greatwhite Posted November 15, 2007 Share Has anyone ever sat back and had a look at how much you get charged for a carbon part, when there is an aluminium part that weights the same, works the same and costs a fraction of the price? Here are a few examples: Frame: Karbona (and many other) carbon frames at 1.2kg (R6000?) vs Scott speedster alumium frame at 1.2kg (whole speedster S60 bike for R6000) Wheels: Zipp 303 clincher at 1556g (and that was the lowest weight I found) (R12k?) vs Ritchey WCS DS at 1550g (R4000) While carbon made properly (like a scott or cervelo frame) really is lighter than aluminium and/or when properly applied (like a zip 303 tubular wheelset) definately has its place, too many parts these days are carbon for the sake of marketing to attract a higher price without offering material benefit to the buyer. Think about it before spend you hard earned Xmas bonus on a carbon 'wannabe' bits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixi Posted November 15, 2007 Share o sh*te.....now you tell me , then i have a problem cause the only non-carbon item i've got is my santacruz frame.... 101% and joss i want my money back for all those carbon goodies i got from you !(no more christmas bonus left !!!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David #7 Posted November 15, 2007 Share He / She who has the most carbon wins! Even if it is only in thier own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christie Posted November 15, 2007 Share Spot on, greatwhite While some carbon composites have a superior stiffness to mass ratio, better structural damping and vastly superior fatigue life compared to most other frame materials (steel, aluminium, titanium), it is not ideal for all components. Stems are a good example - Eastons EC90 stem weighs the same as the EA70, but costs 3x more. Carbon fibre as a raw material is more expensive than most aluminium, and will get more so because worldwide demand is increasing, mainly due to the airospace industry. Tooling for carbon frames are also more expensive, so these frames will cost more. The "carbon revolution" happened because the bike industry wants to sell more bikes, that is why stems, cranks, hubs, spokes etc are made from carbon fibre. I even saw carbon fibre bolts advertized somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixi Posted November 15, 2007 Share carbon fibre bolts.....mmmmmm now there's an idea...thats al i need to bling my bike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreZA Posted November 15, 2007 Share I would buy more carbon stuff if they stop making it with that trademark checkered weave. I'm just plain g@tvol for that. Look at the Campy and Fulcrum cranks. Still carbon, but none of the weave. Or even better, paint it. http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/eicma07/eicma073/CasatiIMG_5282.jpg Mampara2007-11-15 23:45:14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Bornman Posted November 15, 2007 Share Spot on' date=' greatwhite While some carbon composites have a superior stiffness to mass ratio, better structural damping and vastly superior fatigue life compared to most other frame materials (steel, aluminium, titanium), it is not ideal for all components. Stems are a good example - Eastons EC90 stem weighs the same as the EA70, but costs 3x more. [/quote'] I have no idea what structural damping is, maybe you can explain to us, but for all the other benefits you mention such as fatigue life, needs to be put into perspective. The fatigue life of a properly designed steel or aluminium bike exceeds your or my lifetime. In other words, it is strong enough and strong enough is strong enough. But lets say for a minute that it is stronger and it matters. Last week, whilst washing my aluminium bike, it fell over onto a sharp tile and dented the seatstay. I fussed about a bit, rubbed the scratch and then went for a ride. Imagine that happing to a carbon bike. That area would have been pulp and I'd have a new frame by now. Still strong enough? Stronger is not always stronger. The "carbon revolution" happened because the bike industry wants to sell more bikes' date=' that is why stems, cranks, hubs, spokes etc are made from carbon fibre. I even saw carbon fibre bolts advertized somewhere...[/quote'] You are right, but there is a rider to this - it also happened because consumers are suckers and believe all the marketing hype dished out to them. The wrong people are buying the wrong bikes. Most seem to aspire to bike Ferraris when they actually need TTs - (Toyota Tazz). