What is the real difference in the types of carbon used in bikes with regard to performance?
For example, Trek bikes use TCT carbon and OCLV carbon and Specialized bikes use Fact carbon and Fact IS carbon.
If the same rider rides a Trek bike made of TCT carbon and the same style bike made of OCLV carbon, and each bike has the same wheel set, components, etc. what would be the differences, if any, in handling, speed, etc.?
What is the real difference in the types of carbon used in bikes with regard to performance?
For example, Trek bikes use TCT carbon and OCLV carbon and Specialized bikes use Fact carbon and Fact IS carbon.
Those are marketing terms largely referring to the manufacturing process rather than the actual type of carbon used.
If the same rider rides a Trek bike made of TCT carbon and the same style bike made of OCLV carbon, and each bike has the same wheel set, components, etc. what would be the difference, if any, in handling, speed, etc.?
Not much, I’d bet. I’d wager 99% of people couldn’t tell the difference in a proper test.
Good question.
Basically, metals are **isotropic **or have isotropy- They transmit energy the same in all directions. For better and for worse.
Composites, materials made of a combination of other materials, such as carbon fiber and carbon fiber composite (carbon with ceramic, polymers, metals, etc.) are
anisotropic or have anisotropy, the ability to behave differently over different directions.
Rocks are often composites. Some rocks are worthless and crumble rather easily, others are extremely hard and dense or have radioactive properties.
Anyway.
Carbon fiber can be configured in many different ways producing tangibly different results. Key word: Tangibly.
Cost is an attendent result of adding different materials and processing those materials differently, and the material itself. Additionally, there are attendant costs to the lay-up procedure and other processing factors.
This is a reasonable question because there is so much “smoke on the battlefield” of carbon fiber marketing. Just what is “Di-Preg Multi Laminate Ceramo-Carbon Matrix”? or “Ultra High Modulus Uni-Directional Nano Tube infused Carbon”?
Too much marketing BS. This valid frustration over BS causes the inevitable, ill informed forum responses (you’ll see them in this thread, I’m behind one now) that make sweeping generalizations in a gulf of real information like, “They are all the same- the only difference is marketing…” “They all come from the same factory in Taiwan…” and the usual forum flotsam.
The truth is there are test-able and viable differences in carbon fiber in the bike industry and in other industries. It is getting to the bottom of what those differences really are and how they tangibly change the product and cost that is challenging- but the differences are there.
As was mentioned, those “terms” are how it is layed up and/or marketed.
As for differences, yes there are different carbon SUPPLIERS. How the bike company makes that into your bike frame/part is another matter.
Most bike frames are likely Toray carbon fiber (world’s largest supplier in pellets, mats, prepreg, etc., but they make LOTS of other things in the chemical world, even drugs) such as Toray 700 series. Another supplier is from Mitsubishi Rayon, used by many high end Italian frame manufacturers. I’m not sure if the bike industry uses some of the Zoltek corps stuff or not. Etc.
The difference in the “carbon fiber” is mostly going to be in the design/engineering aspect (a team of Zipp engineers or Boeing aeronautical engineers vs. a custom bike builder like Calfee or Crumpton).
What you “feel” when you ride that whiz-bang carbon bike is how the bike is designed. Supple/flexible? Stiff? Of course, they all advertise the “stiffest” and so on, but then does the ride suck? How about tube shapes/compliance “vertically”. The magic of CF is that it easier to make strong, complex shapes then say, Titanium where cold working tube shapes is necessary to meat the desired weight, stiffness, compliance requisite.
“The truth is there are test-able and viable differences in carbon fiber in the bike industry and in other industries. It is getting to the bottom of what those differences really are and how they tangibly change the product and cost that is challenging- but the differences are there.”
Tom - can you PLEASE provide specific examples? Even though I did a thread about this subject, I’m still not clear.
Cervelo’s two materials tech presentations get into this
http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/engineering/tech-presentations/
they are a great read.
