My personal experience with alumnium bikes would hardly be called durable… My aluminum bikes are more likely to dent with small trauma while carbon does not and I would think the damage you get from traveling is going to be primarily from dings and what not, not huge catastrophic falls and drops which I would argue carbon would come out better.
Then of course I have neevr owned a P3… they might have much thicker tubing than my Klein
but my intuition ouwld say that carbon P3 is going to stand up to the rigors of travel better… but I would be surprised if that was the deal breaker on spending so much for a bike
You know what, given the current paradigm surrounding carbon bikes, you may have a valid point.
However:
The tragedy of the P3C is that, in a vacuum of anything other than some nice photos and a few days to drool at Interbike, we really don;t know anything about the bike.
We do know this: Gerard has frequently spoken at length on this forum, on his website, in the media and in person about the “generic” nature of many carbon bikes. With the R2.5 and the testing standards it has been subjected to he has demonstrated, at the very least, a willingness to produce carbon bikes that are substantially more durable than other carbon bikes, and in fact, many bikes of other materials.
From this I would suggest the P3C is likely to be much more durable and stronger than an aluminum equivalent. It is likely to travel better, survive crahes better and last longer.
Making generalizations about carbon is not accurate. The very nature of the material is that it is highly engineerable and that no two bikes have the same characteristics (unless, of course, they are mde exactly the same).
I think, consistent with Cervelo’s other efforts with the original P3, the R2.5 and other entries into select product categories, we are going to see the bar for what carban can do on a bicycle raised a bit by the P3C.
But ultimately, we won’t know until the bike is really available.
Uhhh dude. you should never clamp the tubes os the bike… and my god if you can afford a recor seat post please buy a cheap seat post to stick in when working on your bike… I don’t know if the seat post could handle it but this has a high potential for fiduring out that answer in the wrong way…
My Calfee (custom, brand-new) was the same price as a P3 at normal retail. After a crash in Tahoe at 50+ mph, my top tube was cracked by my handlebar hitting it. Calfee was able to fix the tube, repaint, and get me back on the road for under $400. How much would it cost to fix your frame after a crash? Oh wait, you can’t. You have to purchase a new frame. Kah-ching! The reason I purchased the Calfee was to replace an aluminum QR kilo that I loved, but a dent in the top tube rendered the frame unsafe to ride. You might want to rethink your rant, unless you ride a steel lugged bike, then your argument holds weight (literally) as any of the tubes can be replaced and the entire frame re-aligned. Aluminum = disposeable.
Not that aluminum doesn’t make great frames. My custom road and cyclocross frames are both aluminum and I love 'em. But to make the complex shapes Cervelo is trying to get into their frames, carbon should be a better matterial for them. Although, until we see the carbon P3 in stores, it’s just Interbike vaporware.
Yes, my bikes are worth more than my 150K Jeep also, the thing just won’t die!
“Making generalizations about carbon is not accurate. The very nature of the material is that it is highly engineerable and that no two bikes have the same characteristics (unless, of course, they are mde exactly the same).”
Tom,
Interesting point and before you stated, I had never really given any consideration to as it pertain to carbon fibre and it’s use in bike frames and other components.
Is it possible that it is a similar situation to that of the ski business( both nordic and alpine) where all the best, read: fastest, skis go to the top sponsored skiers in the world. The skis all come off the same production lines, but when glide tested, clearly there are ones that are faster than others. These ones go to the top sponsored skiers/teams of that manufacturer. No amount of work( base prep and waxing) on the skis that you and I eventually buy will match up with the super fast skis.
Well, I’ve traveled with both my Specialized E5 aluminum frame and my Kestrel Talon SL. The Specialized sustained 2 dings and chipped paint. The Kestrel has no scars. I’ve traveled more with the Kestrel. Your mileage may vary, but I’m having much more luck with carbon. They are NOT fragile…at least not so much as thin walled aluminum. Oh, and the Kestrel Talon SL…frame and fork is less than your P3.
My experience has been just the opposite and have traveled thousands of miles over the last 3 years with my KM40 in a Triall3 Case and have only gotten a small paint chip. Granted I wrap all my exposed tubes/fork/stays with that soft styrofoam used to cover pipes…works great.
this thread is exactly why I own a titanium frame - light as aluminum and nearly impossible to bend/break. Now if they could only figure out how to make some more sexy “aero” shapes out of 6/4 ti I would be in heaven - of course, the frame would probably cost about 10K…
