Carbon v Aluminum

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Winkeladvokat
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Oct 2009, 10:33am

Re: Carbon v Aluminum

Postby Winkeladvokat » 25 Oct 2011, 9:35am

I regularly ride loaded and, yes, of course there is a difference, but it's mostly in handling and the way you approach riding mentally. However I'm completely certain my legs/heart/lungs do not notice the difference! So, yes, by all means get miles in loaded as general preparation - however as far as physical fitness goes, there's no point adding weight. Give me haring up and down hills any day, way more fun than dragging a load around :-)

To the original poster, are you looking at the Synapse, maybe?

stewartpratt
Posts: 2566
Joined: 27 Dec 2007, 5:12pm

Re: Carbon v Aluminum

Postby stewartpratt » 25 Oct 2011, 9:49am

On the carbon vs aluminium thing: depends massively on the bike. There are good and bad carbon frames and there are good and bad aluminium frames - and "good" is subjective anyway. I have a couple of aluminium bikes (CAAD9 and Langster) and provided you've got your tyres, saddle and setapost right, they're both perfectly comfortable for many hours in the saddle. And the Cannondale goes like stink when required :)

On the weight for training thing: riding a heavily loaded bike is massively different to just putting more effort in. Do a long climb with a heavily loaded bike and you'll be chewing on it for ages. Do it by putting more effort in and it'll be over quickly. Ease off just slightly on a climb when you're heavily loaded and you'll lose momentum in an instant - do that unloaded and you can recover the difference in a snap. It's a totally different feeling.

User avatar
iow
Posts: 400
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 11:01am
Location: isle of wight

Re: Carbon v Aluminum

Postby iow » 25 Oct 2011, 4:42pm

Mick F wrote:Fact is Fact, and Experience is different to Experience.
Some facts are different to other facts, and some experience is different too.

sorry, but you really have lost me there!?
Mick F wrote:Try it, and then report back to this thread.

unfortunately i can't try it with a trailor, but i have already been reporting experience with loaded and unloaded bikes.
yes you can make a hill last longer with a load, but by simply changing up gears you can have the same effect on the flat too - you're not just restricted to accelerations and climbs. i'm not talking about just going faster by spinning a tooth higher gear, i'm talking about really uping the required torque input so that you can't spin out, ie. the same as laden climbing.
the perceived effort of both situations feels the same to me, but i find flying along at speed far more enjoyable than carrying a concrete pillion.
you have certainly answered my original question and shown me why, with your logic and reasoning, you think loaded training is of greater benefit. - i'll be sticking with the way i know works best. :mrgreen:
mark

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 46750
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Carbon v Aluminum

Postby Mick F » 25 Oct 2011, 4:51pm

Ok then.
I think some of the posters agree with me, and some don't.

Fair enough.
Mick F. Cornwall

fatboy
Posts: 3346
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Carbon v Aluminum

Postby fatboy » 25 Oct 2011, 5:06pm

By adding more weight you can choose lower gears and keeping cadance the same. If you change to a higher gear with the same load you are riding with a lower cadance by design. Might be beneficial for other training aims but Mick is training to carry a particular load on a particular bike so the training is perfect for that.

I choose a different approach and it involves a tandem tag-along (got to weigh 20kg on its own) with a could of 22kg boys peddling a bit! Carrying a few panniers feels like a feather by comparison! However the purpose is that I get to spend three times as much in the tea shop :D It is a fun family activity actually and we did over 30 miles on Sunday - boy I was tired at the end of it!).
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly

User avatar
iow
Posts: 400
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 11:01am
Location: isle of wight

Re: Carbon v Aluminum

Postby iow » 25 Oct 2011, 7:11pm

fatboy wrote:By adding more weight you can choose lower gears and keeping cadance the same. If you change to a higher gear with the same load you are riding with a lower cadance by design.


you haven't allowed for the fact that you no longer have to lug a concrete block around, so the same load will allow you to spin a higher gear at the same cadence. ie. you just go faster.
it makes no difference if you choose to train heavy or light, you select the correct gear for your chosen input load and cadence - it's the speed which differs.

fatboy wrote:..Mick is training to carry a particular load on a particular bike so the training is perfect for that.

already agreed.
mark

User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3113
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Carbon v Aluminum

Postby bigjim » 25 Oct 2011, 10:16pm

just haring up and down hills for the sake of it

Or joy of it. :D
Nothing left to prove.