61–70 of 102 posts
People who ride carbon mountain bikes absolutely baffle me. The thing is going to get seriously chewed up if you're having fun and pushing your limits, why make it a glass canon to boot?!
I read back in the blog history of this author and thought to myself, "yeah, what an opinionated dork!" Then I got to his post about the beauty of friction shifters and went, "yeah, he's right!". Scrolled some more "what a dork". Etc.
I mean, it's Bike Snob NYC. You've captured his (online) personality quite well.
It’s not necessarily about “elite racing performance” for a lot of people. Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride. For road bikes which typically don’t have any shock absorbers, a decent quality carbon frame is simply much more comfortable to ride on than the equivalent aluminum frame from the same manufacturer. This can make a huge difference on…
Some say carbon fiber has the steel-like dampening properties. And steel can be welded by anyone. OTOH an aluminum bike has to have suspension because it is so harsh to ride w/o it. In general, the whole current bike culture with very expensive bikes/parts and a plethora of expensive and semi-proprietary tools is disgusting.
I also wonder if people like the ride quality of steel because, like very thin high pressure tires, it carries high frequency vibrations that _feel_ fast but science tells us clearly are not good for going fast.
Wow, not a single mention of fatigue limits in the article and in the comments here, I MUST POST. Titanium and steel have a property called a fatigue limit[0], aluminum and carbon do not. There's a stress threshold below which steel and titanium accumulate zero wear, making their cycle life effectively infinite. Every bump Al and CF take puts them on setp closer to failure, and that failure tends to be catastrophic.…
What about aluminium?
Yeah, that's kind of the flaw in this argument. The main conclusion is basically correct, but steel rusts and aluminum doesn't. Plus aluminum is light enough to warrant upgrading over steel, and it barely costs anything more.
Still I'd love to have a classic-ish stainless steel bike with disc brakes.
Wow, not a single mention of fatigue limits in the article and in the comments here, I MUST POST. Titanium and steel have a property called a fatigue limit[0], aluminum and carbon do not. There's a stress threshold below which steel and titanium accumulate zero wear, making their cycle life effectively infinite. Every bump Al and CF take puts them on setp closer to failure, and that failure tends to be catastrophic.…
Wow, not a single mention of fatigue limits in the article and in the comments here, I MUST POST. Titanium and steel have a property called a fatigue limit[0], aluminum and carbon do not. There's a stress threshold below which steel and titanium accumulate zero wear, making their cycle life effectively infinite. Every bump Al and CF take puts them on setp closer to failure, and that failure tends to be catastrophic.…
True. But carbon MTBs can last a decade of abuse.
It’s not necessarily about “elite racing performance” for a lot of people. Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride. For road bikes which typically don’t have any shock absorbers, a decent quality carbon frame is simply much more comfortable to ride on than the equivalent aluminum frame from the same manufacturer. This can make a huge difference on…
they dampen vibrations better than steel and titanium too tbh. I've never understood the "ride feel" thing about metal frames. Metal tubes are very resonant. that ride feel is just the same vibrations that make on 23m tires _feel_ faster compared to 30m but the science is clear that high frequency vibrations are bad.
Carbon fiber bikes have two main properties that can affect performance: 1. they are a little lighter. This doesn't matter nearly as much as most cyclists think, but it does matter a bit. If you race competitively in the mountains, you might care. 2. There is more design freedom for shaping them aerodynamically. This makes a bit more difference than weight, and if you are competing you definitely want it.
Wow, not a single mention of fatigue limits in the article and in the comments here, I MUST POST. Titanium and steel have a property called a fatigue limit[0], aluminum and carbon do not. There's a stress threshold below which steel and titanium accumulate zero wear, making their cycle life effectively infinite. Every bump Al and CF take puts them on setp closer to failure, and that failure tends to be catastrophic.…
True. But carbon MTBs can last a decade of abuse.