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

71–80 of 102 posts

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

#71

Post by PretzelPirate »

timeon wrote: post #49
jackmott42 wrote: post #46

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.

> doesn't matter nearly as much as most cyclists think Weight matters also off-bike. For example if you need to carry it upstairs daily. So it can matter even for people that do not race.

I used to live in a 3rd floor walk up in NYC. I appreciated my carbon bike. I even considered buying carbon wheels.

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

#72

Post by habnds »

thefz wrote: post #68
habnds wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#74

Post by korse »

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.…

NO BRAKES, NO GEARS, NO PROBLEMS!

This is really the way! Also, it is nice in the winter, because without brakes you can easily cycle in mittens.

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

#75

Post by 303uru »

preds wrote: post #25
303uru wrote: post #18

No good reason? Aerodynamics, period, end of story. I spend all my training hours on a titanium road bike. Why? It's durable. On race day, though, I'm on a top of the line aero road bike. Why? Because it's fast, noticeably. You simply cannot make round tubes aerodynamic and when you're racing at 25+ MPH it does make a real difference.

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.

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

#76

Post by 303uru »

danielovichdk wrote: post #34
303uru wrote: post #18

No good reason? Aerodynamics, period, end of story. I spend all my training hours on a titanium road bike. Why? It's durable. On race day, though, I'm on a top of the line aero road bike. Why? Because it's fast, noticeably. You simply cannot make round tubes aerodynamic and when you're racing at 25+ MPH it does make a real difference.

I too ride titanium and have ridden my share of both time trial and racing bikes made of carbon. There is no speed benefit for a non professional on a carbon frame, but wheels and positioning are a totally different story. I ride titanium only these days because it looks good and its a tiny bit more soft than carbon, so for longer rides its more comfortable. Bit I ride 40mm corima wheels or 60mm dt Swiss when I need…

>no speed benefit for a non professional on a carbon frame

LOL, no. I can jump on my aero road bike, do 300 watts and get an immediate .5-.8 MPH speed bump. Sure if you're a rec rider and you hit Z3 at 120 watts, then you will see no benefit, but there are plenty of non-pros who do.

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

#77

Post by drunner »

BozeWolf wrote: post #43
jack_riminton wrote: post #21

What about aluminium?

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.

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

#78

Post by Kon-Peki »

chihuahua wrote: post #28
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.

Are other materials (e.g. aluminum, titanium, carbon) not real, or not as real as steel? Can you explain in what sense are they less real?

People are still salty about the way that steel was pushed out of the market back in the 1990s.

Especially in the sub-$1000 category (which was probably 90+% of the market), the aluminum bike that replaced the steel bike at the same price point was a noticeably worse bike, but it looked way cooler (forget the fact that aluminum bikes improved a lot as time went on). The collapse in demand for bike-appropriate steel tubing meant that any laggard bike makers were essentially forced to switch. So now, if you want a steel bike frame, you really only have the lower-end and the very high-end tubing available to you.

Basically, steel bikes were killed by fashion trends more than anything else. It's no wonder hipsters love them.

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

#79

Post by mikae1 »

habnds wrote: post #73
mikae1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decade ? Is that a merit?

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.

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

#80

Post by thefz »

mikae1 wrote: post #70
thefz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But carbon MTBs can last a decade of abuse.

Decade ? Is that a merit?

Considering how old they age as the technology advances, yes.

Nothing stops you from riding one until the wheels fall off though, just like any other bike made with any other material.

Post reply on HN