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 amateur racers, who benefit from carbon bikes except they're not doing it to earn a living.
Finally, the argument that carbon bikes are ugly and steel bikes are beautiful is completely subjective. I feel that the exact opposite is true, but it's irrelevant because it's a subjective opinion.
> 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.
If that’s the case you contact a frame builder that will make you a bespoke lugged steel frame tailored to your measurements. The off-the-shelf carbon frame is the collectible sneaker of the bike world. The custom steel frame is the pair of bespoke Italian leather shoes.
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. I will never ride bikes made out of the latter two materials, I need to rely on this machine for my life, I don't want it's cycle life nagging me in the back of my mind.
If you want to save weight, take the brakes and gears off. :P
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.
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.
my 25 year old aluminum hard tail begs me to share that while this is factually correct, the lifetime for an alloy bike frame isn't a real practical limitation, just a talking point.
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.
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 longer rides.
Carbon fiber isn’t as fragile as the article suggests. People have been riding it for decades and their bikes haven’t been exploding. Really any crash significant enough to cause frame damage will be a total loss to any bike frame, regardless of material (in terms of repair cost).
No one “needs” a carbon bike but to say there’s “no good reason to buy one” is just dumb.
Also the article suggesting steel frames over carbon is just weird at this point. Steel bikes are a super niche audience of budget or retro riders. I’m wondering if this article is a joke post.
> 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].
And if you go with a truly lightweight steel frame, like with triple-butted Reynolds 853 or 953 tubes, you're in for a nasty surprise when the top tube folds like tissue paper. I absolutely believe these frames have the best ride quality, and are comparable with aluminum for weight, but durable they are not.
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.
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)
> Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride.
It's a common argument but I wonder how much more comfortable a carbon bike can be (I never had a carbon bike). Would bigger tires compensate for a more rigid frame?
I went from a (heavy) steel gravel bike running 700x42mm tires to a carbon fiber bike (frame, fork, stem, bars, wheels) with 700x38mm tires. There's such a vast difference in comfort on gravel roads that it's difficult to fully quantify. I still ride a titanium road bike, because it's plenty fast and I'm not as interested in comfort on those rides.
People are riding bigger tires than in the past anyways. 28mm and 32mm road tires are not unusual these days, comapred to commonly seeing 23-25mm. Gravel bikes are often larger. They are not generally going to be slower because they are bigger in significant ways.
As someone with a stable of 12+ carbon, steel, titanium and aluminum bikes, meh at most. I think this is marketing over reality. The only real benefit I see for carbon is you can make a much more aero frame, end of story. Hard to make round tubes aero.
>Really any crash significant enough to cause frame damage
This part , however, is straight non-sense. My titanium road bike has taken hits that have put multiple carbon bikes out of commission in the same time frame. Titanium and steel are drastically more durable, will take much harder hits and are repairable.
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.
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.
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 very thin high pressure tires, it carries high frequency vibrations that _feel_ fast but science tells us clearly are not good for going fast.
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.
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.
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.
Had the same thoughts about "Bike retrogrouch" a while back. And with more bloggers and people after that. Then I realized opinionated people tend to be noisy.
I am mountain biking very often. The day I changed my rims to carbon fiber ones was the day I could go another 5+ miles. I replaced my entire frame with a carbon fiber one. Now I am nearly doubling my distance which is 20-30 miles with it. I can hop over things easily, climbing hills is a breeze.
Sure, it is not as strong as heavy metal ones, but I do not know if any mountain biker would return to non-carbon fiber alloys. At least for mountain bikes, the carbon fiber anything is a win. Rim or frame, any upgrade is a net upgrade.
It feels like this article was written by a person who never rode a bike. I doubt it is the fact because it comes from a reputable website.
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?!
This is a misconception. Carbon fiber mountain bikes are not more delicate. Designed properly they are more durable. The idea that carbon fiber is innately delicate comes from road bikes designed to be as light and stiff as possible, and they can end up brittle, and weak in areas that don't normally see stresses. Not all road bikes are designed like this, even high end ones, but some early ultra light bikes were.
