Welcome to the wonderful world of marketing.

Trouble is you can't make a direct comparison. At one time one of the major bike mags had 2 steel frames made identically, except they changed steel tubing suppliers, then had a blind test. You really can't do that with 2 dissimilar materials. Even if the geometry was the same the difference in feel may be due to other factors than the material.

One advantage carbon does have is that is is easily molded in complex shaped. Take the P3 vs P3C. The P3C is supposed to be more aero because they could more easily shape the carbon in better shapes.

Styrrell

On an all carbon bike, yes there is definitely a difference, but with a bike that has an aluminum frame, I have had mixed results.

Agreed. Adjusting tire pressure will have a tangible effect. Changing frame materials may have some (slight) tangible effect, but most people would be hard pressed to notice it. I never noticed a difference between my aluminum and carbon frames, when ridden back to back. Nobody should be buying a carbon frame for comfort. But it for the weight, looks, aero, etc.

Great question. I have noticed bigger changes in the ride quality between different tires brands than I have between aluminum and carbon frames. I do believe that steel is the real-deal however. I guess that perception is reality and the placebo effect is for real. While you might be able to measure it in a lab not sure if my hind-end can tell the difference all else (fitting etc..) being equal.

I would agree on smaller rides but when you get up to 100 mile rides, there is a big difference. But even on smaller rides, I feel less chatter from the road on an all carbon bike.

LOTS of marketing. But, it is not so simple.

I LOVE the ride of steel, but it is pretty hard to make an "aero" framed steel bike. Carbon can be made into about any shape and still be strong and light (and THAT is it's best use). A perfectly round tubed carbon bike makes little sense to me as a similar aluminum bike would be just as light/stiff and a steel one (or Ti) a nicer ride.

As was said, run a rear 25c tire at 100psi and you will be set for your century rides ;)

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

well, interesting responses. i tried to be specific and discuss components and not frames but it seems most people go right to the frame.

i was trying to establish, and it seems to be valid from the few posts so far, that for a simple structure ( 27.2 round seatpost, standard stem, standard bars and seat rails) there is no need for carbon. you can make them stronger and lighter with other materials and they will not influence ride comfort.

looking more specificly at aero bars, you may find it more practical to not use carbon if you are looking for inexpensive and light. a set of bullhorns and something like the T-2 clip-ons should be lighter than almost any carbon/aero model. Plus, you could probably pick up that set-up for less than $100! (also, that set up is probably more adjustable than a high end carbon areobar)
so, areo wise, what would they cost you over a IM race compared to an areo carbon, a minute or two. price difference - $200-$800. a lot.

now, when it comes to frames there seems to be no doubt that carbon is 'necessary' to get a quality ride with good areo characteristics (significantly more time savings) for not much more cost than a 'metals' bike. a quality Ti or Alu tri-bike is probably as close in price to a good carbon tri-bike as the aerobars are $200-$800.

just some thougths....

---

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"

Another piece of the decision making equation for me is durability. I've seen a few cases of epic failure with carbon handlebars, none with aluminum, but that may just be my own limited exposure.

Some items, most notably stems, just don't make sense to me. Little or no weight savings, hard pressed to see how function would be improved in a rather "beefy" component.

when it comes to all of this crap:
YOU are the most un-aero part of the bike. Look at the rider/bike as a unit and then make your choice. Nothing wrong with Alu bbar and T2's. That's what I use too. Look at the gram savings and then ask yourself if that Xgrams of weight is really going to make a difference to you.
Could you lose that many grams on your "frame"? If so, bonus b/c you get to carry that much less around on the run where it really matters. In MOST AG ranks it really is all about the run.

I too have seen my share of carbon parts (especially bbars and stems) snap in use.

Carbon fiber used in frames and wheels offers and appreciable performance difference. All other applications are simply using carbon for carbon's sake. Cranksets, handlebars, stems, seatposts and other items are just bling, if that matters to you.

Chad

Design and implementation of the part/frame has a much higher impact than the material itself. As mentioned before, the biggest advantage of carbon is its ability to be shaped into almost whatever design you want. That is really hard to do in most materials and impossible in others (without throwing cost and realistic manufacturing out the window).

---

_____________________________________________
Rick, "Retired" hobbyist athlete
Trying to come back slowly from acute A-Fib

So what is the consensus on vibration damping? I'm hard pressed to conclude that a placebo effect is... in effect. From my aluminum road bike to my all carbon tri bike, my only complaint w/the latter is a sore neck (from looking up to the road). On a same distance/course ride on my road bike, I experience delayed onset muscle sorness througout my upper body. Does anyone else experience the same? If so, to the original post, do carbon accessories (eg, seat post, handlebars) on an aluminum bike help? (Haven't tried.)

This looks like a job for the Myth Busters!

Think of some other bike myths and maybe they will do a show out of it. Maybe one about pedaling with a smooth pedal stroke is more efficent (IE requires less energy) than doing the mash method.

---

CEO at TrainerRoad
Co-host of the Ask a Cycling Coach Podcast

Components out of carbon:

aerobars definitely seem to be lighter, when done right, than anything else, by a good margin (see the Easton attack bars)

stems: have yet to see a carbon stem be lighter than a good aluminum stem.

seatposts: some of the top aluminum stems get close but I think the carbon seatposts are still lighter.

As far as comfort from components like seatposts, in my limited experimentation with carbon seatposts, I've not noticed any difference with them vs aluminum seatposts.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I have a carbon road bike and a steel-frame road bike. I can't tell the difference on short rides, but I do feel the affects on long rides, especially if I'm throwing in a brick. It's the fatigue factor--not on the bike but on the rider.

