than on saving 2lbs from their frame. My 2 cents.
Just think that needs to be remembered when someone says, its good for the pros therefore good for me.
Think you have the best point so far, a grand dropped on lessons would be of far far greater benefit then a few grams to vast majority of riders.
However I feel the need to weigh in as a shop tech, in terms of carbon frame accuracy, we reject over a 3rd of the carbon frames we have in for imperfections, and that includes some very very 'high end' brands, not just brands we supply but out of bow bikes for customers. We won't release a bike unless we believe it to be 100% of what It could be, by comparison we reject only a small amount of aluminium frames, and no steel or titanium to date. Its also amazing how many high end bikes we see from other suppliers that wouldn't live up to your standards for a new bike.
And these 'mail order' brands are just making things worse.
You also fail to address recycling. Again, I believe a not insignificant point. People have linked to articles mentioning recycling programs but have either not read or not understood what happens. Firstly, most carbon fibre waste does not get recycled, especially not in China. About 30% of the raw material becomes waste (offcuts etc.). Of the finished product around one third to half of the carbon fibre composite is resin. To recycle carbon fibre they strip the resin from the fibres and dispose of it (burning or landfill). They then chop up the fibres to be used again in other types of carbon fibre constructions. So even if it gets recycled, you are only getting a bit of it back. This is unlikely to change in the near future.
As I said, I'm not a carbon fibre hater, if people want it for whatever reason good for them. However, it is undeniable that there are significant issues with it and people should be making educated decisions. For a reminder, just look at your own test bikes, or have you already forgotten about the Sender or particularly the SB6c?
Summary: is carbon fibre junk? No. Is your carbon fibre bike just waiting in your garage to kill you? No. Did carbon fibre cause Trump to be elected? No. Are there issues with using carbon fibre to make bikes? Yes. Are these issues significant? Yes. Do publications such as Pinkbike have a moral and journalistic responsibility to make people aware such issues, enabling them to make informed decisions? Yes.
" the only reason to buy an aluminum framed version is to spend significantly less money, knowing that you will be riding the same geometry and enjoying nearly the same performance as the carbon version delivers"
I can think of a few other reasons to choose aluminum frames over carbon but I think this one will be sufficient for many who don't always need to have the ultimate performance at any cost. Fortunately, I've only had one MTB frame failure in many years of riding. It was a handmade steel frame with many miles of hard use (crack on down tube near head tube).
As much as I like to drool over some of the carbon options out there (Evil, Unno,...), I'll keep smiling on my handmade aluminum frame for now and will likely buy another at some point - a Guerilla Gravity would be nice. I'm definitely not ruling out a carbon splurge but it would really need to be a must have checks all boxes type bike.
Does anyone know what the actual mortality rate is on carbon frames - how much junk is the cycle industry putting out there?
So no there is no "by average" frames made of carbon fibre are better performers, there just isn't. There are good steel, carbon, alu, ti, bamboo frames and there are bad ones. Material is not indicative of quality, durability and performance. Carbon is lighter and for some people that is enough to think better. The good old formula Step.1Get lighter bike 2.??? 3.Victories, achievements and respect.
The manufacturing process is what matters, and while you can often spot faults in metal frames, you can't see them so easily with carbon. Yes carbon... I am glad I am made of so much carbon... I am not anti carbon, I am anti bullshit.
Signed: proud owner of Antidote Carbon Jack.
But hey if $1200 for a pound of weight savings is your jam, go for it. :-)
Yet my MTB is aluminum. That's a cost-benefit consideration, and a matter of the bike that I wanted not even being available in carbon. I know that carbon, as part of a proper layup, can be way longer lived than aluminum. In windsurfing, aluminum booms tend to be noodly, and after a few years of hard use they tend to catastrophically bend. I was never able to get more than three or four seasons out of an alloy boom - I currently have carbon booms that are still going strong (and stiff) after over a decade of racing. Alloy masts, btw, went away in the 80s - even back then, they just couldn't compete with composites, and that was before people were really doing carbon masts. And if you put a protective layer on top of the composite, then the whole sharp localized impact thing that would otherwise worry me about carbon can also be nicely controlled.