To summarize, the carbon itself can differ in stiffness to weight ratios, but probably more important is how the carbon is laid up, where different types are used, when are other composites added to the layup where appropriate, etc etc etc
Composites, materials made of a combination of other materials, such as carbon fiber and carbon fiber composite (carbon with ceramic, polymers, metals, etc.) are
anisotropic or have anisotropy, the ability to behave differently over different directions.
Rocks are often composites. Some rocks are worthless and crumble rather easily, others are extremely hard and dense or have radioactive properties.
Anyway.
Carbon fiber can be configured in many different ways producing tangibly different results. Key word: Tangibly.
Cost is an attendent result of adding different materials and processing those materials differently, and the material itself. Additionally, there are attendant costs to the lay-up procedure and other processing factors.
This is a reasonable question because there is so much “smoke on the battlefield” of carbon fiber marketing. Just what is “Di-Preg Multi Laminate Ceramo-Carbon Matrix”? or “Ultra High Modulus Uni-Directional Nano Tube infused Carbon”?
Too much marketing BS. This valid frustration over BS causes the inevitable, ill informed forum responses (you’ll see them in this thread, I’m behind one now) that make sweeping generalizations in a gulf of real information like, “They are all the same- the only difference is marketing…” “They all come from the same factory in Taiwan…” and the usual forum flotsam.
The truth is there are test-able and viable differences in carbon fiber in the bike industry and in other industries. It is getting to the bottom of what those differences really are and how they tangibly change the product and cost that is challenging- but the differences are there.
There are websites that have some good information on the carbon fiber that suppliers of the raw material produce. It is true there are far few producers of the carbon tow than there are the carbon products that come from them. It is the same with carbon bicycle frame factories.
Here is an example of some of the materials available:
Comparison of Carbon Fiber Manufacturer’s Products Fiber Type Fiber Name Manu. Tow Sizes
(K) Tensile Strength
(GPa) Fiber Elong
(%) Tensile Modulus
(GPa) Comp Strength
(GPa) Fiber TC
(W/mK) Fiber Density
(g/cc) Pitch Fiber XN-50A NGF 0.5/1/2 3.9 0.7 517 0.4 180 2.14 YSH-50A NGF 3 3.9 0.7 517 0.6 120 2.1 P75S Cytec 0.5/1/2 2.2 0.4 517 0.4 200 2.0 P75SP Cytec 0.5/1/2 3.4 0.7 517 0.5 - 2.15 K1352U Mitsubishi 2 3.7 0.6 517 0.4 140 2.12 K13710 Mitsubishi 10 3.4 - 634 0.4 220 2.12 P100 Amoco 2 2.4 0.3 758 0.3 - 2.14 XN-70A NGF 0.5/1/2 3.7 0.5 723 0.4 320 2.16 YSH-70A NGF 3 3.7 0.5 723 0.4 250 2.16 P100HT Cytec 2 3.6 0.5 758 0.3 - 2.15 K1392U Mitsubishi 2 3.7 0.5 758 0.4 210 2.15 XN-80A NGF 1/2 3.7 0.5 785 0.3 - 2.17 P120 Cytec 2 2.2 0.3 823 0.3 600 2.16 K13B2U Mitsubishi 2 3.8 0.4 823 0.3 260 2.16 XN-85A NGF 1/2 3.7 0.4 823 0.4 430 2.17 K800 Cytec 2 2.1 - 861 - 800 2.15 K13C2U Mitsubishi 2 3.8 0.4 896 0.4 620 2.2 YS-90A NGF 3 3.7 0.4 896 0.3 430 2.19 K1100 Cytec 2 3.2 0.25 930 0.2 1100 2.2 K13D2U Mitsubishi - 3.8 - 242 0.3 790 2.15 PAN Fiber M40J Toray 6/12 4.4 1.2 372 >1.2 - 1.77 M46J Toray 6/12 4.2 1.0 434 >1.0 - 1.84 UHM Hercules 3/6 3.4 0.8 441 0.8 - 1.88 M50J Toray 6 4.1 0.8 475 0.8 - 1.88 GY-70 BASF 3/6 1.9 0.4 482 0.4 - 1.96 M55J Toray 6 4.0 0.8 537 0.9 - 1.91 M60J Toray 3/6 3.9 0.7 586 0.8 - 1.94 Panex 35 Zoltek 3.8 - 242 - - 1.81 Panex 33 Zoltek 48 3.8 - 228 - - 1.81
Toray and Mitsubishi are the “Reynolds and Columbus” of the 1980s. Even though Pinarello and DeBernardi used the same Columbus tubes, one frame had a higher regard than the other.