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr PV Posted November 15, 2007 Share Greatwhite the only time carbon becomes a rip off is when you buy the name and not the product.The problem with most of us we all want that name equinox,american classic,easton and for your information is all the same rims.I know of someone offering that same rims without branding on and no middle man involved so the prices are very reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAESTRO's Posted November 16, 2007 Share STEEL is REAL. My custom built STEEL Pegoretti still has a better ride quality than any carbon bike currently on the market. And guess what I think its about 220g heavier than the average CF bike. It will outlast me and probably another generation. Money well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Zone Posted November 16, 2007 Share Christie, you say better fatigue life compared to Titanium, is this true. I thought that Ti would outlast Riaan Cruywagen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goofs Posted November 16, 2007 Share Carbon is a better material for its unrelenting material properties. Aluminum is subject to age hardening as well as work hardening as well as fatigue. Fatigue is a big concern. Aluminum has an endurance limit as do most materials however, the endurance limit of carbon is considerably higher than aluminum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wannabe Posted November 16, 2007 Share Agree with JB. Easy to crush seatpost, etc when tightening (Over tightening) it. Not all home tinkerers has torque wrenches to tighten to CORRECT spec, which is very important with carbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skillie Posted November 16, 2007 Share na n rugoperasie (lae rug) is dit nogals erg op n aluminium raam as dit n 100 km reis is. is n harde rit!het net n vriend se carbon fiets gery, en dit was sagter en hemels vir my rug.so oor watter 1 die beste is sal ons mekaar nie kan oortuig nie,maar met n rug probleem sal ek al my bonus opgee vir n carbon frame! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MintSauce Posted November 16, 2007 Share Has anyone ever sat back and had a look at how much you get charged for a carbon part' date=' when there is an aluminium part that weights the same, works the same and costs a fraction of the price? Here are a few examples: Frame: Karbona (and many other) carbon frames at 1.2kg (R6000?) vs Scott speedster alumium frame at 1.2kg (whole speedster S60 bike for R6000) Wheels: Zipp 303 clincher at 1556g (and that was the lowest weight I found) (R12k?) vs Ritchey WCS DS at 1550g (R4000) While carbon made properly (like a scott or cervelo frame) really is lighter than aluminium and/or when properly applied (like a zip 303 tubular wheelset) definately has its place, too many parts these days are carbon for the sake of marketing to attract a higher price without offering material benefit to the buyer. Think about it before spend you hard earned Xmas bonus on a carbon 'wannabe' bits [/quote'] Spot on' date=' greatwhite While some carbon composites have a superior stiffness to mass ratio, better structural damping and vastly superior fatigue life compared to most other frame materials (steel, aluminium, titanium), it is not ideal for all components. Stems are a good example - Eastons EC90 stem weighs the same as the EA70, but costs 3x more. Carbon fibre as a raw material is more expensive than most aluminium, and will get more so because worldwide demand is increasing, mainly due to the airospace industry. Tooling for carbon frames are also more expensive, so these frames will cost more. The "carbon revolution" happened because the bike industry wants to sell more bikes, that is why stems, cranks, hubs, spokes etc are made from carbon fibre. I even saw carbon fibre bolts advertized somewhere...[/quote'] As the saying goes: If you can't make it better, make it out of carbon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanieFiets Posted November 16, 2007 Share Christie' date=' you say better fatigue life compared to Titanium, is this true. I thought that Ti would outlast Riaan Cruywagen[/quote'] Nothing will outlast Riaan!!!! So what alu frame compares with, lets say, Cervelo Soloist? Where does the stiffness of bike come in? Why do people say their frames gets 'pap' after a couple years and needs to be replaced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marius Posted November 16, 2007 Share My Specialized was in a few crashes already and it's still fine, in the one crash in Bonnievale last year it broke a Cervelo Soloist frame in two. I'm not staying it can't break, sure it can, it just needs to fall on the right / wrong angle and it's in pieces. Personally I'd go for the Specialized, sure the Silverback is better value for money but I'm sorry to say ppl will not look at your bike in the same light as they would if you are riding one of the more popular brands, that's just how it is. So make the choice. But a brand whore or dare to be different. Marius2007-11-16 01:03:13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now