Here's the thing, though - both carbon and aluminum are incredibly energy intensive. But carbon products are simply not recyclable - aluminum, on the other hand, definitely is (aluminum cans are pretty much the only part of your household recycling that's really economically self-sustaining). Over time, as those sorts of things become more and more priced into the commodities used to build our toys, that will probably start to make an impact on price. But for now, I would guess that we'll see more and more cases where a good and sturdy carbon frame is not that much more expensive than the aluminum counterpart.
www.cyclingweekly.com/news/product-news/dassi-graphene-frame-260002
www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/photos-of-carbon-fibre-bike-dump-reveal-worrying-waste-levels
www.specialized.com/us/en/carbon-fiber-recycling-program
For the record, I don't have a carbon frame (on steel and aluminum) but have used carbon bars exclusively for more tha 10 years. My son has two carbon frames. He ran a YT Tues for two years, beat the crap out of it (about 60 park days, all day long as only a kid can do, and raced it). No creaks, cracks or problems and was only sold at the end of two years because he outgrew it (bought another Tues Carbon).
Down hill racers would not run a carbon frame and wheels if they where as fragile as some make out. Heck the amount of carbon used in Formula one is amazing when you look at what areas of the car they use it in.
I think the cycling industry has finally got a proper handle on how to build frames and rims using the material and the whole "if you hit it with a hammer, see what happens" argument is dead after that Santa Cruz video.
If you don't want to use it fine, but please don't spout crap that basically isn't true as fact.
Heck there was a time when super light aluminium frames where a big thing (Early Klein, Cannondale, GT etc) a LOT of these frames cracked quite easily without the need for a hammer!
We don't need a lot of things in life...including bikes that have specific roles such as DH or Enduro but we make them anyway and pour money into technology to make them faster, lighter stronger for me that's a plus for the environment that is sometimes a negative so I respect what you are saying on that.
I don't race either and I certainly was not going to go without food and water just to buy a carbon frame...do I feel the benefit now I have one? Yes. I can sprint and accelerate faster, manoeuvre quicker and I find it easier get the bike sideways or flat in the air. So my fun factor is increased by a lot! Am I worried about breaking it? In all honesty, no. Did I constantly moan about how much carbon is before I could afford one? no, why would I!? I can't afford a McLaren P1 but having seen one in the flesh I love the fact they exist and what they are capable of.
You surprise me being a rider of 18 years and saying there's no benefit. If there was no benefit to carbon as an application various industries would have poured so much currency into it. Or do you mean no benefit to you? if so I get but there are those of us that do so we will spend the extra for it and appreciate the efforts and the technology
Agggh apologies...this got far more wordy than I intended!
Why are we polluting the beautiful earth, our habitat, with bike frames we can't recycle, while many of us in the sport are environmental activist, or just environmentally concerned people.
Carbon frames and the lack of recycling carbon seems contradictory to supporting the current areas societal measure to cut waste and manufacturing materials and processes that are not ecologically sustainable .
Several years ago I talked my cousin into getting a MTB to go on rides with me. And since money is not an issue for him I tried to steer him to carbon. This is back in 2014. While I was attending business he went out and bought a Giant Reign X0 thinking I would try to stop his buy if I went with him. However, when I finally saw the bike I was stoked, didn't even care that it was an alloy bike, it's a Reign-XO!
I didn't even get to ask why he bought the alloy bike instead of a carbon bike, he just made a statement. The statement was humbling... "Aluminum will tell me when it is about to fail, more so than carbon." I didn't realize how much thought he would put into his purchase, I was just trying to get him on the trails with me as quick as possible knowing he had the resources to do so. At the end of last season he did a fork and shock replacement. The Reign is looking nice after two years of abuse from casing multiple landings and is still using the OE wheels.
www.bikeland.rs/bicikle/mtb-bicikli/reptil-matrix-sram-x-7-crno-belo-oranz/1307
Here's an example this reminded me of...
dirtmountainbike.com/bike-reviews/downhill-bikes/devinci-wilson-carbon-vs-aluminium.html
Fun fact, that most of the chainstays made from alu )
The only downside of carbon - rims that actually hit or miss, comparing to alu that could serviced trailside
Alternatively, if you keep the bike for a long time, you will have forgotten about the 800 euro price difference.
As for ride characteristics, I went from an alloy Warden to a carbon Patrol. If the Patrol vibrated less, I certainly couldn't tell. The only difference I've noticed between carbon and alloy is that too much carbon on my bikes makes them too stiff. I used to run carbon bars and wheels, but that setup was too harsh for me. I run alloy wheels now and it feels better.
I think this holds true due to carbon possible having "invisible flaws" while a alloy bike will be very easy to spot damage.
. My bike "drug habit" has come to an end
For ex., the jeffsey race says out of stock until August!