Bikes that need to be durable use different types of fibers that can bend more before cracking, and may include layers of kevlar or other composites with more 'toughness' in key areas. My wife has a carbon fiber mountain bike and has been racing every weekend, winning, jumping, crashing, riding every day, for 3 years now, bike is fine.
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.
I'm saving my pennies for a titanium bike from Seven. It will be a lot of pennies. (my current bike is a steel touring bike from Jamis, and it's been great, but it turns out that if you are in New England and ride every day for 14 years, you will eventually get a little rust.)
if you aren't too fussy about appearance - take it down with some fine grit sandpaper until its clean. clean with alcohol. apply a dilute patina solution until it gets at least grey. clean it with alcohol again. warm it up with a hair dryer. apply carnauba wax.
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.
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 frames tend to be a bit more flexible, no idea why.
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.
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.
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.
Even just loading a bike onto a car rack is a pretty big difference. I don't think I'd pay for carbon if the only benefit was it being easier to carry, but it is a pretty big benefit.
There’s plenty of reasons people (me included) buy carbon bikes.
- they’re lighter
- the aesthetics: I like a good steel/titanium bike, but the flowing lines and zero-joins of a carbon frame are awesome
- manufacturers can control and alter the layup to control the degree and direction of flex in different regions of the frame. Plus dampening properties are helpful.
Weight savings alone are a “Good Reason”.
Edit: Wow this article is insufferable. “You’re not good enough to have a carbon bike” and “you’re too peasant to work on it properly”. If the author wants to have an inferiority complex over what I’m guessing is a failed racing career and an inability to learn basic mechanics skills, then that’s on them.
I’ve owned carbon mountain and road bikes, put thousands of K’s on them, maintained and upgraded them with zero issues.
Only reason I have a Carbon bike is that was what was available over COVID. Paid $350 for a Museew frame that used to go for a LOT more ($3500?)
I have no illusions of grandeur. When I'm in better than normal shape, I can barely see a fraction of it's potential...it just transferrs SO much speed in a sprint...which I can't do for very long.
What a ridiculous article. Carbon is stiff and comfortable, and I love it. Its more forgiving than aluminum, stiffer than steel, and cheaper than titanium. The author just sounds bitter, or disgruntled
Man, I spend the money on a carbon fibre bike with an aero wheel cutout because I like the aesthetics. Obviously spending thousands of dollars to save a few grams when I'm going to promptly just gain a few kilograms by eating poorly is not a financially rational decision if the sheer performance is my target.
And it's really nice that it's so light. Nice on a single finger.
Yeah, I feel like he totally glossed over the major overlap between carbon frames and higher-end components (which are totally reasonable to want as a rec cyclist!)
Do you like the haptics tho? For me, carbon fiber frames usually feel like they're made of reed or something. I know it's tough, but it absolutely doesn't feel like it. I get irrational trust issues.
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.
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.
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 to go fast in the bunch. And that makes the most difference along with my posture on the bike.
And if you lose 2 kg you can ride on a cheaper frame and get the same result due to your own weight.
Cycling for amateurs is more about looking good, egos, and spending money than it is to make the sacrifices around what it takes to go really really fast.
Frame material doesn't affect comfort. The extremely stable diamond shape of the frame makes all material differences go away. Where material matters is the seat post (I think carbon has the most flex though and should be most comfortable). My racing bike is steel by the way. Not because of comfort, but because it's pretty beautiful handcrafted in Italy with cromo velato.
>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.
Did you read the article? Because he mentions athletes right there in the beginning of the article saying that most of the times they get the bikes for free. His article is about the average Joe.
The author makes it look like only pro racers are fast enough to benefit from carbon bikes. I guess he's never met good amateur racers, they are very fast, the big difference between an amateur racer and a pro is in how long they can sustain a given power, and the ability to sustain it after a very long race. But most amateur races are done at speeds above 40km/h on the flat, where aero matters a lot.
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.
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.
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 amateur racers, who benefit from carbon bikes except they're not doing it to earn a living.
Finally, the argument that carbon bikes are ugly and steel bikes are beautiful is completely subjective. I feel that the exact opposite is true, but it's irrelevant because it's a subjective opinion.