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.
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 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.
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.
Readit News
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.
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.
The Marosticana[1] perhaps?
[1] https://officinabattaglin.com/products/custom-steel-bikes/ma...
Deleted Comment
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
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit
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.
This is really the way! Also, it is nice in the winter, because without brakes you can easily cycle in mittens.
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.
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].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE
[2] https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-wider-tires-are-not-slow... (written by a wide tire salesman)
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.
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)
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?
>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.
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.
https://www.outsideonline.com/byline/alex-hutchinson/
In general, the whole current bike culture with very expensive bikes/parts and a plethora of expensive and semi-proprietary tools is disgusting.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE
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.
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.
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.
Given that I mostly ride my local volcano, this may not be a practical constraint for me.