If I could only have one thing carbon it would be the cockit for sure, for me it made a difference, I had numb hands and general pain on my TT bike with profile designs aluminum bars, got the same ones in carbon and never had the problem again. I would not trust a carbon stem though. I run carbon EC90 on my mtn bike and it has worked great for years, I have an oval concepts Aero bar kit on the front of my TT bike and it has served me well for the last two years and faced a lot of climbing torque, still no problems, you gotta torque these components correctly to ensure safety. I have seen busted bikes, bars etc of carbon I have also seen the same with aluminum products.

Every bike I own down to my crappy beater has carbon bars.

---

http://talesofthemissing.wordpress.com/

For low to mid level parts carbon doesn't make a whole lot of sense. At the other extreme the current lightest usable bike is roughly 3000 grams and its almost entirely carbon. Insanely expensive and mostly a design exercise, but you won't get close to most of the component weights with other materials.

Styrrelll

---

Styrrell

It all comes down to a couple of things:

1) what are the modal characteristics (frequencies, damping at each structural mode) of the bike (frame, wheels, etc)
2) what is the forcing function imparted by the road surface to the bike

Making a blanket statement that carbon is better is shortsighted. In the hardware design world I've seen aluminum hardware with higher damping than composite structures. It's more than material...

"aerobars definitely seem to be lighter, when done right, than anything else, by a good margin (see the Easton attack bars)"

i dissagree, and i think this is a common misunderstanding. most carbon cockpits are heavier. the Easton Attack bars are 900gr and that is about typical for one piece bars (the Ventus is 850gr).
that's 2 pounds! almost the weight of a frame.

you can get a Oval base bar (194gr) and a set of Oval A710 Clip-Ons (156gr) and you've just saved 550gr, that's 1.2 pounds less! i'm not trying to hype Oval. Profile Design has the T-2s which are only about 50-60gr more.

those are big savings. try to get 550g off your wheels or frame or any other component. and you are saving money.

how much time difference is there between that Oval set up (350gr @ $175) and a Ventus (850gr @ $900)? the $$ difference will get you a nice Renn disc!

but i digress, i really only meant to discuss comfort. have we lost our way thinking that carbon is more comfortable than well made metal products? No doubt it is the best material for aero shaping.

thanks

---

______________________________________
"Competetive sport begins where healthy sport ends"

one piece easton attack tt bars are around 350g but they basically cannot be adjusted much at all. Agree that most others are only slightly lighter/heavier than Alu. Again, you will be the most un-aero part of the bike. You seem to be concerned about aero shaping but in the big rider/bike scheme of things it's probably not even worth thinking about unless of course you routinely lose triathlons overall or AG spots/Kona KQ by <1 min.

... is a myth.

I credit all of the following knowledge to the late Sheldon Brown. I read everything he wrote on-line. I am probably plagiarizing because I literally read and re-read everything he wrote. So I give him ALL the credit for my statements (which are really his ideas and thoughts):

I think you can make a great bike out of any material, aluminum, steel, titanium, carbon. And apparently bamboo or wire. I think a lot of people confuse stiffness with strength. Stiffness has to do with flex, and materials will have different flex depending on how much force is used. If the material flexes but doesn't return to its original shape, it "yields". How little it yields is also known as "strength". Steel has the greatest stiffness of the three metals (aluminum, titanium, steel). Titanium is only half as stiff. Aluminum is about 1/3 as stiff. Steel is the strongest of the three metals, with aluminum about half as strong, and titanium about equal strength. We're talking materials here. If you now take those materials and make tubes out of them, things change. Aluminum's strength is improved by making the tubes bigger in diameter, while steels' tubes can't be made as big, or they would dent too easily. Newer cold-forging methods for steel and titanium are going to change the way we think, however, and my personal belief is that steel will make a comeback once the carbon fad is over.

Ride comfort probably has very little to do with frame material. Ride comfort has much more to do with the tyres, saddle, frame geometry and bike fit. If you're sitting over the rear tyre and wheel, you're in for a bumpier ride. If you inflate the tyres to max pressure, you're in for a very uncomfortable, back-wrenching ride. If your fit sucks, you'll be uncomfortable. And if your saddle isn't right for you, you'll think cycling is all about your ass. The frame geometry makes a huge difference in whether your bike feels "soft" or "hard", which is why touring bikes are spec'ed so differently than racing bikes (longer chain stays and lower seat and head tube angles).

I don't think carbon is any "softer" a ride than steel or aluminum. I think larger frames are less stiff than smaller frames, and I don't know a frame builder who'd disagree. But any of the four materials (steel, titanium, aluminum, carbon) can be made as stiff or flexible as you want. Which is not to say that they're not making aluminum frames really stiff at places like Cannondale and Klein. They are. But they don't have to. I think welded aluminum frames are the only ones to compensate for the flexibility of larger frames. But if we're talking ride comfort or "shock absorption" qualities, then we're really talking about vertical stiffness. And that's in the tyres and saddle. As stiff as aluminum can be made, and as flexible as carbon can be made, I do not believe there is any appreciable difference between the vertical stiffness of steel, carbon, titanium or aluminum. And so I think that any perception of a softer ride with carbon or steel versus aluminum, is imaginary.

---

__________________________________________________

I love France. I just hate Toulouse. I'd really hate to lose le Trek.

Do the frames have identical geometry? Is the steel frame simply heavier? Is the fit the same? Tyres the same? Same tyre pressure? Saddle the same?

---

__________________________________________________

I love France. I just hate Toulouse. I'd really hate to lose le Trek.