Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#81

Post by thefz »

habnds wrote: post #72
thefz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For MTBs, a steel hardtail does feel very, very different from an aluminum one. Steel feels springy and just absorbs a lot of vibrations. You can feel it in your ankles after a ride. Definitely there is a large difference between steel/titanium and everything else.

I would be very suspicious that some combination of different tires and different geometry between the bikes your comparing is much more responsible for that perceived difference than the different metals. Wearing cushioned running shoes instead of indoor soccer shoes would have a bigger effect i would guess.

Ride an alu hardtail fast and hard, then tell me how your joints feel. Steel flex is real.

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#82

Post by thefz »

mikae1 wrote: post #79
habnds wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you haven't destroyed your mtb after 10 years of riding you might not need a mountain bike at all.

And with MTB you mean MTB frameset? I see plenty of hard ridden +10 year old MTB steel frames. I have two myself. In mountainbiking I think the greater threat to longevity is “standards” inflation though. 157mm super boost spacing, here we come.

Oldest I've seen is a 15 years old XC hardtail that has been put to sleep only because its owner slammed it into a tree opening a hole in the top tube. No human was hurt, fortunately, rest of the bike was still in great condition.

Curious to see the +10 years old full sus steel frames, though.

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#83

Post by sottol »

thot_experiment wrote: post #54

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.…

Afaik, fatigue limit just doesn't apply to carbon fiber since it's a metallurgic term. So not having a fatigue limit means something completely different than with alumin(i)um.

Carbon fiber can take an infinite amount of repeated stress as long as it doesn't exceed the stress limit. Now the resin can deteriorate but that's a much slower process than metal fatigue afaik.

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#84

Post by ploum »

Carbon is not only about weight. It has many interesting properties like dampening, stiffness in the right direction while being lean in another.

A carbon bike could be completely different from another. It’s like hiding springs in some part of the frame.

I may hear that some people don’t like the feeling of carbon. In fact, I prefer Aluminium. But my muscles prefer carbon because it filters a lot more vibrations.

So the article is both useless and completely ill-informed.

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#85

Post by jerlam »

tmiku wrote: post #8
henriquez wrote: post #3

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…

I don't think it's a joke, Outside's writing has taken a hit since the acquisition in 2021. It's a headline for people to click on and the writing is an afterthought. I rolled my eyes with the steel frame thing at the end too. Steel bikes are cool, going fast on a steel bike is even cooler, but the Insufferable Steel Bike Guy is definitely on the rise.

The only Outside Online articles that I don't regret clicking on are from Alex Hutchinson, who writes mostly about performance studies:

https://www.outsideonline.com/byline/alex-hutchinson/

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#86

Post by [deleted] »

chihuahua wrote: post #24

By the same reasoning, there's no good reason to buy jewelry, a watch that costs more than $50, nice clothes, sports cars, nice silverware, and lots more things. Some people who are into cycling have a lot of disposable income, and they want to buy themselves something nice. Then they feel happy for a while. The author claims that there are only "pro racers" and "everyone else", but that's not true - there are also a…

[deleted]

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#87

Post by jackmott42 »

thot_experiment wrote: post #54

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.…

This has no practical impact on actual bicycles though, in practice they all fail, at similar rates.

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#88

Post by SauciestGNU »

timeon wrote: post #51
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's why he's a paid editorial columnist.

Hot-takes, rage-bait, click-baits - it brings attention.

This particular author is right about more than he's wrong (imo) but even when he's wrong he can at least make an argument for his position.

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#89

Post by jackmott42 »

thefz wrote: post #61
rokkitmensch wrote: post #32

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?!

Carbon MTBs are pretty strong. Just don't clamp the frame so much you are crushing it and avoid direct rock hits, which will damage any material anyway.

There used to be a video on youtube of a carbon mountain bike fork, and they were SMASHING it with a ball peen hammer, repeatedly. It did do a little damage but remained rideable, and was in much better shape than the metal forks they smashed.

Re: There's No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

#90

Post by SauciestGNU »

303uru wrote: post #75
preds wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you've said lines up with exactly what the author said. Carbon fiber bikes are made for and good for racing. If you're not actually racing you probably want to be on something more durable. It's almost like you just read the (intentionally sensationalised) headline..

I'm very familiar with the author, he's of this new breed (see theradavist also) of look how relaxed and cool we are, no one needs carbon, see it's overpriced and stuff man. Meanwhile they're pedaling $15k custom manufacture titanium.

He's been writing as long as I've been riding as an adult (15 years or so). I'm not sure how "new" the breed is, but a lot of these folks pushing comfy tire frame bag relaxed cycling are the now middle-aged former fixed gear hipsters of days of yore. I might count myself among them.

Personally I was a co-op rat around the Great Recession learning how to build bikes from parts, and in the process realizing that you can build a nice riding bike from 50-60 year old parts. You don't have to spend a fortune on Di2 and carbon.

Now these folks are in more prestigious positions and the industry is paying attention to the demographic. We get companies like Crust and Velo-Orange and Riv selling us bikes based on how we actually ride (or like to think we do).

I also race, but I race on a modest steel bike and only for the love of the sport, not because I'm a top tier competitive athlete.

Post reply on HN