Hacker News Reader

Comment by cultus | Hacker News Reader

I can't find the source at the moment, but there was actually a test done where riders rode bikes of carbon vs. alloy or steel with the frame material obscured from view. They couldn't tell the difference. When everyone is telling you that carbon has a better ride quality, it's hard not to feel it.

Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers) are quite light. Cro-moly frames like Salsa are a good choice and weigh around 2-3 kg vs 1-2 kg for a carbon frame. There's plenty of framebuilders who can build custom frames out of other alloys as well. There's been steel frames built down to a kilo.

If you have a problem with harshness, wrap the bars with another layer of bar tape. Another option is to use wider lower PSI tires, preferably with wider 23mm rims. Not only is it softer, but the rolling resistance is actually less than standard road rims and tires.

View on HN

A quality carbon frame can range anywhere from 700g-1500g. I would say that was quite a bit lighter than a 3kg steel frame.

As for durability, I’ve been riding a 1200g Bianchi 928 for the last 12 years with no change in its behaviour.

Unlike steel or aluminium, carbon fibre doesn’t work harden so, as long as you don’t crash it, it will be MORE durable than steel.

Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.

You can even put stuff like flax seed in the resin to absorb vibration, just like this wooden frame claims to do.

Carbon is a better material for bikes than steel is.

It just lacks the romance because it’s harder for a lone bloke in his shed to weld.

(I still want one of these wooden bikes because n+1 and can you imagine rocking up to a club ride on one. :D )

>Unlike steel or aluminium, carbon fibre doesn’t work harden so, as long as you don’t crash it, it will be MORE durable than steel.

Steel is almost perfectly elastic below its fatigue limit. It never fails for stress underneath this, since the elastic motion doesn't generate new dislocations or anything. It is true that aluminum has no lower fatigue limit, but outside of crashes, this occurs so slowly as to be meaningless on human timescales.

>Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.

That is 100% not true. Bike frames are all highly stiff vertically because of the diamond tube shape. There is no practical bikeframe of any material that has non-negligible vertical compliance. That is just marketing fluff.

> Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers) are quite light.

I have a bike made with True Temper OX Platinum steel and it is my favorite bike by far. It is a very light frame, but that is not what I like about it. Steel (and titanium) frames can be made with tubing of a much smaller diameter than that of aluminum or carbon. I believe that the tube diameter (and associated stiffness) is what people are feeling when they talk about the difference between bikes.

If you make a steel bike with tubing that is indistinguishable from aluminum or carbon, I am not surprised that nobody can tell the difference!

It seems like you might be discounting the different characteristics of the materials themselves, though.

Steel might be nice, and you're right that there exist go-fast weight steel bikes, but it's also hard to find in new bikes at attractive weights & price points. The universe of go-fast road bikes is dominated by aluminum at the low end and carbon above about $1500US.

>custom

Sure, but that's pretty pricey compared to off-the-rack carbon or aluminum.

What was the actual conclusion of the study you remember? That there's no difference? Because that seems like a questionable thing to conclude, and it makes me wonder how they controlled for other factors like frame and bike weight, differences in geometry, etc.

The reason you can't find them is many places just don't make them at scale and you're really left to ordering from small builders. There's some really great, top notch steel frame builders in the US right now so if you're going to do it you wont be disappointed.

Again, though, on a dollar for dollar basis, you'll spend much more on steel than you will on off-the-rack carbon, so it's a niche market.

Most serious riders are also cultivating a relationship with a local shop, and that drives some choices, too. For example, when I bought my bike, I did slightly prefer the one I bought (a Specialized Roubaix) over the endurance-geometry offerings from Trek, Cannondale, Giant, etc. However, the other part of the decision was that I liked the shop in question MUCH MUCH more than any of the other shops, in terms of location, vibe, friendliness, overall impressions, mechanic repuation, etc. I would've bought from this shop even if the bike they were selling wasn't my first choice, as long as the margin was small (and they were).

Steel makers don't have that dealer network.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com