Another aluminium VS carbon thread

[Scottish.cyclist.lad]

After reading a recent thread, I started thinking about what I would do if I had to choose between aluminium and carbon. Actually, it's going to be something I will NEED to think about very soon as I'll be buying a new bike in the next...mmm...maybe 3 months.

I stumbled upon the Cannondale website. Great looking bikes, and in their race bikes section 2 bikes caught my eye, at a very similar price point:

- Supersix evo, carbon frame, disc brakes and shimano 105. £2750
- CAAD13, aluminium frame, disc brakes and shimano ultegra. £3000

Very similar bikes, same racey geometry, probably very similar weight too (or negligible difference). Very similar price. What would you guys do? What appeals to you more...frame material or componentry?

There are arguments for both sides: lots of people love aluminium and basically say that a well engineered aluminium frame performs just as well as a mid range carbon frame (very interesting what the guy from bowman cycles say). But then I also remember seeing a GCN video where they did a blind test of 105 VS dura ace and it was very difficult to tell which groupset was being used.

I personally would tend to go with aluminium, but mainly because I don't like the snobbery of all the "carbon or nothing" cyclists

[Marcus Aurelius]

Carbon framed bikes are designed cleverly. The manufacturers can make them perform and behave in very specific ways by altering Carbon materials, and the way the laminations are arranged, in relation to each other. The tubes can be designed to give aero advantages far more easily, and Carbon fibre frames pretty much always weigh far less. It’s true ( as with a lot of bike related stuff ) the manufacturers are ‘casting pearls before swine’ for the most part, but the reason I prefer Carbon framed bikes to Aluminium, is because I can choose ( or spec ) a particular material and lay up, to fit exactly what I want the bike to do, and how I want it to behave, under certain circumstances, it’s the ( almost limitless ) versatility of a Carbon design that I favour. I can’t do that with an Aluminium frame. Once the alloy is chosen, that’s as far as its versatility goes. I have 3 aluminium bikes, and 2 Carbon bikes. I prefer the Carbon framed bikes, for ‘proper’ rides, the aluminium bikes are pretty much just used for utility and winter / poor weather riding, to keep the miles off the Carbon bikes as much as possible.

[chris_suffolk]

I've carbon, aluminium and steel bikes - one of each. Each has its' place, but for long rides where I will be covering a lot of miles it's the carbon every day. More comfortable, more responsive and just generally nicer to ride. The frame soaks up more of the road bumps than either of the other two. Not sure where it would pitch in terms of spec, high end of medium I suspect, which means it will take decent upgrades too and benefit from them rather than just being some 'bling' for the sake of spending money.

[Jamesh]

I would say there is much in it tbh.

They are both very good bikes.

The CAAD 13 is one of the best Alu bikes by one of the best Alu bike maker
The tubes would be expertly closen butted and hydroformed to meet the design requirements.

In the same way a steel frame would be and a carbon frame would be in its layup. Horses for courses.

However the properties of carbon allow a lighter/stiffer frame than other materials...

Cheers James

[ossie]

Wow are those the prices now ?

I have an alu CAAD10 and a Carbon Cannondale Supersix....both 105.

I notice very little difference. I tend to keep the Supersix for nicer weather, I've stuck some lighter wheels on it whereas the CAAD10 does winter but in truth no real difference in rides up to 70/100 miles.

[Jamesh]

Wow are those the prices now ?

I have an alu CAAD10 and a Carbon Cannondale Supersix....both 105.

I notice very little difference. I tend to keep the Supersix for nicer weather, I've stuck some lighter wheels on it whereas the CAAD10 does winter but in truth no real difference in rides up to 70/100 miles.

Not so long ago I saw the tiagra supersix for sale for £750 new!!

Cheers James

[peetee]

Carbon, titanium, steel and aluminium are all proven materials for frame construction. Owners rarely push their bikes to their dynamic limits so, by and large, what makes one better than the other is down to an individuals expectations, priorities and preferences.

[pliptrot]

but the reason I prefer Carbon framed bikes to Aluminium, is because I can choose ( or spec ) a particular material and lay up, to fit exactly what I want the bike to do, and how I want it to behave, under certain circumstances,

so is that what you did with your bike - instructed the manufacturer on what to use and how to use it?

to keep the miles off the Carbon bikes as much as possible.

isn't the point of spending a lot of money on something to get something durable enough to be used whenever you choose? Is carbon so fragile that big mileages are undesirable? When you play chess do you never use the queen?

[chris_suffolk]

isn't the point of spending a lot of money on something to get something durable enough to be used whenever you choose? Is carbon so fragile that big mileages are undesirable? When you play chess do you never use the queen?

For me, it's not that carbon is fragile, far from it, it that any components on a bike will all do roughly the same number of miles, whether they are expensive or cheap. Ultegra won't do significantly more miles than Sora for example. However, it is much nicer to ride, easier to set up and generally more reliable. Thus, I keep the carbon bike for dry roads, so I don't get everything covered in grit / salt which causes a much higher wear rate.

If I had a carbon bike, with a cheap group-set, then that's the one I would ride year round. But, decent carbon frames don't normally come with a cheap group-set, hence the second, cheaper, wet weather / winter bike - for me at least.

[VinceLedge]

I am in a similar quandary, I am looking for a road bike with disc brakes and mudguard clearance/mounting holes (as the roads are rarely dry in Scotland )
My current bike is a Ridley Icarus with 105 which was marketed as 8.8kg and is nice to ride and light feeling, so I was looking for a bike of similar weight, not so easy as many current aluminium frames bikes in the £1000 to £2000 seem quite a bit heavier.
So my current possible are Cube Attainin carbon or Boardman 9.2 carbon!
Looked at titanium or steel and generally are quite a bit heavier unless you spend silly money!

[pliptrot]

If I had a carbon bike, with a cheap group-set, then that's the one I would ride year round. But, decent carbon frames don't normally come with a cheap group-set, hence the second, cheaper, wet weather / winter bike - for me at least

Bikes are low technology, and with a modicum of skill and basic tools changing equipment - complete groupsets included- is simple. Surely it is better to find a fine frame, and change the bits to cheap or disposable stuff for the bad weather. After all, you can buy excellent Italian and Japanese components which are made to a very high standard and from excellent materials: the state of the art, so worth preserving. Carbon frames, on the other hand, present more of a minefield. Those who speak with authority suggest most are not up to much: products of large far-eastern factories built to a price. Having seen more than a few prestigious and expensive Italian frames cut in half after failure, one might properly conclude that the emperor does indeed have no clothes, and that anyone parting with thousands for a frame alone is being taken for a ride.