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

91–100 of 102 posts

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

#91

Post by epx »

habnds wrote: post #63
epx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm curious what you think the vibration dampening properties of steel are. It's very notable to me that high quality steel bikes almost always come with a carbon fork if not suspension and that tuning forks are made of steel according to wikipedia. To me steel is in the "resonator" category, not something that dampens vibration particularly well. I also wonder if people like the ride quality of steel because, like v…

Partly on my own experiences, used to have a steel bike w/o suspension that I rode for thousands km and it was a joy, the next bikes I've had were aluminum and locking the suspension makes them unbearable. But yes, could be the geometry as well.

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

#92

Post by henriquez »

mikae1 wrote: post #5
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…

> Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride. This opinion piece argues that steel, not aluminum, is the alternative. Slightly wider tires makes differences between frame materials subtle[1]. Wider tires are more comfortable and certainly not dramatically slower[2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE [2] https://www.renehersecycles.com/wh…

Did you read my comment ?Steel bike people are going for retro flair, not modern performance.

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

#93

Post by whalesalad »

jackmott42 wrote: post #39
whalesalad wrote: post #22

steel is real! honestly my favorite bikes have been made of steel. they absorb a lot more of the roughness in the road and don't transmit it into your body as much.

That is a myth. Material alone doesn't determine this, and modern road bikes are on 28mm tires at ~70psi so this isn't nearly as much of an issue as it was 20 years ago (and it wasn't a real issue then either)

A myth? Your butt can tell you immediately that it is not a myth. All other things being equal, a steel frame will feel less harsh than an aluminum or carbon bike.

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

#94

Post by henriquez »

Findecanor wrote: post #37
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 have a racing bike. My bike is an aluminium city bike. And I like feeling the bumps, it makes me feel more connected with the road surface. I also like crafting with manual hand tools over 3D-printing, and I like using kitchen knives that are not too sharp. I also tactile mechanical keyboards with my computers. I suppose I'm just a touchy feely guy. Each to their own.

Once you start doing 50+ mile rides all that tactility starts catching up to you. The benefit of carbon (if it’s good quality) is dampening vibration _without_ sapping power.

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

#95

Post by henriquez »

vehemenz wrote: post #31
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 really disagree with your points, but I would still advocate for steel over carbon because the extra cost of good carbon isn't worth it. You're saving a few seconds on a climb. Recreational cycling has normalized spending thousands of dollars for such incremental improvements, but when you take a step back it's pretty hard to justify.

It just depends on what your hobbies are. $4k for a decent name-brand carbon bike is a lot of money to spend on a hobby, but sometimes hobbies defy justification. There is only a limited amount of time you can spend on this world. How to prioritize things you want is a personal decision.

I just disagree with the premise that carbon bikes are something only elite athletes benefit from. I know what I like, and I only have to justify a decision to myself.

(Full disclosure: right now my main bike is a _nice_ aluminum hard-tail mountain bike because my carbon road bike was stolen lol)

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

#96

Post by henriquez »

thefz wrote: post #81
habnds wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or ride a carbon bike (without crashing) and tell me how much better you feel.

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

#97

Post by thot_experiment »

jackmott42 wrote: post #87
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.

I've broken 2 Al frames, and my road bike is 19 years older than I am and still perfect. I might just be being irrationally sensitive to it but hey, no hate on any bikes, bikes are the best an I love em all.

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

#98

Post by a_f »

jackmott42 wrote: post #89
thefz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is also this video from Santa Cruz: https://youtu.be/w5eMMf11uhM?t=148 where they test the fork and frame

I am also remind of the Danny M video of the carbon wheels test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc

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

#99

Post by BozeWolf »

drunner wrote: post #77
BozeWolf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aluminium generally is stiff, quite uncomfortable for longer rides (100km). I own one, had a lot of fun with it. Now I have a carbon road bike, don’t care about the weight, did care about comfort. Comfortable, flexible, but still has stiffness in the right direction (torsion is way less). Longer rides are much more pleasant. There are also nice titanium bikes and steel bikes. From what I heard titanium and steel fram…

This is one of those things that doesn't make any sense. The amount of vertical deflection difference between aluminium and carbon is nothing, tires make the biggest difference by far. Yet many people will say carbon is more 'comfortable'. Its hard to tell how much placebo it is.

Running the same tires... same rims.

Of course it is a complicated system, so you can never compare it 1:1. Fact is that carbon bikes tend to ride more comfortable, if they are designed for it. Also the frame can be shaped and put together to flex in the right directions, which is harder with aluminium.

Then again, there are also endurance bikes (many 1000s of km's a week) made from titanium (J. Guillem) which are comfortable and also have much simpler shapes than carbon frames.

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

#100

Post by rokkitmensch »

plorkyeran wrote: post #50
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?!

Perhaps you should take the popularity of carbon mountain bikes to be a hint that your preconceptions of carbon durability are inaccurate.

These old materials sciences classes are leading me astray! Fatigue, embrittlement, they must be solved problems by now.
Post reply on HN