Felt uses a blend of these fibers. Building a bike with 100% M60J wouldn’t be wise. Sure it is relatively stiff with low density (g/cc) but it may be far too brittle. That is where the blending of the “tough” fibers vs. the “stiff” fibers give bikes their balance of strength and rigidity. Identifying what fibers to use where and in what orientation and layering them in the right bias using uni-directional sheets and various templates and pre-cut patterns is the difficult part. Adding the nano-resin laminates also helps to add this strength to resist point loading and increased impact and “forgiveness”. This nano-resin may have such an increase on the strength that less material could be used for the same strength, or more of the brittle (but stiff and low density) fibers can be used with an increase in stiffness.
In short; simply knowing the ingredients, doesn’t bake you a cake.
To a large degree what most marketing teams set out to do is to distill the information in a digestible form so guy like me has some rudimentary understanding of what the guys in the engineering department are doing.
It is rocket science.
-SD
Without getting into the whole MatSci, stronger carbon and better resins are more expensive (higher cost), but you can use less (lower weight).
In the example of the Trek SC7 vs. 9, lower end carbons and mfg. processes mean the 7 will weigh a bit more. Typically designers will aim for the same stiffness/handling and just use more of the cheap stuff to get there in a lower end frame.
You can also look at the Bont shoes, a great example of the better fiber for less weight at a higher cost principle. Their $400 shoe is the Sub-8 and is high grade CF, their mid range shoe is $300 and lower grade CF (the Sub-9), and low end shoe is fiberglass (the $200 Sub-10).
All of the responses so far have not answered this question from the original post: “If the same rider rides a Trek bike made of TCT carbon and the same style bike made of OCLV carbon, and each bike has the same wheel set, components, etc. what would be the differences, if any, in handling, speed, etc.”
It seems to me that if a person buys an entry level carbon frame and adds the same components, wheels, etc. that are on a more expensive carbon frame, that he has basically the same bike. If there is a difference in weight between the two frames, it seems marginal.
Anyway, an answer to the question above would be appreciated. Please realize that I am just using Trek as an example. Assume it is an entry level bike (TCT carbon) and the same style, but more expense bike (OCLV carbon), with the same components, etc. and the same rider. What would be the differences in handling, speed, etc.?
All of you who have responded so far seem to know a lot about the subject and your thoughts are appreciated.
nobody would know the answer to your question fully except trek engineers.
most likely the only difference is weight, but stiffness or longevity or crash/impact resistance could be different as well, comfort could be different etc etc
to the more GENERAL question, there is no one answer, so nobody has given you one. =)
if you can confirm visually that the tube shapes are identical on the treks, I would agree that going with the cheaper version makes a lot of sense. the weight will not slow you down much, any minor stiffness differences won’t either.
All of the responses so far have not answered this question from the original post: “If the same rider rides a Trek bike made of TCT carbon and the same style bike made of OCLV carbon, and each bike has the same wheel set, components, etc. what would be the differences, if any, in handling, speed, etc.”
It seems to me that if a person buys an entry level carbon frame and adds the same components, wheels, etc. that are on a more expensive carbon frame, that he has basically the same bike. If there is a difference in weight between the two frames, it seems marginal.
Anyway, an answer to the question above would be appreciated. Please realize that I am just using Trek as an example. Assume it is an entry level bike (TCT carbon) and the same style, but more expense bike (OCLV carbon), with the same components, etc. and the same rider. What would be the differences in handling, speed, etc.?
All of you who have responded so far seem to know a lot about the subject and your thoughts are appreciated.